Thursday, July 06, 2006

First Impressions of the Debate

I just finished watching the debate, and I do have some first impressions I want to get down.

Mad Joe

First, I can't believe how angry Joe Lieberman looked the entire time. He seemed personally offended by the notion that he was being challenged. He seemed kind of whiny and petulant the entire time.

He was rude. He interrupted. He didn't respect the rules of the debate, and stepped on Lamont's time. He actually wagged his finger at Lamont a number of times. Poor Joanne Nesti looked like she had been hit by a bus a couple of times, and I noticed that she tried to give Lamont extra time near the end.

Attack of the Senate Candidates

Secondly, Lieberman's attacks didn't really hit home, except for the part about the tax returns, which Lamont sort of dodged. But they were numerous, and they were nasty. He kept saying "There you go again," or "There he goes again." Who are you, Ronald Reagan? Painting Lamont as a conservative Republican in a liberal Democrat's clothing just didn't seem to be working, and Lamont shrugged it off.

Lamont's attacks, on the other hand, at least had a foot in reality, although they were just as numerous. The Bush-Cheney-Lieberman energy bill was a good one. Also, Lamont's last question to Lieberman, when he asked if, like Lieberman had said in 1988, that he still thought it was time for a change after 18 years. Lieberman handled it well, but it was a nice touch.

Amazing Claims

Lieberman saved the sub base? Huh. I thought Rob Simmons saved that thing. And good luck getting rid of earmarks. Wow.


This is where Lieberman seemed close to losing it, and where I think Lamont did best. Lamont's position on Iraq, despite what Lieberman said, seemed pretty clear to me. On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure what Lieberman wants to do there. Lieberman did make good points about regional instability, but trying to scare voters with terrorists seems rather more like the party opposite.

The Winner

In order to win tonight, Joe Lieberman had to convince Democrats that he was, in fact, one of them. He failed. His attacks will remind voters of Bush's attacks on John Kerry in 2004, and he wasn't very reassuring on Iraq, which is the central issue of the campaign, if not our times. This debate often seemed to me like a debate between a Republican and a Democrat, not two Democrats.

For Ned Lamont to win, he had to keep up with the more experienced Lieberman, keep his cool, and lay out his positions without succumbing to Lieberman's attacks. He did this. He looked cooler and calmer on camera (despite that thing he does where he pops his eyes out of his head) than Lieberman, who just looked angry and self-important.

On the issues, Lamont managed to state his positions more clearly than Lieberman, who unfortunately has to stand on his record. Lieberman got plenty of statesman points (when he was calm), but I'm not sure that's what voters are after. I actually expected Lieberman to be a policy encyclopedia in this debate, and he wasn't. There were a couple of places where Lamont's policy knowledge was obviously less than Lieberman's, but Lamont kept up well.

In the end, Lamont exceeded expectations. Policy-wise, they were about even. Lamont won hands down on style. Lieberman, on the other hand, looked like he didn't want to be there--like NBC30 is beneath him.

Victory to Mr. Lamont.


ct_husky said...

I just now got a chance to skim through the majority of the debate, and I must say that you hit it spot on GC. Lamont's opening was a bit disconcerting, but somewhat understandable given the experience factor. I gotta say though, and I know I'm repeating froma previous post but Lamont's closing was fantastic. I think it very eloquently put words to the feelings that a majority of Democrats (and I'm sure anyone else who is looking for change) have regarding the need for some type of substantive change in not just what gets done in DC, but HOW it gets done.

Ebpie said...

I thought Lamont started off a little shaky(especially in his opening statement, he looked like a deer in headlights), but got his act together quickly. The Fox News line was great. I wonder if he was saving that. Lamont thought quickly on his feet, adapted and did very well. On policy I thought they were about even. Given the expectations game, however, Lamont will walk away from this on top.

ct_husky said...

Ebpie, yeah that Fox News line was good, that had slipped my mind. The one I really liked though was the Bush-Cheney-Lieberman Energy Bill. Less obvious of a crack (cause who can resist making a crack on Fox?), but still touched on a lot of issues (conservative votes, ties in with administration, plays up energy issues). said...

GC- I couldnt disagree more. Lamont looked nervous and scared at the begining. I thought Lamont gained back some ground after the break but that Lieberman looked Senatorial throughout.

Lamont may have spoke to his base but he never once said what specifically he would do besides oppose Bush on everything and offer long range plans for job retention. I'm not even sure he has a legislative agenda.

I also thought that Lamont didn't have a firm grasp on the material beyond the basic talking points. Lieberman defended his vote on the energy plan eloquently and Lamont had no response. Also when Lieberman asked Lamont to define who he was and would be as a Senator, which he didn't do. Same with the taxes question, he never answered the questions. I guess that is good politiking, but it wasn't good when you are trying to show a choice.

I watched with a few people who are undecided and both said that what struck them the most was that Lieberman gave specifics as to what he would do in the future, Lamont did not.

Finally, what struck me is the tone of the debate. Both men dispised eachother and that was apparent, even though on issues like immigration and energy they sounded very similar. I think it is a sad for this party that use to have room for both of these men. I feel like the big tent is getting smaller and I wonder where I will fit in it in the future.

Along that same way of thinking, I stopped posting on this blog months ago because it stopped being a good debate like it was and started being a place where certain individuals determined whose opinion mattered and who was right.

I couldn't watch and let this one go. Lieberman walked away with this thing. And so I go back into CTLP retirement.

sen. bob said...

I know Joe Lieberman. I served with Joe Lieberman. Ned Lamont is no Joe Lieberman.

And thank G-d for that! Victory in the debate for Ned.

Ebpie said...

Anyone else notice Lieberman mentioning Schlesinger twice in this debate? What does good ol' Alan have to do with anything here? That to me is a clear sign Lieberman's thoughts were on Nov 7 just as much as they were on Aug 8.

Anonymous said...

I'll be voting for Ned on 8/8, but I think "Joementum" won this round. Not by knock out, but still a win.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Lieberman saved the sub base? Huh. I thought Rob Simmons saved that thing.

You thought right.

Simmons is probably the only guy that could have saved it too.

He is after all a lifetime member of the intel "fraternity" thanks to his CIA background and those connections are beyond a doubt how he did it.

Of course everyone wants to take credit for it - but just think about it for a few minutes.

juno912 said...

Just can't let's comments (above) pass. People don't agree with you, so you pick up your marbles and go home? What a load of crap.

In terms of the debate, each candidate made their points, but I believe it's the overall impression that counts.

Lieberman's constant talking over Lamont, and repeated personal attacks left the impression that Lieberman is the attack dog, not Lamont. As an incumbant, that smells desperate. It also skewed the impression that Lieberman actually didn't have anything else to say.

Lamont kept on message, despite Lieberman's attacks, and (contrary to what others think they saw) Lamont was quite articulate with the vision, tone, direction and style he would take to Washington.

I agree with others that Lamont walks away with the advantage, though the race is by no means over.

Janet said...

i plan on voting for ned on 8/8, however i think lieberman one.

lamont just looked very inexperienced, nervous, and scared. i dont think he convinced anyone to vote for him tonight, sorry.

but on the other hand, i dont think joe convinced anyone to get off of their butts on 8/8 to vote for him, either.

i dont think the debate will affect the outcome of the primary at all.

Anonymous said...

I'm with janet - question - did either candidate move an undecided one way or the other? I thought ned seemed newvous and inexperienced, but joe seemed angy and arrogant. The debate probably solidified supporters in both camps, but did anyone in the middle move?

no said...

Tonight's debate solidified in my mind that Ned Lamont would be an utterly terrible United States Senator. Granted, it was his first nationally televised public debate, and Lieberman has the advantage of having a Vice Presidential run under his belt, Lamont still exhibited signs of weakness that a Senator or candidate should never show. He was wildly jittery during the debate, rarely looked into the camera, had huge bug-eyes, and had a hideous blue shirt.

I was insulted at the fact that Lamont wants to get rid of earmarks. I'm insulted anytime anyone says that. Earmarks are one of the only ways elected officials have of bringing any federal funds to their districts or states. When the Departmend of Homeland Security cuts Connecticut's funding, it's up to the CT's House and Senate delegation to get funds to make up for things like that. Earmarks are a way to do that.

Lamont also could not keep a consistent statement on Iraq. He never came out and boldly said anything one way or the other. And it wasn't because he was trying to be political about it. It appears it's just the kind of person Ned Lamont is. A person with weak convictions, a bad public speaker, and an ultra-partisan hack.

cgg said...

I figured that Lieberman's anger would get the best of him at some point, but he couldn't even get through the opening statement calmly. The complete lack of restraint really surprised me, especially the constant interruptions. A man with 18 years experience in the Senate, plus two presidential campaigns should have been able to show more respect for the process, his opponent, and himself.

My SO caught the last half hour and made the point that Joe behaved with much more civility towards Cheney in '99. Technically Lieberman and Lamont are on the same side. There's absolutely no reason to be so hostile towards another Democrat.

Ned started off shaky, but did well enough. I liked his optimism, especially in the closing statement. His attacks were numerous but I'm not certain how effective they were. In the end it doesn't matter. Ned didn't have to win the debate. Lieberman defeated himself with his own attitude and anger.

Patricia Rice said...

I can't imagine we were watching the same debate; LaMont looked like a deer in headlights with his eyes ready to jump out of their sockets. Senator Lieberman was at his best and was able to articulate himself in a clear and concise manner while Ned was stumbling and nervous.

There was no question that Negative Ned took a beating and was way out of his league.

cgg said...

That's Lieberman at his best? No wonder so many Democrats around the state want to replace him!

MikeCT said...

CG hit multiple nails on the head tonight!

* Did not come across as an 18 year incumbent statesman. Looked like a nasty & smug brat, pointing and stammering - "but mom, he's saying bad things about me!"
* Recycled Reagan & Bush rhetoric - there you go again (Reagan), he keeps changing his position (Bush/Kerry)
* Interrupted repeatedly and rudely
* Sounded weak and defensive

Lamont held his own and kept to his message, presented an optimistic outlook, and offered a positive vision for the party. Came across as reasonable and polite in comparison to Lieberman. A bit nervous and shifted his gaze too much.

Lamont's missed opportunities:
* Highlighting more differences aside from the war
* His question to Lieberman - should have asked him a tougher question that would box him in

Best one-liner of the night went to Lamont when Lieberman interrupted him: "This isn't Fox News, sir." Every Democrat had to love that, and the room I was in erupted in laughter and applause.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman barely won the debate, but he doesn't care if this debate helps him August. His performance will help him in November... which is what he cares about.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Publius said... "
Tonight's debate solidified in my mind that Ned Lamont would be an utterly terrible United States Senator.


It's better for if Lamont wins the primary

no said...


Unfortunately, Joe Lieberman is a better Republican than Alan Schlesinger. I have no idea what Schlesinger's angle is. I don't think I've ever seen a politician so off-message in my life.

Genghis Conn said...

Thought you all might be interested in the Lieberman campaign's response:

HARTFORD - In a televised debate tonight, Sen. Joe Lieberman demonstrated again that Connecticut Democrats voting in the Aug. 8 Democratic Primary will be choosing between a senator who offers voters experience, principles and hope and a challenger who offers them criticism, negativism and pessimism.

"Connecticut voters have a choice," Lieberman said in his opening remarks."I am running based on my record as a progressive Democrat and for a better future for Connecticut. Ned is running against me based on my stand on one issue --- Iraq."

In the 60-minute live exchange on WVIT-TV Hartford Channel 30, Lieberman discussed his thirty-five year record of fighting for progressive causes for the middle class, civil rights, women's rights,and human rights. In debating about a range of issues from decreasing gas prices to increasing Connecticut jobs, Lieberman talked about his work on behalf of Connecticut.

"I'm on of the senators who are able to reach across the partisan divide to get things done," Lieberman said. "And that's helped me deliver for Connecticut. It helped me save the 31,000 jobs at the Sub Base in New London. It helps me to clean up the Long Island Sound. It helps me to return more money to Connecticut for our transportation funding."

Lieberman's Campaign Communications Director Marion Steinfels said,"you saw the real Joe Lieberman tonight. He is a principled Democrat with the courage of his convictions. You saw the real Ned Lamont tonight. The central premise of his campaign collapsed as he waffled yet again on Iraq and couldn't answer why he agreed with Republicans 80 percent of the time when he was in elected office. The contrast was crystal clear. A principled fighter won the debate against an inconsistent and inexperienced challenger."

MikeCT said...

There was some interesting post-debate analysis on MSNBC via Crooks and Liars.

Jay Lapidus said...

Lamont's "This isn't FOX News" was a cheap shot...and poorly delivered.

Joe Lieberman did what he had to do in this debate. He will win the primary.

MikeCT said...

Video clips of the debate on Politics TV (hat tip to MyDD).

CommonSenseDem said...

I disagree with the majority of the comments on this thread, as well as the poll. Lieberman killed Lamont tonight. Where were all of you? Keep living in la la land, seriously. Lamont didn't answer one question beyond his basic talking points. He didn't present one single idea that was original or had some meat to it. How exactly do you guys think the Senate operates? And how does your candidate think it operates because it's pretty clear to me that he does not have a CLUE about what goes on in the Senate and how you get things done. I'm all for universal health care, etc. but it's pretty clear that Mr. Lamont thinks that universal health care gets accomplished by walking into the Senate and saying "i'm for universal health care" over and over again. Does Mr. Lamont have any legislative plans besides being for universal health care, anti-the last energy bill and anti-war? I think not, and tonight Mr. Lamont demonstrated his naivete and inexperience.

I also have a problem with the fact that Lamont said that Lieberman was with Bush on Social Security. Senator Lieberman took the time to consider a policy plan (regardless of the author) before coming out with a position. Doing that means that he agrees with Bush? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Shouldn't we want ALL of our legislators to consider all of their options carefully before weighing in on a debate?

ct_husky said...

Like people have said previously, the real effect of this debate is going to be on the unaffiliated voters. For me, this was but another nail in Senator Lieberman's political coffin (I was 'leaning' Lamont since the beginning, but the Senator's actions from the 'crusade/jihad' comment to his democracy bypassing petition movement pushed me firmly into the Lamont camp). However, from those that I've talked to who were on the fence (most of which are registered as Independents), the general consensus has been that Lamont made a very respectable showing in his first debate - especially against a well-seasoned member of the "establishment".
What I absolutely can't stand though is the tone of this whole situation. Now, this may be a result of me being a naieve young idealist, but I still stand by it anyway. For Lamont's part, I think he needs to realize that consistently pointing out what's wrong with the Senator w/o playing up his own strengths AND plans at the same time is only playing into the hands of Sen. Lieberman's campaign. From the Senator's side, such a veteran of bitter, bitter political reality (not to mention one who campaigns on being the "principled" candidate) should be ashamed at the outright negativity that his campaign is spewing. I suppose, given his experience, one would hope that Senator Lieberman would embrace a more positive approach to campaigning, but sadly that doesn't appear to be the case. For someone who is so "principled" to be relying on that negative of a campaign (that press release was poor spin to say the least), speaks volumes in itself.

One final point before I step off this electronic soapbox: One line in the Lieberman press release really stood out to me. They called the Lamont campaign one that offers "criticism". I'm gonna be really honest with y'all - I got really angry when I saw that word in there. Since when is it derogatory for us to be critical? Since when is it disgraceful to question what we see and what we are told? Hearing this come out of the campaign of a sitting Senator made my stomach turn in ways I never could have imagined.

Vandelay Industries said...

I hope there are more debstes like this. no matter who you thought won or who you are supporting, it was great to see the difference between the two candidates. look forward to seeing mr lamonts tax returns. wonder why he dodged that question.

Tom J said...

Here's the best, well-articulated wrap-up of the debate that I have read thus far:

GC, honestly, your analysis was far off-base. I could imagine Lamont having come across as worse. Would there ever be a scenario in which you wouldn't think Lamont won? Give me a break.

Tom J said...

...* I couldn't imagine...

Rell is going down said...

The Fox News line was so cheesy, and was obviously an attempt by Ned to get every 19 year old to think he is as cool as Jon Stewart. I think that is why I can't really get behind Lamont. I am very much against the war, and very much against Joe's stance regarding Iraq, but I can't vote for Ned simply because he shares my opinion on the war. I didn't watch the entire debate, but I didn't hear Ned say much about what he is going to do for his constituents. And when he brought up the "Leave no lobbyist behind" bill, it became evident that he was in a little over his head. I thought Joe's response was intellegent, and left Ned looking a little ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Ned might not be Richard Blumenthal or Rosa DeLauro, but by God, we need a change. I'll take my chances with the earnest non-politician named Ned Lamont.

Joe just seems so angry. And I thought coming home, campaigning, etc. was just part of the process. Were Dodd ever to be primaried, can anyone imagine him coming off so arrogant, entitled, mean, selfish and self-righteous?

Honestly, Lieberman is one DC blowhard who needs to be retired. If Ned doesn't turn out so well, we can have another interesting race in 2012.

BRubenstein said...

lmao ned said " poppycock"...that is what joe has been giving us for 18 years

Genghis Conn said...

I think my pre-debate prediction of how things would go was pretty accurate.

Actually, I'm amazed at how many of those things actually came up.

Weicker Liker said...

Larry King interviewed President Bush tonight, about an hour after the debate ended.

• Bush refused to say whether he would support an independent candidacy by Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is facing a stiff primary challenge over his support for Bush's Iraq policy.

"You're trying to get me to give him a political kiss, which may be his death," Bush told King.

Anonymous said...

My nine year old walks in to say goodnight in the middle of the debate.

Ned is talking. So I ask "do you like him"?

"NO!" came the immediate and forceful response from this utterly naive and unfailingly kind child. "His eyes are sticking out of his head and he's all [thrashes around a bit spastically]. He makes me nervous."

Really hate to admit it, but I had to agree. As my grandfather used to say, you can't fool kids or dogs.

On substance, Lieberman crushed Ned. The contrast was unavoidable. I found myself thinking how amazing it is that a man of Ned's accomplishment could be that far out of his depth. The Quayle effect never stopped.

And what happened in the studio? At one point it sounded like one of Ned's staff interrupted Lieberman in the middle of saying something. Anybody know what that was?

Bad night for Ned, whether it makes any difference or not. It was a butt-whoopin' by Lieberman.

cgg said...

I saw that too. CTKeith will love the political kiss line.

Patricia Rice said...

It is just disgusting how Ned LaMont can run such a negative and dirty campaign. Why can't he talk about what he will do instead of attacking his opponent’s record? Negative campaigns don't work. Ned will lose.

cgg said...

If negative campaigns don't work (which in itself is debatable) Lieberman should be even more worried. He and his campaign are oozing negativity.

Rell is going down said...

I do agree that Joe came off angry, which I thought was bad. This is why I hate when candidates go negative, especially during a primary. The only winners in a nasty primary are Republicans. My defense for Joe is that everyone seems to be hitting him so hard that he had no other option. At the end of the day, he's human. No matter who you are, after serving your state for 18 years, it's gotta be tough to hear the hatred that he gets for his stance on one issue. But that is one reason why I like him. I completely disagree with his stance on the war, but I can say with all honesty that I don't think he has any agenda here. The smart politcal play would be to pull a Hillary Clinton, and go back on what he truly believes. People see through her bullshit, and I think most voters in CT see through Lamont's bullshit. What happens if there is a miracle and the war ends next week? What will Lamont's campaign be about? And will we regret voting Joe out four years from now, when some first term Senator is getting nothing done?

Wolcottboy said...

Lieberman was pretty good in his opening statement - "I ran against George Bush." True... good reminder to his base.

Lamont was weak on the wiretaps thuogh -saying "there should've been a Democratic stand, there should've been hearings, etc..." I thought that showed a weakness in current events- Congress IS holding hearings.
In other areas i think they seemed a bit even. Lieberman at times felt a bit boring and stuck to his general message- which when he did so really stuck. "Who is Ned Lamont?" I think Lierberman did what he needed to in putting Lamont on the defensive -if not in the debate, at least as a lasting impression.

Best line: "well the bear ads, while cute, were a bit unbearable!" - Ned Lamont.

General question: When was Lamont on the boards in Greenwich? How long ago?

Zengerite said...

Some observations:

Who won? Depends on what game was being played. Ned was playing to win on 8/8- and he did OK there.

A good enough performance to rally his crew of underdogs. Not a great performance- he should have announced a definite considered position on Iraq (I still can't pinpoint where he is- which would be OK, except he keeps claiming that he is pinpointing his position.)

Lieberman clearly won if this is the November game being played. He showed the indies (the biggest block) that he still has fire in his belly, that he remains a fighter, that (for better or worse) he will bring home the goods for Connecticut. He's right when he says that Lamont will be of limited use- even Dodd, with his Democratic seniority is of limited use. But back on debate points, Joe was nailing down the 40% of Republicans he will get and the 50% of Indies. In a 3 way race, he can score in the 30s with Dems and still win.

Overall, the debate looked like a know-it-all Senator fending off an attack from a guy with the debating skills of a good middle school social studies teacher. Ned hung in there, but this hasn't been his game for 35 years- and you can't buy that.

Lieberman at his worst came off like the old angry Senator that Robert Redford debated in "The Candidate."

Joe flubbed the "why is relevant that Ned Lamont is a Greenwich millionaire question." Generally, Joe scored well on the whole framing of the election as a choice- but when this was posed he did not directly say, "the only reason why Ned Lamont is the guy next to me here is because he's a millionaire. And because he's spending a personal fortune to beat me. That's why people should know about it and make their own judgment.

Lamont came out of the box nervous. The tax return thing will haunt him now- not to mention how badly they want to seal up Annie's financials. (Not that there's anything wrong there- they just would prefer not to go that far.)

I'm more interested in finding out who tailored Lamont's suit and chose his tie- did Tom D'Amore decide that Ned would look more like a man of the people with an ill-fitting jacket?

Ghost of DeanFan84 said...

I'm sure this will be taken down, (but don't worry, it's all been copied and pasted, and will make a worthy diary at MLN), but Zengerite appears here as a poster boyfor the falseness/undisclosed BIAS that I complained about earlier, --with regard to a now nameless front-page poster.

If you read his comment above, it would almost seem as if Zengerite is a reasonable, "fair and balanced", blogger. But were you to happen to hit upon his own blog, Zengerite.blogspot, you'd quickly uncover that John Zengerite has a huge axe to grind.

And again, I don't care that he's grinding it, but that he won't be clear about where he's coming from is problemmatic, at least in my book.

CTPatriot said...

Ghost... it is precisely those people who are posting under false persona's that need to be pointed out. The more of a threat that Ned becomes to Bush's favorite Democrat, the more you can expect to see posts in our blogs from people pretending to be concerned democrats who are actually right wingers with an axe to grind (after all, LIEberman IS their favorite Democrat next to Zell Miller), Rendon group employees and friends of Rove who know the kind of damage that a Lamont win can do to Bush's hold on congress.

I expect these clowns to be coming out of the woodwork, and there appear to be more than one just on this thread. Publius would be the other one I've spotted. Be sure to check out his blog at, and you'll see what I mean.

MikeCT said...

From the CT Post:

Political observers said Lamont held his own against Lieberman and despite being wide-eyed and apparently uncomfortable in the glare of TV lights, the challenger may have even won the debate and narrowed Lieberman's lead in the polls.
Gary L. Rose, chairman of the Department of Government and Politics at Sacred Heart University, said the debate might have been the best he's ever seen. Speaking right after the event, Rose said Lamont was the apparent winner.

Scott McLean, chairman of the political science department at Quinnipiac University said that while Lieberman might have used his experience to win the encounter, Lamont "went toe-to-toe" with the incumbent in a performance that's bound to encourage his supporters and narrow Lieberman's lead in the count down to the Aug. 8 primary.

At the end of the WTNH story (second video), Larry King interviews George Bush, who is afraid to publicly endorse Lieberman's independent bid, for fear of hurting Lieberman!

King: I know you like him.

Bush: You're trying to get me to give him a political kiss, which may be his death.

no said...

For your information, I'm not really conservative. In fact, you'll find I'm very liberal on most domestic issues. I call bullshit when I see it, and I see it in Ned Lamont and Joe Courtney.

Anonymous said...

This must be a liberal blog because anyone who knows politics and watches political debates knows that Lieberman absolutely thumped Lamont. Lieberman definitley looked like a strong and forceful leader (whether he is or not). After saying that this debate dosen't matter. It's all about turnout. All of Joe's voters will be on Block Island or Martha's Vineyard. That is why Lamont will win the primary, not because of his wonderful debating skills, but because more of his people will show up on Aug. 8th.

ct_husky said...'s my problem with that line of reasoning. It shouldn't matter who shows up on 8/8. That logic from Lieberman's camp is really degrading to anyone who has an affinity towards the democratic process. It's not right to dismiss the results just because your base didn't turn out for the election. If they want Senator Lieberman to win the primary, it's their responsibility as participants in democratic government to make the time to get to the polls and vote for him.

Anonymous said...

I agree CT_Husky, but many times ideals don't win out. Politics is very simple it's a numbers game.

GMR said...

I don't know why there's this impression that Joe Lieberman's supporters are all a bunch of wealthy people on Block Island or Martha's Vineyard while Lamont's supporters are a bunch of working class people who won't be on vacation.

I would imagine that both Lieberman and Lamont supporters take vacations in August, and I'd further venture that Lamont's supporters skew more affluent than Joementum's.

Ned is a multi-millionaire from Greenwich. Lieberman is from a working class background in Stamford. Lieberman's net worth may be above a million, but just. Lamont has 100x as much money.

I would venture that Lamont's supports skew younger, whiter and more affluent than Lieberman's. But I'm not certain: hasn't a poll been done that breaks down various demographic segments?

Anyway, this Republican is very pleased by the Lamont-Lieberman race. While it probably won't push Schlesinger into the Senate, if Lamont wins, the Democrats in the Senate will be divided between their support of Lieberman and Lamont and the national party will look awfully foolish for kicking out Lieberman while having no coherent strategy about Iraq. A three way race between Lamont, Lieberman and Schlesinger is going to result in the Democrats spending all kinds of money in what would have been a completely safe seat. If Lieberman wins, expect many Lamontites not to vote in the general (especially if Rell is way up in the polls), which will hurt downstate Democrats.

Anonymous said...

GMR, Lamont may be wealth, but is "energetic support and base" are younger folks in their 20's and 30's. Myself being 27, I know many young folks don't/can't afford at this time to take a long vacation or one that is a great distance away.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said... " are younger folks in their 20's and 30's. Myself being 27.."

Which I find shocking and thank God my 18 year old already joined the Republican Town Committee.

Should liberals have their way with America there will be no place left on the face of the earth to escape to.

The liberal agenda is clearly set to destroy the United States and the rest of the free world, which (don't look now) isn't anywhere nearly as free as we are.

No drilling for oil anywhere; but no nuke plants either.
How does that work?
Should we cook on open fires? No - that would cause too much air pollution I suppose.

Cut the military to the bone.
Never mind Connecticut jobs, what happens the next time a tsunami hits someplace? I guess we just sit back and let `em all die huh? (after all "it's not really our business")

Who do you think shows up when it really hits the fan someplace, the Peace Corps?

I wonder what you people are reading, thinking or if you've all taken the Kool Aid.™

Complain about NAFTA while ignoring the fact that out of 50 states Connecticut gained more jobs than any other thanks to it. (Our number export destination is Mexico, the final assembly point for loads of precision stuff we make)

Worry about free trade while driving around in Toyotas (the only auto manufacturer in Europe or Japan with -0- CT content throughout their entire line)

The hypocrisy of it all is overwhelming.

Hopewellian_Magi said...

Ned Lamont reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Stewart was a master at portraying the follies, foibles and virtues and nobility of ordinary people facing extraoridanry situations.

Lamont had a awkward moment during his opening statement. His eyes reminded me of Stewart's characters like Mr. Smith and George Bailey when they find themselves in new and uncomfortable situations. About halfway through the opening remarks, Lamont found his confidence and got stronger, just like Smith and Bailey do in their stories.

Regarding the tax return questions, Lamont said that when he filed as a candidate, he filed all the legal paperwork required. Lieberman was trying to muddy the waters. Will Lieberman tell us how may Republican lobbyists donate to him or hold fundraisers for him?

It was obvious that Lieberman was trying to woo Republicans and right-leaning Independents who do not vote in the Democratic Primary with his reuse of Ronnie Reagon's line "Well there you go again" and his Karl Rovian attacks on Lamont's person. It seems that Lieberman has condeded the Democratic Primary by giving Democrats the verbal "finger" by using Reagan and Rove tactics against Lamont. This strategy of Lieberman's fits with the rumors that Lieberman will use the Democratic Primary race to attack Lamont the way Republicans attack Democrats.

Lamont won the debate before it started because Lieberman agreed to debate him. Lamont also followed the rules of the debate, rules that Lieberman kept breaking. Lieberman won the Karl Rove award for attacking Lamont with Republican rhetoric and tactics. Lamont won the Jimmy Stewart award for fighting back against Lieberman's bullying with his famous retort "This is not FOX News, sir!"

Lieberman FAILED in this debate because he failed to knockout Lamont. While Lamont's opening was shakey, he found his stride and held his own against the bullying senator. Lamont failed to score knockout punches against Lieberman but Lamont's campaign style, ground game, and creative TV ads should help him win the Democratic Primary.

In all, this debate was too short. There were still a lot of question, like why does Lieberman support Catholic dogma overiding a Catholic hospitals medical treatment of rape victims with EC? That I would have like to see answered.

For a more analytical view of the debate see Liberal Oasis write-up

Zack said...

"Complain about NAFTA while ignoring the fact that out of 50 states Connecticut gained more jobs than any other thanks to it."

You do realize that Connecticut is in the bottom 5 in job creation, right?

Oh, wait, that's one of them pesky "facts" poking another hole in your swiss-cheese argument.

Anonymous said...

Authentic CT Republican - I too am a member of the GOP, but we are not the top in job creation, but towards the very bottom. It's one of the biggest problems with this state, which I blame the Dem's for (Higher taxes,hostile business climate, etc..).

Zengerite said...

An opportunity for a point of personal privilege?

DeanFan, I hate to shatter the fantasy you're having about some random blogger's agenda- it's just analysis. (But I'm flattered by the attention.) One can have points of view and analyze at the same time. (See for example, every political columnist since the history of movable type.)

Many of you out there can't see clearly through your unwarranted excitement. We've been critical of Joe and Lamont. As far as I know, they're the only two credible guys in the race, if you count Lamont.

If I'm providing reasonable analysis and if you have a critique of the analyis, go for it. If you want to talk about who is paying me to do this, what my "axe" is, you're avoiding the debate.

More importantly, when Lamont loses, and the Iraq war is ratified, we here at the axe grindery can say I told ya so.

This message was paid for by the Committee to Resurrect Governor Wilbur L. Cross.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

" we are not the top in job creation"

Never said we were.

We are however the number one winner out of all 50 states as it regards NAFTA.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Zack said... "You do realize that Connecticut is in the bottom 5 in job creation, right?"

Gosh do ya think maybe the unions and the politcal party they own might have anything to do with that?

Who besides a retailer would bother to locate anything here that might entail any blue collar workers? They would have to be insane.

Thanks Connecticut Dems!

Anonymous said...

Lieberman is a closed. Why do think every right wing blog and media source is propping him up so much. Remember, if Ann Coulter likes a person, they're not worth voting for.

Anonymous said...

I will not vote for Ned Lamont He is a one issue candidate and his performance did not change my mind.

He is just a mouthpiece for the anti war movement and like their cause which is anti American and unacceptable I can not support Lamont at All.

I will be voting for Senator Lieberman on August 8th Why go with an unknown product when you have one that works and has done so consistently since 1988.

I dont want to see Weicker and his cronies take over with Ned" The Cub" Lamont as their mouthpiece

Zack said...

"Who besides a retailer would bother to locate anything here that might entail any blue collar workers? They would have to be insane."

You're right ACR, they can just send them to Mexico or India like everyone else. Thanks NAFTA!

But keep on touting the (roughly 15 or 16) jobs Connecticut gained from that union-opposed mistake of legislation.

Hey, that's funny, you keep talking about all these jobs Connecticut gained from NAFTA without providing a SINGLE piece of evidence to prove it, or the number of jobs CT gained from it.

There's a reason you haven't. It's because the numbers suck. Why don't you run along and resume listening to Buddy Vicevich reruns.