What Joe Lieberman is doing is hurting other candidates...

[madfloridian]

not just in Connecticut but everywhere. He is especially making it harder for the other races in CT right now.

He is doing it to make a point, and listen well. He is saying to us who want to support someone other than the incumbent...that we will not prevail. Not even if we win the primary.

Lamont is the winner. He is the one with the righteousness on his side.

What Joe is doing, with the support of many of the "centrist" bloggers is shameful. He is telling us he will show us, he will get support from the other side. He is telling us it does not matter if we win a primary, that the primary doesn't count anymore.

There is a drive on covertly by many state chairs to discourage primaries. I know, I have talked to some of them. They flat out say it, then they say they didn't say it...then when confronted they say only discourage "some" primaries.

The senate leaders and others are afraid of Joe. They are afraid they might not be nice enough to him, and he won't caucus with them. Insight magazine had a article (yes I know is is right wing)...and it said Rove had influenced Mehlman to sent much money to Joe. Sort of a deal, the article says. That he would help them keep the votes on national security to 50/50 and Cheney could break the tie.

I watched some of the videos up today about the rally. The Democrats of CT are so proud of having great candidates running as Democrats. I watched Dean rallying them, I watched the others speak...and I thought to myself that it is in effect their own party that is screwing them.

This is going to happen again. One other candidate who was being threatened with a primary opponent who could have won...said he would run as an independent. Joe has started something that others may finish.

The ones who can stop this are the party leaders who are being timid.

I feel for CT Democrats. They are truly the winners. They have the right on their side, and they must be very frustated by the lack of the congressional leadership just saying no to Joe.

Even if Joe wins the general, he is still the loser...and so are all of us.

[madfloridian]

1. We need to remember the Dems who are actively supporting him.

Democratic Congressional leaders may be keeping their distance from Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) since he opted to seek re-election as an Independent, but a group of more than 50 former Senators, House Members and Clinton administration officials will proudly announce the creation of "Dems for Joe" today...

"Other founding members include former Sens. David Boren (Okla.), Bob Kerrey (Neb.), John Breaux (La.) and Dennis DeConcini (Ariz.); former Reps. Mel Levine (Calif.) and Leon Panetta (Calif.), who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton; former Clinton Agriculture Secretary and former Rep. Mike Espy (Miss.); and former Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey.

"They join a much smaller group of incumbent Democratic Senators who have endorsed Lieberman in the general election. Sens. Tom Carper (Del.), Ken Salazar (Colo), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) all have decided to stick by Lieberman."

Tammy Sun, Joe's spokesperson, put it best,

"Although we no longer have a party apparatus to count on, we're glad to know that Joe Lieberman can still count on good people who believe, as he does, that the best way forward is not by demonizing each other but by working together to find common solutions to common problems"

Harold Ford is not mentioned, but he has announced he is supporting him,

If you know of anyone else post it.

Joe Magic

[wyldwolf]

3. Hey! Don't forget civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis!

[Ken Burch]

23. Lewis isn't supporting Lieberman against Lamont NOW, fool....

Supporting the incumbent in the primary isn't the same thing as supporting a defeated Democratic incumbent as a right-wing independent AGAINST the Democratic nominee?

Why is it the people are still acting like the primary didn't count or something?

[wyldwolf]

28. fool? Why the personal attack? Are you're wrong to boot!

But U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia, said Lieberman has his support no matter what happens in the primary. Lewis was in Hartford Monday with Lieberman and U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., discussing faith-based initiatives to fight youth violence.

"I stick with my friends," Lewis said. "He's going to win. You heard it from John Lewis. He's going to win."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/10/lieberman_campaign_files_forms_to_run_as_petitioning_candidate/

[madfloridian]

29. The fact you seem proud of them really does surprise me.

Many of us here have been accused by some of not caring about the party. Well, now it appears we care more than many of the centrist Democrats who claim to be so much better than the average everyday common Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

30. do you have anything relevant to add to this exchange?

You said you wanted to remember Democrats who support Lieberman. I just gave you one. Is there a reason to exclude him from this list?

Divert, spin, and pout all you want. John Lewis said he'd support Lieberman no matter what happened in the primary.

LOL! I'll check back in in the morning and see how far you've taken this away from the original point.

[madfloridian]

32. Oh, so you missed my post I just made...here you go.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

I thought you saw it. Sorry about that. I did find them. But that does add one more.

[wyldwolf]

35. so go edit it and add his name to it

[Ken Burch]

33. THAT ARTICLE IS FROM JULY! It doesn't mean Lewis backs Joe NOW!

Lewis was endorsing an incumbent and assuming the incumbent would win the primary.


And why are you defending Democrats for Lieberman(which is really no morally different from Democrats for Nixon)when you yourself said, and I praised you at the time for saying,
that Democrats should come together for Lamont after the primary?

[wyldwolf]

34. He said, "no matter what happens in the primary."

Right? And since when is pointing out a fact "defending" someone?

face it. Lewis is a man of his word. There is no indication he has gone back on his word.

So, just out of curiosity, how long is someone's word good for? If they make a statment three months ago, does it expire in 90 days? LOL!

[Ken Burch]

36. If not defending, you were at least gloating

What the hell else does"Divert, spin, and pout all you want. John Lewis said he'd support Lieberman no matter what happened in the primary" mean?

Why are you now becoming an apologist for those who are betraying the party by supporting Lieberman even though he lost the primary?

You said at the time that Dems should back Lamont if he won. Why are you backpedaling now?

(BTW, ok, I shouldn't have said "fool", but invoking Lewis with a misleading article from before the primary was inflammatory). Lewis is not opposing Ned Lamont NOW. Lewis would never be that contemptous of internal party democracy.

[wyldwolf]

43. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

What the hell else does"Divert, spin, and pout all you want. John Lewis said he'd support Lieberman no matter what happened in the primary" mean?

"Divert" means to change the subject, which Madfloridian did with her first entry into our exchange. "Spin" is what you tried to do by claiming that a three month old article's facts must have a shelf life. "Pout" is childing name calling. "John Lewis said he'd support Lieberman no matter what happened in the primary" means... well.. do I really have to explain that one to you? It is pretty self explanatory.

Why are you now becoming an apologist for those who are betraying the party by supporting Lieberman even though he lost the primary?

I'm not. How is adding to a list of Dems supporting Lieberman equate to becoming an apologist? Madfloridian is the one who solicited input, and I gave it.

You said at the time that Dems should back Lamont if he won. Why are you backpedaling now

Do you live in a fantasy world? Again, Madfloridian is the one who solicited input, and I gave it.

but invoking Lewis with a misleading article from before the primary was inflammatory). Lewis is not opposing Ned Lamont NOW. Lewis would never be that contemptous of internal party democracy.

How is the article misleading? Lewis and Lieberman go way back. Lewis's words do not have the caveats you want to attach to them. He said he supports Lieberman no matter what. That is pretty definitive.

You're just having a problem accepting John Lewis supporting Lieberman.

[ChiciB1]

104. I've Never Responded To Any Of Your Posts, But Each Time I

check out your posts you are always so confrontational. I'm NOT going to get into any type of fight with you but I HAVE noticed this pattern you have. For the most part I just read the stuff, but is it possible that you understand that you seem a tad obstinate to others??

Personally I don't want to discuss issues with you because of this. I'm just making my own observation here having seen quite a few "flame wars" you've gotten into. I would like to ask just one question though. Are you a Democrat or do you align yourself more as an Independent, Libertarian or maybe a Green? Please remember I'm just asking, I'm NOT going to go tit for tat with you because as I said you seem very angry most of the time.

I myself am angry and depressed about many things going on politically, but most of my anger has been developed these past 6 years and because I've been an activist for a very long time. I'm a Boomer and recall when "activism" meant getting active!

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

148. amazing that somone who pushes two factually inaccurate points

... would still even bother to respond to threads I'm in.

Its further amazing that, in a call to list Dems that support Lieberman, pointing out such a Dem could elicit such an incredible amount of spin and denial and subject changing.

So, once again,

1. Show me where Clinton said he was a "Rockefeller Republican."
2. Show me proof the DLC and PNAC share an address.

Both have been you contention.

[wyldwolf]

149. I think the issue is, and if you honest you'll go back and read the threads...

...is I don't back down from personal attacks.

I don't allow people to make unsubstantiated claims.

I don't participate in the "progressive" echo chamber where one inconvenient fact introduced sends people into a tizzy.

Let's take this thread for example:

Look at post #3. All I said was "Hey! Don't forget civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis!"

For that, in post #23, I was called a fool.

In post 28, I didn't respond with my own personal attack - which I could have. I did ask him why he attacked me, and then showed him, with a source, why I was right and he was wrong.

From there, the thread melts into an array of spinning, justification, and denial.

Let's be honest here. I have never personally attacked anyone unless I was attacked by that person first.

Many on DU despise the DLC and centrists and they do react to posts made by such Democrats. As is the case here. As is the case always.

[Pirate Smile]

61. Do you want Joe to win, wyldwolf?

[madfloridian]

62. Not a good idea to say such as that.

I said something similar to someone else and the post is gone. Just some advice to keep the peace.

:hi:

[Pirate Smile]

63. OK, I was just curious because it would surprise me if WW actually did.

I don't want to add any gasoline to the flames already going (although just asking the question may have done that :shrug: ).

I can't really even watch Joe anymore. In a way, he upsets me more then the Republicans do. He has entered the Zell zone with me and I really don't have a problem with centrist Democrats (Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Harold Ford, etc. - IMO Joe is far beyond that now).

:hi:

edit to add - reading through wyldwolf's earlier posts (which I should have done more thoroughly the first time) it looks like the issue was about "remembering" the Dems still supporting Joe and not necessarily supporting Joe himself. That makes sense to me.

[madfloridian]

65. Good post.

Wasn't being critical of you at all. Check pm

[bahrbearian]

37. Joe must have some compromising Video.

[RiverStone]

123. Tammy Sun...what a hypocrite!

Joe's spokesperson, Tammy Sun says: "...the best way forward is not by demonizing each other but by working together to find common solutions to common problems."

Ummmmmmmmm. Lets see, Joe is running against the legally and morally selected Democratic primary nominee. He quit his OWN TEAM to run against us. And Tammy says lets work together????:wtf: Like I said, what a hypocrite!

[no_hypocrisy]

2. OTOH, if . . . if Joe wins, but there is a democratic majority in either

or both Houses, but particularly the Senate, he is rendered irrelevant. He won't be a player as he won't be approached for his support for drafting or voting for a bill. And if he in disappointment and retribution turns around and campaigns AGAINST the efforts of the democratic majority, then he is political toast. A political pariah, not wanted by either party.

It's up to the rest of the country to vote accordingly and the burden is not necessarily on the state of Connecticut.

[CTLawGuy]

4. agreed

if Lieberman gets away with this, our party could be ripped to shreds.

The lesson,
1. If you don't like who we pick, don't vote third party - that will just ensure Republicans win.
2. Don't primary the candidate you don't like, because we'll tolerate them running anyway.
3. Just shut up and vote for who we tell you*



*doesn't apply if you are a southern conservative. They can vote their conscience whenever they want.


What's to stop liberals from going third party now? the primary system is the only thing that keeps this party unified, it gives the base the opportunity to influence who is chosen. If that is not respected, there is little incentive to stay in the party - as opposed to voting your conscience.

[KitSileya]

8. That is a very good point.

If the Democratic leadership supports candidates other than those who won the primary, what use is the primary? It makes it very clear that the leaders of the party do not care what the members say at all. The grassroots, the everyday members of the Democratic Party become irrelevant, except as cash cows.

[sandyd921]

77. Yep, a slap in the face at the grassroots.

But then the DLC wing of the party would like nothing better than to push down grassroots Dems who by and large are progressives who want to move the party away from republican-lite corporatist positions and strategies.

[KitSileya]

93. I'm pretty anti-Lieberman, I admit that,

but more than that, I believe that those who claim that if he wins, the Dems still win, are unutterably wrong, wrong, wrong. If Lieberman wins, he'll have the Democrats over a barrel, and just his behavior of the past 3 months, to say none of the past 3-6 years, should tell them that he has no loyalty whatsoever left for the Democratic party. The DLC is cutting off their nose to spite their face, to put it bluntly. They may be trying to teach the grassroots a lesson, and to safeguard their precious corporate donors, but there will come a time - I must believe there will come a time - when even the placid, sheep-like Americans will say enough is enough. They will see that Lieberman is no better than the Republicans - that he in some measures are worse, because he is a traitor - and they will remember that the DLC put Lieberman above the ordinary members of the party, and they will get rid of them all.

It is imperative that in addition to grassroots support of canditates etc that ordinary progressive Americans start taking over the party, inch by inch, and taking over the country, inch by inch - from dogcatcher on upwards.

[mmonk]

5. He is running against the DEMOCRATIC party choice in

the race as determined by the votes of DEMOCRATIC voters. Ignore senate members supporting their own because the democratic voting public determined who is their choice for the DEMOCRATIC party (unless you want a few elected officials ignoring the wishes of democratic voters).

[madfloridian]

6. DailyKos: CT-SEN: Lieberman Funded by "White House Donor Network"

Very thorough diary. Detailed. The diarist refers to a Hartford Courant article based on in-depth research at the FEC.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/21/1031/5664

"Lieberman's 1,877-page campaign finance report, made public by the Federal Election Commission this week, shows that while he relied on a lot of familiar Democratic names to help him collect $5.1 million since beginning his general election campaign Aug. 9 as an independent, he also got significant help from the White House donor network.... Among the post-primary contributors to the Connecticut senator, running as an independent for a fourth term, was Joseph Allbaugh, one of the four members of Bush's tight inner circle during his 2000 presidential campaign, and two Republican Senate committee chairmen.

Also giving was Melvin Sembler, former ambassador to Italy and longtime friend of the Bush family, former assistant Republican Senate Leader Don Nickles, and dozens of others from Texas, Missouri, Colorado and other states where Lieberman usually does not find contributors....

From Texas came typically Republican donors like Allbaugh, Bush's 2000 national campaign manager and now an Austin-based business and homeland security consultant; Benjamin Warren, chief executive officer of ITC Trading Company; Leo Fields, a Dallas investment adviser; Alex Thomas, a San Antonio investor; and Robert Marbut, a San Antonio television executive.

From Florida, there was Sembler and his wife, Betty; Lake Worth builder Bruce Toll; St. Petersburg college executive Carl Kuttler; and Weston attorney Teddy Klinghoffer."


Please do not misunderstand me. I am in no way critical of CT Democrats. They are the true winners here, no matter who "wins.

[Zhade]

99. Check out my sigline for more on that scumbag Sembler.

He's much, much worse than just a b*s* friend and appointee!

[bemildred]

7. The peasants must be driven back to their hovels,

and learn their place in the scheme of things.

[Totally Committed]

9. Outstanding post...

K & R!

Well said!

TC

[Zhade]

98. lieberman official states intent to DEFY ELECTION LAW.

lieberman spokesperson refusing to release records as required by election laws

(Cross-posted from the discussion about Lamont filing an FEC complaint about lieberman's 'missing' 387 grand.)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/23/above-the-law/

Even though Lieberman mouthpiece Tammy Sun claimed that today the campaign would produce the ledger it is required by federal election law to keep detailing petty cash expenditures that would account for the questionable $387,000, she just announced that they wouldn't be doing so — so one can presume that either a) they couldn't find it, b) it doesn't exist or c) it contains information that could prove damaging to Joe.

And from the second link in that piece:

The Lieberman campaign said it was in full compliance with the law and said, bluntly, it would release the journal when Mr. Lamont releases the joint tax returns he filed with his wife. (And each campaign has an online petition calling for the other side to do as requested.)

1) He's not in compliance with the law; the ledger MUST be released, BY LAW.

2) The matter of this money and Lamont's tax returns are legally unconnected - lieberman is required to release the ledger's contents independent of whether or not Lamont releases the tax return information.

(Posted this here so skimmers will see it, since they may not make it to the bottom.)

[madfloridian]

10. Joe actually said he did not expect attacks from Republicans.

Here you go...he said it. Deals, Joe?

"Lieberman unintentionally disclosed another thing he believes: that the fix is in and that he doesn't have to worry about Republican opposition. He actually said it! He said he wasn't expecting an attack from the Republican side! Remember, he got a phone call from Karl Rove right after the primary. From that day until this, his campaign has been oozing Republican gravy. He gets their money, and he gets their tactical support. The only thing they have not been able to do for Joe Lieberman is find the "off" switch on Alan Schlesinger."
More:
Not expecting attacks from Republicans.

[Totally Committed]

11. The Republicans would be crazy to attack Joe....

He carries their message so well for them, and into the "enemy" camp. Joe needs to get his disloyal, disingenuous a** kicked to the curb on November 7, and no one will be happier f that happens than I will be!

TC

[trof]

12. Maybe I'm obtuse. I just don't get it.

I don't get the poll support for Lieberman in CT and I don't understand why Dem big-wigs are backing him against the Dem nominee.

Anybody?

[madfloridian]

13. Iraq is one reason. A big one.

Iraq is the reason and will be the reason for a lot of change to come in the party.

[trof]

14. OK. 'Splain me, Lucy.

The entrenched Dems are afraid to disown their votes to allow Bush** to invade Iraq?
Or appear that maybe they screwed up.
I'm sorry. I feel so dumb about this.

[madfloridian]

18. It is the beginning of the change in the party.

And it is not going to go down easy. It is just that some think they are entitled to an office.

[Greeby]

15. It's simple

If Ned wins the General, it sends the message that other Senate Dems can be successfully replaced. Particularly if they go along with Shrubco

[trof]

16. If they go along with shrubco, then good riddance.

[Greeby]

17. My sentiments exactly

Thats why these Dem incumbents are supporting Senator Droopy. Because they feel threatened by what Ned represents, particularly for when they next face a primary

[KittyWampus]

26. What Dem "big-wigs" are back Lieberman as Dem nominee?

[madfloridian]

27. Here are the details...not good.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

There should be no excusing this.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. Because most people in CT don't get their news from dKos. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

101. I'd ask the same thing

but being from California and seeing as how Arnie is up by a gazillian points all I can say to CT progressives is: You have my sympathy.

[madfloridian]

19. Does Joe have petty cash problems?...post from Kos.

From Tim Tagaris at Daily Kos, who works for Lamont's campaign.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/21/16929/570

CT-Sen HQ: Joe Lieberman's "Petty Cash" Slush Fund

"But now Joe's got a new problem, a "petty cash" problem. I don't know what he bought with nearly $400,000 in petty cash, but it sure purchased increased cynicism in the political process."

Kind of involved, so read it all.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. Many states have sore loser rules

That state someone who lost in the primary cannot run in the general election. It might even be most of the states, but I'm not sure of the percentage.

I expect this result, if Lieberman wins, will lead many more states to examine that rule, particularly states with Democratic majorities in the state legislature and Democratic governors. Everyone is going to be ticked.

In almost every similar situation the primary loser would be rejected in greater margin by the general election voters, and the other side will have a viable nominee who would win in a 3-way split, obvious to everyone involved. I don't think we have to worry about a rash of occurences.

[Blue_Tires]

39. agreed

[ShortnFiery]

21. When right wing republicans hold "Holy Joe" up as a role model

for democrats, I know Loserman is poison to our party. I live in Right Wing Central and I wish I had a nickel every time some winger mentioned how more democrats should be like the honorable (:wtf:) Joseph Lieberman. It makes me wretch. :(

They like him because he's submissive to authority - and on the CRITICAL issues Loserman votes with the republicans, i.e., habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps.

Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller are equally beautiful (inside - hearts of darkness) as well as WHORES for this Administration. :thumbsdown:

He really thinks that ol' Bush will name him Defense Secretary and/or McCain will ask him to run on his ticket. :eyes:

[Catchawave]

22. My fear about Lieberman's "Party".....

Will the Presidential Primaries be just as stupid. I mean, we can have 18 different parties just in the Dem field alone?

What Lieberman has done, told the Democratic Party to go Cheney themselves. Sad.

[IndianaGreen]

24. When you get someone like Harold Ford to endorse Lieberman

and there are no consequences to Ford for doing so, how can you hold a party together?

For years we have heard the DLC pukes beat the "loyalty" drums, when they were the ones being disloyal. I remember the McGovern campaign when just about every politico in the country turned his back on him. They preferred Nixon to win rather than have McGovern reformers make the Democratic Party more democratic by opening the process.

Democrats are not alone having to deal with an appeaser wing. You will find the same problem among socialist parties here and abroad.

Even the Greens in Germany! When they were offered a share of power, the ruling faction quickly capitulated their principles just to get a piece of the action. So long opposition to war!

[sampsonblk]

25. Its called you have no party...

if candidates feel free to endorse the party's opponents when it suits their own short-term interests.

[tnlefty]

31. I don't like what Ford did, but I truly think that in the long run you

would hate to have Corker in the senate. I've already told many people that I will use LIEberman as THE example of why party loyalty no longer matters. (I'll include Ford later post election). There are many locals to deal with, but that is post election.

Also, the next time that you see a post that 'liberals' don't do anything for the party just note: for Thurs. and Fri. of last week I've been picking people up to take them to the polls to vote. I was at my local hdqtrs. today to write up logs on who needs to be called or picked up for Mon. and Tues. of next week. I'll be making a lot of those calls and going to pick people up to take them to vote. I've put up signs, handed out buttons. etc.

I'll be at my local hdqtrs. everyday until early voting ends on Nov. 2nd and I'll do what needs to be done from the 2nd until the 7th.

But, this is the last time for me, and LIEberman and others taught me that it's okay.

[Hippo_Tron]

136. Ford's endorsement doesn't mean shit in Connecticut

He's doing it because he thinks it will get him a few more votes in Tennesee. Personally I think that the best way to get more votes in Tennesee would be to say "I don't really give a shit about what's going on in Connecticut, I'm focused on Tennesee" but hey, what do I know?

The party is solidly behind Lamont. The problem is that Lieberman has built a coalition with Republicans, which is what I think a lot of us were saying he would do if he lost the primary, but at the same time hoping he wouldn't do it.

[madfloridian]

38. More Dems for Joe...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

Just realized I posted this post before I posted the Dems for Joe post, with all the huge numbers of Democrats supporting Joe.

[gully]

40. One thing Lieberman has done is prove Nader dead wrong on his

assertion that reaching out to the middle doesn't work. And, on the other hand, he's become Ralph Nader - a spoiler for actual progress.

[cascadiance]

41. If Dems want to support a true and friendly indy, support Bernie Sanders!

Not JoeBlow!

Bernie's run truly as an independent all the time he's been in the house, and has done far more to promote the progressive causes that Democrats should care about than JoeBlow Lieberman has or ever will. Those that try to promote Lieberman as someone that Dems should support outside the party should be challenged for their support of Bernie Sanders as well. If they don't, they completely expose themselves for the corporatist shills that they and Joeblowmentum are!

[Pirate Smile]

95. The Democrats are supporting Bernie Sanders.

"Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, immediately endorsed Sanders; Schumer's backing was critical, as it means that any Democrat running against Sanders cannot expect to receive any significant financial backing from the national level. Sanders has also been endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who voted with House Democrats. Senator Barack Obama has campaigned for Sanders in Vermont. Sanders did not seek the Democratic primary nomination; however, his name was on the ballot and he won it by a fair margin."

[xchrom]

42. well said!

[LoZoccolo]

44. What Joe Lieberman is doing is unlikely to be stopped at this point.

If people had spent more time in the the last few months discussing how they can convince Connecticut voters that Lamont is a better candidate for them than Lieberman, rather than swimming in their outrage at something they can't change, there might have been some progress. As it stands, the disingenuous portrait of Lieberman as a Republican may have actually helped him get Republican votes. The things people have been doing to oust Lieberman will probably not get them what they want.

[Bonobo]

45. So it's our fault he's taking Repuke money and votes!! Ha ha! Hilarious!

[LoZoccolo]

46. "Fault" isn't a word that really enters this discussion.

"Responsibility" is a related, but different, concept.

[madfloridian]

49. Yes, Joe wreaks of "responsibility" right now.

He is hurting his own party when it needs him on board, he is attacking the Democratic candidate in the race.

[LoZoccolo]

51. So?

How will complaining about that put him out of office? Has it worked the past two months? Do you see my point about getting what you want?

[madfloridian]

54. Lamont is having to run against Cliinton's former cabinet and advisors.

most likely pressured by the huge huge horde of elite Democrats still supporting Joe for him to give party leadership a change to dissuade Joe from running.

Nearly all the Clintonian Dems are still backing Joe. Right up front, out in the open. They are raising money for him, supporting him.

Looky:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

I mean he is having to run against establishment Democrats.

The DLC is leading the way in opposing Lamont and supporting Joe, read it.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Don't change the subject.

Which do you think is more effective at getting people to vote for Lamont:

A: Giving them reasons to vote for Lamont.
B: Complaining about Lieberman's party disloyalty.

[madfloridian]

48. No, Lieberman is getting Republican support....Don't blame CT voters.

because he is acting like one a lot of the time now.

He is attacking the Democrat who won the primary. And he is being enabled here at DU by people who blame the voters.

This is tiring.

Big name big money Dems for Joe

[LoZoccolo]

50. What?

I don't understand how you cannot hole the voters responsible for a candidate winning. Even more puzzling is the argument about Lieberman being enabled by people who acknowledge that voters vote for candidates and the candidate with the most votes wins. I supposed the part about it getting "tiring" is supposed to dissuade me from asking you to explain, but since there are no real consequences to it, I think I'll ask you how that all works.

[madfloridian]

52. Lamont most likely being pressured by congressional leaders...

don't hurt our chances of having Joe caucus with us. I hear rumor he stood off on campaigning vigorously to give leadership a chance to convince Joe not to run against him. In other words Joe has the party by the balls, and he thinks he is the winner...as do many of his minions.

[LoZoccolo]

53. I heard a rumor that Lieberman was going to run as a Republican...

...spread by a blogger in support of Lamont who took a staffer's reluctance to immediately answer a question so ridiculous that they weren't even given a response to give people to it as a "yes". Which is why bloggers will never be considered journalists, no matter how effective they are at spreading rumors.

[madfloridian]

56. Lieberman has the Democratic establishment behind him.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

Bottom line. They are supporting Joe as he also gets huge support from Republicans. It is all about Joe.

Joe Joe Joe.

[LoZoccolo]

57. So?

What are you going to do about it?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

59. That is a lie and you know it. n/t

[madfloridian]

60. Hamsher at FDL does a good job of explaining the petty cash deal

http://www.firedoglake.com/category/lieberman/

"Maybe someone can tell me how nearly $400,000 in unitemized petty cash expenses can be explained as anything but good, old-fashioned dirty machine politics. I can't think of a business that can get away with that kind of fast and loose accounting, unless you want to count Heritage Foundation interns losing billions of dollars on behalf of Joe's permanent war in Iraq.

The explanations given by the Lieberman campaign as to where this money went are laughable — they claim that all that slush fund cash was used to pay for salaries, food, lodging and transport of LieberYouth during the campaign. But all of those expenses were itemized in the FEC report (PDF). "

And a reminder about the CT Dems for Joe and the names.

CT Dems for Joe

And the national Dems for Joe

National Dems for Joe

Lamont is having to fight his own party.

[madfloridian]

More on the petty cash problem...

http://www.firedoglake.com/category/lieberman/

Where's the journal. This may or not go anywhere, but it does need some checking.

[madfloridian]

74. Duplicate post...sorry.

.

[BootinUp]

64. centrist bloggers?

Do they have a secret "Centrist underground" somewhere?

[madfloridian]

66. As a matter of fact...

never mind.

Not about to say anything on that.

[Daylin Byak]

71. I'm a centrist blogger

I'm conservative cause of my views on social issues. I'm againist gun control, againist gay marriage(but againist a admendment banning it) but I am pro-choice although I believe it should be safe, rare but legal. With the exception of abortion i'm a typical Western Pennsylvania Democrat.

Besides that i'm fairly liberal and I support liberal Democrats like Ned Lamont.

[BootinUp]

73. The OP was talking about people blogging

for Joe, not a common sense person like yourself. ;)

I was curious because I haven't seen any blogging for Joe. Course I don't hang out at rw blogs either.

[Daylin Byak]

75. Oh then if being a centrist means supporting Lieberman

Then i'm as liberal is they come.

[madfloridian]

76. Ok, I admit it.

I put parenthesis around that word in the OP. I guess I should not have as many people do not know what I am talking about. There are some who are supporting Joe. Bull Moose is one, but there are others. I am not going to put a link because it gets traffic.

I was being a little pointed, should not have done it. I am just fed up with people making the Democrats in CT sound like they should feel guilty for voting for Lamont. That is just so wrong.

CT chapter of Dems for Joe
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/458

National chapter of Dems for Joe
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

[wyldwolf]

87. heh! She's talking about MY blog.

Even though I don't support Lieberman as the candidate in CT, I also don't support the netroots targeting Democrats they feel aren't pure enough and I'm not shy about saying it. Of course, "some" don't see that distinction.

[wyldwolf]

88. she's reffering to my blog

Even though I don't support Lieberman as the candidate in CT because he lost the primary, I also don't support the netroots targeting Democrats they feel aren't pure enough and I'm not shy about saying it. Of course, "some" don't see that distinction.

[fuzzyball]

67. I don't understand all the "hate Joe" here...since Joe has been liberal

in almost all his voting record EXCEPT war on terrorism. Joe wants
the "proactive" stance on terrorism, not the "reactive" stance preferred
by most dem leaders.

And if Joe Lieberman wins on Nov 7th, it proves beyond any shadow of doubt
that CT voters prefer proactive stance on terror coupled with other liberal
causes.

[madfloridian]

68. Who hates Joe? What he is doing will hurt the party.

Did you read my post at all?

I don't hate Joe, that is not the point. No one hates anyone.

I don't know how else to explain it, really. But I guess you could look at it this way. It is not Joe, it is what he is doing.

I tried to explain in other terms before.
Pary loyalty works both ways

[fuzzyball]

78. I was not singling you out MadF, just the preponderance of anti-Joe

posts I have seen at DU. Peace.

[madfloridian]

80. I still don't think most are anti-Joe...they don't like what he is doing.

He is doing harm to the party.

[Pirate Smile]

69. Most people here feel rather strongly about the Bush Administration

foreign policy - especially Iraq - and hearing Bush, Rove, Cheney talking points come out of the mouth of a Democrat has been too much to take AND most people here think the "proactive stance on terror" that Lieberman, Bush and Cheney have promoted has made us LESS safe - that it is counterproductive to the interests of fighting terror and protecting the US.

[fuzzyball]

79. Only time will tell which is better...proactive or reactive policy

All I am saying is IF Joe wins on Nove 7th, it proves
majority of CT voters side with Joe's policy.

[madfloridian]

83. Then CT is not a blue state as has been stated.

They are supposedly intelligent voters, and they know Joe is getting Republican support. Most have probably heard of the "deal" about keeping the senate close to 50 50 on security so Cheney can be the tie breaker.

I have seen that at many sources now. I expect it is true. GOP big money does not come with obligations.

[LoZoccolo]

89. OH NO. I can't be reading this.

Does this mean that every time people want to vote someone in in the primary and there's no indication in polls that they'll win the general, that the excuse for turning a blue congressional seat (even a 90%-agreeing-with-the-Democrats-against-Republicans one) into a red one is going to be that it wasn't a blue state anyways? Is this the new excuse for letting stuff get torn up by Republicans?

Things are going to get worse.

[BootinUp]

86. Question

Has Joe ever even described his Iraq War support as "proactive" vs "reactive". That sounds like Republican talking points to me, straight from Karl Rove.

[Zhade]

116. Agreed. I asked for clarification.

We'll see, eh?

[Zhade]

115. What you do mean by "proactive", exactly?

If you mean the way we attacked Iraq, when it had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that sure wasn't "proactive" - it was preventative, against a threat that didn't exist, and was an illegal action.

[Daylin Byak]

70. We hate Joe

Cause of his pro-iraq stands and his close ties to the Chimpy Administration. We also don't like him cause he lost the primary and bring a sore loser about it. Not to mention he has been getting help from Karl Rove and Ken Mhelman of the RNC.

You see why?

[fuzzyball]

81. and I respect your right to "hate" Joe

and you will disregard years and years of Joe's votes
in senate and house for progressive/liberal causes, right?

[madfloridian]

84. Joe should not be excused for what he has done.

He is constantly attacking the party's candidate...his own party candidate.

And too many here excuse that.

[BootinUp]

72. I think greatest strategic blunder

is a better description than "proactive".

[fuzzyball]

82. and yet majority of CT voters may think different;ly...we will find out

on November 8th early morning.

[BootinUp]

85. I don't agree with your read

of what the vote means anyways.

[ChiciB1]

107. I Don't HATE Joe... I Just Think He's Full Of Himself & By Running

against a Primary winner shows off his arrogance and how self-important he thinks he is. He seems to feel that he is the only one competent enough to be the Senator from CT and he'll do almost anything to maintain his seat.

It's just not kosher Joe!! I've begun to refer to him as Prune Face myself, but that's just me being snide. What he has done just doesn't seem very Democratic to me, in a BIG D way.

[Zhade]

114. Uh, yeah. Try educating yourself about "Short Ride" lieberman.

It isn't just his support for an illegal war - which of course has DICK to do with terrorism, since Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

[trotsky]

152. Not to sidetrack here, but...

how is the Bush/Lieberman stance "proactive" in the first place?

Iraq didn't plan, fund, or even provide ANY of the hijackers on 9/11.

A "proactive" plan would be fighting the biggest source of money, people, and motivation for terrorism - Saudi Arabia. But Bush didn't do that - he chose to invade a weak country with no defenses and no WMDs, while the other two members of his "Axis of Evil" either do or are very close to having nuclear weapons. What a crock!

Also, if Lieberman does win, I don't think it could be said that it means CT voters approve of the Iraq war, which appears to be what you're getting at.

[Q]

90. The primaries haven't mattered...

...since the DLC 'took control' of the Democratic party during the 80s and 90s. From Clinton to Gore to Kerry...all have been influenced by the 'New Democrat' ideology...which is a mixture of trickle-down economics and perpetual war.

You can't discount the fact that Lieberman has been in leadership of the DLC for a very long time. In retrospect...it appears the DLCers would rather lose a race rather than have a liberal or progressive win over a NeoDem. Lieberman losing and becoming an independent is part of a plan to reject the primary process and still maintain power within the party he rejected time after time.

[madfloridian]

91. The Florida state party chair person...

has urged de-emphasizing primaries. Not publicly said, but to the state people.

No primary, no choice. Just decisions made in smoke-filled rooms.

[LoZoccolo]

94. How can anyone take control of the Democratic Party?

That's my first question. I have many more, but I'm curious how anyone takes control of a body that has primary elections without the consent of the primary voters.

In the interest of full disclosure: I don't think you'll have an answer because anti-DLCers tend to be loathe to understand or act on the political process, or take responsibility for what they want done.

[Q]

96. The same way the Neocons took control of the GOP...

...or haven't you been paying attention? No one in the GOP will admit that a small cabal of rich men control their party...but they know it's true just the same. The DLC controls the Democratic party with corporate cash...which they use to promote DLCers and smear Liberals and Progressives. Lieberman is a perfect example of how it's done. The RWing press either adores him or leaves him alone because of his corporate/DLC connections.

[LoZoccolo]

100. Still, the neocons have to at least promise to do something...

...for certain blocks of voters outside of that cabal in order to get the votes to control anything, like certain religious right positions or the perception that tax cuts will benefit them. You are claiming that that happened in the Democratic Party. What did the DLC offer the voters in exchange for their power?

[madfloridian]

92. Lamont to file FEC complaint about slush fund.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Lamont_campaign_to_file_formal_FEC_1023.html

The Ned Lamont campaign is planning to file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission over Connectictut Senator Joe Lieberman's alleged "slush fund," according to a press release obtained by RAW STORY.

"After President Richard Nixon abused campaign finance law through his Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), laws were passed to force candidates to disclose how they spend campaign funds," the press release states. "But over the weekend, it became clear Senator Joe Lieberman may be ignoring those laws, as the Senator’s FEC reports uncovered $387,000 "petty cash" slush fund that could be called the Committee to Reelect Lieberman (CREEL)."

"During the 14 days around the August 8th primary, Lieberman’s campaign spent over $387,000 on un-itemized, un-identified, and un-disclosed disbursements," the press release continues. "By contrast, Ned Lamont’s campaign spent just $500 on petty cash in the entire reporting period."

The Lamont campaign asks the following questions: "What was this spent on? Who was it spent on? And why weren’t the expenses itemized, as the FEC requires?"

[wordpix2]

110. Lamont is requesting co-signatures to letter of complaint. See my post 109

Two weeks to go, PLEASE HELP NED! HE IS A GOOD, TRUTH-TELLING MAN WITH A GREAT HEART. He is AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ & the BUSH ADMIN. I've met Ned a few times and he is gracious, warm, sincerely concerned about America and inclusive in every sense.

PLEASE CO-SIGN THE LETTER!

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/s/fecletter

[Hippo_Tron]

97. The problem is that Lieberman has the support of the White House...

And basically the entire CT GOP. If this were a genuine 3 way race, Lamont would be in the lead. But Lieberman has been able to form a coalition using Republicans as well as his long time supporters who want to see him sent back to the senate for various reasons (pork, known commodity, etc).

I think that we had much higher hopes during the primary because we thought that Schlesinger would actually be polling at about 20% instead of 4%.

Coalitions are often a very effective way to build a base of support when your party is no longer solidly behind you. Ray Nagin did it here in New Orleans. He built a coalition of black voters and rich white Republicans. He appealed to the black voters by saying that he represented their interests more than Landrieu because he had the same skin color as them. He appealed to Republicans by promising to promote business interests and playing on their fears that a Landrieu win would elevate Landrieu to a position from which he could launch a very effective campaign for Governor or Senator. The coalition worked and now we're stuck with the dipshit for another four years.

[Clarkie1]

102. The Party leaders CANNOT stop this. Only CT voters can.

It's unfortunate that Lamont has been such an ineffective nominee. He's not getting the job done by bring others besides one contigent of the Democratic Party over to his side.

[madfloridian]

105. Did you see how many party "leaders" are for Joe?

So that does not bother you at all? Lamont wins the primary and major Clinton Dems support Joe.

Here are the CT Dems for Joe
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/458

Here are the national Dems for Joe
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/451

This is NOT ok. They are raising money for Joe and supporting him.

You may justify that, but I can't.

Joe is WRONG.

[Clarkie1]

121. I'm not justifying that, I'm saying Joe seems to be the people's choice.

Do I agree with that choice? No.

[madfloridian]

124. What a crock...Joe should not have run. He lost.

Yes, the Clintonian Dems, the Republicans do seem to prefer him....which is very very very telling.

It is telling that you seem to be defending him.

Very telling.

[Clarkie1]

134. We don't disagree on anything here.

What is a crock is the implication in your post which has no basis in either reality or what I posted. It would appear, from recent polls, that on election day Lieberman is likely to be the people's choice. That's not a defense of Lieberman's action's, nor it is an opinion. It is a fact. The fact that my posting of a fact would lead you to make such ungrounded implied accusations is, well, very telling. Do you have a grudge against me, Clark, or both? Clark has been campaigning with and fundraising for Lamont by the way, in case you didn't know.

I hope Lamont wins, but at this point it seems unlikely. And frankly, from a strategic point of view I think our resources would be better directed elsewhere at this point where they might make a bigger difference in the composition of the 07' senate. Certainly, Lamont is not suffering from lack of funding; he has spent millions on his own behalf and is to be commended for that. Unfortunately, money in this race doesn't seem to making an impact.

[madfloridian]

138. What made you think I thought Joe would lose? I don't.

I think Joe will win, but he won't have won. Do I need to explain that?

I just wondered why so many are here making it sound ok that Joe is doing this?

He is the one forcing Lamont to defend himself, and yet Lamont WON.

It is incredible how this thread has turned into a critique of me and my motives.

[Clarkie1]

140. I'm trying to understand you here....

Lamont won the primary, not the general election. Lieberman is forcing Lamont to defend himself because he is running against Lamont. We may not like what Lieberman is doing, but if more voters prefer him to Lamont than Lieberman will be the one elected...and, that's the way it should be. The good of any political party is secondary to the will of the people.

Liberman is hurting the Democratic Party. Well, perhaps so, but the will of the people of CT trumps what's best for the ANY Party (last time I checked, much as I adore my Democratic Party, there is no mention of the two party system in the good 'ol U.S. Constitution), and if the Democratic Party doesn't like what he is doing then we could kick him out...but then we really would have no chance for a senate majority, would we?

What do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

[madfloridian]

141. You want to know my purpose of this thread?

Did you read the OP? I fear this will be a pattern, and I thought I explained myself pretty well.

You seem not to be upset by what he is doing. So be it.

I expressed what many fear, that the ones still supporting him in the Dem establishment are showing it has nothing to do with party...and everything to do with Joe.

I don't think I will explain anymore. If you don't understand it now, you never will.

[Clarkie1]

144. I reread the OP.....how do you think party leaders can "stop this?"

Party leaders can certainly come out more strongly in support of Lamont...all of them who haven't already, but I'm not certain that would change enough voters minds given the apparently widening margin.

[Zhade]

146. I think it's a warning for future situations like the one in CT.

You know, where lieberman used accumulated Democratic funds to run against the Democrstic nominee?

I think mf is saying "look out, this will set a precedent of ignoring the primary results".

I also think she's dead-on.

[Imagevision]

103. Liebermann is independant, what part of that don't you get?

[madfloridian]

106. Are you supporting Lieberman?

Just a question.

[madfloridian]

108. I wish someone would count the justifications for Joementum...

in this thread. You would think it never mattered at all that a Democrat was chosen in the primary.

Many of the attacks are on me for posting the truth about how he will harm the party.

This is a Democratic forum two weeks before the election, and I am being fussed at for saying Joe is wrong.

That is just amazing to me.

[wordpix2]

109. Lamont complains to Fed Elections Comm re: Joe's $387K "petty cash" disbursements

See my post at this forum re:

Please read and sign the letter to the FEC to help our Dem candidate in CT, NED LAMONT, THE CITIZEN-CANDIDATE!!!!

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/s/fecletter

October 23, 2006


Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20463

RE: Formal Complaint Regarding Friends of Joe Lieberman
(Committee ID: C00235515)

Dear General Counsel:

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint regarding the apparent violation of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102.11, by the Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually. As set forth more fully below, the Lieberman committee has failed to account for more than $387,000.00 in supposed petty cash expenditures in violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11. On behalf of the citizens of Connecticut and all federal taxpayers, it is hereby alleged:


Title 11 C.F.R. §102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)) (Petty Cash Fund) provides:

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.


The Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually have violated the clear and unambiguous terms of 11 C.F.R. §102.11 in at least the following three ways.

First, according to the FEC October Quarterly report filed on October 13, 2006, the Lieberman campaign has petty cash disbursements amounting to $387,561.00, which is roughly 8 percent of its total disbursements, or one out of every twelve dollars spent. On several occasions, petty cash disbursements greater than $100 were reported, as supposed payment for “volunteers.” A summary of these disbursements from the Friends of Joe Lieberman report is attached hereto. These disbursements reflect patent violations of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Second, the report does not include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. Again, Friends of Joe Lieberman stands in clear violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, the Associated Press reported earlier today that Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun claims the cash was supposedly used pay to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing (Andrew Miga, Lamont Questions Lieberman's Spending, October 23, 2006). There is no evidence that the Lieberman committee kept and maintained a written journal of any kind regarding these disbursements as required by 11 C.F.R. §102.11. As I am sure you are aware, the rationale for this regulation is to, among other things, prevent the creation and utilization of slush funds for illicit purposes. The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our state’s history. The Lieberman campaign’s patent disregard for this regulation calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials.

I would appreciate you contacting me to confirm receipt of this complaint.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this pressing matter.

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas Swan
300 Research Parkway, Suite 102
Meriden, CT 06450

[madfloridian]

111. Do you have to be in CT to sign it?

I love Tom Swan BTW

[wordpix2]

112. no, you don't. This is the FEDERAL Elections Comm. If you read the letter,

you will see that Joe's people (Repukes?) did not keep track of their $387K disbursements, which are to be disbursed only in $100 increments by federal law. Every person receiving the $100 petty cash limit must have his name recorded including contact information.

Well, Joe apparently does not have all the names, for a total of $387K disbursed.
Read the letter, it's all there.

Ned Lamont is not backing down in the face of Lieberbush pressure and money! Please read and sign!

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/s/fecletter

[wordpix2]

113. letter refers to use of the $387K "petty cash" fund as a "SLUSH FUND"

:wow: :applause:

[Zhade]

117. Signed!

lieberman must be politically destroyed.

[wordpix2]

118. Lamont had some good zingers at debate tonight, complete with Joe hecklers

Lamont (not word for word but pretty close): :applause:

"Bad Choices in the War on Terror" with wars in ME instead of "protecting our ports."

"As a telecommunications executive, we can connect the dots to find Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. But if we're to err, we should err on the side of our liberties."

On negative campaigning: Ned would like to "get away from all the 30-second spots---let's go all over the state and debate....I've heard the people from this state and they are worried about their parents getting old and about their kids... and education....they don't want a government that waits 18 years.."

"Lieberman said he wouldn't serve more than three terms."

"We need the 250 million that's spent on the Iraq War spent for homeland security."

Schelsingambler tried to scare us, talking about standing in the middle of a nuclear crater. :scared:

[Zhade]

119. I don't like this buying into the "war on terror" shit, but overall, not bad!

Now, what else can we do to ensure lieberman's questionable spending is addressed?

I'm not letting this sink.

[wordpix2]

120. thank you!@ All we can do as bloggers is CO-SIGN THE LETTER to the FEC!

Email Address Zip Code

HOME BLOG ABOUT NED MEDIA NEWS ISSUES EVENTS GET INVOLVED CONTRIBUTE CONTACT
Co-sign the FEC Letter
Demand that Joe Lieberman Divulge How He Spent $387,000 in "Petty Cash"

Joe Lieberman’s FEC filings list over $387,000 in unexplained expenditures – listed only as "petty cash" – during just 12 days near the August 8th primary. These suspect, and unaccounted for payments, represent one out of every twelve dollars spent during the entire reporting period.

The Lamont campaign is filing the following FEC complaint against Friends of Joe Lieberman, charging violations of campaign finance laws due to the creation of a nearly $400,000 slush fund.

Read and then co-sign the letter below:

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/s/fecletter :wow: :applause:

October 23, 2006


Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20463

RE: Formal Complaint Regarding Friends of Joe Lieberman
(Committee ID: C00235515)

Dear General Counsel:

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint regarding the apparent violation of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102.11, by the Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually. As set forth more fully below, the Lieberman committee has failed to account for more than $387,000.00 in supposed petty cash expenditures in violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11. On behalf of the citizens of Connecticut and all federal taxpayers, it is hereby alleged:


Title 11 C.F.R. §102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)) (Petty Cash Fund) provides:

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.


The Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually have violated the clear and unambiguous terms of 11 C.F.R. §102.11 in at least the following three ways.

First, according to the FEC October Quarterly report filed on October 13, 2006, the Lieberman campaign has petty cash disbursements amounting to $387,561.00, which is roughly 8 percent of its total disbursements, or one out of every twelve dollars spent. On several occasions, petty cash disbursements greater than $100 were reported, as supposed payment for “volunteers.” A summary of these disbursements from the Friends of Joe Lieberman report is attached hereto. These disbursements reflect patent violations of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Second, the report does not include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. Again, Friends of Joe Lieberman stands in clear violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, the Associated Press reported earlier today that Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun claims the cash was supposedly used pay to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing (Andrew Miga, Lamont Questions Lieberman's Spending, October 23, 2006). There is no evidence that the Lieberman committee kept and maintained a written journal of any kind regarding these disbursements as required by 11 C.F.R. §102.11. As I am sure you are aware, the rationale for this regulation is to, among other things, prevent the creation and utilization of slush funds for illicit purposes. The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our state’s history. The Lieberman campaign’s patent disregard for this regulation calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials.

I would appreciate you contacting me to confirm receipt of this complaint.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this pressing matter.

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas Swan
300 Research Parkway, Suite 102
Meriden, CT 06450

[Zhade]

122. I did that, and contacted the Center for Public Integrity...

...regarding Lamont's FEC filing.

[wordpix2]

127. thanks again

[madfloridian]

125. Why are about half in this thread defending Joe?

I don't understand. Please explain.

[RiverStone]

126. Ummmmmm. There is no defense....

For any Democrat under the illusion that voting for Joe is voting for a Dem. He quit his OWN TEAM to run against us. Sorry Madfloridian, there is no defense for the indefensible. Maybe they are Repuke spies or Lieberman operatives???

[LoZoccolo]

128. That would have to do with your deluded definition of "defending Joe".

For example, I was simply making the point that hammering on Joe for circumventing the Democratic primary does not make one lick of difference to the outcome of the election. Everyone who is offended by it is already voting for Lamont, and everyone who doesn't care has had over two months to start caring and yet hasn't. It's an observation, not an endorsement of anyone.

Lamont's supporters, at least on here, really haven't come forth with any reason for someone who likes Lieberman (which would not include me, if you need it spelled out like that) to like Lamont better. They've called him a Republican (which has the effect of getting Republican votes for Lieberman enough so that they would vote for a 90% Democrat now) and bemoaned his lack of party loyalty (nobody voting for him cares about that; they knew he was not loyal to the party the day after the primary), but presented scant reason for someone to change their mind.

What I have given is constructive criticism of Lamont's campaign. Take it or leave it. If you want to improve a primary challenge to a popular incumbent, you might want to take the advice. If not, OK, whatever, I can't make you.

[madfloridian]

129. Joe screwed up, and I am deluded?

See, that is what I am talking about. Too many just don't see how this is so damaging to the Democratic party.

So now not only are the CT Dems put on the defense by some in this thread for voting Lamont in, but I am deluded.

[LoZoccolo]

130. You keep changing the subject.

You will gain more and more credibility as you use less and less manipulative tactics with fellow Democrats.

For the record: I said your definition was deluded.

Also, promoting the candidacy of Joe Lieberman is against the rules, and any such promotions can be deleted by the moderators. You claim half of the people in this thread are defending Joe, yet the only message in this entire thread that's been deleted is yours.

[madfloridian]

131. I wonder why that was?

I noticed that and cautioned others not to say anything.

Most here are not promoting him, but "defending" him.

Yes, I noticed my post was deleted, but I did not think you were supposed to speak of deleted posts.

Now how would people have known if you had not told them?

Joe is wrong. He is hurting the party, yet some continue to tell me I have no credibility and get upset with me.

Amazing.

[LoZoccolo]

132. I'm curious as to what you mean by "defending". n/t

[LoZoccolo]

133. Psssst.

He is hurting the party, yet some continue to tell me I have no credibility and get upset with me.

Setting up a false dichotomy is another manipulative tactic.

As well as setting up a strawman (I did not say you had no credibility).

You will be believed when you argue honestly.

[madfloridian]

137. I will back off before...

you have to again refer to a deleted post. That was not fair, it is just not done.

You may go ahead and do what you are doing here. Set me up as not being credible. I am so used to it, it is quite common. But funny thing, I still seem to be credible.

You should not have done that.

[LoZoccolo]

143. No one can destroy your credibility but you. n/t

[madfloridian]

139. Amazing. Joe is running against his own party....

and I am being put on the defensive. I am still trying to figure how that works.

[nolabels]

142. The trick is to have no party, then you and Joe can go mono on mono

Thanks for stating the obvious. The tactic is to clobber you enough with propaganda from corporate media so the owners of corporate media get what they want from you. And after all, they are able to do it to US Senators and (most)presidents so why should you be any different :shrug:

[tkmorris]

145. That is the tactic being used to deflect your criticism

Those who are engaging in it are doing so deliberately and with the intent to weaken your argument by making you defend yourself. It is a technique that has it's place, but here it is just disingenuous.

For example, in your original OP your argument said nothing about the topic "How Lamont Can Run a Better Campaign", and yet you will notice that several attempts have been made to divert the discussion to that very thing. That is unrelated to your point that Lieberman is causing damage to the Democratic Party as a whole, but it is certainly an easier argument for some people to make than to attempt to defend Lieberman's actions and motivations.

Stick to your points. Don't let them deflect the argument if it can be helped. And NEVER let them frustrate you enough to silence you. The want you to shut up, or blow up. Do neither. You have more allies than you know.

Tim

[Zhade]

147. Excellent read of the shady tactics of some DLCers here.

I agree: ignore the irrelevant demands to defend something you never said, mf. They're a waste of time.

[wyldwolf]

150. hey Zhade, got those links yet?

[LoZoccolo]

151. Fine, complain about Joe all you want.

I'm sure he'll forget his double-digit lead to assuage some anonymous people on a message board who didn't like him to begin with. I'm sure that's a great way to spend your time two weeks before election day. I'm sure there are people out there who don't know that Joe circumvented the primary process either, and still need to be told. You should never stop complaining when there's a definite productive point to the complaints. I'm not worried about how people approach things here, because people on Internet message boards are also those mostly likely to produce compelling rhetoric, and can be relied on for action and not just words.