Last night's debate between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman was all about positioning Ned Lamont as a credible alternative to Joe Lieberman. Credibility was the ongoing theme with Lieberman questioning the relentless half truths and distortions of his record in a direct confrontation of Lamont, and Lamont scrambling to sound credible when talking about the issues.
Aside from the fact that Lamont was nervous and seemed transfixed by some unseen headlights bearing down on him, his answers were devoid of debate and just a repetition of his campaign slogans, and empty business speak. In other words, Lamont was exactly who he is, a suit used to selling features without fundamentally understanding what he is talking about.
Lieberman by contrast was at ease, at times aggressive towards Lamont. His performance was not the usual dry and boring recitation of nuanced policy points. He poked holes through Lamont's wavering statements on Iraq, and highlighted his long history of opposing Bush administration policies. Lieberman articulated his positions, why he held them and where they fit in his political philosophy.
Lieberman successfully framed Ned Lamont as a guy who was running against George Bush and Lamont helped by turning every answer into a George Bush attack. The big problem for Lamont was that George Bush was on another channel answering questions from Larry King, and the guy he is really running against is Joe Lieberman.
Last night more people tuned in to watch the Mets and Yankees win, than the debate. They missed the opportunity to be introduced to Greenwich's version of Lynn Westmoreland. It is unlikely that the debate will sway the people who watched much. The angry liberals will continue their war on the war, and baseball games will attract more interest. The question of who will show up on August 8th remains unanswered, but the larger question of who should be going to Washington in November looks like Joe Lieberman.
33 comments:
Joe will do anything to keep his job. He is desperate and his unoriginal handlers are trotting out every ad or line that has worked in the past. The Bear ad, the stealing of Reagan and Benson's debate one-liners. He keeps attacking Lamont as a "Greenwich Millionaire", but it is never addressed that Joe is a millionaire as well - the difference is Joe has nebver worked outside the public sector to gain those millions. He sucks off the public teat, and now, faced with the loss of that, has sunk to new lows. He embarrassed himself last night. While Lamont did not look particularly senatorial, neither did the incumbent.
I wish I had seen the debate you saw last night...
At ease? Compared to Zell Miller maybe. Maybe.
Also, I (sort of) understand why Senator Lieberman thinks that he owns that Senate seat (18 years, VP nominee, etc.), but I csn't for the life of me figure out why he thinks he owns Lamont's rebuttal time... Can you?
Also, why did he jet out of the post debate spin room when asked about his anger issues?
Patricia Rice said... "
the far left Liberals have to be contained"
Nice idea but they'll never all fit in this mayonaise jar I have here.(holding it up to the monitor so you can see)
What do you have in mind?
I was thinking about giving them free all expense paid trips, one way of course, to where ever we've been getting illegals from. At least the illegals want to be Americans and most of them want to work too.
I'm not so sure either is true for members of the far left.
Listen, I understand that y'all want to talk about which horse did better last night. The fact is that regardless who wins the primary, Joe will be on the ballot in November. So can we back-burner the debate and focus on a real "strike when the iron's hot" issue: Moooooooody? This might actually help to push 'that other race' to the forefront.
Hi ,
The post review of Lamont performace is far from true.
The person that wrote it sounds like a Lieberman supporter from the get go.
I watched this debate as a voter and from what I saw it was Lieberman on the defensive most of the night.
Also Lieberman rudeness with Lamont when he was given his turn to speak was not one who acted as a Senior Senator with experience in Washington but onw who acted like he was desperate and angry that Lamont was running against him like he King of us all.
Lamont came across direct and to the point and did not seemed fazed by Lieberman angry or attacked.
Turfgrrl review must have been another debate I wonder what drugs she was on when she watched Lamont debate Lieberman?
Before anyone else attacks Turfgrrl for her commentary, let me applaud her for the best account of the debate I've read so far.
Lamont got creamed. God, it was beautiful.
But on a more substantial note, what really is the deal with Ned and Annie's tax returns? If an 18 year incumbent can happily release his and show up squeaky clean, then why can't this supposed outsider and man of the people. Lamont clearly just isn't ready for public life.
Interesting take on the debate. I have looked in on this blog before, and, although it is obviously slanted toward Joe, I didn't realize that it is bought and paid for.
I'll keep reading if only to get a peek behind enemy lines.
Show me where any of this happened in the debate. (I'm new to this site, but I'm beginning to suspect that this turfgrrl isn't really interested in a serious conversation.)
Can you point to anything at all in the debate that actually supports these claims? Unfortunately, this post doesn't invite a serious conversation about the debate. But I suppose that's not really its purpose.
According to JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an AP type organization covering Jewish news), they got ahold of an internal Democratic poll that shows Lieberman LOSING to Lamont among Jewish voters, 50-41.
But what is most striking is this statement by Droney "'I find the behavior of a large segment of the Jewish community to be reprehensible and outrageous,' said John Droney, a former chairman of the state party who is advising Lieberman to run as an independent. 'When he's in trouble like this, they all ought to rally to him. It's too bad that you have to listen to an Irish-American to realize that you've got to support your own home cooking.'" These guys have really lost it. Full article here.
Two words: Lisa Moody
After reading this review of Lieberman and Lamont I have to ask which debate was Turfgrrl watching?
As a voter who will not be on vacation August 8th after seeing this debate I have made up my mind to vote for ned Lamont.
He came across direct and honest on the issues from the war to the Environment.
Lieberman on the otherhand came across as very angry that anyone should challenge him at all.
From what I can see Turfgrrl blindly supports Lieberman .
The Democratic Party needs to listen to the grassroots of the Party.
Turfgrrl if you like Lieberman then you might consider joining the Republican Party.
What we had last night was a Democrat debating a Republican which was Lieberman
My agenda glasses are off...
Are we still seriously saying that Senator Lieberman was at ease?
Does at ease have a new meaning?
At Ease (adj) - Angry, Likely to interrupt, Unable to follow debate rules
Derby Con...you said it best.
Democrats are the party of what have you done for me lately.
JFK would be ashamed, the Democrats of this century do not ask what they can do for thier country but what the country can do for them...
Jim--
Please understand that neither Joe nor Hadassah have released their 2005 tax returns. Lieberman is just being his hypocritical self, that's all
How do I know that they haven't been released? Because I am absolutely dying to know how much Hadassah got paid last year as a lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton! My guess is about $30/month, or $1500/working day, which is, of course, chump change when compared to the speaking fees she collected after Joe's 2000 rise to fame.
How much in speaking fees? $570,000, or about $114,000/annum. Not bad considering she worked only 44 days for the $570,000! That's right, a mere 44 appearances --at $13,000/day!
So yes, I'd love to know how much Mrs. Lieberman is getting paid to help "access" her husband.
And another thing I'd like to know about is Lamont v. Lieberman in terms of charitable giving. The Liebermans, who knows? But Ned Lamont is certainly a charitable guy. Heck, he even went so far as to give money to Joe!
Your Blog should be changed to I Support Lieberman.com .
Instead of acting like your looking at this in an open and honest way.
Lamont was woefully unprepared, shame on his staff for letting him go out there unarmed.
I'll admit it, I didn't watch the debate. I was away over the fourth weekend, and after all the rain last week, I really needed to mow the lawn. And since I'm a Republican, I didn't need to see Lamont-Lieberman.
From reading this site, here's what I gather: Lamont supporters think Lamont won; Lieberman supporters think Lieberman won overwhelmingly. There seems to be a consistent view across both camps that Lamont's opening was weak. Lamont also seemed to have gotten tripped up by tax returns.
Do any Lamont supports think Lieberman won or vice-versa? More importantly, was anyone swayed by this debate? I don't just mean will anyone change their vote from Lamont to Lieberman or vice-versa, but does anyone know of anyone who was previously undecided but is now leaning one way or the other (I don't think anyone here was ever undecided).
Jim--
Please neither Joe nor Hadassah have released their 2005 tax returns. Lieberman is just being his hypocritical self.
How do I know that they haven't been released? Because I am absolutely dying to know how much Hadassah got paid last year as a lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton! My guess is about $30/month, or $1500/working day, which is, of course, chump change when compared to the speaking fees she collected after Joe's 2000 rise to fame.
How much in speaking fees? $570,000, or about $114,000/annum. Not bad considering she worked only 44 days for the $570,000! That's right, a mere 44 appearances --at $13,000/day!
So yes, I'd love to know how much Mrs. Lieberman is getting paid to help "access" her husband.
And another thing I'd like to know about is Lamont v. Lieberman in terms of charitable giving. The Liebermans, who knows? But Ned Lamont is certainly a charitable guy. Heck, he even went so far as to give money to Joe!
kerryguy:
"sucked off the public teat"? Harsh rhetoric for our public servants, is it not? Furthermore Joe is NOT a millionaire. See his most recent financial disclosure by clicking below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/l000304.pdf
As to your assertion that Joe is himself a millionaire
BRubenstein said...
CGG...they dont understand politics..its like talking to a 6 year old..the more they exclude liberals the lesser their chances of controling the white house or congress...you would think someone with experience would " get it" but clearly they dont.
BR: Where have you been since '72? Look at the decline of the Democrat party since that year! (For example, the Democrats have won exactly zero southern electoral votes in the 21st Century.) The Democrat party's losses at the ballot box are commenserate to the liberal influence on the party. The ousting of Joe Lieberman from the party would only serve to bolster that trend....
I feel sorry for you guys that support Lieberman. Its actually funny reading your comments though, like old businessmen trying to do the hip-hop. Or, like Lieberman flashing urban-hand signs to his peeps at the Willamantic parade. It is clear that Lieberman's supporters consist of people who will benefit from his continued pork shovelling and good old boy politics. So keep up the good posts! See you in November!
Turfgrrl, it looks like you think that Joe must be doing his job - so when was the last time he visited your town? Funny, nobody else in Connecticut's seen him (except for a few photo ops at failing Bridgeport schools or his famously unattended diner stops).
Perhaps you are a member of a labor movement (but not one of those who equated Joe with 'the worst president in our history'). They've decided to try to stick it out til the next election - reluctantly.
Maybe you are a member of Planned Parenthood - the lone voice in the wilderness of pro-choice women's groups to support him (the others are here:
http://www.connecticutchoicevoice.com/
No? Well you are not a teacher - the Connecticut Teachers Association has Ned's back.
So who exactly are you? You don't temp for the Wall St. Journal's editiorial dept, by chance?
Wait! Your own poll 3 inches down has Joe at 31%, Ned at 60%.
Better read those polls - your readers are speaking volumes.
LitchfieldAngelina said... "
is it necessary for Lieberman to essentially take America's enemies' viewpoints (as most Democrats do these days) in order for him to still be a Democrat?"
Is it possible to tell a lunatic that he or she is crazy?
Would they believe you?
Isn't that essentially what your post attempts to do?
Why bother?
The longer these people live in their own delirium the better our chances of maintaining control of both houses of congress.
Besides, I'm not sure even shock therapy could help some of them.
Zack said... "
the Republican Party has gotten it's butt-kicked in most major state elections since 1988?"
Don't check your facts do you?
The GOP controls more state legislatures now than at any time in decades.
Further, last November the GOP took control of more towns in CT than at any time in over 60 years.
Maybe you should try talking to some people that aren't stoned.
BRubenstein said... "
accussing many millions of good citizens with siding with Al Queda and Bin Laden..."
Bruce; then stop siding with Bin Laden! War is no time for pragmatism; it's a straight up or down, true or false, yes or no.....
No grey area at all.
"what's next, torture camps for us?
Considering how smokers are getting treated by the far left; it's I that should be worried.
We haven't been the movers behind MADD; absurd speed limits set more for revenue enhancement than for public safety; a slew of anti-tobacco lies and subsequent laws and regulations that both invade private property and bankrupt previously prosperous small breakfast diners.
Yet you worry about us???
We just want to be left alone with a cigarette, coffee and the morning paper, and to that end are clearly more concerned with national security.
Bin Laden didn't make me stop having breakfast at the same place I had everyday for over 25 years; Chris Murphy did.
LitchfieldAngelina said... "
is it really so difficult to support the U.S. government during a war?"
Apparently it is.
We should have coffee sometime; you're alright.
So many of the pro-Lieberman replies here assume that the military operation in Iraq is "good for the USA".
That's not necessarily the case. Most world opinion does not think so. I'm convinced that what's going on in Iraq is bad for the US, and the world.
If it is, then it's bad to stand behind the US government's operation in Iraq -- and behind the President who backs it.
That's what much of this race is about -- it's a fair debate on whether the Iraq operation is good or bad for the United States and for the world.
I figured I'd give Lamont a shot, because Lieberman has been around for a long time and I'm sick of the way Bush is miring us in Iraq. I thought that maybe Lamont could be another Wellstone. Then I watched that debate. Lamont was as unimpressive as Bush was next to Kerry. He was an empty suit and just wasn't fit to be Lieberman's peer. It was like watching a high school kid trying to play grownup.
And I don't care if Lieberman was charming or ticked off. He was a grownup next to a punk.
I thought Lamont might have been a Wellstone, but he looks like Richie Rich trying to buy a Senate seat. He is no Jon Corzine or Mark Warner, either. Those guys have something to them and are real Democrats, not just rich guys buying a title.
Lamont symbolizes the Gravitas Gap -- and if my great granddaddy was J.P. Morgan's partner, I'd be able to brag about starting big businesses and volunteering, too. So kind of Ned. He's blessed to be born in America, he tells us -- yeah, and a hell of a lot more. I wonder his positions on the inheritance tax and capital gains, and if he's sent jobs overseas. Maybe there are a few reasons he doesn't let us see his tax returns.
I'm glad Saddam is gone even while I'm mad Bush has screwed up putting Iraq back together again. But I know that, after I'm finished letting off steam with a vote for Lamont, I'm left with one more lightweight dilletante in Washington -- and a liberal George Bush isn't what I want. I want a senator who matters, not a lightweight. I gave Lamont his chance. No thanks, Ned, I'm back to voting for Lieberman. I know when Lieberman takes on Bush on Gitmo and getting the war wrapped up, it will matter. When Lamont does, or tries to do anything else in Washington, nobody will listen. Lamont is no Wellstone.
If the Dem party left the liberals they would lose 50% of the party and be a minor party? Maybe. But they also would get a lot more independent and Republican crossover support, so I am not convinced they would be any worse off. The only true minority party would be the 50% of liberals who they kicked out.
anon -
Ned released a statement in early june fully opposing any repeal of the estate tax. he has spoken against all of bush's tax cuts - including cap gains cuts (unlike joe), and he has been responsible for sending precisely ZERO jobs overseas.
But way to further a lot of incorrect stereotypes. Tell me again how it's Ned buying the seat, when Joe is the one who's campaign warchest dwarfs the Lamont campaign's, yet who has done so with far fewer total donors?
Post a Comment