More intolerance from the Democrats

[Crookshanks]

Connecticut Groups Push to Remove Lieberman From Ballot
Associated Press
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A06


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.

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

Ferrucci said she would research the request, the first of its kind in her two decades on the job.

Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown branded the effort "dirty political tricks at its worst."

"This kind of ridiculous, partisan game-playing is not going to provide anyone in Connecticut with better jobs, better health care or better schools," she said.

Since losing the primary, Lieberman has referred to himself as an "independent Democrat" and said he plans to remain part of the Democratic caucus in Washington, even though several leading Democrats have called for him to give up his independent run.

Lieberman, popular among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, led Lamont by 12 percentage points in a recent statewide poll, with Republican Alan Schlesinger far behind.

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."

=======================
They are so afraid of Lieberman that they are trying to keep him off the ballot. In a country where just about anyone can get on a ballot (green party, communist party, etc.), these "lovely" people are seeking to keep a legitimate candidate from running!

With all this hatred being spewed his way by the democRATS, I'm not sure why Lieberman would want to remain in that party.

[Ocotillo]

With all this hatred being spewed his way by the democRATS, I'm not sure why Lieberman would want to remain in that party.

Then as the Governor of the state of Texas would say......"adios mofo."

The Democrats had a primary. Lieberman despite all the advantages of incumbency lost. Classless as it is, he is free to run as an independent in the general election. Don't expect Democrats to stand idly by while this Republican supported "independent" runs and siphons money from Democrats that could be used in other races.

Lieberman remaining on the ballot is detrimental to the Dems and they are right to fight him every step of the way.

The party didn't throw Lieberman out, he walked away by:

1. Supporting the debacle in Iraq since Day 1.
2. Supporting the president's efforts to privatize social security
3. Supporting the bankruptcy bill.
4. Supporting federal intervention in the Terry Shaivo case.
5. Criticizing Bill Clinton from the Senate floor while remaining silent about George W. Bush.
6. Being a tool for the right wing noise machine by going on Fox, Sean Hannity, etc... and being critical of Dems and all cuddly with Republicans.

Lieberman claims to be a Democrat but his has left the party to run as an independent and is an impediment to the Democrats regaining control of the House and maybe even the Senate.

Joe Lieberman is out of step with his former party and they rejected him in favor of Ned Lamont. I don't blame the Dems a bit.....

[101A]

Then as the Governor of the state of Texas would say......"adios mofo."

The Democrats had a primary. Lieberman despite all the advantages of incumbency lost. Classless as it is, he is free to run as an independent in the general election. Don't expect Democrats to stand idly by while this Republican supported "independent" runs and siphons money from Democrats that could be used in other races.

Lieberman remaining on the ballot is detrimental to the Dems and they are right to fight him every step of the way.

The party didn't throw Lieberman out, he walked away by:

1. Supporting the debacle in Iraq since Day 1.
2. Supporting the president's efforts to privatize social security
3. Supporting the bankruptcy bill.
4. Supporting federal intervention in the Terry Shaivo case.
5. Criticizing Bill Clinton from the Senate floor while remaining silent about George W. Bush.
6. Being a tool for the right wing noise machine by going on Fox, Sean Hannity, etc... and being critical of Dems and all cuddly with Republicans.

Lieberman claims to be a Democrat but his has left the party to run as an independent and is an impediment to the Democrats regaining control of the House and maybe even the Senate.

Joe Lieberman is out of step with his former party and they rejected him in favor of Ned Lamont. I don't blame the Dems a bit.....


Apparently his positions are more popular than Lamont's in Connecticut; just not with the Democrats in Connecticut. Lamont seems left of the state; Leiberman seems the more appropriate choice to properly reflect the attitudes of ALL of the constituents.

[Extra Stout]

Democrats are complete freaking idiots.

You people have this opportunity just sitting there to regain one or both houses of Congress. There will be several close races. Money, time, and resources are finite.

And yet, the biggest campaign issue right now is which of two liberals will win the Connecticut Senate race. Whether Liebermann or Lamont wins, that seat is going to vote for Harry Reid as majority leader.

That's what's getting all the attention, money, emotion, everything.

You've got a situation now where Republicans are sympathetic to a guy with a 75 NARAL rating. In most cases that would be a remarkable display of political judo, but here it's because they're scared to death of foaming-at-the-mouth moonbats gaining any traction in the Democratic Party. It's a case where fear for the country is trumping partisanship.

It's hard to imagine a party with activists so mind-bogglingly stupid that the first thing they think to do given the opportunities presented them is to go on a cannibalistic ideological purge. Howard Dean must sit at his desk screaming YEEEAAARRRGGGHHH when he thinks about how these foolish, self-destructive twits are undermining his work to organize and unify the party.

So, we Republicans I guess will thank you when your own moronic inability to grasp the big picture keeps Congress in GOP hands following an election "scare."

[101A]

...Howard Dean must sit at his desk screaming YEEEAAARRRGGGHHH when he thinks about how these foolish, self-destructive twits are undermining his work to organize and unify the party.



Howard Dean IS a foolish, self-destructive twit!

[Ocotillo]

Whether Liebermann or Lamont wins, that seat is going to vote for Harry Reid as majority leader.



I don't believe Lieberman will vote for Harry Reid as majority leader. Should he win, and he is the favorite, I bet he switches parties to the GOP.

[2centsworth]

I don't believe Lieberman will vote for Harry Reid as majority leader. Should he win, and he is the favorite, I bet he switches parties to the GOP.
You just proved ES' point. Even Lieberman is too right wing for you guys. No wonder you guys compare Bush to Hitler.

It makes no freakin sense.

[Extra Stout]

I don't believe Lieberman will vote for Harry Reid as majority leader. Should he win, and he is the favorite, I bet he switches parties to the GOP.
You might want to take another look at that belief, whether it is grounded in reason, or in spite.

Joe Liebermann votes like 90% of the time with the Democrats. His record is to the left of Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama in the 109th Congress.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I bet if we went back and looked folks like Ocotillo were all too happy to criticize Republicans in this state over the DeLay ballot situation, but now the shoe is on the other foot and Lieberman lost and should take it like a man :rolleyes

[2centsworth]

I bet if we went back and looked folks like Ocotillo were all too happy to criticize Republicans in this state over the DeLay ballot situation, but now the shoe is on the other foot and Lieberman lost and should take it like a man :rolleyes
not quite accurate. Lieberman is running as an Independent while Delay "retired".

[IceColdBrewski]

He's either with us, or against us! Throw him out!

[Ocotillo]

You might want to take another look at that belief, whether it is grounded in reason, or in spite.

Joe Liebermann votes like 90% of the time with the Democrats. His record is to the left of Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama in the 109th Congress.

I understand Lieberman is liberal or at least more liberal than most Republicans on a lot of the issues. In fact, if you look at the records and what they candidates are saying, other than the War in Iraq, Lieberman is more liberal than Lamont.

My reasons for believing Joe will switch parties after November if he wins as an Independent.

1) Lieberman's campaign manager said Lieberman will vote for Harry Reid, but Lieberman has not said that.

2) I believe this race will turn more bitter than it is and that will tick Lieberman off.

3) Republican's will make up the lions share of his money, vote and help in GOTV and he will be indebted to them.

4) Being liberal on some issues does not preclude you from being in the Republican party, especially in the Northeast see Chafee, Lincoln, Snowe, Olympia or Collins, Susan.

5) If per chance Rumsfeld were to "retire" after the election, Lieberman could be appointed and the Republican Governor or CT will appoint the replacement. Any odds on what party that person will be a member of?

[Crookshanks]

Being liberal on some issues does not preclude you from being in the Republican party, especially in the Northeast see Chafee, Lincoln, Snowe, Olympia or Collins, Susan.

That's exactly my point! The republican party allows people who are more liberal, but the Democrats have no room for anyone unless they COMPLETELY tow the party line. Prime example - Zell Miller.

[Ocotillo]

That's exactly my point! The republican party allows people who are more liberal, but the Democrats have no room for anyone unless they COMPLETELY tow the party line. Prime example - Zell Miller.

Wrong, see Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Mark Prior of Arkansas, Henry Cuellar of Texas.

Actually Harry Reid is a pro-life Democrat and they elected him Minority leader of the Senate. Wes Clark, Mark Warner and Evan Bayh are all planning to run for president.

Regarding Zell Miller, think about how the Republican party and most of it's members would treat say, Chuck Hagel if he spoke at the Democratic Convention and was as inflammatory as Miller was at the '04 Republican convention.

Both parties have people that don't "tow the line" but there are lines you don't cross.

Some examples:

Speaking at the other parties convention and smearing your party's nominee for president.

Going to Fox News, Sean Hannity's Radio Show or Glenn Beck's radio program and parroting right wing talking points and criticizing your own party.

You can vote for the Iraq war, most Senate Dems did.

You can be pro-life, some Dems are.

You can vote for pro-corporate legislation like the bankruptcy bill or CAFTA, some Dems did.

You can join the "gang of 14", some Dems did.

the Democratic party does not have a problem with people within their party that don't always follow the party line.

Most Democrats do have a problem with those who "give aid and comfort" to the opposition party to the detriment of their party.

Your argument has no merit and is only a way of taking a swipe at a party you don't agree with......

[exstatic]

Joe Lieberman is doing his damndest to cost the Dems a senate seat with his independent campaign. While he is entitled to run, I do not believe he is entitled to membership in the state Democratic party when he's undermining their efforts.

Rumor has it that if Joe wins, Shrub will appoint him SecDef to replace Rummy, clearing the way for Connecticut's GOP Guv to appoint a PreRublican to serve almost the full 6 year term as replacement.