Woohoo! The New York Times has endorsed Ned Lamont in the CT primary, and for all the right reasons. It is not hidden behind that NYT's stupid firewall either. A tease from the editorial:
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.
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent's grasp of policy yet. 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.
The only thing they got wrong in the editorial was where they talked about how Lieberman stood up for women's reproductive rights. I guess they forgot why he is called Rape Gurney Joe by those of us who actually DO support women's reproductive rights. Other than than that, dayam spot on editorial about WHY Lieberman is wrong for CT, and in my opinion, wrong for America. Read it and you will know why this Californian (and might I add life-long Republican) is so interested in the CT primary and why I support Ned Lamont.
(photo courtesy of Ned Lamont for Senate)