Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Damn good question.

It occurs to me that having it come out now as opposed to after the primary or filing date gives them SOME chance of putting up another dem.

Leo has a good point, I suspect they knew the story would break anyway. If McMahon did uncover the information, she was not going to sit back and wait while the Times took their good ole time sitting on the news. I bet they were beside themselves knowing they had to break the story though.

...Newspapers are under siege as their readership shrinks. The mood of the electorate is angry and more conservative. I suspect these two facts have pierced the editorial bubble and the Times is now desperate to print stories people want to read. Their old cozy readership is gone and they have to fight a circulation war with various competitors, so they are running stories they wouldn't have dreamed of running before. Who knows? Maybe they will act like a newspaper and start running stories that really approach both sides of an issue....

Hmmmm. Good question. My snarky, pessimistic take is that they wanted this guy out, and decided to run with the story.

The optimist in me says that the Repub candidate who did the research and found the video, along with all the proof-quotes, was ready to hand this squeaky-clean, fool-proof, can't-be-refuted story to the WaPo and the New York Post. Thus, the NYT did the "evil" deed of publishing the truth about a Democrat.

I don't get why the McMahon campaign let this info out. It seems like the smart play would have been to hide it until October, and let the info come out a month before the election.

As for the New York Times, it is a mystery. Maybe they did not realize that Blumenthal was the Democrat and throught they were damaging the Republican.

MarySue is right. McMahon was not going to let the NYTimes sit on the story. She was going to call their bluff and they knew it ... and realized that if she did, they'd be sitting on the story and caught red-handed at sitting on the story.

Saul Alinsky, baby. Saul Alinsky. Say no more.

I am with Leo. The Times saw this as an opportunity to get it out and do a Torricelli number.

Whatever the reason for dropping this story, remember the NYT motto:

Above all, Liberalism, above that, Obama!

Somehow, this story fit that motto. Can you remember the last time we could trust the NYT to do the right thing?

Never, ever trust the New York Times.

chaos and 'veil of ignorance' honed to an art-form? lol
NYT puppets are not that smart. They feed on emotions- pure and simple-the cruder, the better.

If they did it because they have a guilty conscience, then there's hope they will publish some of the dirt they've likely got on Barry Soetoro/Barak Obama.

Flexing their muscles for the White House perchance?

The easy answer is that the WWE folks got a toehold and wouldn't let go. Once the McMahons sucked in the NYT reporter, it was all over but for the Fat Lady to sing.

However I get suspicious when the HuffPo piles on. John Bohrer had no trouble getting this published over there:

"Which is why it is hard to predict what Connecticut state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will do next, now that he has been caught lying about serving in Vietnam. As the New York Times charitably puts it, "It does not appear that Mr. Blumenthal ever sought to correct those mistakes" when people (himself included) implied that he was deployed to Vietnamese soil during the conflict. Yet Mr. Blumenthal deserves no charity here. He fudged his record, and he ought to drop his Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate."

At May 18, 2010 5:57 PM, patrick said... "I am with Leo. The Times saw this as an opportunity to get it out and do a Torricelli number."

Patrick, you must mean they did it to help the Democrats avoid a Torricelli number, as they are doing it before the key deadlines.

The whole point of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in the Torricelli case was that they permitted the Senator to withdraw from the Senate race after the specific statutory deadline had passed.

As I understand it, the primary date in Connecticut this year will be on Tuesday, August 10th, and according to Real Clear Politics their major party filing deadline this year will be on May 24th.

Mark Levin posited that the Times did this so that it'd be a stale story come election time.

"Why are you still bringing up that tired story when it came out months ago? It's old news!"

Maybe they did it because it won't make a difference. How liberal are the voters in Conn?

Two words:

"Chris Dodd"

They want a liberal who can win, so they must first purge the losers.

Blumenthal is done. He might have scarped by with his own problem, but no way does he survive this:

Breaking: Blementhal’s Soldier Supporter On Stage Today Is a Phony, Too

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/breaking-blementhals-soldier-supporter-on-stage-today-is-a-phony-too/

If the story cannot be suppressed or ignored, it can at least be framed to support the party line.

Say, if anyone is looking for similarities . . .

If they don't sink Blumenthal(D) now, he might lose later. It's the primary season and there is plenty of time to put up some other lock-step marching tool.

The story couldn't be ignored, nor could it be spun. Someone was going to break it, so the Times had no choice in the matter. They had to break it no matter how distasteful the thought that it couldn't spun in their favor.

No matter. They still have the pope they can bash on at will, so they are still getting their jollies.

I think by doing this they denigrate all veterans. Now people and politicians are less likely to discuss their military history. And they get kudos for doing it. Never underestimate their intelligence.

Betcha there is more dirt to be found on Blumenthal. Better to take him out now for simple lies than for something worse.

It appears many in CT have known about this for many years. Filing deadline is Friday. Interesting.

Allows for Lamont, AG candidate, or other to (heroically) switch races.