Adam Nagourney's new piece on Joe Lieberman's lackluster campaign includes this startling sentence:
The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a "warped version of bipartisanship" in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security.
The editorial is not available yet, but this development puts the words of Mr. Lieberman's many friends and defenders (somehow TNR comes to mind) in a different light. (Presumably Nagourney's correct - he should know.)
I wasn't going to post again today, but I gotta ask: Will we now hear The New York Times editorial staff described the way Lamont's blog supporters have been - as "liars," "fascists," "Stalinists," and "weirdos"? Will the Times be described as supporting a "purge" of the Democratic Party? Will the term "journalofascism" enter the political discourse?
Like I say, just asking. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
(thanks to skippy for the tip)
UPDATE: The editorial is out, and it's not gentle. "It's true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation's moral compass," the editorial reads. "But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum."
"In his effort to appear above the partisan fray," they add, "he has become one of the Bush administration's most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates."
There's more, but you get the idea. It's well-written and moderate in tone. Let the vitriol from the Lieberman camp begin.