Friday, September 08, 2006

Possible Problem in Lieberman Application?

This letter was sent to SOTS Susan Bysiewicz by an organization representing independent voters and candidates. It could be a problem for Lieberman, althought I doubt it.
Dear Ms. Bysiewicz,

I am writing in my capacity as Political Director of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, Inc. We are a national organization which advocates for and represents the interests of independent voters, including many in Connecticut who are concerned about the independent candidate status your office is about to confer on Senator Joseph Lieberman.

I want to bring to your immediate attention a significant omission in the submission of Senator Joseph Lieberman to legally qualify himself for the ballot as the U.S. Senate candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. I believe this constitutes a fatal flaw in Mr. Lieberman’s petition and necessitates the removal of his name from the November, 2006 ballot.

The failure occurred in his submission of the “Application for Nominating Petition” filed by the Connecticut for Lieberman Party with your office on July 10, 2006. Specifically, no identity was provided of the Applicant as required; i.e. the space where the name and address of the Applicant should appear was left vacant. Consequently, Mr. Lieberman’s disembodied submission does not meet the requirements of Sec. 9-453b of Connecticut Election Law which specifies that “the person requesting” nominating petition forms must supply a range of information. As the “Application for Nominating Petition” form makes plain, disclosure of the identity of the applicant is required information. Mr. Lieberman’s submission failed to provide it.

Given the amount of media and political controversy that surrounded Mr. Lieberman’s decision to continue his candidacy in the event of losing the Democratic primary, it is plausible that the applicant preferred that his or her identity not be revealed at the time of the submission. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of the State to ensure compliance with the law, even if the candidate is a United States Senator who is embattled in his own party’s primary.

It has come to my attention that the Secretary of the State did apply a strict standard on this very issue of the identity of the “Applicant” in the submission of another “Application for Nominating Petition.” In that instance, the Independent Party sought your office’s approval for a party name and the issuance of petitions to field a statewide slate. Mr. Michael Telesca, on behalf of the Independent Party, was given specific instructions by your office about the need to identify an appropriate “Applicant.”

While the Secretary of the State has demonstrated in its dealings with the Independent Party that it attaches great importance to the identity of the “Applicant,” in the case of Mr. Lieberman’s submission, the same standard was not applied.

There is mounting concern among independent voters in Connecticut that Mr. Lieberman’s so-called “independent candidacy” is a fraud on the voting public. He is not an independent, but is rather a Democrat who availed himself of an escape hatch in state Election Law allowing him to reinvent himself as an “independent-in-name-only” candidate after he lost his own party’s primary.

In light of the political sensitivities surrounding this situation, I believe the Secretary of the State has a heightened obligation to apply the strictures of Election Law consistently for all applicants.

I understand that your office will receive a final submission from “Connecticut for Lieberman” on September 13th. I strongly recommend that you withhold certification of Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy in light of the failure in his submission


Jacqueline Salit

Just a technicality. But possibly an interesting one.


Anonymous said...


John Blossom said...

While the Lieberman campaign tries to make a show that their candidate is a regular guy who stands for himself as an independent candidate, let's make one thing perfectly clear:

A vote for Joe Lieberman is a vote for George Bush.

More at:

Anonymous said...

Hey John--48% of the people who voted in the Dem primary voted for Joe. So 48% of your party, voted for Bush.

Add 48% to the Republican Joe Voters and you get a Bush win in November.

Anonymous said...

Yeah--it's so weird, a vote for Joe is a vote for Bush, but Diebold makes the voting machines (go figure), so a vote for Ned is really a vote for Joe, and now that we KNOW that a vote for Joe is a vote for Bush and a vote for Ned is a vote for Joe, who do I vote for??? It's all so Rovian!!

Anonymous said...

just another liberal Troublemaker anything to derail Joe's Candidacy Because they know that is the only way Lamont will win.

Anonymous said...

I love George Bush!

Anonymous said...

Who was the brain trust that came up with this brilliant idea? The same people who went to New Haven and demanded that Joe be expelled from the Democratic party? There must be better uses of our time!

phaedrus said...

Please, John. That is complete bunk.

I have no dog in this race, and, as a democrat, will most likely vote for Ned in November, but let's shelve the specious rhetoric. truth be told, voting for Ned in the primary was essentially voting for GOP control of the senate, as Lieberperson will almost assuredly win and, thanks to the unprecedented abuse he's taken at the hands of folks like yourself, will have no reason to maintain any allegiance to the Democratic Party when he does.

I've never been a fan of Joe Lieberman -- he's far too conservative for my taste and I've never forgiven him for throwing Clinton under the bus when he thought he could score some cheap political points that way -- but let's not be idiots.

During a year in which the Democrats are trying to reclaim control of Congress, the Democratic voters of Connecticut gave a senate seat away.

Your insistence now that voting for Lieberman is, in any way, a vote for Bush is ridiculous. If he is going to lean republican, it's people like you who have forced him to.

It's as ridiculous, in fact, as the throngs of Nedheads who act indignant that Lieberman would run as an independent though he is legally allowed to and though he told everyone ahead of time that he would.

When these folks claim party loyalty should make him accept the primary results I laugh, because party loyalty itself was the subject of their ire for so long during the primary campaign.

When they insist that legality is no justification for his exercising it and then try to scrounge up legal technicalities to remove him from the ballot, I laugh even harder.

The problem with most of the devout Nedheads is that they got what they wanted, but were never smart enough to see where what they wanted would get them.

You won. You forced Joe out of the Party, which is exactly what you were trying to do. Now that you realize forcing him out of the Senate is a completely different matter you're kicking and screaming like children in tantrum.

I have no sympathy for Joe Lieberman, but I have no sympathy for the Nedheads who lost us a seat, either.

Conservatives Rule,Liberals Suck said...

Who in the hell is Jacqueline Salit sounds like another Liberal who has been smoking too much crack or weed.

When are you Liberals going to face the facts Joe Lieberman is in and despite all the lies, deceit and crap you pull on him and that you all pray for his demise He keeps on standing.

He will win on Election Day and when he does I am going to rub it in you liberal's noses until the cows come home.

You and The Crane Brothers and many others have bashed me and all the Conservative Democrats for months and I will be so happy when your boy Lamont loses to Joe so I can do my happy dance.

You limit us to what we can say here now we have to go post on no to ned or dogfood for america since they dont censor.

Why cant you Liberals grow up especially that guy that you all seem to think is a hero to you clowns or a god when he is the cause of all this madness Because he has a personality of a flea and the attitude of a jackass.

If he was out of the picture and the website was too Lamont would have a better chance But people see through the founder's lies and deception and Because of his and his brother's constant attacks on Lieberman is the reason why Ned will lose Because the 48% of us who voted for Joe plus Republicans and UnAffiliateds who arent Ned fans will vote Lieberman and Joe wins.

turfgrrl said...

phaedeus - you have summarized the the troubling predicament that the Lamonties have driven election 2006 towards. And let's not forget that all this energy is 1) galvanizing splits within the Democratic party in other races and 2) distracting focus from the other races. Should Joe win, national Democrats won't have lost anything, but CT Democrats will have lost a representative.

steve said...

turfgrrl, phaedeus, neither of you fault joe lieberman who has took advantage of electoral law to stay in this race.

ned lamont pledged to support the winner. ned lamont has thrown his support behind ALL the democratic congressional candidates and the democratic candidate for governor. he has raised money for chris murphy and is working closely with diane farrell in the 4th CD. ned is proving himself to be a loyal democrat committed to getting other democrats elected.

he won his party's primary to become the democratic nominee. joe lieberman lost and decided that his career was important enough to risk three congressional candidates' chances of taking back the house.

oh, and ned lamont is nowhere near beaten. weren't his odds worse in march? or april? connecticut voters will start to see ned lamont for what he is; an intelligent businessman with a desire to change washington, a man who ISN'T and has no desire to be a career politician, a man who understands bipartisanship means cooperation, not capitulation.

and, voters will see joe lieberman for who he is; a career politician who, after falling out of touch with voters, is trying to hold onto a seat he believes is his for life.

Senator Ned Lamont is going to sound very good to many Nutmeggers.

Anonymous said...

Despite my loyalty to the democratic party, I've always said that I'd rather have the opportunity to vote for a real democrat in the general even if it allows a Republican to become our senator.

I'd rather be stabbed in the front rather than in the back. At least then you see it coming.

So to all the people who say it's bad what we're doing to Joe -how it will lead to him fleeing the party- ask yourself who really left whom?

Richard Winger said...

Jackie Salit is a member of the Lenora Fulani-Fred Newman group, which was organized as the New Alliance Party from 1982 through 1994, then the Patriot Party 1994-1995, then the group went into the Reform Party, and when that virtually ceased to exist, formed the Committee for a United Independent Party (CUIP), and most recently is Independent Voice.

Anonymous said...

turfgrrl said...

phaedeus - you have summarized the the troubling predicament that the Lamonties have driven election 2006 towards. And let's not forget that all this energy is 1) galvanizing splits within the Democratic party in other races and 2) distracting focus from the other races. Should Joe win, national Democrats won't have lost anything, but CT Democrats will have lost a representative.

I hope you are getting paid to sound this clueless.

1. Joe's support is overwhelmingly from Republicans.

2. To win, Joe must turn out Republicans.

3. When he does, Democratic congressional candidates will lose.

From this you blame Lamont? He won the primary, hack. He is supposed to drop out?

Seriously, ask for more money, you are destroying your credibility as a sentinent being...

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 3:53--More whining from the Lamontie supporters. Keep on polarizing the Democrats anonymous, the party of the pup tent is the only thing you'll have left.

Anonymous said...

hack - way to address the substance of the criticism.

The guy who won the primary isn't tearing the party apart, the guy who stays in the race even though he lost the primary is.

The guy who raises money for and campaigns with the other congressional candidates isn't costing the party seats, the guy who needs to turn out the other party to win his indy bid is.

[with no whine at all in the typing] You should be ashamed of letting the hack in you creep to the surface.

Will Sonnett said...

You Lamont people arent funny you are all creeps,thugs and gangstas.

go to dogfood-for-america blog or no-to-ned blog they got you morons dead to right.

This blog is a Liberal Front for Keith Crane who should resign from Branford DTC for being a complete idiot and conduct unbecoming a Democratic Town Committee Member.

Anonymous said...

You Lamont posters should all be proud of your "Animal House" Behavior Laugh Now But you have all been on Double Secret Probation Since The Beginning of The Campaign one More slip up and these Liberal Fraternitys have had it in Connecticut.

Anonymous said...

People who don't use punctuation should not throw stones...

Anonymous said...

Anon 700- Spoken like a true Liberal...You must be a Crane lackey!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:00 - What?

Anonymous said...

(Different Anonymous)

I think Jackie Salit's group is trying to put a Lithmus Test on who is an Independent. (Jackie's group is very left wing and very antiwar).

He gathered the signatures, he's not on the Demopublican's line, he's not getting money from the national parties, so by my book he is Independent.

If she wants to complain about prefential treatment Liberman is getting, then she may have a valid case, but trying to declare he is not an Independent, is the same type of Dirty tricks the Democrats used in 04 to try and knock Nader off the Ballot.

The way to beat your opponent is on Ideas, not by keeping them off the Ballot. I would have that CUIP (her group) would have taken this idea to hart after 2004 and 2000. For them do something like this smacks of hypocracy.

Anonymous said...

Another thought is that by making people not just punch a Straight Ticket, Liberman may get people out of their mindset of always voting Democratic (or republican).

I was wondering has Salit come out again Carole Strayhorn in Texas.

1. According to the Democrats (and many Republican), she is still a Republican.

2. According to the Republicans (and many Democrats), she is just running as an Independent b/c she can't win in the primary.

Both of the above are the exact same reasons which Salit is using to disqualify Liberman. (Note: This is why she is SAYING he is not an Independent, this is different from the complaint she is filling).

(Also the CUIP coordinator in Texas has completely fallen for Strayhorn (metaphorically speaking))