Friday, December 02, 2005

Third Party Problems

The huge threshold for third party candidates to get public financing is one of the major sticking points with the bill so far. Apparently former Gov. Lowell Weicker was on WTIC-AM today saying he'd join a lawsuit against that provision, which would have made his 1990 gubernatorial run much more difficult.

This needs to get fixed next February. It should be priority #1. Priority #2 should be the union and party leadership loopholes.

I'm still glad the bill passed, but changes must be made before it goes into effect for the 2008 election cycle.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

99% of the people who busted their asses to get this bill passed would join this lawsuit.

We got was was possible with the crew of crooks in power today and we'll get more next session and in the courts.

Chris MC said...

"Sticking point" for whom? How many votes does former Governor Weicker control in the Legislature? Is Rell taking direction from him?

Dunno, GC. Sometimes a lawsuit - the trial lawyer bashing right-to-exploit-ers' yammering notwithstanding - is the best way to get forward progress in the face of entrenched and well-funded interests.

Honestly, where do you suppose the political will in the legislature is to make these changes next year? Caruso already tried to end run the process, and all he did was let Rell take credit for this. Think she is going to develop something resembling leadership ability on this issue next year? Short conversation, agreed?

Look at it this way: IF the bill had passed with satisfactory provision made for third-party and independent candidates, then what? Pretty different picture, huh?

A court could conceivably order that such provision be made, forcing the modification on the elected branches.

Happens all the time. [It ain't Caruso's, but] sometimes it is even a strategy. What is the latest on the gay marriage thing, BTW?

Gabe said...

The huge threshold for third party candidates to get public financing is one of the major sticking points with the bill so far. ...

This needs to get fixed next February. It should be priority #1.


I agree that this is a major problem with the bill and it must be addressed, but I also agree with Chris MC in that I don't see how the legislature will be compelled to address it. Being that there is currently no third party representation in the legislature, there is no incentive (outside of massive public outcry that seems unlikely) for them to do anything about it.

Several jurisdictions (most notable Cambridge, MA since the 40s, NYC between 1938 and 1948, and Illinois for the 100 years ending in the 1980s) have evened the playing field by either completely or partially doing away with districting and replacing it with a system of proportional representation and/or cumulative voting.

The net effect in these localities was to increase both voter participation and third party representation. For more information about these systems check here, or pick up this book at your local library.

If Connecticut truely wants to be on the cutting edge of electoral, campaign finance, and representitive districting reform, these ideas, whether they are adopted are not, should be part of the discussion.

Chris MC said...

I'll bite Gabe, just for the heck of it.

Here's one that doesn't require us to obliterate the "Home Rule" that dominates Connecticut politics in ways both obvious and less so:

Elect 169 Representatives to the state legislature, one from each state-incorporated municipality.

Senators are elected by the Legislature from their body.

Each Representative's vote is weighted based on the number of thousands of people s/he represents.

Senators all have one vote, since they represent, in effect, the state at-large.

There would have to be provisions made to deal with the weaknesses of such an approach, but of course every approach has weaknesses.

The basic premise is that it makes for more direct representation based on population.

Nobody currently in office would think this idea has any merit whatsoever, needless to say.

In addition to that, it doesn't address so much the underlying difficulty which, as has been said around here before, is the low voter turnout and even lower voter understanding/taxpayer engagement with their civic processes.

Gabe said...

That is an interesting idea that I have never heard before. I'm not sure if I like it without asking a few clarifying questions:

1. Senators get elected based on the vote of the representatives? I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this would be barred by Baker v. Carr.

2. What would be the difference between having one rep from each municipality with weighted votes and having n representatives from each municipality based on population of the municipality? That is essentially what NYC did in the 40s (with each borough being an electoral district and the number of Alderman from each district decided by population) and it significantly increased voter participation.

3. Is every person in CT a part of one of those municipalities?

Obviously no system is perfect and when you start talking about electoral and districting reform, entrenched incumbents always seem to have a prior engagement, but if voter engagement is a worthy goal, then this is a worthy discussion to have.

Genghis Conn said...

I don't know about weighted voting based on municipalities. Hartford, for example, would get 130 votes, but different sections and groups in Hartford have different agendas and needs. I don't see a way that a single person could represent them all.

This is a good line of discussion, though. We should be looking at any and all ways to improve our system.

I'd rather see the size of the House expanded to, say, 349. That way, we'd have about 10,000 people per district. That can be a pretty small area, geographically, and there aren't so many people that one would never have a chance of meeting his/her rep. The effect of gerrymandering would be lessened, and the possibility of incumbents being seriously challenged would increase.

Chris MC said...

1. Dunno. There's probably a number of legal problems that would have to be ironed out. Can you hold forth on Baker v Carr?

2. Difference is that each municipality is unique and self-contained.

Comparison with Aldermanic wards is that wards are arbitrarily drawn, like Leg districts and Senate districts are now. If you view Connecticut as essentially one large borough (based on population, not much larger than present-day Brooklyn, and smaller than Brooklyn & the Bronx combined), then we currently have a system very similar to the one you are describing, if there were wards at that time. How were alderman elected - at large or by ward?

3. Yes. Unlike elsewhere in the US, there is no county government, since it was abolished in favor of "home rule" by municipalities in the early sixties (if memory serves). We all pay local (property) and state taxes. Although there are special taxing districts and such, they aren't uniform.

Chris MC said...

GC - none of these ideas will improve voter participation, per se.

The idea is to improve accountability and make what is done in Hartford more representative of constituencies other than those denominated by professional affiliation or profit motive, or ideology or whatever.

When we discuss, for example, whether or not to re-elect our municipal executive, the review is seldom dominated by a single issue. The community has to weigh a variety of issues and take them as a whole. This is truer at the municipal level than at the Leg level because it is in many ways a closed system.

That is, "OK, we want good schools, but they drive our taxes up. Buying open space is something we mostly want to do, but it costs money. Should we allow cluster zoning?" And so on.

I think few people in a suburban or rural town would argue that their municipal executive is not held more to account than their state rep. And this isn't primarily a matter of scale although scale certainly is a factor.

Eddie Perez is doing a pretty good job so far in Hartford, IMO. I disagree that gerrymandering would be lessened by reducing the size of the district. In fact, perhaps the opposite might occur.

In any case, there is a crucial question of dealing with the reality of the way the state is governed and the culture of the state - it is largely municipally locused in both cases.

Gabe said...

Here are my thoughts:

If there is only one representative from each municipcalities whose votes are weighted I think you run into a couple of problems:

One, as GC mentioned above, it would be hard for one person to represent all of the different interests that exist in a city. Obviously thats what we ask a mayor to do, but we expect somewhat more representation from our legislators.

Two, it doesnt do anything to help the issue that brought this up: third party representation. It would be just as hard, if not harder to elect a third party representative from a municipality than it was from a district.

Three, while I'm not sure there is anything to prevent this legally or constitutionally in a legislature, it is antithical to our concept of one person one vote to have different representatives having differing vote strengths.

The concept behind it though is a good one. I think the issues could be dealt with by, instead of weighting the strengths of the representitive's votes in the legislature, weighting the number of representatives from each municipality.

For example, and using round numbers for simplicity's sake, lets say New Haven has 100,000 people (split 60,000D, 30,000R, 10,000 Green and other) and gets 10 reps. In years where there is party cohesion and strong candidates, you would get a legislative split that is along the lines of 6D, 3R, 1G. Of course, if the Republicans put up week candidates one year they would lose support. Likewise if the the Greens and other left parties out up two viable candidates and dilute their support (the Democrats would likely pick up an extra seat at the expensive of the Greens, although the Republicans could as well).

This system would help to level the playing field and make it possible for third parties to be elected at all. It also helps to increase voter participation because less votes are wasted on a candidate that can't win. when more votes count, more people vote.

In NYC, prior to the reform, the Aldermanic ward districts worked just as you described. The reform, however, eliminated the wards altogether. The only electoral districts were the larger boroughs and the number of representatives elected from each one was dependent on the population of the borough at large. Compare the boroughs in NY to the Municipalities in CT for the sake of this example.

Baker v. Carr is the reapportionment decision that solidified the concept of one person one vote for the election of state legislatures. Unfortunately, I only know it tangentially, because I don't start Con Law until January, but I believe that it would prevent anything but the direct election of Senators. But how about doing away with the districts and electing the senators by county? You could have the same number of Senators from each county as you have now if you collapsed the districts into the counties, leaving the ratio of constituents the same, but the senators would have to work harder to be representative of their respective regions.

Many jurisdictions that have implemented these type of reforms, Illinois state legislature comes to mind, have done it so that there was a mix of legislators elected from traditional districts and legislarots elected from either super-districts (combining part of a city with part of the surrounding suburbs and electing 3 reps via cumulative voting) or from municipalities.

Any of these reforms would be bitterly resisted by incumbents, but the better incumbents who have done a good job representing their constituents and are popular in their base would win reelection; the incumbants who have gotten fat and lazy on protected seats would be the ones in trouble.

Finally, in the research I've done on this, particularily in NYC, the net effect of these reforms was to increase voter participation and to involve ordinary citizens (as opposed to career politicians) in the electoral process (even as candidates).

Gabe said...

IMHO, the only way to reduce gerrymandering is to reduce the number of districts to units whose lines never change (municipalities or counties) or to eliminate districts altogether. Otherwise, the people who draw the districts are humans with political opinions and the problem can never go away.

Chris MC said...

it would be hard for one person to represent all of the different interests that exist in a city.
Seems to me that the "interests" is what is concerning everybody.

Two, it doesnt do anything to help the issue that brought this up: third party representation.
That has more to do with ballot access and the fundamental problem of citizen participation than with districts, although a parlimentary style process in the larger cities and instant run-off voting would I suspect make a big difference. But outside the five or so municipalities that would really apply to, people whose legal & tax situation is formally the same (as is the case in the burbs and rural municipalities) are more likely to find common cause than people who come from two different municipalities.

Three, while I'm not sure there is anything to prevent this legally or constitutionally in a legislature, it is antithical to our concept of one person one vote to have different representatives having differing vote strengths.
No. This changes the weight of each vote in the legislature, but it more accurately reflects the number of people each Representative represents, and more accurately reflects their interests as a municipality.

I think the issues could be dealt with by, instead of weighting the strengths of the representitive's votes in the legislature, weighting the number of representatives from each municipality.
But that is what you have right now, Gabe. How many representatives would you give Union? Say one. Now how many would you give Hartford, like 240? And how do you decide how to draw the map in Hartford? In short, what you are proposing is exactly what we already have.

how about doing away with the districts and electing the senators by county? You could have the same number of Senators from each county as you have now if you collapsed the districts into the counties, leaving the ratio of constituents the same, but the senators would have to work harder to be representative of their respective regions.
Problem would be that this disregards three key facts of life in Connecticut: The counties aren't equal in population (Andy Rohrbach represents most of Litchfield County right now. John McKinney represents four towns in a district that is almost completely dominated by Fairfield, to cite two examples). The counties are literally just lines on the map, without any significance to governance or anything else, certainly not "interests" (Bridgeport has virtually nothing to do with Bethel). The municipalities are the locus of life, political and otherwise, in Connecticut.

Any of these reforms would be bitterly resisted by incumbents, but the better incumbents who have done a good job representing their constituents and are popular in their base would win reelection; the incumbants who have gotten fat and lazy on protected seats would be the ones in trouble.
Well, two words for this assertion: "Ernie Newton".

I would be very interested in seeing that research.

Re your last post: you are pointing to the structural weakness of the system in the modern age. In an abstract economy such as we have, there seem to be inherent weaknesses to a geographically based system. Ironically, the municipality-based system we have may be as good a structure to work with as any.

Anonymous said...

putting your feet back on the ground, the Finch race should be an intersting one if the Black Rock Republicans can find somebody who actually knows something about Bridgeport to run

Gabe said...

But that is what you have right now, Gabe. How many representatives would you give Union? Say one. Now how many would you give Hartford, like 240? And how do you decide how to draw the map in Hartford? In short, what you are proposing is exactly what we already have.

Thats not what I'm saying at all. You wouldn't draw a map at all in Hartford. Hartford as a whole would elect a certain amount of reps, say ten, and each voter would rank 10 candidates on their ballot and the reps would be decided by IRV.

There would be no district drawing because the districts are already drawn; each municipality is a district and the number of reps from that district is determined by the population of the district.

The only places where not much would change is within small municipalities, but even there, it would change. In my town we have at least one district that crosses municipality lines. In what we are talking about the municipality would be the district, so that would be impossible.

But outside the five or so municipalities that would really apply to, people whose legal & tax situation is formally the same (as is the case in the burbs and rural municipalities) are more likely to find common cause than people who come from two different municipalities.

Under this system of electing reps, two people from different municipalities would never be voting together (although some places have done that; see Illinois State Legislature), because the district lines would be the municipality lines.

This changes the weight of each vote in the legislature, but it more accurately reflects the number of people each Representative represents, and more accurately reflects their interests as a municipality.

Wouldn't the same be accomplished by having 5 reps from City A rather than having 1 rep from City A whose vote is worth 5X? But without the seeming unfairness of having City A's rep have a vote worth 5 and City B's rep have a vote worth 1?

All 5 reps from City A would each represent teh municipality as a whole, and only that municipality. But based on the nature of the system, the reps would be more representative of the political beliefs of the residents of the municipalities.

The counties aren't equal in population (Andy Rohrbach represents most of Litchfield County right now. John McKinney represents four towns in a district that is almost completely dominated by Fairfield, to cite two examples). The counties are literally just lines on the map, without any significance to governance or anything else, certainly not "interests" (Bridgeport has virtually nothing to do with Bethel).

I was mostly just thinking out loud, but what I meant was that the number of Senators would stay the same, just be elected by a district at large (so if Fairfield county had 8 senate districts before, it would continue to have 8, but elected from the county at large).

People in cities and the surrounding suburbs around those cities, while seeming to have very different interests and concerns, do have interrelated concerns as well. For example, traffic, crime, campaign finance reform.

I would be very interested in seeing that research.

Email me at my blogger email and I will email you back with the paper (after finals, one can only do so much). It is a look at how the electoral changes in the NYC legislature from 1937-1947 affected voter turnout.

Anonymous said...

Kathy Cuury,Roy O,Betsy O'Neil,Duby McDowell with the help and support of Bill Curry,have or are consulting and working in the following races;
1. Jarjura for Mayor
2. Malloy for Gov
3. Farrell for Congress
4. Lieberman for Senate

And they call themselves good Progressives? To me they have no values or principles and are just in it for the money, liken them to political prostitutes.

Aldon Hynes said...

I would like to compliment Chris mc, Genghis, and gabe for a great discussion about how the legislature could be restructured to be more representative. I think we run into the problem that the third parties face, no one in the legislature is likely to vote for changing the layout.

That said, I would suggest a slightly different approach, similar to what happens in some of the western states. The Representatives are tied to Senate districts. For example, I believe in Washington State, there are two representatives and one senator from each senate district.

Doing the same here, but with four representatives from each district would keep the size of the legislature almost the same. It would simplify the redistricing process and would move towards a more representative approach of being either proportional, having minority clauses, etc.

Anonymous said...

Mike Jarjura is very talented if both Bill Curry and Brian Brown supported him

Gabe said...

Aldon - Thats an interesting idea as well. It is very similiar to what Illinois did in their state legislature (the major differences being that Illinois moved to "pie-slice" districts in and around the cities to combine city and suburan districts and used cumulative voting to select the reps).

By electing 4 reps from one district, especially when combined with some type of IRV or cumulative voting to pick the reps, would open the door to cohesive third parties in years where the major parties put up lackluster candidates (or don't coordinate well, see the work of Gary Cox).

In short, as a representation junkie, this is a system that I could get behind.

The problem for me, and it can be viewed as a seperate problem to be addressed at a differnt time, is that it doesn't solve the problem of arbitrary incumbent protection redistricting. Unless the electoral districts are tied to lines that don't change (creating a problem for representation ratios), eliminated altogether (creating a problem of geographical interests), or combining senate districts and having multiple senators run from each district as well as reps (mitigating the redistricting issue by having multiple incumbents in a district(possibly of differnt parties)) the redistricting problem will not disappear on its own.

However it comes out, CT should evalute whether first-past-the-post single member districts are good or bad for representation in the CT state legislature.

Aldon Hynes said...

I went to the Global Strategy Group website, and see that GSG also lists the following clients:

Eliot Spitzer 2002
John Edwards 2004
the DNC in 1998
the Teamsters, the SEIU, YMCA and Planned Parenthood.

I'm a big supporter of Diane and I hope that her ties with GSG is more closely related to their work for the folks I've named than for the work they are doing for people that Anonymous(11:04) names.

Anonymous said...

Global is definately not a progressive political consulting firm. If you visit their NYC see office, you will see that they are known as MirRam Global. 1/2 of MirRam is former Bronx County Boss Roberto Ramirez, who in 2001 kept the Bronx Democrats home on election which led to Marc Green's downfall (not that Bloomberg is a bad mayor, but he gives TONS of money to the RNC) Had Bloomberg not been elected in 2001 I doubt he would be coughing up so much money to the RNC and its sister groups.

Got go Joe said...

Global Strategy is apparently responsible for putting together the goofiest and longest political videos I've ever seen for Joe Lieberman. (You'll have to wade through a few painful minutes of cheesy royalty-free music to get to the faux-journalistic interview with Duby McDowell on the transportation video.) Glad to see Joe wasting a lot of money.

Chris MC said...

You wouldn't draw a map at all in Hartford. Hartford as a whole would elect a certain amount of reps, say ten, and each voter would rank 10 candidates on their ballot and the reps would be decided by IRV.

There would be no district drawing because the districts are already drawn; each municipality is a district and the number of reps from that district is determined by the population of the district.

The only places where not much would change is within small municipalities, but even there, it would change. In my town we have at least one district that crosses municipality lines. In what we are talking about the municipality would be the district, so that would be impossible.

Then you're advocating wildly disproportionate ratios of representation. Union, 800 people. Hartford, about 240 times that many.

People in cities and the surrounding suburbs around those cities, while seeming to have very different interests and concerns, do have interrelated concerns as well. For example, traffic, crime, campaign finance reform.
Yeabut they don't see it that way, and that isn't the legal/tax/expenditure reality of it, status quo.

it doesn't solve the problem of arbitrary incumbent protection redistricting.
And, more broadly to the approach of grafting midwestern and western states' approaches onto Connecticut, these approaches won't work because of home rule. You aren't going to get all these communities to give up control over themselves, and you aren't going to formulate a silver bullet that will be all things to all "five Connecticut's". So you end up herding cats.

Any approach that isn't predicated on substantially maintaining municipal control is a non-starter, no matter how much sense it seems to make on paper.

It appears Gabe that we concur about two basic points:
1. Municipalities as Rep Districts.
2. Some form of at-large election of Senators, not changing the current size of the Senate.
Think so?

Gabe said...

Then you're advocating wildly disproportionate ratios of representation. Union, 800 people. Hartford, about 240 times that many.

They would have very different numbers of representitives, so the ratios of representation would not be wildly disproportionate. In fact, under Baker v. Carr, they cannot be wildly disproportionate, so any system would have to comply with the rule adopted in Baker.

1. Municipalities as Rep Districts.
2. Some form of at-large election of Senators, not changing the current size of the Senate.
Think so?


Yes, I do. The only caveat would be in point 1, in order to comply with Baker, either some municipalities (contiguous and of similiar size) would have to be combined or there would have to be a dramatic increase in the number of reps.

I also don't necessarily agree with:

Any approach that isn't predicated on substantially maintaining municipal control is a non-starter, no matter how much sense it seems to make on paper.

Because the current districts aren't predicated on substantially maintaining municipal control, I don't see why the new districts would need to be so predicated.

Although I agree with you that the municipalities are a convenient and politically noncontrversial starting point for drawing larger districts in which to implement multi-member districts.

Mathematically, in order to comply with the constitution, it may be impossible to have 169 districts based on the municipalities because of the small size of many of them (without radically increasing the size of the legislative body).

Also, in my view, when we create multi-member districts, it would have to include some type of voting system (IRV, Cumulative Voting) or else we will not do enough to mitigate the issue at hand - the impossibility (and inherent unfairness) facing third parties in getting representatives elected. Especially considering the impossibly high threashold for thrid parties to get public financing.

Weicker Liker said...

I think Lowell Weicker will run for some public office in 2006.

Either U.S. Senator or Governor.

The question will be whether he will run as an independent candidate or force a primary in either party.

Candidates now can bypass the Party Convention Process by a Direct Primary. It would require gathering signatures of 5% of the registration of whatever party he wants to Primary In. I believe the Election Law puts a cap on that number.

If Weicker runs as an independent, he needs to gather signatures equalling 1% of the TOTAL NUMBER OF THOSE VOTING in the last like election for Governor or U.S. Senator. Similiar to what he did in 1990 when he won the Governor's chair.

He now registered as an unaffiliated voter and would gain immediate voting rights in either political party.

A couple of red flags have suggested that he might be primed to run:

1) In October, his former Chief of Staff - now political Consultant- Tom DeMore departed EARLY from the independent gubernatorial campaign of Russell Potts in Virginia.

A member of the field staff of Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Jerry Kilgore told me that DeMore left Potts' campaign to comeback to Connecticut and plot Weicker's next move;

2) As reported in the Hartford Courant this morning, Weicker has come out against the recent Campaign Finance Bill passed by the Connecticut General Assembly;

3) Weicker is elevating his profile. In addition to his appearance at a recent Connecticut Forum, the Associated Press Day Book lists a speaking appearance slated for Monday afternoon (12/5) at the weekly luncheon meeting of the Rotary Club of Hartford at the Hartford Club on Prospect Street.

That event begins at 12:15 PM;

I think the Bear will be back.

Watch out for an Announcement at Greenwich Town Hall in the future.

Chris MC said...

Gabe -

Just briefly, if your approach sans anything I've said were implimented, it would be a modification of exactly what we have now, to the extent that there would be greater ballot access and instant runoff voting. But your proposal begs the issue of proportional representation.

Also, municipality-identical voting districts is neither convenient nor uncontroversial, let me assure you. Better yet, run the idea by anybody who doesn't already represent a single municipality. The point is that Connecticut is unique or almost in our form of home-rule government. Culturally and legally, you have to start with that reality.

As far as the status quo of the Legislature, that argues for no proposal but the status quo. The logic of municipality-based seats is what I said in the previous paragraph.

The weighting of individual Representatives' votes in the Legislature addresses the mathmatical weighting problems. Election of Senators from the body caps the number of elected officials at 169. But if you simply added the Senate seats on, you are still looking at a net increase of a very managable 17 seats.

Anonymous said...

McDonald's straight 3/1 public match for private contributions is better than what was enacted as it avoids the hird party issue, avoids windfalls to lazy or vanity candidates, and doesn;t shut the door to public particiapation they way a spending cap does.

BTW, the weighted voting idea was in force in Nassau County forever and was struck down in court, so no hope it gets in here in CT. It is sad how the dsitrict lines in AZ can be drawn by a nonpartisan commision and make sense and CT's are a testament to protective cartography

Aldon Hynes said...

Weicker Watching:

Over the past week I’ve received a lot more calls about what Weicker is going to do than I have about what is going on with the DeStefano campaign. The information is second hand at best, and I cannot vouch for any of it, but here are some of the things I am hearing.

Weicker is very seriously considering running for Senate. The comment about, “If Lieberman says one more stupid thing…” is getting repeated from lots of sources and many people take it as a de facto declaration. No one has said anything about him thinking about a Governor’s race.

Word is that Weicker’s phone has been ringing off the hook with people calling him about running. I’ve heard a lot of discussions about him running as an independent and about him running as a Democrat. I’ve heard that he is speaking with some key people that will help him make up his mind about what he will do.

If I were placing odds, right now, I’d put them 50% he runs as an Independent. 40% he runs as a Democrat. 10% he decides not to run.

I’m told that he expects to be asked at the Rotary club if he is running. I’m told that he hasn’t decided what he will say, but it is clear one thing he will not say. He will not say that he is not running. (Sorry for the double negative)

I am hearing that there have been a fair amount of Democratic Party leaders that have been kicking around the idea of trying to convince delegates at convention to vote for someone other than Lieberman. The talk had been that they would vote for Blumenthal and when some of them spoke with Blumenthal about it, Blumenthal did not endorse the idea, but he didn’t squash it either. Now, some of these same people are now talking about working to get Weicker the nomination at the convention.

If Weicker does run as a Democrat and there is a primary between him and Lieberman, one of the most interesting questions that has been brought up is, what does this do to the Gubernatorial primary. The expectations are that it would significantly inflate voter turnout and both DeStefano and Malloy would need to recalibrate their primary strategies.

Genghis Conn said...

Very, very interesting news, Aldon.

Independent1 said...

Now what would be the thinking of DeStefano (oops,sorry Aldon) putting out this rumor??????

Independent1 said...

BTW,Aldon, did you re-sign, or are tha Yankees looking to add payroll? Always enjoy you here, just wondering now that 11/30 went by.

Chris MC said...

I just can't help it, this Weicker rumor is too much fun to leave alone.

What kind of political story this would be! Lieberman stuns Connecticut and the political world by unseating popular moderate incumbent Republican Weicker, by running to his right.

Then, decades later, Weicker rises from the political boneyard and challenges Lieberman, now a neocon, by running to his left! It's like the political equivalent of a rematch between Ali and Louis or something.

And get this, for those who don't already know it: while Lieberman was running for the Presidential nomination, Weicker was an early and very active supporter of ..... current National DNC Chair Howard Brush Dean!

Can you imagine him registering D and calling that chit?!

It's just too much. I gotta calm down.

fingerscroseed said...

Luckily, when it gets down to Brass Tacks, Lieberman has his support of George Bush, and the Iraq Experiment, going for him.

The Democrats are all wrong. And Joe has it right. A stable Iraq state is just around the corner. Too bad the Media hates Amerika!

Aldon Hynes said...

Independent1, I posted a message a few days ago letting people know that I am still working as a staffer of the DeStefano campaign.

You are right to wonder why the DeStefano campaign would want to spread this rumor.

However, whether you believe in this case I am acting on my own behalf or on behalf of the campaign, I would urge you to consider that established bloggers often write about items of interest to themselves whether or not it is of interest to people paying them.

As to Chris Mc's comment about how exciting this is, everyone I've spoken about is very excited about the prospect and I suspect some of this excitement is why it has been such a hot topic in the phone calls I've received this week.

Genghis Conn said...

Heck, I'm excited. Lowell Weicker is one of my political heroes, and I'd love to see him back in the mix.