The Democratic voters in Connecticut who rejected incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman for upstart Ned Lamont did so for what seemed to be a very straightforward reason: For too long, Lieberman declined to distance himself from a war they detested, and Lamont spoke to their antiwar feelings. Nevertheless, in the weeks since the primary, pundits and interest groups have been searching for ulterior motives in Connecticut, in ways that could have the collateral damage of driving wedges between Jewish voters, among others.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, for example, in a full-page ad that appeared in Jewish newspapers (including this one), declares that “the Democratic Party has thrown out one of Israel’s best friends.” The implication, hardly subtle, is that Connecticut Democrats rejected Lieberman because he was pro-Israel and that Lamont is no friend of the Jewish state. There is no indication that either assertion is true, but the RJC ad suggests that in the heat of political battle, logic is the first casualty, fairness the second.

Similarly, an opinion piece by the Wall Street Journal’s Naomi Schaefer Riley, a frequent commentator on religion, asserts that liberal voters turned on Lieberman because he is more devoted to his faith than his party. She also writes that Dems aren’t serious about tolerating religious candidates, because they actually hold such politicians accountable for the positions they take. True, Lieberman could be preachy to the point of sanctimoniousness, but again: The Connecticut primary was by all accounts a referendum on the war. To suggest that Jewish liberals cannot tolerate “religious belief” nor disagreement is a red herring.

Three years ago an NJJN editorial described Lieberman as a “steady, principled politician and an exemplar of those who would combine a life of private religious commitment with dedication to public service and who invariably respect the boundaries between the two.” That he is, but incumbency is no guarantee that your positions don’t matter. Lieberman stood his ground on Iraq, and the voters disagreed. Case closed.