In his post below, James Kirchick graciously cites me as an authority on the "no enemies on the left" style of thought that pervades the netroots, but then turns this sentiment against Isaac Chotiner. Earlier today, Chotiner noted that Joe Lieberman's decision to raise money for Republican Senator Susan Collins is somewhat out of sync with Lieberman's claim to be just an old-style Democrat who has been discarded by a party that's turned sharply left. Kirchick says, or implies, that if you think Lieberman shouldn't be raising money for Republicans you're a proponent of a "no friends on the right" policy. I certainly don't advocate a "no friends on the right" policy. In fact, I just got back from lunch with a friend on the right. But one of the main points of my article on the netroots is that people should be aware of the difference in roles between those who are trying to change the world and those who are only trying to describe it. Elected officials definitely belong in the former category. Sure, a politician can be friends with someone in the other party, or cooperate with them on legislation, but raising money for them seems to be stepping over a clear line. P.S. I see that Matthew Yglesias has waded into this inexplicably widening dispute. Yglesias repeats the new liberal bloggy catchphrase "bold seeker of Truth," which is meant to sarcastically dismiss my argument about the netroots. For those who think this strawman resembles what I wrote, I should point out that I never used this phrase, I don't think there is a single Truth, and for those confused on this point I explicitly wrote as much in a reply to Ezra Klein. Moreover, I do not think, and I have never said, that I'm bold, or that boldness is required to tell the truth about the world as you see it. Nor am I the one congratulating himself or his friends (and thus, by implication, himself) on his boldness in standing up to the all-powerful media establishment. --Jonathan Chait