What Lieberman’s loss means to both parties

Re “Partisan Crevasse May Be Widening,” News Analysis, Aug. 10

It amazes me that journalists and Republican politicians paint long overdue opposition to the Iraq war as leftist, extreme or defeatist. There is no longer an issue of whether we will prevail.

Nobody can win this war, least of all us, unless victory becomes defined as Shiite hegemony. We are being set up by the Republicans to blame our eventual defeat and withdrawal on leftist wimps who refused to support the effort to create a stable democracy.

This is an old tactic by warmongering leaders who have overestimated their own abilities. The American people should refuse to go for it.

MIKE RODDY

Joshua Tree, Calif.

*

The Times states: “As [Sen. Joe] Lieberman’s defeat illustrates, moderation doesn’t seem to play well -- in either party.” Are we to understand that being pro-war is “moderation”? Presumably, then, being antiwar is “extremism.”

Language changes with time.

ARTHUR P. STERN

Beverly Hills

*

Re “How McGovern beat Lieberman,” Opinion, Aug. 10

Jonah Goldberg misreads both the Connecticut results and the present state of the Democratic Party. Many similar analyses harken to the Sen. George McGovern era and the Vietnam opposition as the cause of a drop in Democratic fortunes.

The unmentioned elephant in the room, however, is the Democratic Party’s decisive embrace of civil rights, epitomized in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which lost the South for good. President Nixon’s Southern strategy was born in that era and continues until this day. The Republican majority in the House, for example, includes the 33 representatives who voted against an extension of the Voting Rights Act just last month. They are largely from districts that were solidly Democratic in the early ‘60s.

Vietnam has come and gone, but the problem of race is still with us, and the Democrats are still paying a heavy electoral price for doing the right thing.

JOHN HOGAN

Oak Ridge, Tenn.

*

Re “To Stay In, Lieberman Faces an Uphill Climb,” Aug. 10

Please, let’s not perpetuate the idea that Lieberman has an “uphill climb” as an independent. His more likely goal seems quite an easy one -- not to keep the seat himself, but to help Republicans keep a Democrat from being elected in Connecticut.

In the process, he’ll be able to count on Bush political advisor Karl Rove’s help, the support of the Bush White House and many generous donations from conservatives across the country -- money that he can legally keep after he loses in November. “To the loser belong the spoils” should work well for him. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see Bush reward him with an appointment when it’s all over.

BETH CAMPBELL

Thousand Oaks