A Response to "A Letter to John Mertens"

John you are libeling Professor Orman (3.50 / 2)

when you suggest he'd be behind your current quixotic venture.

Yes, I believe those emails are true, and AT THAT TIME, Professor Orman was okay with you running. (Particularly if he got to run against Joe in 2010!)

But you're missing the big picture, which is that Orman was a loyal Democrat and a fan of Dodd. Once it emerged that the 2010 Senate race was going to be closely contested, no way in hell would John have wanted you to do anything with the CFL ballot line, other than cross-endorse.

Please understand, everyone couldn't care less about your messianic candidacy, EXCEPT that in a twist of fate you might somehow contribute to a Republican victory. (Which we care about, and you quite obviously don't).

Maybe you get lucky and Dodd drops out in favor of Blumenthal. But if the Dem candidate remains Dodd, and you continue to go full Nader, expect to be called a lot worse than an egotistical asshole.

How can we walk you back from that brink?  

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 20:21:49 PM UTC

PS -- The other thing that we're pissed about... (0.00 / 0)

Is that you're probably going to cost us the ballot line in 2010, particularly if this is a close rate with Dodd still in it.

But even if Dodd drops in favor of Blumenthal. You still want to be listed on four ballot lines?

How does that help CFL? Won't it hurt your chances of reaching the 1% threshold on the CFL line.

Frankly if it remains your go to be the CFL candidate, the Libertarian candidate, the Green candidate, and the Independent candidate, I really think you should step down from being CFL chairman, since you aren't putting CFL's interests first.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 22:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PPS -- When is our convention? (0.00 / 0)

I hope you'll hold it in April or May, ideally after we see what develops with the Democrats.

If Dodd happened to retire in the meantime, it would save us a lot of contentiousness, as I for one would have no problem with you being the CFL nominee, -- if you put the party first and forewent those other ballot lines.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 22:24:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PPPS -- John, watching your TV appearance... (0.00 / 0)

How can you state that you will definitely be on the ballot in November? (when we haven't even had a convention yet, and not one vote has been cast.)

Why don't you wait until after the convention before you declare yourself the winner? (I've talked to several of us who still believe the best thing for CFL is to cross-endorse the Democrat, particularly if it's an embattled Chris Dodd.)

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 01:47:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what if Mertens loses the line? (0.00 / 0)

Mertens knows how to run a ballot access campaign, and can mount a petition drive. If he loses the ballot line, I am certain he will be out petitioning and raising the money to reacquire the ballot line.

Mertens is not afraid of doing the hard work of democracy. I have seen him petitioning. He is good at it.

The CFL party, if it wants to legitimately challenge Lieberman, needs to be able to raise the $30k to put together a ballot access drive. If it can't, then it doesn't have the grassroots support to defeat Lieberman anyways.

So I just don't understand the logic that says sitting out 2010 will be good for 2012. How does riding the pine in 2010 build the grassroots support needed to be ready in 2012? By the time Nov. 2010 rolls around, whoever is gunning for Lieberman's seat has to be building a network anyways...
 

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 14:38:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ken, you just don't get it..... (0.00 / 0)

1) It's not Mertens ballot line to do whatever he wants with. CFL is a party, not a cult of one.

2) There is nothing funny about potentially helping a Republican get elected. Unless you're Joe Lieberman that is.

3) The goal in 2012 isn't to "challenge Lieberman". The ballot line is a joke, and it's just there to have fun with. (at Lieberpuke's expense.)

4) If Mertens wants to be taken seriously, he shouldn't be running on the joke line.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:57:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That makes no sense (0.00 / 0)

If the ballot line is for fun, then why all the invective against Mertens? I guess I misinterpreted the covetousness towards the 2012 election as being serious about dethroning Lieberman. You see it as a practical joke.

In the future, should I weigh your comments with the gravity given to college frat boys or should you like me to take your political opinions seriously, in the manner that I regard ballot access?  

I respect the thousands of citizens across the country who have worked  countless hours and poured of blood, sweat, toil and tears into securing ballot lines for candidates of all stripe.

To hear you refer to a ballot line as a tool of mockery, I will chalk up to a Friday afternoon mistake. CFL isn't Pigasus. Lieberman used it to subvert the will of the Democratic Party in Connecticut.

Because I do have a level of respect for your opinions, garnered over years of reading your comments, I'll give you a mulligan on this one, and hope you can come up with a better defense than CFL is just a joke...  

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 00:16:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can't libel the deceased (0.00 / 0)

and truth is an absolute defense to libel

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 14:33:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay Ken, (0.00 / 0)

After you're dead I'll have fun telling everyone about the children you molested.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:58:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John, (4.00 / 2)

It's impressive that the ol' CFL Party has attracted MoveOn.org's former media director - I always knew we had it in us.

Whatever happens I would never want to create bad feelings with a possible future Senator (like I need another notch in my belt) nevertheless, this 2010 campaign has implications that could be catastrophic for Connecticut Democrats.

There is an interesting essay about the history of Third Parties, via
The Democratic Underground - I'll cut and paste some pertinent parts (wish it could be the whole thing):

The rise of progressive third parties in US politics has always presented somewhat of a dilemma for progressive Americans. On the one hand, much of US history has been characterized by a dominance of conservatism, thus leaving progressives hungry for a new progressive party.

But on the other hand, when one of the two major parties is substantially more progressive than the other one (or perceived to be so), the rise of a strong progressive 3rd party always has the potential to siphon off votes from the more progressive of the two major parties, thus handing important elections to the ultra-conservative party.

The Green Party Platform best describes my political ideal, but the issues that determine an election don't make them a truly viable option yet, until America wakes up.

But let's face facts what happens when the voters get to the voting booth. There's alienation, attendance issues, payoffs to local poll workers which makes an underfunded third party candidate chances almost insurmoutable.

We all would like a different choice, but ~

A majority of voters desire the election of third party and independent alternatives to the representatives of the political status-quo, as is consistently indicated in public opinion polls. However, they and many others are convinced that third party and independent alternatives are not viable candidates for office and do not stand a chance of winning because the two-party system is based on the election of Democrats and Republicans.

Is it really worth chancing  Linda McMahon instead of Chris Dodd??

Since McMahon, 61, announced her campaign in mid-September, Graham said, there have been three immediate, major changes in the professional wrestling business.

First, in a sport where bleeding was once commonplace, blood has been virtually banished from the ring. Graham said he cut himself with a razor blade 300 to 400 times in his decadeslong career. Said Graham: "She has had no problem with grown men - myself included - cutting their head with a razor blade. All of a sudden, why aren't these guys bleeding anymore? Because Linda is running for the Senate."

Please read my letter to Adam Green here, but the salient objection to your race is the possibility that we would have a Republican in a Democratic Senate seat.  Maybe, someday, the media will provide more balanced coverage and campaign finance law will be equitable - but it hasn't happened yet.

So, in closing, here's another clip that sums it up -

It's a matter of degree. The corporate takeover of today's Democratic Party is far from complete - and as a whole, the Democratic Party is still much better and much more progressive than the Republican Party. It is right to be cautious about voting for 3rd party candidates when we risk giving control of our country to the Republican Party by doing so - as happened in the 2000 presidential election.

A certain Democratic-leaning political science professor would be playing sour notes on his celestial harp if he had to watch people bleed.

Cheers~

---

by: Sue @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 21:42:37 PM UTC

Change (0.00 / 0)

Is it really worth chancing Linda McMahon instead of Dodd? Have you seen Charlie Cook's latest political report? He says Dodd is as bad as an unindicted incumbent gets. Yesterday, he rated the race to lean Republican. http://www.cookpolitical.com/n...

Dodd lost the seat himself. Why should Mertens sacrifice his rights as a citizen to protect a bumbling Senator who got a cottage in Ireland while the rest of us in this economy must scrape to get by?

Thus progressives ought to start mounting their forces in South Dakota to oust Sen. Tim Johnson so the seniority on the Senate banking committee is thrown into disarray. Dodd will not be a member of the U.S. Senate in 2011.  

We all want a progressive democracy where there are more than two parties at the table.  

But every time someone wants to run a good third party campaign, we are told by the cognoscenti - now is not the time - don't risk it - don't be a Nader, etc etc etc...

Every time someone mounts a third party campaign, the chorus strikes up "But the Democrats."  A whole heckuva great job the Dems have, like with 34,000 new troops in Afghanistan, mucking up healthcare reform. I needn't go on and point out more. It is too embarassing.

Progressives need to jettison the Democrats. A citizen's right to run for office is sacrosanct, and the Democratic line of prejudicial disrespect for the rights of candidates harms democracy.

Democracy requires risk-taking, which means runs candidates that upset the two party balance.  Too bad. Had the Dems used their monopoly power in the SOTS office to push for structural democratic reforms like IRV, this wouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately, it is an issue, and it is divisive because of Democratic desire for status quo.  

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 14:32:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]