Lieberman’s politics

Share via

Re “Destroying the party to save it,” Opinion, July 9

Jonathan Chait was right on the money for the first half of his column. In trying to castigate liberal bloggers, he argues that “turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a potential Republican pickup” is a political blunder. A better argument is that it is not a rock-solid Democratic seat if the Democrat holding it votes Republican, favors Republican concepts, attacks Democrats and could continue doing so for another six years. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn.) time has passed.


Los Angeles


Chait fails to understand how both the blogosphere and we Democrats feel about Lieberman. Of course we believe that he can have “loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” We live in a free country, don’t we?


The problem is that those loyalties are to Republican beliefs. Therefore, why should a Democrat vote for Lieberman?

Lieberman is using the blogosphere as a whipping boy for his dismal polling in Connecticut, and Chait dutifully follows suit. All this shows is that Lieberman is blaming the messenger and that media pundits don’t do nearly enough research.


Pacific Palisades


I feel I have a special obligation to respond to your July 6 editorial, “Lieberman’s run.” I am a liberal activist. I was also Lieberman’s roommate at Yale.

Lieberman is a good and decent man personally, but he has also become a cheerleader for George Bush’s bloody, arrogant and disastrous war on Iraq.


As a friend, I wish for him the best. As a Democratic voter, if I lived in Connecticut, I would be voting for Ned Lamont.


Playa del Rey