Other perspectives on Lieberman’s decision

Re “Lieberman’s run,” editorial, July 6

Since you are viewing Connecticut politics from 3,000 miles away, it is natural you would miss the nuances of the anti-Sen. Joe Lieberman feeling here. Let me clue you in. Connecticut Democrats, of whom I am one, haven’t had much use for Lieberman since he ran simultaneously for vice president and senator in 2000.

Had the Gore ticket won, our wonderful Republican Gov. John Rowland (who subsequently went to jail for corruption) would have filled his seat. Lieberman went on to back every free-trade policy that eviscerated our manufacturing base, announced he might back Social Security “reform,” became the only New England Democratic senator to support Bush’s energy bill, agreed that the government should intervene in the Terri Schiavo tragedy, and on and on.

His decision to bolt the party if voters have the temerity to prefer someone else is finally showing his true colors. He’s not a Democrat and never has been.

KATHLEEN STACK

Glastonbury, Conn.

*

Lieberman is not the victim but the perpetrator of a jihad against dissent. Other Democratic senators have supported the war without alienating the Democratic base.

What’s different about Lieberman is his willingness to attack other Democrats and label their dissent on the war as treasonous. “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril,” the senator said. Karl Rove could not have written a more shameful slander against Democrats.

VINCENT M. AMOROSO

Boxborough, Mass.

*

Placing country above party is a mere canard in the case of Lieberman, who has functioned as one of Bush-Cheney’s enablers in chief. His spineless and overly deferential performance in the 2000 vice presidential debate should have given us a clue. He serves neither his party’s nor his country’s best interests.

THOMAS BOURGEOIS

Los Angeles