I just don't want to see a repeat of 1968, where McCarthy's supporters refused to work or vote for Humphrey and thereby handed a close election to Nixon. (As I recall, McCarthy himself either didn't endorse Humphrey, or he did so tepidly too late to make a difference.) A friend of mine who was a McCarthy but not a Humphrey supporter wore a black armband after the election. I screamed at him to take off the armband because "it was people like you who elected Nixon." The war was the issue then too, and Humphrey, like Lieberman, had all the liberals creds exact for the war.

Posted at July 26, 2006 12:35 PM in response to Question of the Day: Lieberman Edition

And let's not forget the $12.7 billion in cuts to the student aid programs, which make up more than 1/4 of the savings in the entire bill.

Posted at January 27, 2006 11:03 AM in response to Wanton Destructiveness

>>>"And both bills passed only after holding the votes open and twisting enough arms to change votes. Had members been allowed to vote their conscience, both bills would have failed."

The members were allowed to vote their conscience. Instead they opted to take the money or cave in.  There's no need for a conscience on a 435-0 vote. There is on a 212-211 vote.

Posted at January 10, 2006 12:01 PM in response to Cause and Effect

A while ago (in the 70s) the Times policy was to allow a reporter one byline per issue. The reporter selected which article would be signed. If that policy is still in effect, it could explain why the article in question has no byline.

Posted at October 14, 2005 1:41 PM in response to Curiouser and Curiouser