Joe Lieberman: from DINO to IINO?
Oh oh, I feel a Drudge light moment...
Man, Joe can't find any love. I guess he better stick to campaigning in Waterbury.
It seems like the de facto Republican who claims to now be an independent just pissed off the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) and who are pissed off and want him to stop using the term "Independent."
Personally, I rahter use the word Ignore when I see the letter "I" next to his name.
From the CUIP press release:
An organization representing independent voters today registered an objection to the certification of Joseph Lieberman as an independent candidate for U.S. Senate.Here's the letter in full:
In a letter to the Secretary of State, Jacqueline Salit, the Political Director of CUIP, asserted that Senator Lieberman's application was deficient on its face and failed to comply with election law standards required this year of other groups.
Connecticut law requires candidates seeking to circulate nominating petitions submit an "Application for Nominating Petition" to the Secretary of the State. The Lieberman submission was devoid of the name, identity and contact information of the Applicant which the application requires.
"There is mounting concern among independent voters in Connecticut that Mr. Lieberman's so called 'independent candidacy' is a fraud on the voting public," states Salit. "He is not an independent, but is rather a Democrat who availed himself of an escape hatch in state Election Law allowing to reinvent himself as an 'independent-in-name-only' candidate after he lost his own party's primary."
The letter concludes with the recommendation that the Secretary of State withhold certification of Mr. Lieberman's candidacy in light of the failure in his submission.
Ms. Susan BysiewiczHave a nice weekend Joe!
Secretary of the State
State of Connecticut
30 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
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
cc: Lesley Mara, Deputy Secretary of the State
UPDATE:It seems like CUIP Political DirectorJacqueline Salit's offense of Lieberman's use of the term "independent" is well documented. Here's a transcript of a conversation Salit had with strategist, philosopher, and fellow independent, Fred Newman.
Newman: Well, the country's going independent and the independent movement is going center-left, which substantively means anti-war.
Salit: You're saying that the independent movement is heading center-left. But, part of what we're looking at is, of course, that Lieberman is now running as an independent in Connecticut and he's a pro-war Democrat.
Newman: He's not an independent. The question that we, as independents, have to bring into Connecticut, is a question for Joe Lieberman.
Salit: The question to Lieberman is?
Newman: What is it that you're independent of? You're surely not independent of the traditional Democratic Party. You ran your whole campaign on the basis of being identified with it.
Newman: And you're surely not independent of George Bush because you were seen in every poster embracing him. So what is it that you are independent of?
Newman: I take it that what you're attempting to be independent of is losing your job. That's the only thing that I'm certain that you're independent of.
Salit: That doesn't really define being an independent.
Newman: Not exactly.
Salit: Some political players are already trying to play into that issue on the other side. Example: the Bloomberg endorsement of Lieberman. Actually, the two New York politicians to endorse Lieberman as an independent are Mike Bloomberg and Ed Koch. The Bloomberg message is: 'I'm supporting Joe Lieberman. He's the best candidate and the fact that all the Democrats who supported him in the primary are now saying well, we're going to support the Democrat Lamont shows that they're willing to support a political party over their political views and their political beliefs, and that's partisanship of the worst kind.' And, says Bloomberg, 'I'm an independent, and I think that what Lieberman has done is admirable and is independent because it’s putting principles before parties and, hence, I'm supporting him.'
Newman: Why didn't Lieberman run as an independent before he lost?
Salit: Because he thought he was going to win the Democratic primary.
Newman: And he made plain that if he did win, he wouldn't run as an independent. So, how is he an independent?
Salit: He's not. He's simply being pragmatic.
Newman: That's why he held the independent petitions until after the election was over.
Newman: So what kind of independent is he? At least Bloomberg had the courage to declare himself an independent before the election was held.