The Connecticut For Lieberman Party began as a Joe Lieberman vehicle, was transformed into an anti-Joe Lieberman joke, and is now attempting to transcend Joe Lieberman entirely.

It’s a mutation that has left some of Lieberman’s harshest Democratic critics frustrated and worried about what this new CFL might do to the reelection chances of Connecticut’s other Democratic U.S. Senator, Chris Dodd.

“If [Dodd’s] race comes down to the wire, we don’t want a half a percent of voters to hit the joke line and cost us a Senate seat,” said Edward Anderson, a liberal Democratic activist from New Haven.

John Mertens, a Trinity College professor who is running on the CFL 2010 ballot line as a U.S. Senate candidate against Dodd, believes he has a real chance to shake up Connecticut’s political status quo.

“This isn’t about Joe Lieberman. This is about turning this party into something real,” Mertens insisted. He claims the CFL offers an opportunity to change a political system festering with corruption and ineptitude.

Several of his former activist colleagues claim he’s simply on a monster ego trip.

The CFL political saga began three years ago when Lieberman was denied the Democratic nomination to run for a fourth term. Lieberman had infuriated the party’s left wing by supporting too many conservative causes, and by becoming (in their eyes) a George W. Bush-ass-smooching flunky on Iraq.

Lieberman created the Connecticut For Lieberman Party to get on the ballot. He brushed aside the Democrats’ anointed flag-bearer, millionaire and political newcomer Ned Lamont, on the way to a reelection victory.

(One of the most intriguing aspects to this tangled drama is that Dodd stuck with Lamont through the 2006 campaign despite his long and friendly association and occasional rivalry with Lieberman.)

Upon his return to the Senate, where he called himself an “independent Democrat,” Lieberman forgot about his little party of convenience.

But some of those anti-Lieberman Democrats didn’t. It was especially fascinating to them because, under Connecticut election law, any party whose statewide candidate draws 1 percent or more of the vote in one election automatically qualifies for a spot on the next statewide election ballot. If they could find a way to get that 1 percent in 2010, they could run an anti-Lieberman candidate against Lieberman in 2012 on the Connecticut For Lieberman line.

Led by Fairfield University Professor John Orman, a few of those Lieberman critics took over the dormant CFL to continue their anti-Joe crusade.

“That’s what it was all about,” said Sue Henshaw, a liberal Democrat from Trumbull who was one of Orman’s original CFL allies. Henshaw said Orman “signed over” the leadership of the CFL to Mertens with the understanding it would retain its anti-Lieberman character. Orman died in July.

Henshaw is no longer a CFL member. “It’s kind of sad,” she said. “It’s been kind of a mistake. … We’re Democrats, we certainly shouldn’t be running against Dodd.”

Liberal anger against Lieberman hasn’t dissipated. Despite attempts to put out those fires, he manages to keep them stoked. One recent example is his opposition to a public option for health insurance coverage, something many lefties consider essential.

A Politico article last week quoting Lieberman as saying he doesn’t know if he’d run in 2012 as a Democrat, an independent, or even a Republican was dead certain to keep liberal hackles raised. “I have all sorts of options,” Lieberman joked.

“I guess the one [line] he won’t be running on is the Connecticut For Lieberman line,” said Connecticut Democratic Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

DiNardo won’t say if she would like to see Lieberman running as a Democrat in 2012: “It’s a long way away before I make any decision on that.”

She does admit she’d like the entire CFL affair to just go away. “I don’t see the point of it.”

Mertens argues the point is to break through the self-protection barriers created by major parties, and he claims Orman supported a CFL challenge against Dodd.

“I disagree with the position that the party exists solely to run against Joe Lieberman,” said Mertens, who is current CFL chairman.

The CFL Web site, however, opens with a denunciation of Lieberman for the “fraud perpetrated on members of this party and the citizens of Connecticut when he used creation of this party to get on the general election ballot in 2006.”

Mertens wants to get several established minor parties, including Connecticut’s Greens, the Independent Party and the Libertarians, to back only one minor party candidate in each big 2010 race. His theory is that would give each of those candidacies (particularly his own) a better shot.

He says most of the minor parties agree “that the two-party system isn’t working … that we’re all against corruption, and all against the encroachment of our personal liberties.”

Mertens isn’t sure how far he’s willing to take this third-party-coalition-building strategy. “I obviously wouldn’t want to include the Nazi Party. Obviously you have to stop somewhere.”

Mike DeRosa, co-chair of the Connecticut Green Party, said Mertens’ plan “doesn’t impress me too much.”

“What are we uniting for?” he asked. “What do [all these minor parties] have in common? If we’re simply doing it as a tactical move, I don’t think it makes sense. … I think our parties need to stand for what they are.”

Anderson, another former CFL member, thinks Mertens “went off the deep end” and that the end result could be disastrous for Democratic hopes of keeping control in the U.S. Senate.

“If Dodd wins, it’s going to be close,” Anderson said. Dodd is in deep political shit, suffering harsh publicity about favorable mortgage deals and his cottage in Ireland.

“There are a certain number of people who are dragged to the polls and don’t like any politicians,” Anderson said. His worry is that those folks might cast protest votes for Mertens and that could potentially swing the election to a Republican.

“Lieberman would be laughing if that were to happen,” Anderson said. “And John Orman would roll over in his grave.”