Thursday, January 18, 2007

CFL meeting highlights

I videotaped the entire event, and video will probably be online Friday night sometime. (I'm too tired to edit it tonight.)

Dr. John Orman, chairman of the "Connecticut For Lieberman" party.

Immediately prior to the meeting, Dr. Orman talks to Tessa and New Haven Independent journalist Melissa Bailey.

Members of the CFL party vote on important party business.

Tonight's second meeting of the revitalized "Connecticut For Lieberman" party was noteworthy for several reasons.

Dr. John Orman became the new Party Chair, with Jon Kantrowitz elected to Vice-Chair.

However, there was drama and controversy.

The person who originally created the CFL party as a vehicle for Joe Lieberman to betray the Democratic Party in Connecticut and disregard the legal results of the primary, Dr. Stuart R. Korchin, showed up for the cocktail party/meet & greet portion of the meeting, and participated in a lively and interesting discussion of the "ownership" of the CFL party.

I videotaped a respectful and informative exchange between the two giants of the CFL party, Drs. Korchin & Orman. However, Dr. Korchin declined permission for me to post the video of the conversation on the internet, proclaiming his wish to remain an anonymous and private citizen.

I will of course honor that request, because several times during his discussion with Dr. Orman, Dr. Korchin referenced legal options available to him if he so chose to utilize them to get the state to recognize his claim on the chairmanship of the party, and I don't doubt he would similarly avail himself to said legal options should he decide he didn't appreciate the video portrayal of him on my blog.

That being said, I would hazard a guess that Dr. Korchin's interview with Jenny Medina of the New York fucking Times contradicts his wishes of anonymity; and I firmly believe that his opposition to my usage of any video of him taped at an OPEN public event such as this CFL Organizational Meeting was the direct result of a large-diameter wooden object (such as a stick) that was lodged firmly and irrevocably in his backside!

Some people are just no fun at all...

Sadly, Dr. Korchin left the event immediately prior to the meeting being called to order. I would have enjoyed hearing his statements about the party entered into the minutes.

CFL party member Edward Anderson put Dr. Korchin's name into the running for Party Chair, and the vote was 5 members for Dr. Orman, and 1 member for Dr. Korchin.

I'm sure more details will appear on My Left Nutmeg; and tonight I got to meet MBair, which was really great!

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

"That being said, I would hazard a guess that Dr. Korchin's interview with Jenny Medina of the New York fucking Times contradicts his wishes of anonymity"

holy shit! you mean someone had the audacity to take a New York Times Reporter more seriously than you! I'm shocked!

You crack me up Bob!

Connecticut Man 1 said...

You should have taped it anyways. Public event AND he is trying to make himself part of this story (NY Times proves that) by disputing the "ownership" of the party.

If he didn't like it he could shut up and leave... lol

CT Bob said...

I did tape it, but I (stupidly) asked him afterwards if I could post it only because he spoke a lot about lawsuits and shit like that, and I wanted his permission to use it on the blog.

Of course, he's a fart-knocker, and he refused.

ctblogger said...

WHOA BOB!!!!

It's a public event and he ALREADY GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO THE New York Times. If he didn't want to be videotaped, he could simply leave...period.

He has no rights in a public forum and he has NO legal leg to stand on since he already gave an interview to the New York Times.

If you want, I'll get my attorney into this matter in a heartbeat.

ctblogger said...

BTW: would our REPUBLICAN buddy be IN THIS PICTURE ON THE INTERNET

http://www.alanstein.com/images/aipac2005.jpg

Site:
http://www.alanstein.com/index.php?content=articles/20050601-aipac&title=Spotlight%20on%20AIPAC

Give me five more minutes and I'm sure I can pull up a few more pics.

He's full of shit and SO lucky I wasn't there...

harriet said...

CTBlogger you have a good point, but in a way I don't blame Bob for being a little paranoid —after all, I’m sure Ken Krayeske thought he was at a public function as well! It seems it doesn't take much to get yourself in hot water with the government these days!

Scarce said...

I, for one, commend Bob's sense of propriety in this matter...

Sue123 said...

Hey, I took pictures of him and he didn't object.

Sue123 said...

He also said that it was a 'smart alecky attempt to take over the party', which prompted his email to Orman. He doesn't want the Democratic party controlled by the 'extreme left wing'.

I knew I should have worn a suit jacket and heels.

CT Bob said...

CT Blogger, you're entirely correct from a legal standpoint, but since we both reside in the real world we know that just because you're right doesn't necessarily prevent your life from becoming unreasonably complicated. Being compelled to answer a civil lawsuit is one of those complications.

You have to choose your battles, and this is one I'd just as soon avoid.

Plus, it wasn't so earth-shaking of a conversation that I feel it has to be posted online...it was exactly what you'd expect from a guy who is a die-hard Liebercrat, and he's trying to reason with us to make this embarrassment go away. It was very civil and restrained (nobody said "I will crush you!") and a slightly interesting, but not anything that I'll miss.

Plus, this way I get to ridicule and make fun of him for being such a soggy blanket.

ctblogger said...

I got'cha.

s p a z e b o y said...

Bob,

What about posting a notice at the door or entryway to any future events notifying all attendees that any and all aspects of the event will or can be filmed for your blog?

Then at least no one can say they thought it was a "private" event or that they were unaware that their remarks were on the record.

harriet said...

spazeboy -- PERFECT!

Connecticut Man 1 said...

That is a reasonable take... Plus: You can always trascribe anything you have should the need arise OR use the video IF it becomes useful down the line. :)

CT Bob said...

I believe Dr. Orman addressed that fact in his opening remarks, but I don't remember if it was included in the rule-making section. Sue is the Secretary, so she'll know. If we didn't get it passed this meeting, I'll ask that it becomes the first order of business at the next.

And the idea of putting a sign up at the door would cover the issue, too.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I can’t believe how much time everyone is putting into this CFL shenanigan. I don’t understand what is supposed to be accomplished with all of this, I would think your time what be of better use doing something else. Please educate me.

Anonymous said...

anon 2:14

There is a core group of a few dozen people in the state of Connecticut who really really hate joe lieberman and are really really upset about the general election results. It is imperative that they form a group to talk amongst themselves about thier sour grapes, to make sure that no one in that group focuses on anything except thier misplaced rage and exagerated sense of self-importance. Broadening thier message to try to include others in thier beliefs is unimportant. First order of business. CFL will be changed to CFS. The Circular Firing Squad.

CT Bob said...

Anon 3:54, you're totally wrong. We don't hate Lieberman...in fact, I'm sure he's a swell guy when he's not fucking up the country.

We hate his politics. We hate that he wants to send more Americans to die in a pointless war. We hate that he is a cheerleader for President Bush. We hate the way he takes MILLIONS of dollars from lobbyists and then rewards them with votes.

We hate his lies.

But we don't hate him personally.

And if you want to know why the CFL is being revived and taken over by Dr. Orman, read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

Some of the best political strategies have been around for ages.

Sue123 said...

Say what?
Sue

Sue123 said...

Er, actually not - it wasn't in the rules. However, if the man was blind enough to have his picture taken by both myself and the NY Independent, stand there while I held a tape recorder next to him, not object while I scribbled notes on his every word- well, actions speak louder than words.

Just sayin' -

Sue123 said...

Er, the New Haven Independent.

Whatever.

Sue123 said...

See, I'm harder to find. I don't have a blog - and I'm sure he doesn't read the other places that I post (you know, that national one in orange).

But don't put the video up on your blog - there is a teeny possibility he may follow through.

But then, if he really objected to the exposure, why didn't he say something to me? Maybe he thought I was going to put his words and image into my political scrapbook for posterity. With cute stickers and tasteful borders.

Next time, we'll put up a warning sign. However, I don't think he'll show.

Now I have to get back to trying to read Jon K's handwriting and look for Mbair's work on the OTHER blog.

I still wonder why Lorenzo wasn't voted in - where did he go wrong? Lieberman had LOTS of plants at his rallies and Lamont gatherings.

CT Bob said...

Sue, all true.

But it wasn't really a big thing; if I thought it was, you and everyone else who was interested would be watching the video right now. But it wasn't anything worth editing.

Right now I'm uploading the entire 51-minute video of the proper meeting. It's taking a looooong time!

CT Bob said...

I would have voted for Lorenzo!

...if I was a CFL party member.

...and if Lorenzo wasn't a plant.

Sue123 said...

He was important enough to be interviewed and videotaped by Mbair in New Haven (I'll overlook the fact that she focused on him, not me - but he has a sunny face and can really schmooze with the girls).

But hey, Joe had a banana in his entourage. Nuff' said.

Southern Gal said...

I wish I lived in CT so I could join.

I hope you keep up the meetings and advertise and expand your membership. You could really turn this into a viable party for the 2008 elections and beyond. Wouldn't it be a hoot in 2012 if Joe's own party beat him?

Southern Gal said...

"There is a core group of a few dozen people in the state of Connecticut who really really hate joe lieberman and are really really upset about the general election results."

So, anon, you are saying there are a few smart people left in CT?

CT Bob said...

Southern Gal - thanks, I'm glad to see interest from outside of CT. I think some people have suggested on DailyKos that local branches of the CFL party can be set up around the country. So theoretically, a candidate can run for State Senate in South Carolina under the "Connecticut For Lieberman" party.

Honestly, I don't know how far that idea has gotten, but lots of people across the country have expressed interest in the party.

See Lieberman Critic Joins CFL, Votes Himself Chairman for more info. And then check this out.

mbair said...

Hey Bob,

It was great to meet you. I've looked over the tape and it's good, real good. There are some great moments in there, not only was it good "political theater" it all kind of actually made sense too.

See ya round.

CT Bob said...

Michele, it was really great to meet you too! Yeah, it was a fun, snarky, silly "political theater" event, but Dr. John brought up some important points. If this goofy CFL thing continues, I think it'll raise awareness of Joe Lieberman's lies and betrayals in a way we never expected.

Think about the mainstream media. They're pretty much forced to shape their story to bland, non-controversial repetitions of a politician's remarks. Sad, but true.

But an MSM reporter covering a CFL event can quote Orman (and registered CFL party members) with the same weight as those of more traditional parties.

So Dr. Orman can say in all seriousness that Joe is a bald-faced sniveling liar, and the media won't have much to fear for simply reporting it. And then the facts get out there to help enlighten the public, and help them see Joe's hypocrasies.

Which is, ultimately, a constructive thing that may bring about sorely needed change.

Let me know when you post your video.

mbair said...

I'm putting up a teaser tonight, Saturday, and the full vlog on the meeting will be up Monday morning at 8AM.

I hope this CfL thing has some legs and gets some good play on the net in the next couple of months. It's important for all those reasons you mentioned. Sometimes all it takes is a few minutes of video or audio on a news report to start galvanizing support for a cause. Especially a cause like this one, it's so obvious and truthful. By which I mean it is obviously true that Joe is a liar and he's off the reservation as far as representing the voters.

Anonymous said...

Must be fun going thru life as an asshole. Hail to Ct Bob!!!

s p a z e b o y said...

anonymous 10:07

Bob isn't an asshole, he's a douchebag. Get your facts straight, asshole.

ctblogger said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ctblogger said...

CTLauryn just got her shots so we'll be on the scene for events like this in the future.

I dare the Lieberman jerk to sue me...I'll make him famous.

...developing.

Anonymous said...

Whether you agree with Lieberman's politics or not, the anti-Lieberman group's idea that if you lose the primary, that you should not be permitted on the ballot is without a doubt one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That is anti-freedom of speech and anti-American. Joe Lieberman figured out that his constituency - the people of CT, not just the Democrats of CT wanted him elected to the Senate, so he found a way to do that.

As for Lieberman, Iraq isn't the only issue. What else did Lamont have going for him? I am asking, since I am not from CT, I didn't follow this that closely. The impression I got was that Lamont ran only on anti-Iraq. If that is true, then that is not enough of a reason to vote for the guy, IMO. What were his other policy ideas?

Scarce said...

46 states have Sore Loser laws on the books. I suppose that 92% of the United States is also anti freedom of speech and anti-American as well.
*rolls eyes*

Anonymous said...

Sore Loser Laws does nothing but strenghten the 2 party system, which is the biggest problem in politics. I would think that progessive people like you could see the Sore Loser Laws prohibit independants (the majority of america) from picking who they want and not just choice between a couple of primary winners where they dont have a say. I think what Joe Lieberman should be able to do want he did even if I disagree with his Politics.

Voters in CT made their decision and it must be respected. Lieberman was able to attract people of all political views (Dem, Repub and Indep) So when I look at this race all I can either say is that everyone really loved Joe or everyone really hated Ned Lamont. Ned was not a good Candidate for some many reasons but he lost the race with his bombardment of negitive advertising. Hope this is a lesson for the CT bloggers in the future. CT VOTERS DONT LIKE NEGITIVE POLITICS so stop posting it all over the internet.

And grow-up all of this CFL bullshit makes you look desparate and childish

Scarce said...

The petulance and whining of Lieberman supporters never ceases to amaze. But then again they are trying to emulate the man himself.

As for your other argument, let's just say I consider it weak at best.

Anonymous said...

Scarce said...

46 states have Sore Loser laws on the books. I suppose that 92% of the United States is also anti freedom of speech and anti-American as well.
*rolls eyes*

I say:

That is pretty funny. Kind of like saying that Fidel Castro got 99% of the vote in the last election in Cuba, so he must have won fair and square. The only thing "Scarce" is your logic. Sore loser laws are put in place by the political parties that want to keep control. They fight to prevent term limits and campaign finance reform too. I suspect if the public understood that these laws existed, then this would become an issue too. *doubled over from laughter after reading that post*

Scarce said...

And your case is stated where exactly? Not here, certainly.

There are so many more electoral reform issues more important than the debateable point you raise (the Liebeman example being more than enough to convince most).

Anonymous said...

The Lieberman example explains exactly why there shouldn't be any sore loser laws!

If the electorate wants a person elected -- and that is clearly what the people of CT wanted in the case of Lieberman - there shouldn't be some moronic law that protects Republicans and Democrats from facing real competition that the power brokers and extremist idealogues cannot control.

I think those that favor a sore loser law seem to have forgotten something: The person running for elective office, is running for the whole constituency, not just for the party to which he or she belongs. In this case, Lieberman represents the middle - middle of the road Democrats or Republicans, and in CT, that is apparently the majority.

That said, there are far more important reforms: campaign finance reform, term limits, gerrymandering, ethics, illegal attempts to prevent Democrats from registering or voting, etc.

So, why is this group wasting time fighting to put in a law that is even more stupid than the Red Sox' decision to send Babe Ruth to the Yankees?

Scarce said...

There is no logic at all in your post. None.

What we're objecting to is Lieberman having it both ways. If he wanted to be a Democrat he should have respected their decision. If he wanted to be Independent he should have foregone the primary.

Anonymous said...

I see what you are getting at, but I do not see anything wrong with what he did. Lieberman was and still is a Democrat, but the Democrats decided they didn't support him because of his war record, among other things. He has every right, IMO, to get on the ballot in whatever legal way he wishes. I do not see a reason for a sore loser rule. This is a free country and he can call himself whatever he wants to call himself. He probably thought that he would win the primary given his general popularity in CT, despite the more Liberal parts of his party not being a fan.

Bottom line, we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with you conclusion. I just don't like black and white in politics. I consider myself to be a somewhat Liberal Democrat, but I am not willing to go by any label. I would do the same thing that Lieberman did in the same situation. I would rather have my preferred party choose me, but if I think I have something positive to say, and I think the majority of the electors would prefer me to the major party choices, I would do exactly what he did.

Scarce said...

Bill Clinton would agree with you also, as he said he'd probably do the same thing in Lieberman's place after losing the primary. His wife Hillary said she hoped Lieberman would respect the wishes of his party and forego any Independent run as "damaging". That may be Clintonian triangulation at work but for the sake of argument let's take them at their words on the subject.

The thing which irked me most about Lieberman was that he always promoted himself as highly principled, "a Democrat 'till he dies", and so on. A bunch of malarky. In the end, politics triumphed over principle yet again with this reprobate, and Connecticut voters fell for it, hook line and sinker.

Anonymous said...

As a person, I have a huge problem with Bill Clinton, but I think he is the greatest President we've had since FDR. I hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination, because I don't want to have to consider voting for a Republican for President, because my hand might fall off if I do. :-)

As far as Lieberman goes, you and I apparently cannot see eye to eye. I see what Lieberman did as anti-politics. He decided the American political 2-party system was bogus and chose to eschew politics by running for elective office to win what he thought the people of CT wanted. And, apparently, he was right.

Scarce said...

If you really think Bill Clinton was the greatest president since FDR your comments about Hilary make no sense whatsoever. If she makes it we'll see the same compromising, and not for the better. It's not without some truth that some have said Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had.

Lieberman chose the worst aspects of American politics to keep running. He didn't eschew politics at all. In the end, running as the de facto Republican candidate and keeping nearly 1/3 of [deluded] Democratic support he was able to hang onto power. It's possible Ned Lamont could not have won under the best of circumstances, let alone the absolute worst.

While much of the country now looks at Connecticut derisively the ultimate lesson drawn is what can happen when a complete political novice takes on a political veteran who will do anything, say anything to retain his seat, simply from a sense of entitlement, not obligation.

Anonymous said...

The reason I do not support Hillary is because I believe she is far to the left of her husband. America needs a healing middle of the road figure (unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani, a closet Democrat is the closest thing we have unless Bill Bradley decides to run). Bill Clinton figured out what America wanted and needed and was able to pass higher taxes that made sense, while championing much-needed welfare reform. The thing that will keep him from being recognized as a truly great President (besides his penchant for interns), is that he did not go after Osama bin Laden when he could have and stuck behind Arafat too long.

Scarce said...

You really ought to vote Republican in 08. You're already there.

Hillary far to the left...

You're expecting/hoping for someone to emerge to the right of Hillary for the Democrats? Fat f-ing chance.

Anonymous said...

Hillary fakes the middle of the road IMO. If I was voting on what she is lying about now, I would like her. Her apparent stance now is intelligent, but scratch her and she's Howard Dean without a temper.

Personally, I would be happy if Bill Bradley ran, as I said. He is intelligent, and listens to all sides. Rudy is really a Democrat too (same for Bloomberg), but neither has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination.

Personally, I am hoping Giuliani and Bradley somehow form and independent ticket and s***w both parties, because the two parties desperately need it.

Anonymous said...

Do you really think that Hillary isn't one of the most left wing Democrats out there. Has she really got that many people fooled?

Anonymous said...

I am not challenging ctbob on this. By you, I mean people in general. I have always seen Hillary Clinton as being to the left of George McGovern, and I still do. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. What do other people think?