New York Times Blows Coverage of Lamont’s Criticism of Lieberman

The New York Times is trying to play gotcha journalism against Lamont over a trivial point, but a review of the actual statements made now and at the time of the Lewinski scandal don’t show the contradictions claimed by the Lieberman campaign and the New York Times.
Check out the coverage of what Lamont really said about Lieberman at a dinner in which journalists repeatedly asked Lamont about the scandal here. Now compare it to Lamont’s actual statements in his email:

I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant  because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because nobody expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton’s misbehavior. . . .

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I’m the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president’s conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We’ve made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe he should be censured for lying–and let’s move on.

It’s time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

This sounds to me like chastisement in which someone softens the blow by saying “I agree with you, but. . .” Not that it really matters. Two of the major issues nationally are over whether we have a rational defense against terrorism or allow the Republicans to continue to play politics with the issue, and whether we preserve our tradition of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Lieberman has been on the wrong side of both issues. This is what voters should consider this November, not what either one said about Monica Lewinski several years ago.

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a comment