If US Senator Joseph Lieberman chooses to march in this year's Newtown Labor Day parade, he will likely do so as a true independent. Local members of the Democratic Town Committee, including First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and former staunch Lieberman supporter Jim Juliano, agree that the Senator has no reason to believe he is welcome to march beside other endorsed party candidates.
"By marching with members of the DTC and invited Democratic candidates and state leaders, it would give the impression that we support his candidacy," said Mr Rosenthal when asked about the issue late Wednesday.
"I told him through his office, that as a duly elected Democratic official, he's putting me in an uncomfortable, almost embarrassing position. We have a duly elected candidate, who was endorsed by a historic turnout of state Democrats in the recent primary. I don't have to march with [Sen Lieberman], the DTC doesn't have to march with him, so why would he want to make it look like he's in good graces with the Democratic Party?" Mr Rosenthal continued. "He is not in good graces with state Democrats."
Damn right. Lieberman has no business thinking about walking with Democrats anywhere as he is not a Democrat. In fact, it's funny to see that Lieberman is even entertaining the thought of walking in the Labor Day parade...
n fact, Mr Rosenthal pointed out that since he was elected first selectman, Mr Lieberman only opted to march in the town's Labor Day Parade once, prior to the 2000 election.
Former Lieberman supporter Jim Juliano gets right to the point.
"He's not the Democratic candidate, he didn't carry Newtown in the primary, and he didn't receive Newtown's endorsement in the state convention. He's an independent and he should march as an independent," Mr Juliano said.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
