I wanted to know where CT's second most famous resident, Lorelai Gilmore, stands on this, but the new "Gilmore Girls" season doesn't start in time. If you don't get the Gilmore vote, Joe, it's curtains.

If Lieberman actually does get on the ballot along with the primary winner for the Democratic Party, he will have handed another Republican senate seat to the Republicans.  So, any bleating by Joe about being a loyal Democrat would be lies.  A loyal Democrat follows the rules for selecting the party candidate, and in Connecticut that is a primary election.

In all states primary elections involve only a small percentage of the voters, so the party candidates are the choice of a minority, almost always the extremist wing of the party.  The solution to this problem is to get people to vote in primary elections, not to try an end run when that minority rejects your candidacy.

This would be as bad as Arnold gaining the California governors seat as a result of a recall election less than a year after the governor was elected, and a recall election based on nothing that wasn't known during the regular election. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

"My opponent in the Democratic Primary is asking Democrats to vote against me because of position on one issue."

It's not just Iraq. It's rolling over for stocking the Supreme Court with wingnuts for the next 25 years, telling rape victims they can easily find another hospital to treat them in CT if one refuses on religious grounds, a whole host of issues where Joe hasn't voted or in reality acted like a Democrat for years now.

I'm not from CT but if I was I'd vote for Lamont in a heartbeat.

Two comments;

1) Perhaps Joe has just motivated people to vote on August 8th ;->

2) Despite the Senator's claim here that he will be "a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot" state law does not allow any candidate to use any part of another party's name on the ballot. So no "Petitioning Democrat" no "Independent Democrat." There are no such things in CT.

Kinda wish he would be straight with us on that count,
Sheila in CT

". . . I have made the decision to allow signatures to be collected that will enable me to appear on the November Ballot as an individual Democratic candidate. . .'

Leaving aside the passive voice ("signatures to be collected") that usually reveals a lack of candor in a politcal context, there's something else here I want some clarification on. Exactly how will Lieberman appear on the November ballot? Is there any such thing as "an individual Democratic candidate"? Well, no, not insofar as you can see that beside the guy's name on an actual ballot. Should Lieberman be able to, and should he choose to, he will appear as an Independent. Or am I wrong? Can someone appear on a ballot as a Democrat or Republican without having won the right primary?

If my hunch is right--that Lieberman can't appear on a CT ballot as "an individual Democratic candidate"--then this is a really disasteful, really weasely attempt to mislead potential signatories.

Your hunch is right. According to election law, Lieberman cannot use the name of a party already in existence to run under. So he cannot use the word "Democrat" in any form in an independent bid. The notion of "petitioning Democrat" won't last if he loses the primary.

In case you haven't noticed, the American political process isn't working all that well just now and for that I blame the both parties and the media.

Frankly I'm ready for a new constitutional convention to address problems in the electoral process beginning with opening up the ballot process then moving on to gerrymandering, the voting machines, financing, K-Street and the media, who by the way are getting richer and richer while skewing the process.

Don't blame the Nader voters for what happened in 2000.  Blame the Supreme Court for stopping the recount process and the Democrats for accepting the decision.  And don't blame me, I voted for Gore.

Personally my instinct is to use the passive voice. I always do that first in my writing. But if you're a long time senator then you should at least have people who catch that.

Since Joe cannot use the "Democrat" label on the ballot, he should form a third part. How about the "Sour Grapes Party" or the "Selfish Prick Party" or the "Bullshit Moose Party" or the "Liebocrat Party"?

Lieberman is not the first politician to suffer from rejection denial. There is always some cabal for the losers to blame. Well face it Joe: it really is the voters who are rejecting you.

But he still doesn't get it with his whining about single issues. Lieberman and Hillary have both recived the scorn of the antiwar camp. But Hillary just made points with some of those Democrats by showing that she clearly understands the concept of party loyalty, while Lieberman continues to lose points through his self-indulgence. And while Hillary hasn't taken the positions I would have liked, at least she hasn't spent the last couple of years obsequiously kissing George Bush's ass and turning herself into the administration's friendly pet Democrat.

This latest move combines narcissistic self-pity, moral superiority and political cynicism in a unique way. It's as though he is telling Connecticut's Democrats: "You can't get rid of me even by voting me off the ticket. If you even try, I'm going to put a gun to the party's head, hold it hostage and threaten to shoot it. So you might as well vote for me now." Nice move loser - you've really sewn up your Democratic credentials with this one.

It strikes me that the time has come for the party's top poobahs and power brokers, whoever they are, to summon Joe and lay down the law. Here's the message: First, if Lieberman loses the primary, he is simply not going to be the Senator from Connecticut in the next Congress. Even he should be able to see that. But there is going to be a new Democratic administration in 2008. If Lieberman steps aside and throws his support to the party's nominee, he will be given an important position in that administration. But if he breaks ranks and goes off on this destructive personal crusade, he will be blackballed.

Here's what loyal Democrats do Joe: When they lose to another Democrat they go to the victor, grab his hand, throw it up over his head and say "I support my party's nominee 100 percent!"

It's your choice Joe. And the consequences of this choice for your future and legacy are Joementous. You can be the guy who dragged his party down to defeat in a fit of pique, and then vanished into obscurity, or the guy who had a second life in the succeeding Democratic administration.

So basically Joe, in addition to thumbing your nose at the voters of Connecticut by choosing to end run the primary, you're now calling your supporters lazy for not voting. If not enough Dems will vote to keep you in, then that must mean your supporters have better things to do than vote for you (perhaps that's hint, Joe). Way to go, Joe. Great way to motivate your base by insulting the people you're trying to woo. But judging by your "scathing" support of President Bush despite America's disdain for his policies, you're used to doing that.

Any of these guys live in Connecticut? Didn't think so.

If Joe follows through and runs as an indie, there's almost no chance of a Repub winning that three-way race. Lieberman just gets too many Republican votes. A three-way is either Lieberman's or Lamont's, very likely (though not certainly) Lieberman's to lose.

Only one Democrat in the Senate voted against the original Patriot Act.

Iraq War? More Democratic Senators voted for it than against it.

Perhaps these Democratic votes represent you. They do not represent me, and that's why I'm an independent. I need more from the Democrats than their apparent motto of "at least we're not the Republicans."

Being an independent doesn't mean my voice doesn't matter. The dollars I give to Democratic candidates count just as much as the dollars from Democrats. Ditto for the time I volunteer to Democratic candidates.

Obviously I can't speak for all independents, but I think I have an inkling of how the American political process works. First, the party in power of any given state legislature gerry-manders the district map to make as many safe districts for their own as they can. And both Republicans and Democrats do it. As far as I can tell, the goal seems to be to prevent democracy in the first place.

Then, instead of having publicly funded elections, we have our candidates spend inordinate amounts of time courting big-money donations which often leaves them beholden to special interests. As Duke Cunningham-R and William Jefferson-D have shown us, its all about the money.

While I agree that it's a travesty that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004, it might be more productive for the Democratic Party to spend more time fixing itself and less time blaming independents. The 2004 election was the Democrats' to lose and somehow they managed to pull it off. And don't blame this independent, I was a Kerry volunteer.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Dead man walking

"Why on earth would he want to?" You'd have to ask him -- he's the one who characterized himself as a petitioning Democrat.

Thanks, Nightprowlkitty, that's the thing I was wondering about.

It seems to me that the wording "individual Democrat" is possibly meant to fool just those people who would vote for Lieberman, but *only if* he's running as a Democrat. Gawd, this whole deal is making him look terrible.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

All politics is "symbolic" and this one is a symbolic shaft ..Its all in the timing. Senators don't do other Senators like they're doing Lieberman right now. The DSCC could have awaited the primary's outcome. This will cost Lieberman votes on August 9th and even more pain in November - no Demo or affliated support.

The anonymous sourced spin is symbolic too..Symbolic lubricant for the symbolic shaft..

BTW...Reed meglect a better case...The Byrd of Virginia..Democrat to Independent aligning with Demo Caucus..

Not much of a Democrat either.

He can't use it on the ballot, but there's no law to stop him from callling himself whatever he wants in his campaign speeches, to promise to caucus with the Dems, or if he wins to keep the (D) after his name (i.e., Joseph Lieberman (D-CT).

He can do any of those things. Of course, the voters of Connecticut can either buy it or not.

I think it would have made more sense for him to either stick with the primary and pledge to support the winner, or make a clean break away from the party and run as an independent.

I'm sorry, the point being? Dov Charney certainly doesn't seem quite "heroic" right now, Ben Cohen sold out to the management consultants and then to Unilever when it seemed his fortune was under threat, Larry and Sergey have a nice slogan (i.e., positioning statement) that isn't much backed up by their willingness to bend over backwards for the Chinese government...
I guess in the US now anyone who isn't a practitioner of slavery and torture is a progressive.

Libertine, we have gone around this point before, but let me try again. Do you simply "disagree with his position on Iraq" or is the occupation of Iraq an abomination, causing untold misery for our troops, scarring the Middle East, exposing America to greater terrorist attacks, creating worldwide hatred of the US, making peace more difficult, weakening of international institutions and stability, an elevation of unilateral military aggression as the new preferred method of dealing with international disputes, a violation of international laws, depleting our treasury, unleashing hatred and division at home, weakening the American economy by indebting the nation, and unleashing the torture and restrictions on civil liberties to an extent far greater than in other conflicts? If this is a polite disagreement over "positions" then indeed Lieberman is your man; it seems to me the stakes are much higher. You are surely aware that the Lamont campaign has already had a profound effect; if it is successful or even partially so, it will change the nature of the dialogue and political discussion nationally (it already has had some effect). The situation in this country is much more volatile than the corporate media would lead one to believe; my feeling is that a Lamont victory would change the way Democrats nationally approach the elections and that could very well be the spark that leads to the revulsion over Bush's policies being channeled into effective political focus.

Mr. Gettysburg, you are chasing a Red Herring. You are conflating two issues; intra-party loyalty and inter-party interactions.

The issue with the Republicans is their inter party behavior. They make bad policy and "theatrical votes" in Congress instead of working with the Dems to do the nation's business. They do all sorts of petty anti-democratic things every day they control the majority and it was only DeLays overeach in his corrupt ambitions that has stalled the crooked GOP machine. Give them control again in November and you are asking for more corruption, more bad laws, more incompetent government.

The issue with the Democrats is their intra party behavior. In particular, democratic party leaders, like Lieberman, using Republican talking points and tarnishing the Democratic Party label, in order to "get ahead" with the "American people" on "important" programs like Face the Nation, Fox News and Meet the Press.
It's a fools game that has steadily worked against the Democratic Party.
It has to end now, so that the Democratic Party can free itself and bring leadership to America.

Hypocricy is the specialty of the GOP.
For the Democrats its about having players who CARE ABOUT THE TEAM, because this team - the Democratic Party - is important to the success of America.

What is this, lieberman intern day? Take that tired nonsense somewhere where people don't read.

Yes, he does have a record of public service--serving in local government, et cetera. Check his bio.

And this "millionaire" talking point is pure bullshit. Lieberman has a lot more money in the bank and, when Lamont challenged him to -cap- his spending, he refused. One would think that if Lieberman was really concerned, he would have agreed to that cap.

Libertine, my reply above was before I read the following from the New Haven Independent (June 27) discussing why sections of labor were disaffected from Lieberman:

"Also clear in the hall was that, contrary to the Lieberman camp’s characterizations, Lieberman faces intense opposition on a host of issues, not just his leading role as a supporter for the War in Iraq. Delegates opposed to Lieberman’s endorsement spoke more about global trade pacts than about the war. “He just doesn’t seem to hear us. He always votes wrong on trade. That hurts my members,” said Tammie Botelho of the United Steelworkers . State machinists President James Parent spoke of how the state has lost 7,713 aerospace manufacturing jobs since 1993, jobs that have been fleeing to low-wage Third World countries.

Parent and others criticized Lieberman for voting for, or missing votes on, every free-trade agreement that’s come before the Senate. One day earlier, Lamont told the convention he’d push for better labor and environmental protections in trade agreements."

I guess this isn't how I'd like my Senator to work for the state; I am curious whether Connecticut has low unemployment?

VLazlo...

If I thought that Joe Lieberman not being reelected would change our Iraq/GWOT policies I would vote him out in a NY minute.  But whether Lieberman is in the US Senate or he isn't won't change the way the POTUS handles this war...so in my mind Lieberman is being made an example of and while I FULLY DISAGREE with Lieberman's positions on the war I refuse to join the lynch mob.

The Nader argument that the Democrats are not much different than the Republicans is nonsense. See how lj629 compares Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson! GOP talking points! Duke was hard-wired into the defense contractor lifeline of the US military.

Jefferson is a two-bit petty thief con artist. Yes, some politicians have always been crooks. The larger problem is when the crookedness becomes institutionalized.

I see what you're saying but Lieberman isn't exacvtly working class. His net worth as of the last disclosure report I saw was pushing $2 million, without real estate. He's not Lamont in the moneybags department, but he is wealthier than average. As a candidate, Lieberman has a war chest that makes him the equal of any tycoon level candidate who might run against him.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Calling Jefferson a "two-bit petty thief con artist" doesn't help. The guy took bribes - he was corrupt and needs to be repudiated by democrats. Trying to ignore our own scandal simply makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites trying to score political points. Personally my goal is to actually achieve some institutional changes to deter and detect the Duke Cunninghams of the future.