The New York Times says Democrats in Congress are more concerned about winning elections than winning the War on Terror or the gallant service and sacrifices of our troops. They say that about all (minus one) those in close reelection races or who might run for the Presidency in 2008. That ‘minus one’ gets the usual treatment:

The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the party’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.
…
Over all, 32 Democrats voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most difficult re-election fights, backed it. Among the latter was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose perceived support for Mr. Bush has brought him political trouble at home.

Yet of the 12, Menendez (D-NJ) and Nelson (D-FL) matter most to the Times. In New Jersey, the state with the second most deaths as a result of the 9/11 attacks, it would be unwise to vote to coddle terrorists. And if Katherine Harris were to defeat Nelson, the Times’ editors might all need straightjackets. Nine Senate Democrats gave those two political cover.

The Times singled out Sen. Lieberman because, in their minds, he foolishly voted for what he honestly believed in. The Democrats “in the most difficult re-election fights” who smartly voted the way pollsters say will garnish the most votes in November do not feel the Times’ wrath. If a Congressional Democrat’s decision is a political calculation before a close election, the Times decrees it is okay for them to vote for something President Bush proposed. All the potential 2008 Democratic Party candidates fell into lock-step. The NY Times provided us proof of these assertions:

It was a stark change from four years ago, when Mr. Bush cornered Democrats into another defining pre-election vote on security issues — that one to give the president the authority to launch an attack against Iraq. At the time, many Democrats felt they had little choice politically but to side with Mr. Bush, and a majority of Senate Democrats backed him.

The Iraq vote of October 2002 was a subtext to the Senate debate on Thursday. Democrats pointed to the situation in Iraq as an example of what can happen when the Bush administration, in the charged atmosphere of an approaching Congressional election, is handed new power by a compliant Congress.

It is their way or the highway and to hell with the troops and victory in Iraq and the War on Terror. The Times has not written a single report about true courage since August of 2005. They prefer gutless wonders who stand in the wind with a wet finger in the air. It makes us wonder which finger the Times tells them all to use, minus the one with moral courage.

[By the way, Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush was "news analysis" by the Times even though they insist their editorial board and newsroom are separate. Carl Hulse's desk must be out in the hallway next to the water cooler.]

The is a reprint, with permission, of the original at Stop the New York Times