"I think we've earned the right to a debate. I think the people of Connecticut, certainly the delegates at the convention, want to have a debate," the Greenwich millionaire businessman said.
"So, I'd say to Senator Lieberman, let's have a debate on the big issues of the day. Let's go around the state and talk about what people care about," Lamont said. "I think that would be good for the state, and I think that would be good for the party going forward." (AP)
To which the Lieberman campaign snippily replied:
"It is exciting that Mr. Lamont is beginning to focus on what we've been focusing on this whole time - discussing the issues that matter to Connecticut voters," spokeswoman Marion Steinfels said. "And we expect to work with the Lamont campaign over the next several weeks to settle the question of a debate." (AP)
I understand the need to spin, but that's a wild one. What has Lamont been focusing on, if not issues? Pinochle? Even people who say Lamont is a one-issue candidate have to admit that Connecticut voters do care about the war.
Actually, it seems like Lamont has done a lot more focusing on Connecticut issues than Lieberman. Crazy moonbat liberal Dean Pagani points out this fact about a new Lieberman commercial:
The first Lieberman ad also revealed how three terms in Washington have strained the relationship with the real people who elected him. Speaking directly into the camera Lieberman did not look happy to be explaining himself. In fact, he looked somewhat annoyed. His language and facial expressions were those of someone who was being forced to explain himself to an audience that is not as sophisticated as he is. “I have to do this because you just don’t understand,” was the clear feeling that came across the TV screen. When Lieberman said he “respects” voters who disagree with him, it came off as insincere. As if he was imparting a great gift to us.
His second post convention ad is not much better. Senator Lieberman is now trying to prove to Democrat primary voters that he has been a good Democrat and is with them on every issue except the war. In ad two he is against big oil and is protecting the Alaskan wilderness from drilling. Fine, but did the voters of Connecticut send him to Washington to protect Alaska? If he is fighting big oil, why are gas prices at three dollars a gallon? Who’s winning that fight?
Meanwhile, Ned Lamont looks like he is fighting the right cause in his TV ads. He is the clear underdog with a popular message. He is in position to take advantage of Lieberman fatigue, especially among primary voters. (Pagani)
Pagani, who knows a thing or two about crafting effective media, hits the nail on the head. Lieberman is floundering. He should be beating down Lamont's door for a debate, trumpeting the value of his ideas over Lamont's and proving that his victories in 1994 and 2000 weren't just because the Republicans had crappy candidates.
But he's not. Instead, he's on the defensive.
What next? Right now, the Lamont campaign has all the momentum. Can Joe Lieberman find a way to slow them down?
"News and notes from the campaign trail." Associated Press 24 May, 2006.
Pagani, Dean. "Lieberman vs. Lamont." Media Attache. http://mediaattache.blogspot.com/2006/05/lieberman-vs-lamont.html. 24 May, 2006.