Don't you love it?
The Poohbahs of the Media have Spoken.
"CONNECTICUT'S MESSAGE" proclaims the editorial page of the New York Times that endorsed peacenik Ned Lamont over Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary.
There are two problems here, both ironic and hilarious.
Number One: In their bones, the generational peers of the editorial writers and videotape editors of the mainstream media get the game.
Number Two: Those of us who once agreed have seen the light...and disagree.
Franklin Roosevelt, scion of the Eastern Establishment's upper class, was frequently called a "traitor" to his class, his class being defined at the time as an economic class. One of the reasons George W. Bush is so hated by the Left is that like FDR he is perceived as a "traitor" to his class...in this case class being defined as a class of liberal sensibility.
It is a sensibility for which Bush has a well-recorded contempt. Rich American sons who go to Yale and Harvard are just not supposed to think the way Bush does -- and if they do...heaven forbid that they actually say anything!!!!! As FDR sided with working- and middle-class Americans, so too has Bush. What Bush possesses, as does anyone who spent time in life as a liberal in the 1960s, is a genuine knee-slapping laugh at the self-righteousness of those liberal classmates who just refused to grow up.
Which brings us to the hilarious New York Times editorial on the results of the Lieberman-Lamont primary.
I know, lobster and champagne doesn't serve up as well, but try and control yourself. You, dear Spectator readers, can surely imagine the editorial staff of the Times sharing a bite of sushi and white wine at the latest fashionable New York PLACE TO BE as they scribble their indignation.
Let's look at this.
The anger that Mr. Lieberman was so surprised to find at his own back door is real, and actually more important than the identity of the next senator from Connecticut. It involves the rarest of breeds, the irate moderate.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the New York Times editorial board, they who find themselves perpetually stunned that lower taxes raise revenues, that every state that gets to vote on gay marriage opposes same, and that the American public really does not believe a group of liberals in a closed editorial board room should have the right to remove national security decisions from all American voters -- these folks are irate moderates?? They get the Connecticut Message????
They're a hoot, right?
The Times, which wants to raise your taxes, equalize heterosexual marriage with any sexual desire anywhere at any time between those of any sex, age or species, which believes Saddam Hussein should have been left undisturbed to pursue his quest of killing Jews at $25,000 a pop but that the starkly anti-Semitic Al Sharpton's support of Ned Lamont -- or Lamont's acceptance of that support while running against a Jew -- is not worth a verbal shrug...the Times is the monitor of all things moderate?
The Times wouldn't know a moderate if its editors had their high heels polished by one. America has long since gotten the deal here. The Times asks of Lieberman "whether...he learned that changing is necessary." It is a question that many are asking of the Times itself. Many of us are the generational and educational peers of the Times editors and writers -- and of the publisher. The difference between us is that some of us learned something from all those Sixties mistakes. We refuse to hang on to the past. When Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. -- that would be JUNIOR -- refuses to state that he will give up his inheritance of a major American newspaper as some form of penance to equality that his editorial board demands of family farmers in the form of forfeiting farms to the estate tax, well, credibility sinks.
When the Times demands that the Democratic Party state that the foreign policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy -- all Times endorsees -- demonstrate "how far off course things have gone"...well, cue the laugh track.
One of the unexpected joys of vacation on Eastern Long Island is reading old books quoting old New York Times editorials. Catch this one, published in the aftermath of World War One:
"Not only is their (Germany's) military power...destroyed but the military spirit...crushed...Now...their ships have gone; their foreign trade has vanished and they are condemned to half a century of unremitting toil to repay the loss they have caused...The punishment Germany must endure for centuries will be one of the greatest deterrents to the war spirit."
For the record and particularly for Spectator readers of a certain age, in contrast to this New York Times editorial certainty neither the military spirit or power of Germany was crushed. Germany's ships were re-created. Their foreign trade thrived. Not only was Germany not condemned "to half a century of unremitting toil to repay the loss they have caused," within a mere twenty years it had an army on the march across Europe, had successfully invaded Poland, France, Holland, Belgium and more, was daily bombing England and had built concentration camps holding and quite actively preparing to kill all of the Jews in Europe (relax, they only killed six million).
So much for the wisdom of the New York Times.
Got the message?