Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Saturday, May 13, 2006

 

In The Papers

Ned Lamont gets some surprisingly neutral-to-positive coverage (and an even more surprisingly decent caricature) in the Weekend Interview in the Wall St. Journal. Between a couple of weakly attempted hits on Lamont (he sounds like George McGovern, he is a purely blog-backed candidate), James Taranto actually ends up liking the guy and his "refreshing candor" - just like everyone else who meets him does:

I don't agree with Mr. Lamont about much, but I like him. He's not quite a political neophyte--he has run for office before, winning a seat as a Greenwich town selectman and losing a state Senate race--but he's more an enthusiast than a professional. A successful businessman who made his fortune setting up cable TV systems for college campuses, he has a job to return to if his election bid fails. With nothing to lose, he can afford a refreshing candor.


Also in the papers this weekend are two great letters to the editor from Lamont supporters. One challenges the Courant's decision to run Jon Chait's pro-Lamont but anti-voting-for-Lamont column this week (hat tip to MikeCT):

Is the writer's stated fear - "If you think Lieberman is sanctimonious now, wait until you see him in defeat" - a valid reason to keep Joe in the Senate? Would the author have us believe that Joe would launch a vindictive attack on Connecticut, and that such an attack would be successful? And if all that were true, would it actually be the overriding reason to vote for such a person?


And another letter, in the New Haven Register, challenges the paper's pro-Joe endorsement, and apparently got the notice of Lieberman's office in the process:

His role as an apologist for the Bush administration on foreign policy and the war has some of us questioning his political affiliation.

And his determination to run as an independent should he lose the primary is pure crybaby politics.

Your editorial is right about one thing: For too many years, Lieberman has treated the Senate seat as a baronial fiefdom--his by right. You only have to call his office ("sorry, all voice mailboxes are full") to get the picture: Lieberman is busy working--for Lieberman.

Comments:
very good reporting!

can you please post the new hillary letter endorsing lieberman, so we can dissect it under a microscope?
 
HFL, I haven't seen that letter. Please email it to me if you have it.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home