Posted on 08/21/2006 4:05:37 PM PDT by SmithL
Hartford -- Critics of Sen. Joe 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 Lieberman, 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 described themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, New Haven's Democratic registrar of voters, 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 said the effort was "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 on him to give up his independent run.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
And yet, the Dems are attacking him on this very issue.
I don't think this is "actually" about Iraq. The war on terror is the one area that Bush slaps the Dems silly on. Joe has stepped beyond partisanship on this one issue, and that is not allowed.
Kinda proves that when the Dems have called Bush a divider and not a uniter, it was actually the Dems doing the dividing.
Its not about the good of the country. Its about the Dems getting back into power.
I'm inclined to agree with the others, that Lieberman represents the last vestige of sanity in the Democratic Party. I'm hoping he wins the election.
Just think about what a debased party it is, though, that a guy who favors late term abortion and homosexual marriage is the very best they can do, and even he is too straight an arrow for them.
And think about it from his side. He's a conservative observant jew who has sold his soul to keep himself in the mainstream of DNC politics, and it wasn't good enough. They still want him out.
Frankly, the dems can have him. This man is so unprincipled it's disgusting.
.....I don't get it - shouldn't he be out of the party if the party didn't nominate him and he's still running?.....
Of course. By declaring himself independant he cut his ties with the party.
He very well knows they will be kissing his you know what when the new senate convenes.
Actually, there's a very big difference. The Republicans try to replace RINOs by beating them in elections. The Dems try to get rid of those they don't like by cheating.
To forestall any stupid comments, so far Lieberman has lost a PRIMARY, not an ELECTION.
Personally, I don't care what happens here. I see Democrats eating their own. It's sweeeeet.
I concur.
That is what Barry Goldwater tried to do just before Lyndon Johnson got a filibuster proof senate and passed the Great Society. What part of. "It has been tried and totaly failed!" don't you understand.
Back in March of 1968, I interviewed President Lyndon Johnson...I asked him how he managed to get very liberal programs passed into law? Programs that his hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt had proposed but failed to get passed.
LBJ looked me in the eye and winked. He said, "FDR didn't have a Barry Goldwater to help him."
There are 17 states that are strongly conservative. There are 16 states that are strongly liberal. There are 17 states that are evenly divided. That results in the modererates determining the outcome of all elections in those battle ground states. Moderates is another way to say RINO or DINO.
If you run a true conservative in those battleground states and the Democrats run a DINO, the DINO will win 9 times out of 10. If Repubilcans run a RINO and the Democrats run a liberal the RINO wins. If both both candidates are moderates or one is conservative and the other liberal it is a toss up.
Of course some Republicans are so liberal they can get elected in Liberal States. Chaffee is a case in point. His seat is a liberal Demcorat seat. If you get rid of him he will be replaced by a far more liberal democrat.
Some Democrats are so conservative they can get elected in Cosnervative states. Zell Miller is a case in point.
LBJ knew what it took to get the liberal agenda passed. So does Hillary Clinton. If you didn't exist Hillary would have to invent you. But she probably could not invent someone to do as good a job for liberals as you can.
1. I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me.
2. I didn't leave the Democrat party, they kicked me out.
I've no warmth in my heart for Senator Lieberman either.
Given what he and Gore put the country through in 2000, I'd much prefer dead silence from the Republican side of the aisle on his predicament.
1. I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me.
2. I didn't leave the Democrat party, they kicked me out.
Strange actually, the rats usually stick together unlike the pubbies who eat their own, thus allowing rats to get elected or something like that. :-)
Duuuughh Sherry its the democrat party... SLAP.. SLAP.. wake up..
I hope they throw him out. Such stupidity is its own reward.
If Lieberman can defeat their candidate in the general election, what does that tell them about their candidate.
What lesson does it teach non-democrats about the voting strength of the democrat base?
How true.
Remember when Jumpin Jim Jeffords quit the GOP and became an indy? Word from the dems was that he was a man of great integrity and high principle for making his stand. When Lieberman does it he's a traitor (to the supposed party of tolerance and inclusion). The Democrat party is the party of hypocrisy. I realize Lieberman agrees with the GOP on only one issue (the war) but I hope he wins in November.
The same part that Thomas Edison failed to understand. If we are to follow your logic we may as well give up...I'll leave that to the wimps.
Lamont would cut and run from Iraq, leaving the country to the terrorists. Among Lamont's current supporters are: Hillary Clinton (HILLPAC gave Lamont $5,000); Barack Obama (another $5,000 to Lamont); Schumer; Pelosi; Reid; Kennedy; Edwards; Howard Dean; and Boxer. "Leading" Democrats want to surrender to the terrorists.
There is still the issue that he is a sitting Senator who was elected for six years as a Democrat. Whether he's renominated or not, he still has his seat at the Senate until January 2007. Will the party still want to claim him while Lieberman still holds the seat?
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.