In the wake of anti-war candidate Ned Lamont's win over Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, the paper's lead editorial on Wednesday, "Revenge of the Irate Moderates [1]," ludicrously tries to portray vengeful anti-Lieberman bloggers and anti-war activists as moderates. In what universe do ultra-left Rep. Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (who supported Lamont) quality as "moderates"?
"Mr. Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution."
Ah, Connecticut, that bastion of moderation that hasn't voted for a Republican for president sinceGeorge H.W. Bush [2]in 1988.
After again trying to shove the political spectrum to the left, the Times issues its standard anti-Bush boilerplate.
"The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home."