NY Times endorses Lamont

Lieberman is toast

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving ultra-Zionist warmonger who never met a neocon he didn’t like. This is significant in two ways. First, dissatisfaction with Lieberman and the war has become a national issue with the majority now opposing the war(s). A Lieberman loss in the primary will send serious shock waves into both parties. Second, the Democratic Party establishment has been too clueless and inept to put up a fight against Lamont. They trotted out Bill Clinton who babbled inanities and Barbara Boxer who had no problem endorsing a candidate who opposes most everything she pretends to stand for. Dumb and dumber.

Of course, as mentioned before, Lamont is anti-war lite on Iraq and the same as Lieberman on Lebanon. The real radicalization will happen after the Democrats retake the House and the war(s) continue.

[tags]Joe Lieberman,Ned Lamont[/tags]