WP: Connecticut Groups Push to Remove Lieberman From Ballot

[kskiska]

HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 21 -- Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot.

Staffers for the senator from Connecticut, who lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, called both efforts dirty politics. The senator filed as an independent candidate a day after the loss, running under the new Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

A group whose members describe themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party's banner.

The request could lead to a hearing in which Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000, would have to argue that he still adheres to the party's principles.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Greeby]

1. Ooo, Loserman before a hearing?

I like the sound of that

[Nancy Waterman]

2. They are right

It is a fake political party not a real one, hence he shouldn't be allowed on the ballot.

[Larkspur]

3. The reason he created this sham party was so that he would be

higher up on the ballot. I think he's on line 5. If he was just a petitioning candidate, he'd be on line 8 or 9.

[Skip Intro]

4. Now if it would be televised, that would be big. That would doom

his "candidacy" (much like loosing an election, or so you'd think) once the nets got hold of it. And media would be all over it, I think. Lieberman explains why he's still a Democrat, but running as his own nominee of his own party.

That would be like arguing a dog is a rock.

Of course, he could just say he's no longer a Democrat - state the obvious. I don't know where that would leave this case.

[cascadiance]

5. Isn't there also questions on whether he got enough signatures?

I recall an article saying that many of the petition signatures he filed to qualify for independent candidate status were bad, and some were questioning whether he might even have enough to qualify to get on the ballot if they looked thoroughly at all of them. Then this discussion would be moot.

Anyone hear any more on the progress of that signature validation effort?

[elehhhhna]

54. Google news is our friend! Here:

Bysiewicz said Monday her staff has verified about 4,500 of Lieberman's petition signatures.

While about 20,000 signatures were filed, only 7,500 have to be verified by mid-September to secure Lieberman a spot on the ballot.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4218523

[life_long_dem]

6. He should give all the campaign money he has received to the

Democratic Party. Wishful thinking...

I would be pi$$ed if I contributed to him, thinking that he was running as a Democrat. There are other Democrats that need the money more than him.

K/R

[w4rma]

7. Good tactics. (nt)

[peacetalksforall]

8. What's your platform, Joe. Keep us updated on your contributors on

a daily basis or as often as required. Sooner is better since we have a lot of questions. Can we assume that everything is ethical, so far?

[minnesota_liberal]

25. Everything Joe does is ethical, anything his opponents do is not.

It's really quite simple. I'm just trying to remember where I've heard that sort of logic before...

[Lochloosa]

28. Welcome to DU minnesota_liberal

[Phredicles]

9. Sweeeeet - recommended.

[Placebo]

10. "Connecticut for Lieberman Party"

I still can't get over that. Could this guy's ego be any bigger?

[Tansy_Gold]

26. I'm surprised it's not the other way around

"Lieberman for Connecticut Party" makes sure his name is first and foremost.

I understand putting the state first is alphabetically strategic, but still. . . .

What a disgrace.

[architect359]

31. I thought about that too after reading it a few days ago...

I mean, all you have to understand about the guy is in that so called party name. It really sounds like it is all about Lieberman and unfortunately given what I've seen from his actions, I suspect that is so, imo. A senator is the state's representative not the other way around.

[primavera]

95. Doesn't the egotism just boggle the mind?

What breathtakingly bald arrogance, it's not even just naming a party after himself, but to incorporate into it the absurd claim that the entire state of Connecticut adores him and exists only to support him... it's simply unbelievable.

[Placebo]

99. Indeed!

[Az_lefty]

11. How can he possibly be a Democrat and an Independent?

they should have tossed his ass right away. Letting this linger only makes matters worse.

[Charlie Brown]

12. Lieberman has lost the privilege of being a Democrat

if he wants to run as some quasi-third candidate, he needs to stop using my party's name.

[nedbal]

13. Fodder for RW talking heads, no merit in either of the 2 actions

these are moves we would expect of the repubs

[usregimechange]

14. If he is in the Democratic party still how can he be in another one?

[tuvor]

15. Is it really called the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party"? What an ego!

You'd think he'd consider that he'd garner a few more votes with "Lieberman for Connecticut".

You just can't spell "America" without an "I" or a "me," eh, Joe?

[Richard Steele]

24. Its motto is "Lieberman: Party of One".

[Nutmegger]

16. City asked to un-"Democrat" Lieberman

A day after U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman declared himself a "devoted Democrat" on national TV, peace activists in his hometown of New Haven asked the local registrar of voters (Sharon Ferrucci, pictured) Monday afternoon to strip him of his party affiliation because of his third-party reelection bid against party-endorsed Ned Lamont.

Some two dozen activists, camera crews and reporters squeezed into the narrow entry to the second-floor Registrar of Voters office to present their request to Ferrucci. Ferrucci said she wasn't familiar with the law. In a friendly encounter with the surprise crowd in her office, Ferrucci promised, "I will read it and get back to you" within 48 hours or sooner.

The activists cited Section 9-61 of Chapter 143 of the state statutes in their request. That section allows for a Democrat's party afffiliation to be "stricken or excluded" for two years if he runs for office as a candidate of a different party. To read the section of the statute, click here.

Daniel Tapper, a spokesman for the Secretary of the State's Office, said the decision rests first with the local registrar about whether to begin proceedings to remove a candidate's voting affiliation; then with the local party town committee about whether actually to strip the registration. He said another relevant section of the statute is 9-60. To read that section, click here.

Full article: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/08/cit...

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

17. Just wondering...

... if this is a "rule of law" issue?

[LiviaOlivia]

18. Bravo/Brava Connecticut

Keep up the good fight!

[Ravy]

19. Petty. I bet it costs Lamont votes. (n/t)

[acmavm]

20. Oh bull, its not petty. Its forcing him off the democratic ballot because

hes a republican now. He's being financed and backed by the republicans, he needs to drop the pretense.

I hope that this is a warning to the dems like Landreiu that are supporting his ass.

[Jim Lane]

21. It is petty, and it's not "forcing him off the democratic ballot".

The voters already forced him off the Democratic Party's line on the ballot. He'll be on the ballot as the Connecticut for Lieberman Party candidate regardless of how this skirmish in the registrar's office turns out. So what's the point?

Lamont is trailing Lieberman. His supporters need to be devoting their energy to tasks that will persuade swing voters, or help identify and turn out Lamont voters. Media attention devoted to this sideshow comes at the expense of Lamont's talking points about Iraq, universal health care, etc.

If some people despise Lieberman so intensely that they care whether there's a "D" on his voter registration card, let them take up that issue -- beginning the day after the election. Right now, eyes on the prize, people.

[acmavm]

23. What are you talking about? So screw the party now? Get

your funding from anywhere/anyone and identify yourself with whom you damn well feel? A candidate has to EARN the nomination by winning the primary.

Yes, he'll be on the ballot. But he does not deserve to be on the ballot as a democratic candidate. And if we let him get away with this, it will be a bad precedent. The next guy who loses the primary will be able to do the same thing. Refuse to take his name of the ballot as the party candidate.

[Ravy]

37. You need to read up on the issue a bit more. This is about

his personal party registration, not about where/how he is placed on the ballot. There is also a significant question about appearing on the ballot at all with valid signatures, but this is just aboout how he is personally registered to vote.

He will not be on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

[acmavm]

47. Well BFD. Kick his ass out of the party. He's NOT A DEM.

He is taking republican money. He is running as a dem, maybe not as the dem candidate, but as an INDEPENDENT Dem. We don't have anyone in the party like that. He's either a democrat or no.

He needs to go.

What's wrong with you people? Call it like it is. The guy is a republican. They are financing him, they are supporting him.

[Ravy]

56. He is *not* a republican.

He votes with democrats 90% of the time, on many major issues. He votes with the Republicans on a few major issues.

I don't like him either, but 48% of the CT democrats think he is one of theirs-- they voted for him over Lamont. You gonna kick those people out of the party too? You are just pissing on people Lamont needs to convince to vote for him.

This is precisely a Bush/Republican tactic. "You are with us, or against us." Division. It galvanizes some people, but it turns off many others.

[acmavm]

59. Whatever. Are you his kid or something?

[Ravy]

63. Nope. Just someone with some common sense. (n/t)

[acmavm]

69. So you think. We dems have enough problems with those

who don't mind accomodating traitors and quislings.

[Ravy]

88. We Dems have far greater problems..

.. with criminal bastards in the administration who kill hundereds of thousands of innocents, squander our military might and soldiers, want to take away your social security, care who you sleep with, prevent you from having better and cheaper healthcare, want to strip you of your freedoms, throw away our national prosperity and allies and status in the world, sell our ports to Dubai, raid our treasury for their personal gain, privatize our schools... and a republican congress who supports them in *every single piece* of it.

[Ken Burch]

100. And letting Lieberman get away with this keeps those problems from being

solved. Ever.

If our primary no longer counts, we aren't a party anymore.

[stepnw1f]

82. Common Sense? Check Yourself... (nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Lamont, imho, needs to make this election a "You're either

for Bush (Lieberbush) or you're against Bush". That's the framing that will allow Lamont to win -- tie Lieberbush so tightly to Bush that CT voters will have to endorse Bush in order to vote for Lieberbush.

[rinsd]

61. Noise anf fury signifying nothing....

You were wrong because you decided not to read the article and then you make the other poster's point about pettiness.

Holding a hearing about his personal registration is fucking petty.

It is also politically stupid since you have handed Joe-metum yet another talking point about a crazy left wing jihad against him.

[acmavm]

71. Your in the minority here. I think people like you roll over too

easy. Which makes anything you say and do a non-event.

[rinsd]

72. LOL..

How is saying "going after a person's voting party affiliation is petty" rolling over?

"Which makes anything you say and do a non-event."

Ahhhhh now I understand. You seem to think your opinions are of some importance.

[acmavm]

74. More than your 'do nothing' opinion.

[rinsd]

75. Exactly

"I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. "

"And we're just the guys to do it"

[Jim Lane]

91. "Do nothing"? I was in Connecticut on August 8.

I was handing out Lamont leaflets.

Now, just conceivably, Lamont would've beaten Lieberman even without my assistance, but I was doing what I could.

Trying to reach voters to get them to vote against Lieberman helps get him out of the Senate. Getting into a big wrangle about whether there's a "D" on his voter registration card in the New Haven town clerk's office does not help get him out of the Senate. In fact, as other posters have commented, its overall effect would be help Lieberman.

[saigon68]

102. Sorry

Are you promoting Limpmann's campaign here?

[Ravy]

36. Um.. he isn't on the Democratic Ballot. (n/t)

[Bretttido]

40. Is it as petty as losing the primary, ignoring the results,

then making a party called "{STATE} for {ME}"?

[Ravy]

57. So now both sides are being petty. How's that help Lamont? (n/t)

[Bretttido]

68. I didn't agree that this tactic is "petty"

There's nothing petty about obeying the law. There's also a very important distinction here: Lieberman controls his own actions. Lamont does not control the actions of the anti-war activists.

[Ravy]

76. Talk about a Republican talking point!

I feel sometimes the law is petty, and this is a case.

Enforcement of sodomy seem petty to me. Enforcement of certain "blue" laws about what you can and cannot do on Sunday. It would be petty to be hauled into court for that. Jaywalking when there is no one around except for you and an asshole cop. Getting a ticket for driving .5 mph over the spead limit on a deserted freeway would be considered petty enforcement by some.

Frankly, it suprises me that there could be a state law about who can excluded from being in a particular political party.

From reading DU, it appears to me that many have forgotten that Lieberman had the support of 48% of the people who voted in the Democratic Primary. How long is it before "If you voted for Lieberman, you ain't a real Democrat" makes it to a political forumn? Does this help Lamont?

I live in Florida. I don't care who Connecticut chooses to represent them. It is their choice.

I *do* care if the actions of a vocal few cause what could be a Democratic majority in the Senate to slide back into Reppbulican hands with a Lieberman defection (if it ever comes to that).

And I do know that Lamont does not control the actions of those anti-war activists. I am just saying they aren't doing him any favors by perfoming their own political sideshows. Lamont has the left. He needs the middle.

[TankLV]

79. Great - he got only 48% - so by your "logic" we should ignore the wishes

of 52% who voted AGAINST him?

What entirely repuke logic.

The other guy lost, but let him hold office anyway.

Remind you of ANOTHER repuke?!

[Ravy]

81. No. I think liberals certainly should vote for Lamont. I think

anti-war people all should vote for Lamont.

I don't think a small group of anti-war people of unknown party affilliation should be using some nit-picky obscure law- if it exists- that has nothing to do whether Lieberman runs or not.

What is the goal? Make Lieberman drop out? Make more people understand why Ned is a better candidate? No.

The goal is a bit of high-5 and back-slapping gotcha self-gratification and euphoria over something that potentially could come back and hurt Lamont.

[Bretttido]

85. Huh? A Republican talking point would be IGNORING laws because of terists

Coorelating this with Sodomy laws and driving .5 mpg over the speed limit? You're really reaching there. It's not surprising to me in the slightest that there is a law that excludes someone from a political party for a period of time when they choose to run under A DIFFERENT party. There is nothing "petty" about that. If it makes no sense to you, that's fine; but it makes plenty of sense to myself and others.

[TankLV]

78. Bullshit. It's about time the Democrats got a spine.

"holy" joe is no longer a Democrat - he's running on some other party affiliation AGAINST the Democrat.

It's about time the Democratic Party started acting like a party instead of quizzlings.

The voters of Connecticut - the Democratic voters - have decided that "holy" joe LIE-berman is not welcome in their pary.

[freedomburn]

22. It's not petty. It's entirey justified. Joe doesn't get to have his cake

...and eat it, too. It's ridiculous for him to expect to remain in the Democratic party while running as an independent under a sham, self-created party. What happens if he loses the nomination for that party? j/k

[Strawman]

27. Hope he loses, but if he has enough signatures he should be on the ballot

He's an independent candidate. I support choice in principle, not just when it suits my guy. And he can refer to himself publicly as a Democrat, but in this election he's not the Democratic candidate. Does it suck that he is such a weak Democrat that he chooses not to respect the wishes of his party's voters? Yes. But does he have the right to be on the ballot if he has enough signatures, even though it's a shitty move? Yes. Flame away.

I want to see him beaten in the general election. Let's settle this shit. Or as Joementum's bestus buddy might say: "Bring 'em on." If Lamont beats Lieberman in the general it greatly undermines the argument that liberal Democrats shouldn't be nominated because they can't win a general election. For sure, the fall back argument will be that CT is atypically liberal, but considering what Lamont was and is up against here: beating an incumbent from his own party in the primary and again in a three way general election that, at minimum, neutralizes the political advantages of CT's more liberal leanings.

Just beat this son of a bitch on November 7. Then he has to go away and he can't whine about the party primary being hijacked by a cabal of hard core lefties. Take away what he cherises most: the illusion of his (and his types') superior electability.

[meganmonkey]

29. I agree

It's absurd that he still refers to himself as a Dem, considering he is running against the Dem candidate who won the primary in the general election, so if the party has some way to officially kick him out then they should go for it.

But as far as trying to get him off the ballot, well, if he has enough legitimate signatures and did everything he was supposed to to get on it, then he should damn well be on it. That's democracy

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

32. What part of the law/statute dont you two understand...

...?

"The activists cited Section 9-61 of Chapter 143 of the state statutes in their request. That section allows for a Democrat's party afffiliation to be "stricken or excluded" for two years if he runs for office as a candidate of a different party. To read the section of the statute, click here."

This is written in english. When Joe opened his mouth and claimed to be the "Lieberman Party" candidate, he shot himself between the eyes as to being a democrat.

[Strawman]

34. That's fine. Officially kick him out of the party

and strike his party affiliation for two years. Whatever that means. But I think you'll be hard pressed to stop him from calling himself a Democrat in his public rhetoric and I don't see how that would prevent him from caucusing with the Democrats in the senate if he were to be elected.

But as far as keeping him off the ballot as an Independent candidate, no. I think he has the right to run as an Independent, even though I don't like him.

"John Orman, a Democrat who gave up a challenge to Lieberman last year, argued in complaints filed with the state Monday that the senator should be kept off the Nov. 7 ballot.

Orman, a Fairfield University professor of political science, accused Lieberman of creating "a fake political party" and added: "He's doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot."

That's the part I disagree with. And you can drop the condescending tone.

[Bretttido]

42. I strongly disagree with him being able to run as an independent.

I believe there should be a rule that you cannot continue to run in the general election after losing a primary. If losing a primary means nothing to you, then you should never have taken part in the primary in the first place. Lieberman has shown a HORRIBLE precedent and I just hope he loses so that no one else tries to pull this same trick.

[Strawman]

53. Not defending Lieberman's behavior

Just the principle that if he meets the criteria to be on the ballot as an independent candidate or the candidate for a "fake" political party that is nothing more than a vehicle for an independent candidacy, he still should be able to run in the general election as a non-Democratic candidate.

It is a horrible precedent for the party to allow, I totally agree. He is certainly not being a "team player" or a good Democrat. It's a complete betrayal of the expressed wishes of party members. And I've been going back and forth on the appropriateness and the wisdom of doing things like stripping him of his seniority and prestigious committee assignments. On the one hand, we have caucused with other Independents and given them seniority in return. But on the other hand, I think he should pay a price here. If he wins, call his bluff and see if he still wants to be a Democrat on the party's terms. Strip him of his seniority as a consequence of ignoring the wishes of his party's primary voters. As long as it doesn't cost us the majority, I think the party leadership owes the grassroots that much. If he wants to be a self-identified Democrat in the Senate with no seniority and no prestigious committee assignments, let him. If he wants to sell out again and caucus with the Republicans in return for influence, well then we'll see yet again what a selfish liar he is. All this being said, I think there is almost no chance Reid would punish him this way. It's hard for me to imagine.

But if it's a matter of having to let Joe have those assignments and seniority in exchange for a Democratic majority because he threatens to bolt and caucus with the Republicans otherwise, things become more complicated. I think you have to let him have his bottle in the interest of the greater good. That trumps the need to teach him a lesson.

Getting back to the ballot access issue, I just think if we compromise more inclusive standards for ballot access, which I believe is a core democratic (small d) principle, that's wrong. I completely understand the desire to punish this guy. He deserves it, but I'm enough of a process liberal that I believe it should be done in accordance with the democratic principle that there should be a presumption of allowing people onto the ballot where the voters can decide, within reasonable limits. Revenge is not worth compromise on that principle. People with the required amount of signatures should be able to run. I don't know all the technicalities of CT law enough to say that one couldn't make a prima facie case against his sham party having ballot access. It's just not the way I wanna see this go down. The guy is polling in the 40's in the general election. I'd prefer to let the voters decide, and I think there is a real advantage to having Lamont beat this sore loser in the general election.

[Bretttido]

67. I agree with most of your statements

And yes, it will be that much sweeter to have Lamont beat him in the GE.

[Ravy]

55. *IF* he gets elected, and I hope he doesn't, but *if*...

... then I hope he still caucuses with the Democrats. It may make a difference in the leadership in the Senate.

Poking him about something "trivial" is not helping the Democrats, or Lamont, in my opinion.

And I know, people will get incensed because I say this is a trivial matter, but really, it affects which ballot he can get when he votes in a primary election. In the grand scheme of things, that seems pretty trivial to me. A good many Americans can declare that on the very day of an election-- although CT is a bit more restrictive.

[Strawman]

58. He would caucus with the Democrats

He'd have zero credibility if he officially switched his party affiliation after all his public statements about being a good Democrat who votes with the majority of his party's Senators 90% of the time. Then again, I have to admit that blatant hypocrisy hasn't been much of an obstacle to his ambition thus far.
Incidentially, I'm curious what percentage of the time he votes with the majority of Republican senators since that is not a zero sum figure. Perhaps if he decided to switch parties or caucus with the Republicans as an Independent, he'd start trumpeting that statistic if it were above 50%.

The question is should and would the Democratic Senate leadership make him pay a price in terms of committee assignments and leadership positions. Should they? I say yes as long as it doesn't cost them the majority or any other political price that is too steep. Would they? I don't think so. Even if Harry Reid would be inclined to do so and not say "let move past this, blah blah blah." And even if Reid were so inclined, there is the issue of whether or not he could actually force enough Democratic Senators to go along. It's much harder to demand and enforce orthodoxy out of Senators than it is out of House members. And who knows, Republicans might vote for him to head committees as a political stunt if they were in the minority and all it would take would be a couple stray Dems to go along.

[Ravy]

64. I think it depends on the numbers.

*If* he got elected, and his caucusing with the Democrats threw the leadership of the sentate to the Democrats, and his caucusing with the Republicans held it where it is, I would suspect that he would be in a very powerful barganining position for committe assignments/chairmanship.

As far as him even caucusing with the Democrats, yes, you are correct he would have zero credibility... but Republican's aren't big on credibility and I am sure they would welcome him with open arms to improve their numbers. Petty things like officially kicking him out of the Democratic Party of CT will add ammunition to his position if he ever needs to justify switching party affilliation in the future.

[toopers]

73. I wonder what all these people pulling against Lieberman now . . .

will want him to do when he wins the election? Will you want him to remain an independent and lose a seat, or will you want him to become a democrat again?

[meganmonkey]

46. LOL

What part of my post didn't YOU understand?

"if the party has some way to officially kick him out then they should go for it."

Or do you just like to argue with people who agree with you? Good god...

[Bretttido]

41. Actually, he's not an independent candidate

He is the only candidate in the world able to be elected under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.

[warrens]

30. While I sincerely hope for a Lieberman loss

These are petty and vindictive. I think having Bush and Cheney on his side should be enough to deep-six his campaign. I wonder how many other Repukes are going to lose in Conn. because of suppressed turnout. If I was a Repuke, I doubt I would be motivated to go vote for a Democrat just because my SS leaders told me to.

It's going to be interesting watching this campaign. It has a lot of moving parts. Very unpredictable, although I still think Joe is going to withdraw eventually.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

39. Sadly, there are a lot of stupid people in CT

who watch Faux news and swallow the Booga Booga !! Terra Terra !! BS hook line and sinker. They are fearful and think that LIEberman and the Bush admin can protect them. You have to read the LTTE's from them in the CT papers to appreciate it.

They can't think for themselves. THey heard Bush, Cheney, LIeberman and Chertoff give credit to the NSA spying for stopping the alleged terrorist plot that the Brits uncovered 2 weeks ago. Because those public figures said it, it must be true.

[RCinBrooklyn]

33. They are using the LAW to stop him and Joe is contesting it a la Bush! nt

[The2ndWheel]

35. Alright, this is where we should be headed

No, seriously. Really. Block your opponent from even getting on the ballot. It would make the voting machines obsolete. You wouldn't even think you had a choice.

[Seedersandleechers]

38. I don't see how you can just ignore a statute.

When in doubt go with the written rule. What is so wrong and petty about that.

[Bretttido]

44. Don't you see? Laws are petty, just like those petty wiretapping laws.

[stepnw1f]

43. Good... F*n Mole (nt)

[brentspeak]

45. I might support this if Lieberman is in blatant violation of

Conn. election law. Something major. But if activists are pulling from the hat some obscure bylaw tucked away on page 32, under Sub-Section 2, Paragraph 11, 3rd sentence from the bottom, footnote #14, then that effort to disqualify a candidate is as petty and undemocratic as when Kenny "Don't Worry, Karl - I Guarantee You The Fix Will Be In" Blackwell cited obscure Ohio election law to forfeit voter mail registrations that weighed .001 mg over the allowed limit.

[Dawgs]

48. Lieberman's registration as Democrat questioned

http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=11485

HARTFORD -- Critics asked a New Haven election official to remove Sen. Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party on Monday, a request which could potentially lead to a hearing in which the longtime Democrat would have to argue that he still adheres to the principles of the party.

The group, whose members described themselves as peace activists, said Lieberman cannot belong to the Democrat Party while running for office under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party banner.

"The law is pretty clear he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party in good standing," said group leader Henry Lowendorf of the New Haven Peace Council. "There was an open vote and he was voted out. He joined a different party."

Sharon Ferrucci, the Democratic registrar of voters, said she would research the request, which she said was the first such in her two decades on the job. Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Ferrucci could choose to deny the request.

[AzDar]

49. Excellent. n/t

[brentspeak]

50. dupe

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. Cool. Keep on hammering people :)

I'm so glad that Liverman finally is getting his just desserts, and even more glad that I'm not being accused of anti-semitism because I oppose the nasty turncoat fuckwad.




Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[lovuian]

52. Let Lieberman be honest he's a Republican Bush butt kisser

thats his true color!!!

[cascadiance]

60. John Anderson ran as an "independent" not an "independent Republican"...

Ralph Nader ran with the Green Party or ran on his own, not as "another Green Party candidate" or "another Democrat".

Lieberman should not be allowed to claim to be running as a Democrat now, PERIOD!

If he does, it sets a precedent on how other DLC Dems may run in the future as independents if they get so challenged in a primary. We can't allow that if we're going to retake our party from the DLC and it's corporate sponsors.

[rinsd]

62. Did anyone actually read the article?

This group is seeking to have his personal party affiliation for voting taken away from him

It has nothing to do with the ballot.

On edit: I do see one guy has filed a complaint regarding his new party.

[Larkspur]

66. There are 2 seperate motions...

1) based upon law to remove Lieberman from the Dem Party and
2) Professor Orman's complaint that Lieberman's party is a sham and should be removed from the ballot.

[ronnykmarshall]

65. Nader was not a member of the Green Party.

and was still the Green Candidate for President.

[cascadiance]

70. But he didn't try to call himself "the independent green party candidate"

When the Greens had someone else run for them in 2004, did he? That would be more analagous.

[MikeyJones]

80. How American is that?

I have no problem with removing Mr. Liebermann from the party but come on -- remove him from the fucking ballot? This is America, not the Soviet Union where the state controls who gets to run for office.

[stepnw1f]

83. Lieberman Is Dismissing CT's Democratic Process

By doing so, he sets a very dangerous precedent for that state. There is a REASON we have primaries for elections. The party is telling him not to do this, then he states he is a dedicated Democrat.... I think not. Just another oportunististic politician who got caught milking Bush's tit.

[dolstein]

87. There's a reason, but it has nothing to do with democracy

and everything to do with maintaining the major parties' stranglehold on the system.

[stepnw1f]

89. Says a Lieberman Fan (nt)

[Ken Burch]

101. A Lieberman fan who never tolerated anybody ELSE

challenging the two-party system.

[MikeyJones]

94. re:stranglehold:

"There's a reason, but it has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with maintaining the major parties' stranglehold on the system."

Damn good point. At times I wonder what it would be like if we had a parlimentary system like Canada, all of Europe, and Israel where we had to form coalitions instead of following down 2 narrow lines that both lead to basically the same place.

[MikeyJones]

93. But that still doesn't justify censoring him as an independent.....

let him run without the party and watch him get trounced by Lamont. Let's do it fair and square, if he can't win as an independent then he can't win at all.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

90. It's more American than the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party"

If he does run into any problems it will be due to his creative use (abuse?) of the system and not due to the big party picking on poor little Lieberman.

There are rules to the game and if one is to play one must follow those rules. If you doubt me just ask Tom DeLay. He's just recently learned this valuable lesson also.

[fujiyama]

84. The problem as I see it

isn't that Lieberman shouldn't be on the ballot at all. There is little doubt he has enough signatures to be on the ballot.

The question is, is his party legitimate? I seriously doubt it. He shouldn't be placed among the top of the candidates list on the ballot.

As for the other motion, it's just meaningless. Lieberman's a dick, but he can be affiliated however he wishes. Either way he's not the democratic nominee. He should quite using the term "democratic independant" as its a way to confuse people, but in this sense the word "democratic" could be considered an adjective...and could be just as well describing a "democratic republican".

[RCinBrooklyn]

86. Hit the road Joe and dontcha come back no more no more no more no more.n/t

[cap]

92. this double whammy is forcing Lieberman to declare who he really is

if he is a Democrat, then he has to answer to the party. If he is an independent, then why should he have the potential to hold chairmanships of power committees? This is an attempt to chisel away Democratic voters from Lieberman. If enough Democrats fall away from Lieberman, then Lamont wins.

[screenplaya]

96. Keep Lieberman from the Debates too

[Anakin Skywalker]

97. Please Kick His Ass

out of the party. Loserman is THE BIGGEST DINO ever.

Edited to add: OK. Maybe not. I forgot about Zell from Hell there for a minute. Some Southern Dinos might be worse.

[goforit]

98. Hmmm, great point! A person should not be allowed to run under one

party and then be allowed to run again under another!!!

Kinda of like having citizenship to Israel and the US at the same time!

[Master of Disaster]

103. They can push all they want, but they will not be able to deny

Connecticut voters one of their choices.