THE VALUE OF EDITORIAL ENDORSEMENTS

There was stir this morning over the New York Times enthusiastic endorsement of Ned Lamont. But did anyone seriously doubt it would be forthcoming? Afterall, as the Times points out, regarding the disastrous Iraq occupation "When it comes to the next step, Mr. Lieberman seems to mimic the Bush administration’s proposal to stay the course (while no longer mentioning that toxic phrase) with new tactics. Mr. Lamont is close to the Senate Democrats (minus Mr. Lieberman) who demanded a timetable for withdrawal without being too firm on what that ought to entail." And then they really exlained why re-electing Lieberman would be a terrible mistake:

Two months ago, Connecticut's Democratic voters sent Mr. Lieberman what should have been a jarring wake-up call when they rejected him for Mr. Lamont, a relative newcomer. We have been waiting to see what lessons the state's best-known politician took from his defeat, and from the daily evidence of the deterioration of the situation in Iraq.

We wanted to see a capacity for growth and change in Mr. Lieberman. The country is full of Republicans who now realize the Iraq invasion was a disaster, either in its basic concept or in its execution. The most honorable of them are in agony over what has happened. Mr. Lieberman, who had not only continually defended the administration’s Iraq policy but also attacked Democrats who criticized the president, had more cause for soul-searching than most.

But instead of re-evaluating his own positions, Mr. Lieberman blamed his constituents for failing to notice that he had offered some negative comments about the conduct of the war, too, mainly when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. He did not protest when Dick Cheney said that people who voted for Mr. Lamont were giving comfort to "Al Qaeda types." His only reflection seemed devoted to a re-examination of the rules for getting back on the ballot.

Since his primary defeat, Mr. Lieberman has run a well-packaged campaign built around his self-assigned bipartisan image-- "It's not about politics," say his ads. But it is very much about politics-- from the flood of special interest campaign donations that has been running Mr. Lieberman's way to the old Karl Rove lesson that political winners never admit to error.

Powerful, but not surprising. After all, the Times often endorses Democrats and was enthusiastic about Lamont at primary time. Far more surprising is when staunchly Republican papers endorse Democrats over long-term Republican incumbents who they have been routinely endorsing for years. Those should serve as ear-splitting alarm bells for the GOP.

The most important local paper in Curt Weldon's district has always been the Delaware County Daily Times and they've always loved their pork-barrel congressman. Every two years, like clockwork, they endorse Weldon. Then they met Joe Sestak and today the Daily Times told their readers to forget Weldon and vote for Sestak. Now that is big news!

A few days ago the ECM Publishers editorial board, which publishes over a dozen small town newspapers in Minnesota joined the Minneapolis StarTribune in endorsing Coleen Rowley over far right extremist incumbent John Kline. The StarTribune explained how "Republicans have tried to paint Rowley as some sort of loose-cannon liberal. We don't see it: She was a career FBI agent, including a stint in New York investigating drug dealers and mobsters, and voted for George W. Bush in 2000 on the belief that he would govern as his father had. She would balance the federal budget by letting the Bush tax cuts expire exactly the way a GOP Congress wrote them and would reform immigration law by following the Senate Republican blueprint. She would move toward universal health insurance though a cautious strategy of state experimentation, and she would wind down the war in Iraq by following the sensible outline of Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania veteran who has endorsed her." But the ECM endorsement must have come as a far bigger shock to rightist Kline.

Kline offers voters stubborn support for a status quo that produced the deadly quagmire in Iraq and tax cuts that ballooned the federal deficit as war costs mounted.

Like many Americans, Rowley is indignant at the country’s direction under President Bush and a Republican Congress. The retired FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower is bright, tenacious, a flexible thinker and an able voice of dissent.

In other words, she’s right for these perilous times. The Republican-leaning 2nd District may not be ready to elect a Democrat, but we think Rowley is the most capable and deserving of Kline’s opponents since he was first elected in 2002.

The editorial is long thorough and well-thought-out. It is a stinging indictment of John Kline and it ends with a very clear message: "A nation demanding change will be better served with Coleen Rowley in Congress than with John Kline."

This kind of stuff is happening all over the country. I'm certain that Bryan Kennedy's campaign and the Sensenbrenner campaign shared equally in the astonishment today when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did the unthinkable.

But come back with me for a moment to Pennsylvania. Next door to what will soon be Weldon's former district is another moderate suburban Philly district, PA-08, currently held by Bush rubber stamper Michael Fitzpatrick. Last year the key local paper in the district, the Bucks County Courier Times endorsed Fitzpatrick over Ginny Shrader. Previously it was always on board for moderate Republican Jim Greenwood. This morning a tradition was shattered when the editorial board endorsed Patrick Murphy.

It isn't online but my friend Adam sent it to me in an e-mail. It could be written in scores of papers across our country. It's worth reading because it isn't only about Patrick Murphy. It's about November 7 in general.

Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy holds out the promise of needed change in Washington, where the one-party rule has led us widely astray.

President Bush came into office calling himself a uniter, not a divider. But our nation is more divided today than it has been since Vietnam. And, once again, an ill-conceived and misdirected war bereft of allied support and without a clear mission is at the core of our fractured nation.

But it is not the only issue driving a wedge between our citizens - and our nation and the world.

A Republican Congress that has acted more like a rubber stamp for the president than a constitutional check on presidential power is both enabler and accomplice. Howling partisanship trumps thoughtful deliberation, corruption arises, ethics pale.

We are worried.

Against this troubling backdrop, congressional races are playing out across the nation. Here in Bucks County freshman Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, hard-working and earnest and with an accomplished 10-year record of public service, faces Democrat challenger Patrick Murphy.

Needed change

An Iraq war veteran who has never held public office, Murphy is an experienced military and civilian prosecutor and a former West Point professor. As a former Army captain, Murphy is used to commanding others and making tough decisions.

As a congressional candidate, he embodies the promise of needed change.

First and foremost, Murphy backs a timed withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, now gripped by sectarian violence - if not civil war. Yet he is not proposing to "cut and run," as he's been accused. He would get our military men and women out of harm's way but redeploy a strategic strike force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops outside Iraq.

A timeline for withdrawal, he believes, would encourage the Iraqis to take control of their nation's security and their citizens' future. We think he's right. And we think his desire to keep a lowprofile toehold on Iraq makes sense.

Too little, too late

Fitzpatrick no longer backs Bush on Iraq. He has called for a new strategy and is awaiting the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, appointed by Congress with the president's approval. We're encouraged by the congressman's changing view, but President Bush has already made it clear he will not be bound by any of the study group's recommendations.

Our concern is that we could be in store for more of the same.

This is our central fear in returning Fitzpatrick to Congress-- that he will not be as strong a force for change as Murphy.

We are likewise concerned that the congressman will continue to cast votes advancing this administration's shortsighted and unfair tax cuts. We also believe that his conservative beliefs put him out of step with his mostly moderate district on the promising science of embryonic stem cell research and on the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.

That said, the congressman's values are among his strongest points. A former Eagle Scout, Fitzpatrick is honest and thoughtful. He shows a command of detail. That's why his willingness to engage in sleazy negative campaign tactics is disappointing. Unfortunately, this isn't new.

Negative campaign

In his race against Democrat Ginny Schrader two years ago, the congressman failed to keep a check on the tactics of national party operatives. When Schrader was slimed, Fitzpatrick said he wasn't responsible.

He sang the same refrain when Iraq War vets questioned Murphy's war record while appearing at a press conference he convened a few weeks ago. Fitzpatrick should have prevented this from happening at his own event-- or at least denounced their comments immediately.

We are likewise offended by Fitzpatrick's television ads and mailings.

They diminish the quality of character we've come to expect from him. They also raise legitimate questions about how independent he can really be within his own party if he can't control the tone of his own campaign.

We do want to note that Fitzpatrick has had a distinguished record as a county commissioner and that his solid work as a freshman congressman deserves praise. In his first term, he authored 24 bills and proctored several measures into law - an uncommon achievement. And he demonstrated a willingness to break stride on a number of issues with his party and president. Indeed, he's been cited for being one of the most independent members on Capitol Hill. Right on the big issue

This is the sort of bipartisanship we need in Congress. Unfortunately, on the overarching issue of our time, Fitzpatrick for too long was unable to break rank. The Courier Times Editorial Board has had its own lengthy, spirited and even contentious debate - perhaps paralleling the national debate - and has decided to issue its congressional endorsement to Patrick Murphy.

Murphy's young, we know. But we regard him as bright, accomplished for his age, and committed to public service. He has insights from his firsthand experience in Iraq that are not to be discounted. His values and character also are strong.

Murphy is committed to a new direction, and at a point when so many Americans believe major change is necessary, his timing provides him with a significant boost to secure an edge over the long popular and respected Fitzpatrick.

Do these kinds of small town paper editorials move votes? A few. Maybe TV ads move a few more, which is why we're trying to get our Tony Trupiano TV spot up on the air. And it's why I want you to take a look at this totally effective spot playing on Montana television courtesy of The Public Campaign Action Fund.

The confluence of all this stuff is going to make for a very Blue-- in the best sense of the word-- Tuesday on November 7.


UPDATE: LET'S NOT FORGET FIELD AND STREAM

Glossy magazines like Field and Stream don't usually endorse political candidates. But the race in CA-11 is anything but "usual" and one of the candidates, incumbent Congressman Dirty Dick Pombo is widely recognized as the worst legislator anywhere in the country when it comes to the environment, not just by attitude, but by deed. And he threatens to do a lot worse than he's already done. I can't imagine that anyone who remotely cares about a clean and healthy natural environment isn't already gung-ho on voting for Jerry McNerney.

But the Green Sportsman editorial (that's the Field and Stream blog) is an indictment of Pombo that every American, regardless of where they live, should read.

It sounded like hyperbole when green groups started calling Rep. Richard “Dick” Pombo (R- CA) the “Darth Vader of the Environment.” But as they say in Texas “it ain’t braggin if you can do it”, and Pombo has shown he can – and will – do it to sportsmen and the environment at every turn.

As chair of the House Resources Committee Pombo pushed to allow road building in the Tongass National Forest, sell national parks to private industry, eliminate the moratorium on selling federal lands to mining companies, remove regulations that force energy companies to respect wetlands and wildlife values on public lands, weaken the Endangered Species Act, and rewrite the National Environmental Policy Act so industry would have a more profitable time on public lands at the expense of fish, wildlife, and sportsmen. No wonder real estate developers have paid almost $250,000 into his campaign chest over the years.

The looming election hasn’t made Pombo back off. Now he’s pushing a bill that would remove the popular 25-year ban on drilling for oil and gas off fragile coastlines. This stinks on its own, but it could also torpedo a Senate-passed drilling bill by Mary Landrieu (D-LA), that would actually help fish and wildlife. The Senate version opens new areas to drilling only in the northern Gulf, which already has lived with the industry for more than 50 years. In exchange, four coastal states would receive 37.5 percent of the royalties for habitat restoration. Louisiana urgently needs the money to help rebuild the nation’s most valuable coastal estuary, half of which has been destroyed by erosion over the last 50 years – a process largely a result of the many miles of canals dredged for oil and gas related work.

Pombo is hoping to push his agenda in a conference committee, a strategy the record shows could sorely cost fish, wildlife and sportsmen.