Soviet-Style Attempted Purge Of Lieberman Continues
What are these people so afraid of?
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.
Does democracy stop when you have an “I”, rather than a “D” or “R” after your name? Let the people vote…sure, Lamont will lose, but it’s the will of the people, right?…
Do the critics realize that all of these efforts to deny Lieberman the ability to campaign fairly just might start pissing off all of the eligible voters in CN, and not just the ones who are currently favoring Lieberman? Sooner or later you’ve got to start questioning when these tactics will start a backlash that will become unstoppable.
This seems like pretty penny ante stuff: an obscure “peace committee” and an equally obscure political science professor.
If, as you say, we should “let the people vote,” what is your feeling about GOP-led efforts in Ohio, Kansas, and elsewhere to impede the registration of lower income voters through burdensome restrictions on registration drives, voter ID laws, etc.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/us/06ohio.html?ex=1312516800&en=6090bc7fc7dce139&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/47775EF1227B929C862571CE0009BA33?OpenDocument
Peter, I haven’t read the articles, but I’ll try to, if I have time, but I must tell you this: I am absolutely in favor of voter ID laws – if a person can’t show a photo ID, he shouldn’t have the privilege of voting. If a person can’t afford a photo ID, the state government (the level that usually issues them) should provide him one free of charge…it’s not a matter of income level, but of fraud prevention…
I agreee about the annoyance factor. Sh-t sticks and Lamont’s obvious inability to control his supporters is definitely going to come back and bite him. In every sentence written, he should be associated with the far-left blogosphere: Lamont and the Far-Left, Lamont and the Extremist Progressives, Lamont and the Kossacks, Cut and Run Lamont, etc etc. Name association sticks like sh-t, so in reference it’s important to keep him attached to whom and what he has inspired and represents.
The current Lamont wacko appears to be a well-known pain-in-the-arse, so that in itself is dismissing. I think that the ruling will have to be made legally and assertively, if only to PO the Lamontistas, and from there Liberman’s camapaign can continue forwards as usual.
My understanding (which may well be incorrect) is that where the GOP is pushing for a voter ID, there is no corresponding plan to make them available for free. Hence they become the modern day equivalent of a poll tax.
Wasn’t there a drive along the same lines a few years ago in CA? Not sure what happened to it, but I believe that the Dems were in favor, the GOP against.
It’s not the “will of the people” that’s important. It’s the “will of the correct people”, haven’t you figured that out? We have to protect the people who might vote for Lieberman just because they don’t know any better. And the easiest way to do that is to just get him off the ballot. Even if we try to make the people understand how evil he has become, there are some who won’t hear or understand the message. We need to protect these people from themselves.
peter, your understanding is incorrect, at least in one case. We recently enacted voter ID in Indiana, and they are available for free, if necessary. Of course, that doesn’t matter to the Democrats and the ACLU who are taking it to court to get this law overturned.
Why? Even though it’s free, people have to go out of their way to do it, and have to make a special trip to the BMV to do it. Of course, this is a special trip you have to make once every four years, and there are BMV branches on practically every corner. Oh, and once you’ve done it in person once, you can renew online and (I think) over the phone.
So, ONCE, you have to make ONE extra trip to place that can also register you to vote so that you can get your voter ID. Yet this is discriminatory. Personally, I think that if this is too much trouble for you to go through to vote, then we should discriminate against you.
Chris, I would agree with you there — I don’t think it’s burdensome to be required to get a photo ID, but I do think it should be available for free –
But then again people from Indiana are so much more reasonable than people from elsewhere — I never met anyone from Indiana I didn’t like –
voter fraud has about as much chance of being addressed by democrats, as terrorism does.
Imagine if you had to show an ID to get food stamps…
Dems would make the argument that it is ‘restrictive’. A conservative would make the argument that it would keep people from selling their food stamps to crack dealers who have no trouble using the stamps without ID.
the classic ‘restrictive’ v. fraud prevention argument.
nebulous personal freedom versus concrete financial results/savings…it should be a no brainer.
mtl, let’s be clear about one thing: In the sense you (we) are using it, “nebulous” = “bull****.”
Yes, let the people vote, but let’s be honest. Joe Lieberman is not the Independent candidate. The Democratic Party nominated Ned Lamont, the Republican Party nomimated Schlesinger, and the Independent Party didn’t nominate anyone. Joe Lieberman made up his own party ‘Connecticut for Leiberman’ and nominated himself! Joe is a sore loser. He is not a Democrat, he is definitely not an Independent. Republican? Close enough! But really, just Joe Leiberman (CFL)!!!
that is more correct, ‘nebulous’ is simply more polite.
a fair compromise might be the ‘purple thumb’ method, no ID, but also no multiple voting. Alas, then a dem would argue that someone with naturally purple fingers is being discriminated against, and those that do not vote might be discriminated against by those who have ‘purple thumbs-marked by the government’.
That our govt is not even willing to prevent voter fraud says all that needs to be said in regards to their commitment to true equality. The people who run around in urban precincts are violating the virtue of our system-
one person, one vote. (Not to be confused with the framer’s intent, ‘one white male owning land, one vote.)
I assume it doesn’t actually need to be said, but Independent isn’t a party. It is quite the opposite, in which case self-nomination seems rather appropriate.
actually Lieberman is non-affiliated.
worth noting that if he wins, it will be a huge rejection by the moderates of both parties. The gop is used to that in CT, but for dems:
It may show voters will reject party over a person, even in the extremely liberal state of CT.
Independent trumping democratic party-says a lot about the left’s cohesiveness.
The brouhaha about Liebermann not being a democrat is going to be extremely useful for Joe. The left is helping him, by saying he is not one of them, saving him the trouble of having to distance himself in the eyes of independent moderate voters, and risk alienating his democratic supporters.
Looking thru an independent prism at all the ’sanctions’ the progressives want to levy at Joe (against the backdrop of the adults discussing sanctions for Iran) and the aggressive attempts to disavow Joe from the democratic party, especially by Kos and ’sqwattingdogonfire’, I can’t help but admire their ability to cut their noses off to spite their faces.
Each threat that gets bandied in the press, bolsters joe amongst independents. Even though CT is left-leaning, I have a strong feeling that a majority of the voters still hold their noses and make the choice of lesser of two evils. If Lieberman is an independent, it gives them a chance to let both parties know where they stand. Thier vitriol is completely counterproductive if they are trying to keep voters home, especially independent voters.