A Connecticut reader writes:
I disagreed with Lieberman on Iraq, I disagreed with him on the bankruptcy bill and on social security (I give some slack for cloture on Alito) and most especially when he scolded any Democrats who would criticize Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq. That last really set my skin on edge, when a pol sets himself up as the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable in political speech it seems to me they arrogate a bit too much power to themselves.
But the day I knew that I would vote for Lamont was the day that Lieberman started to criticize the voters for daring to vote against him, setting the primary up in effect as a litmus test as to whether [his alleged] deviation from Democratic orthodoxy would be permitted, whether the Democrats were still tolerant of free-thinkers. First, it was an obvious lie — many Democrats supported the war in Iraq and some still do. But second, it was Lieberman attempting to tell us, the voters, the basis on which we should vote. Setting himself up as indispensable (someone should remind him of De Gaulle's line about the cemeteries being full of irreplaceable men) and stating the terms on which his defeat would have to be evaluated.
The sheer preening self-righteousness and arrogance of this was staggering. Is this really how the man thinks? This is the guy whose great asset is "character?" And then to see the Washington Democratic Party rally around him and this argument. What do they think they are, the Central Committee of some authoritarian party that determines the list of candidates for whom voters are allowed to cast a rubber stamp ballot?
And listening to Lieberman's speech last night — "carry on for the good of the country" — was to hear a man who has so conflated his career with public policy that I thank God that someone so mendaciously delusional was never a heartbeat away from the presidency.
I voted for Lieberman in the past. He has become a walking testimony to the need for term limits.