No surprises this Sunday as the Times editorial page [1]endorses Ned Lamont for Senate in Connecticut, after first endorsing him [2]in the Connecticut Senate primaries this summer over incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, now running an independent campaign. Back then the Times said that Lamont "seems smart and moderate."
The Times doesn't seem to have bothered to learn anythingelse regardingLamont's actual ideology. As they write Sunday: "He is very much in the Connecticut mold of basically moderate, principled politicians, and his willingness to take on Mr. Lieberman when no one else dared to do it showed real courage and conviction. He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one. We endorse Ned Lamont for Senate."
Notice the let's-cover-ourselves labeling of Lamont as "basically moderate," as if the editorial page knows full well that the anti-war, liberal-beloved Lamont is probably not acentrist.
You can check out some ofLamont's issues in his "Plan for Change [3]" speech, and this website has a useful rundown [4]of some of Lamont's statements on issues. He's pro-affirmative action, pro-abortion, is against school vouchers, and seems to have sympathy for gay marriage. Is he really the "moderate" the Times is trying to convince us that he is?
The Times' vague endorsement sheds little light on what Lamont actually believes (besides being anti-Bush and anti-war) - which is probably thepaper's intent.