Reasons for the lack of bipartisanship ignored
Re “Wanted: a Congress with a backbone,” Opinion, Aug. 29
Mickey Edwards’ column on bipartisanship in Congress is disingenuous. He ignores the fact that Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary for the Senate in Connecticut because of his blind support for President Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq, not his failure to be a “team player.”
He also claims that both parties are equally responsible for the lack of bipartisanship in Congress, ignoring the fact that a Republican Party that controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government has blatantly steamrolled the Democratic opposition.
To think that a former member of the House Republican leadership is now pleading for bipartisanship in Congress is laughable.
ROBERT LENTZ
Sylmar
*
I would like to add one other thought to Edwards’ piece.
The state legislatures’ drawing of electoral districts to create “safe” seats presumes that voters will vote for the candidate of their own party, thus perpetuating the partisanship of which he speaks.
JOEL ROBBINS
North Hollywood
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
