Op-Ed: Lieberman's Third Party an Election Year Sham

[femmedem]

From Hartford Courant, by John Orman:

snip

I wish to file an official, notarized complaint about the new candidacy of Mr. Joseph Lieberman. I ask that the secretary of the state and the Elections Enforcement Commission remove Mr. Joseph Lieberman from the November ballot for U.S. Senate because he has undermined the integrity of our Connecticut electoral process by his action of creating a fake political party,

Mr. Lieberman may have violated Section 9-368c "Misrepresentation of Contents of a Petition." He claimed to the secretary of the state's office that he wanted to start a new political party called "Connecticut for Lieberman" within 12 hours after losing a Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. He has absolutely no intent of forming a legitimate third party. He keeps calling himself a "petitioning Democrat" when he knows that state law prohibits the use of the name Republican or Democrat in the name of third parties. He continues to publicly state that he is a registered Democrat and that he would align himself with the Democrats if he would win in November. He is trying to undermine our state laws about the creation of legitimate third parties by forming this fraudulent association. He has no party rules. He nominated, seconded and accepted his own nomination. He has no third party platform so his association cannot be about any new ideas. He is just trying to contest and challenge the results of a fair election on Aug. 8, 2006, on the grounds that he lost. He is unfairly trying to run twice for the same U.S. Senate seat within three months. This cannot be tolerated in Connecticut electoral politics.

snip

more at www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-orman0824.artaug24,0,456706.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

[Lerkfish]

1. brilliant. K&nominated

[bahrbearian]

2. Wouldn't that be Icing on the Liarman.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. Speaking of shams - what's the scoop on the hacking?

When we last left that episode the Lieberman camp was accusing Lamont of being behind it with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
This is one of the latest articles I could find. I do believe that the final consensus was that the site had in fact been hacked ( I know there was lots of stuff being posted about it really being a case of technical incompetence on the part of Lieberman's techies, which no doubt played a part)

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ap-lieberman-website-0811,0,5243106.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state
Federal, State Investigations Launched Into Web Site Hacking
August 11, 2006
Associated Press With federal and state investigations under way into the crash of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign Web site, the embattled three-term incumbent says his efforts to reach out nationally for political donations are being hindered.

"But of course that's the world we live in, that anybody anywhere in the world, if able to, can hack into another site anywhere else in the world," he said while visiting Waterbury on Thursday

(Comment - that's a little different from 3 days before, when on election day they were directly naming Lamont and his campaign as being involved)

skip

Geary said the campaign is moving the site to another server and working on increasing security. He could not say when the site might be back online.

skip
Geary acknowledged that he has no idea who hacked into the site.

Contrast that story to this one

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/

Tuesday's attack was the third in the past month, said Dan Geary, who runs Lieberman's site. But the earlier two attacks involved defacements — the hacker altered content on Lieberman's home page. This time, attackers toppled the Lieberman site with requests, probably by directing an army of hacked computers at the site.

skip


Early in the day, Lieberman's campaign manager accused Lamont's office of orchestrating the cyberattack. Lamont quickly and emphatically denied any involvement.

skip
"It could be a teen-ager in a dorm room in one of 30 countries," he said. Geary wasn't ready to accuse Lamont supporters for the attack, but he did say it was probably politically motivated.


skip
"Is it some guy in Lamont headquarters? No," he said. "But was it an overzealous supporter? Maybe."

My summary: The Lieberman site was hacked, but it had been attacked previously - more than enough warning for Lieberman and his guys to be pro-active and security conscious. They tried to milk the hack for all it was worth and directly smeared the Lamont campaign without a shred of proof whatsoever - note Geary's comment about it could be a teenager in one of thirty countries.

I am waiting to hear the results of the investigation. I am also waiting for the apology from Lieberman to Lamont.

[Canuckistanian]

10. What a terrible MSNBC story

The writer assumes that whenever a website goes down, it's because of "hackers".

"We got an insane amount of queries", said Geary.

Gee, the website of a candidate of the most hotly contested political race since 2004 got a lot of requests the day before the election? I'm shocked, shocked, I say.

And 70 websites on a server is not unusual? Uh, it is if one of them the main campaign site for a State Senate Primary race.

And you're absolutely right - the minor hacks they suffered earlier should have been a big red flashing light.

What a farce.

[Tom Joad]

11. Yes, this is a big lie that Lieberman made against Lamont.

I think the election day lie showed lieberman at his worst, implying lamont official campaign downed the website. No acknowledgement that this was a website bought on the cheap... or that it election day on that many folks in the USA and beyond were very interested in (so even if a few hundred thousand out of the US population of 300 million went to lieberman's site, that by itself may have downed the site). I am sure from the beginning it was not a victim of hacking..

[patricia92243]

4. Just because something is notorized doesn't mean anything. Is this person

or anybody else in CT actually taking Joe to court. Sounds like they sure ought to.

[IndianaGreen]

5. K&R

Judas Lieberman is a sham, a Rove mole.

[BootinUp]

6. seems like a valid argument.

How come Joe didn't have to align with a real political party?

[Benhurst]

7. Enthusiastically recommended: #13.

Joe :spank: mentum

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Scout1071]

8. I'll see those recommend's and raise a kick! nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. K & R

[Tom Joad]

12. I oppose Lieberman, but i think he should remain on the ballot

I think Olman brings up valid points. However, i think the people of Conn should be able to decide this, not it arbitrarily decided by their sec of state. Overall i believe that people should have access to ballot, if they have reasonable support, and like it or not, Lieberman does have a base of support.

I think Lieberman should be on the ballot. I hope he is defeated. Let Lieberman run and let him be defeated as he attempts to defend the wars that he supports so stridently. It shouldn't be all that difficult for Lamont and his supporters to do. I think the victory will be even sweeter. Lieberman defeated twice in one year. Might be a long time before he runs for anything again.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

13. Why should he remain on the ballot if he indeed has violated

our election laws ?

[Tom Joad]

14. I do think Olman (and you) bring up valid points. But i think overall

if there is no clear ruling that he has violated the law. I mean, if there is a court ruling that he did, based on the law and a court's determination, then of course he should be off the ballot.

Olman says he certainly has violated the spirit of the law, but i don't think that is enough to take him off the ballot. He is also a sore loser. again, that should not keep him off the ballot. (it certainly should be said, loud and clear, to the voters of Conn, however).

I also say this because i think independents should have access to the ballot, and there should not be just for the Democrats and Republicans. That's democracy.

Still, it seems like Lieberman is trying to have it both ways, and says he is a democrat will running against the Democratic nominee, while forming a fake party.

In any case, reactivated, we have faith in folks like you that on the ballot or not, Lieberman will not win in November.

Go Conn.!

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Independents do have access to the ballot.

But Lieberman's actions do not conform with what would actually constitute being a legitimate independent.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

19. If nothing else, Orman's quest will give more

publicity to Joe's duplicity !

The attempt to get the Registrar of Voters to remove Joe from the Democratic voters roll in New Haven has failed. How he presents himself on the ballot and in his campaign messages is another matter.

[struggle4progress]

15. A sham? Isn't Katherine Harris running in Florida on the ..

Connecticut for Lieberman ticket?

[formercia]

16. But!!, it wasn't supposed to happen like this.

God has a wicked sense of humor sometimes.:evilgrin:

[progressoid]

17. Umm, this will go nowhere fast.

This Orman is a professor of politics? Sheesh, that's a little scary.

I'm not defending Lieberman but this LTTE or "official, notarized complaint" or whatever is a mess. I thought he might have an actual legal argument but mostly it's mostly filled with whining and crying. Try again Orman.

[yurbud]

20. actually, that made sense apart from the "official notarized" part

At the very least, he shouldn't be allowed to have his name anywhere near the word Democrat since he lost the Democratic primary.