New blood

Yesterday, I was thrilled to see what I hope will be a decisive refutation of the misleading myth that Connecticut Democrat Ned Lamont's campaign against Joe Lieberman is "an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship."

In a detailed and persuasive editorial, the New York Times gave its official endorsement to Mr. Lamont. Highlights:

At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman's ability to command Republicans' attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president's defender...

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration's policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales's sneering reference to the "quaint" provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq's weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Hear, hear! The time has come for new blood in Washington - and I, for one, can't think of a better place to start than with Ned Lamont.