LTTE on Lieberman - CRITIQUE NEEDED

I am starting my own LTTE campaign, and I plan to do a lot of letters on Joe Lieberman and the Senate race in Connecticut.  I am writing this diary because I need some constructive criticism - I need to learn how to write these letters properly so they'll get accepted by the Connecticut newspapers.

My first attempt, after the jump:

Lieberman is Out of Touch

Connecticut received another harsh lesson on Joe Lieberman this week as he embarrassed us all on the front page of the Courant. On Monday, Joe promised to "get tough with the Iraqi government". The next day, standing with the with Iraqi President Talibani, Joe said "this is a question of allies working together.." Senator Lieberman then cooed about all of the "progress" being made in Iraq.

Which is it, Senator? Are you going to "get tough", or preen with the Iraqi president in front of the cameras? And in what way do you consider the burgeoning civil war in Iraq "progress"?

A newly-released Iraq NIE states that the Iraq war has made America much more vulnerable to terrorism. But Joe Lieberman claims that he hasn't read this report yet, even though as a member of the Senate Armed Services committee he could have had access to it as early as April.

In these dangerous times, we need principled leadership that will stand up for Connecticut and America, and pay attention to the dire realities that confront us in Iraq and the Middle East. This week, Joe Lieberman has proven again he's the wrong man for the job.

For context, here is a link to that article in the Hartford Courant:
http://www.courant.com/...

Please help me out with this letter.  Is the tone okay, is the wording okay?  Do I make the point effectively enough?

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.

•  since you asked....

  1. cool down the language, lower the snark-o-meter. Adopt the 'more in sorrow than in anger pose' of the Broder posse. Lose "coo", change "preen" to "pose for pictures"

  2. I think this is your strongest point, and one I haven't yet seen made: Bump it up to the first paragraph.

  A newly-released Iraq NIE states that the Iraq war has made America much more vulnerable to terrorism. But Joe Lieberman claims that he hasn't read this report yet, even though as a member of the Senate Armed Services committee he could have had access to it as early as April.

  3. change "pay attention to" to "face up to the realities"

  Good letter, and thanks for taking the initiative. If I lived in CT, I'd follow suit.

  by BlueinColorado on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:25:30 PM PDT

•  keep it short

  Our Paper says that they look at it better if you keep it around 150 words.

  by libbie on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:28:27 PM PDT

•  Turncoat, flipflops, pants-on-fire--

  Joe Shmo's got to be the most sartorially-challenged clown on the hustings.  Just begging for an electoral wedgie--to be delivered by Ned Lamont in early November...

  by Uncle Cosmo on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:31:01 PM PDT

•  NIE

  The NIE that was released was a general estimate. The Bush Administration is afraid to release the Iraq NIE before the election. Bush and Lieberman are afraid of the truth.

  Read talkingpointsmemo if you want more details.

  by Reino on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:31:50 PM PDT

•  2 small suggestions

  A newly-released Iraq NIE states that the Iraq war has made America much more vulnerable to terrorism.

  1. Not everybody knows what an NIE is, so spell it out: National Intelligence Estimate.  Ideally, add "(a summary produced by the national intelligence community)" or some such.

  2. Might want to change "America" to "America and the rest of the world".

  by Bearpaw on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:42:23 PM PDT

  •  Agree and Disagree

    I think you should spell out what an NIE is but don't include the phrase "and the rest of the world" because they only matter to liberal, French-loving surrender monkeys.

    by R o o k on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:18:36 PM PDT

•  I happened to like this quote

  from the linked article:

  Asked if he followed through on Monday's "get tough" message, Lieberman said, "This is a question of allies working together. With a friend, you don't essentially put a gun to their head."

  And keep in mind that the Courant endorsed Bush in '04 and has certainly been, at the very least, sympathetic toward Lieberman.  If you're too harsh, it might get trashed.

  by fezzik on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:44:24 PM PDT

•  Great letter, great points

  and while the criticism leveled here is appropriately constructive, I think it's important to not get too bogged down with overanalyzing.  When you like it, hit "enter" and feel good about it.

  by theark on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:47:26 PM PDT

•  My thoughts...

  Do you really think Lieberman "embarrassed" the people of Connecticut by not getting tough with the Iraqi president?  I don't think that's really what you're trying to say, but it is your lead sentence.

  Your point (if I read you correctly) is that Lieberman is a hypocrite who tries to fool people by talking tough but isn't really facing the reality of the situation in Iraq.  I think you should be direct and make this point, then tie all your evidence back to it.  For example:

  Once again, Joe Lieberman fails to live up to his tough talk.  On Sept. 25, Lieberman promised to "get tough with the Iraqi government". The next day, he was posing for pictures with Iraqi President Talibani. Saying "this is a question of allies working together," Senator Lieberman cooed about all of the "progress" being made in Iraq.

  Senator Lieberman failed to "get tough" with the Iraqi government despite his promise to Connecticut voters. He also failed to explain how the burgeoning civil war in Iraq can be considered "progress" in spite of a newly-released Intelligence report that states the Iraq war has made America much more vulnerable to terrorism. Senator Lieberman claims he hasn't read this report yet, even though as a member of the Senate Armed Services committee he could have had access to it as early as April.

  In these dangerous times, we need principled leadership that faces reality and lives up to its promises. This week, Joe Lieberman has proven again he's the wrong man for the job.

  by R o o k on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:41:14 PM PDT

•  Some thoughts...

  as he embarrassed us all on the front page of the Courant

  Don't speak for everyone else.  Say something like, "I was once again embarassed by my Senator".

  Which is it, Senator? Are you going to "get tough", or preen with the Iraqi president in front of the cameras? And in what way do you consider the burgeoning civil war in Iraq "progress"?

  First, don't switch your focus.  Your letter starts out addressing the editor, and by extension, the readers.  Don't switch abruptly to addressing Lieberman.  You can do that if you START your letter with "An open letter to...", but Editors are sometimes less comfortable using letters in this form.

  Second, don't use "preen"; that's a word an op-ed writer can get away with , but it makes you sound too snippy.  Your tone should sound (and make the reader feel) concerned at the problem.  

  Personally, I'd start the whole letter with something like: "Senator Lieberman has once again let me confused about his policy on the Iraq War".  Then work in the parts about one day he's tough and demaning changes, the next he's cosying up to the people who are problem.  Your goal should be to enforse the uncertainties people have about his position and the concern that keeping on the job won't change things.

  by cbastian on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:59:04 PM PDT