Sign of the Times: For first time since Watergate, NY Times endorses no Republicans

[DeepModem Mom]

NY Daily News: October 30, 2006
A Sign of the Times
For the first time since before Watergate, the New York Times endorsed no Republicans for election to Congress this year.

It's a sign of a few things: The polarized country, the end of a meaningful moderate wing of the GOP, and the Times's own move left.

A look back at the Times archives through 1972 finds that the paper's powerful editorial page endorsed at least one Republican for the House or Senate every year. Some of these were well-known local moderates like Hamilton Fish and Bill Green. Others include a young Connecticut candidate named John Rowland in 1986....

***

The paper that year (1982), as usual, went mostly with Democrats, including Mario Cuomo, but also backed two Republicans for Congress, Lowell Weicker and Lewis Rome. Now, as then, it justifies its endorsements on a local basis, but this year there's a distinct national edge, as in this disavowal of Connecticut's Nancy Johnson, which the page supported for years: "We’ve supported Ms. Johnson in the past, but are disenchanted with her support of her leadership’s radical agenda." In other words, the page seems to recognize that the most important vote any legislator casts is the first one, for leadership.

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/post_42.php

[saigon68]

1. How About Joementum Limpmann (R) Conn

[mom cat]

2. I think that the NYT is backing Lamont.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. The Times endorsed Lamont in both the primary and this one. nt

[JoFerret]

8. They slammed him in the primary

and in the elction. (Give credit where credit is due. Their endorsements are pretty solid most of the time.)

[saigon68]

10. Thanks --- just wondering

[goforit]

3. Moving up in the world, eh?

[liberal N proud]

4. Outstanding

[truthisfreedom]

6. one paper that represents more than half of our once-great nation.

my oh my.

[tblue]

7. Over half of America is 'out of the mainstream'

[JoFerret]

9. They are terrorists

clearly