Independent candidate for Senate in CT stars in ad, creates controversy

Dr. John Mertens, a candidate for Senate in Connecticut seeking the endorsement of various minor parties, recently starred in an ad put on the air by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The Committee did not endorse Dr. Mertens, or even mention his run for Senate in the ad, but Dr. Mertens did talk about how he is the chair of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, a party formed solely to elect Joe Lieberman to the Senate in 2006, but later taken over by his progressive enemies.

The ad has earned Mertens statewide and national recognition from dozens of media outlets, but it has also created a bit of stir among Connecticut for Lieberman Party insiders.  On Daily Kos a “diary” – or blog post created by a member of the website who cannot write on the front page – was created denouncing the ad and Dr. Mertens.  An excerpt is below:

We signed the party over to Dr. Mertens in 2008, with the understanding that it would be used to support or cross endorse the candidate running against Lieberman in 2012.

However, if Dr. Mertens doesn’t get 1% of the vote, the party will cease to be. And he is using it as a vanity party to run himself as a candidate against a Democrat, Chris Dodd, and the others.

Apparently the former contollers of the party believed that it would be used mostly for local races.

11 thoughts on “Independent candidate for Senate in CT stars in ad, creates controversy

  1. Ross Levin Post author

    I’m skeptical of the claim that the party would cease to exist if they didn’t get 1% of the Senate vote. If I remember correctly, Connecticut has laws that allow a party to qualify for the ballot locally, even if they don’t have statewide ballot access. If this is the case, then the party wouldn’t even need statewide ballot access if their intention is to run local candidates.

  2. Trent Hill

    The party was founded by Lieberman in 2006, Morgan, to run for Senate, after Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination for Senate to Ned Lamont. Lieberman then won, qualifying the party for the next election (or two? Richard?).

    Now anti-Lieberman activists have taken over and utilizing it ironically.

  3. Citizen1

    Liberman qualified the CFL Party for the next US Senate election (2010). If Mertens gets 1% of the vote on the CFL line it will have ballot access for US Senate to run a canidate against Lieberman. They must run a candidate or they lose the access and if Mertens is on the ballot for more than one party only those on that parties line count toward ballot access. The CFL party also has ballot access for some state senate and house districts and a suspect that they will petition for more. They we aligned with the Independent Party that ran Nader for President in the 2008 election.

  4. Vaughn

    Is this even relevant to be ironic when Joe isn’t running for Lieberman next year?

    Back to Nader…is the CFL going to have a primary next year?

  5. Mike Indiana

    Green Party Fan (AKA – “Virginia Green” Independent Greens of Virginia),

    Please stop putting words in peoples mouths and, telling lies.

    “Vaugh?s idea for joining the Green Party and giving the Nader the ballot line for Senate another outstanding idea.”

    Where do you get that from!!!!! Vaugh never mentioned the Green Party !!!! It is very clear that the article and Vaugh’s comment refered to the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

    Intentional false truths such as your comment, here and elsewhere while only minor fibs (you’ve already been caught telling big lies on IPR) over time and strung together these false truths (half-truths at best) only paint yourself and third party activists in a negative light.

    In the future please refrain from attributing comments to people which were never said.

    Here is an example of your privious lies and half truths. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/11/green-party-victories-around-the-country/

  6. paulie

    IGP has also been caught by GPW posting under the names of candidates they “endorsed” (sometimes without those candidates’ knowledge, much less approval). The same names showed up at IPR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *