That is an amazingly fast self destruction sequence. If they could move that fast when they wanted to do something constructive they'd be unstoppable. That's not going to happen.

I think they will have to force Joe to vote with Republicans a few times to really prove to themselves he's not a Democrat.

Hey, he's got enough signatures to get on the ballot, only right to let him run. If he's started a new party, well that's EXACTLY what this country NEEDS. The other two parties have virtually married each other and are one with each other. Don't change the fact though, he's A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING GEORGE'S COURT

CY:

First, Lieberman lost the Democratic primary. It is, therefore, entirely reasonable that Democrats want him to stop running as a Democrat.

Second, the very idea that calling Bush the Chimperor is a racial slur is mindboggling in its foolishness. Next, I guess that you'll tell me that the proverbial "one hundred chimpanzees with typewriters" is a coded attack on Black writers? Curious George is a secret symbol of a colonized African population? That "The Chimps From C.H.U.M.P." was actually Klan propaganda?

Finally, since when do Confederates of any stripe have such touching concern for poor, downtrodden minorities? Only when they reckon they can make a point with it, is my guess...

#1 - Joe is NOT running as a Democrat. He is running as an independent.

#2 - The Constitution places only three requirements for someone to be elected President a) natural born citizen; b) age 35 or older; c) been a resident for 14 years. To be elected, you must be able to get on a ballot.

There is no requirement in the Constitution to belong to a political party, so as far as I can see, he should have the opportunity to run for that office.

Of course, if the Dems succeed and kck him off the ballot, wouldn't it be delightful if he won on a write-in?

Finally, isn't ironic? Here they are spending all there efforts trying to kick Joe OFF the ballot, yet at the same time, they are spending quite a bit of effort forcing Tom Delay to stay ON the ballot.

Dems - more fun than a barrel of monkeys (can I say that?).

So...when a primary is held and the loser ignores it, that's giving the voters a choice?

Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He ran in the Democratic primary and lost. Now he's running as the sole member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. He should rightly not be listed on the Connecticut voter ballot as a Democrat.

However, Orman is wrong to say that Lieberman shouldn't be on the ballot period. Joementum has every right to defend his seat as a member of another party.

It's nice to see so many conservatives lining up to defend a "liberal Democrat" like Joe Lieberman. It's almost as if they suspect something about Joe...

By the way, primary elections are supposed to be partisan. That's the whole point of having them.

"...modern liberals call the current Republican President the Chimperor without any registration of the implicit racial overtones spanning three centuries"
I'm fairly certain President Bush is a white man.

So...when a primary is held and the loser ignores it, that's giving the voters a choice?

Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

It makes no sense at all does it? well, pardon your ignorance, but Lieberman is not running as a Democrat, is he? I believe Ned Lamont is on the ballot as the Democrat candidate, and Lieberman is running as an independent.

Sharon Ferrucci essentially argues that Leiberman has to change his political views to run as an independent, a preposterous position without any legal merit at all. John Orman seeks to create new rules for what is and what isn't a political party as he finds it politically convenient.

The simple fact of the matter is that Joe Lieberman fits all of the legal criteria to run for the seat he presently holds, and the same people in the so-called "big tent" party who stabbed him in the back even though he votes with them 90% of the time are terrified, he's going to crush Ned Lamont, their single issue poster child of the "Peace Democrat" (Copperhead) Left.

And while I'm on the subject of the Copperhead Left, I see the deep thinkers at Sadly No! have rejoined us again, unable to understand how referring to a white Republican as an primate has dark roots in their political past.

Says Sadly:

No, he really said that. He really invoked some kind of bizarre personal racial association with chimpanzees to defend George W. Bush, wealthy white Yale and Harvard graduate, privileged from birth, son of a president and grandson of a senator. Chimpanzees. Good Lord. Like, they’re supposed to be naturally reminiscent of black people?

Not surprisingly, the reading comprehension of Sadly is sadly lacking. I said:

Joe Lieberman, who has a solid liberal voting record going back to when he was first elected to the Senate in 1989, who was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democratic party in 2000, isn't "Democrat enough" for the Peace Democrats (otherwise known as Copperheads as they struggled against Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, calling him Abraham Africanus as modern liberals call the current Republican President the Chimperor without any registration of the implicit racial overtones spanning three centuries, but I digress).

This is not too hard to understand for most folks; I simply was pointing out the parallels between the Peace Democrats of the 1860s and 2006. If you clicked the link provided in that section in the post itself, you would see this description of the 1860s Copperhead Agenda:

Copperheads nominally favored the Union but they strongly opposed the war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate peace and resisted the draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions.

Some Copperheads tried to persuade Union soldiers to desert. They talked of helping Confederate prisoners of war seize their camps and escape. They sometimes met with Confederate agents and took their money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible, and at one point Confederate agents controlled portions of the Democratic party in states such as Connecticut.

While some details have changed, it sounds strikingly familiar.

Let’s check out the similarities:

• Anti-war? Check.
• calls for an immediate peace (i.e. a surrender)? Check.
• Saw the current Republican President as a tyrant, acting as a despot? Check.
• Encourage soldiers to desert? Check. (And if you doubt that, look at those supporting Ehren Watada, among others)
• Tried, or at least talked about helping enemies prisoners of war escape? Check. (Gitmo ring a bell?)
• Controlled portions of the Democratic Party in such states as Connecticut? Dead on.

And right beside that nice little paragraph of startlingly consistent behavior, is an 1864 pamphlet showing how some other things have remained the same. The pamphlet is an attack on a sitting Republican wartime president, comparing him to a primate or blacks, or both with the title Abraham Africanus I. To what end?

Again, we go back to the copperhead reference on wikipedia:

A typical editor was Edward G. Roddy, owner of the Uniontown, Pennsylvania, Genius of Liberty. He was an intensely partisan Democrat who saw blacks as an inferior race and Abraham Lincoln as a despot and dunce.

Tying blacks to monkeys as fellow "inferior" or subhuman species has been going on for hundreds of years in cultures around the world.

"Peace Democrats" have a historical tendency to find white Republican wartime Presidents from rural states to be dunces and tyrants, comparing them to monkeys, along with their many other shared traits, and we are to believe that the one thing they have changed is that monkey references are now suddenly non-racial in the inferiority they imply?

As this iteration of the "Peace Democrats" features Jane "Blackface" Hamsher and a whole bevy of Democrats who turn a blind eye or even participate in race-based attacks against black conservatives, I'd find that highly unlikely, and only slightly better concealed.

I now fully expect the brain trust of Sadly No! to go on one of the typical liberal, "How dare someone with 'Confederate' in his blog name question us," whines, but sadly, whining is about all they excel at.

Don't you all see? Calling Bush the Chimperor is exactly the same as referring to Lincoln as Abraham Africanus because, much like Lincoln, Bush has also been a staunch advocate of minority rights. When the lefties call him that, they're just trying to imply that he's pandering to the black vote. Isn't it obvious? It has nothing to do with his appearance, it's just racism, racism I say!

Or, alternatively, CY could just be talking out his ass. Yeah, on second thought, that's probably it.

Well, congrats, CY, you're now ready for that five-mile run, what with all the intense stretching you just did. Democrats compare Bush to a monkey; people compared Lincoln to a monkey in 1861; people who compared Lincoln to a monkey in 1861 were also racists; therefore Democrats are also racists . . . Are you sure you don't want to include a connection to Kevin Bacon in there?

Meanwhile, not so much as a peep about George Allen, you know, actually calling a brown-skinned person a monkey.

It makes no sense at all does it? well, pardon your ignorance, but Lieberman is not running as a Democrat, is he? I believe Ned Lamont is on the ballot as the Democrat candidate, and Lieberman is running as an independent.

Sharon Ferrucci essentially argues that Leiberman has to change his political views to run as an independent, a preposterous position without any legal merit at all.

Speaking of reading comprehension, Sharon Ferrucci isn't the one asking for Lieberman's party affiliation to be changed, she's the one deciding on the request. And to the best of my knowledge, the question is whether the ballot should list his party affiliation as D, or as I. Given that he lost the Democratic primary, this seems a no-brainer, otherwise there's little point in holding a primary. The AP article wasn't very clear on that point, so it's possible I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of the controversy.

'Stabbed in the back'?

Get real, he lost a primary, the only thing funny about that is you people claiming that it's anti-choice to oppose his arrogance.

Would you like to tell me where my comment went? I wanted to think you weren't childish enough to start deleting comments, but I suppose I thought wrong.

Weren't they refering Lincoln to Scipio Africanus, the Roman General who defeated Hannibal at Carthage in North Africa?
As far as Georgie, I thought it was the EARS.

And right beside that nice little paragraph of startlingly consistent behavior, is an 1864 pamphlet showing how some other things have remained the same. The pamphlet is an attack on a sitting Republican wartime president, comparing him to a primate or blacks, or both with the title Abraham Africanus I.

CY posits an interesting theory, but visiting the venerable (in Internet time) website SmirkingChimp.com, one finds right at the top of the page, this notice:

106,870,251 page views since 27 December 2000

... which puts the origins of the "Bush as chimp" insult nearly a full year (at least) before Bush was a "wartime president".

Furthermore, while the wiki article points to pamphlets, tracts and other public statements by the Copperheads that are indeed full of overt racism (characterised by the 'Abraham Africanus' jibe), nowhere does CY plausibly show* that users of the 'chimperor' insult are similarly motivated by racism against blacks. If he feels up to the research, CY might start on SmirkingChimp.com itself to find solid evidence of the "racial overtones" he claims are present in such insults.

I suspect he won't try, and if he did, he wouldn't find any ... because all of this has been a long way of saying CY is completely full of shit.

*Jane Hamsher's error in allowing a silly attempt at irony to be posted on her blog, and vague, undocumented "race-based attacks against black conservatives" to which Democrats supposedly "turn a blind eye" are hardly plausible comparisons to the dedicated public racism of the Copperheads.

In fact, the most overt prejudices on display in American politics today are against Arabs and Muslims, and those disgusting displays are almost entirely the province of the Right.