CT-SEN: Debate
Sen. Joe Lieberman debated challenger Ned Lamont last night. Unfortunately, it might be the only televised debate of the primary. Fortunately, there’s plenty to speculate about. Voters on MSNBC’s website think Lamont won the debate, and the post-debate commentators agreed that while Lieberman was sharper, Lamont was calmer and much more polite. The blogofascists seem pretty happy.
Lamont focused on national issues—Social Security, universal health care, and, of course, the war in Iraq. Lieberman was more personal. He talked about the things he’s done for the state, bringing up the sub base more than once. (Lamont countered that Connecticut ranks second to last in federal funds.) Lieberman talked about his convictions, and repeatedly asked, “Who is Ned Lamont?”
Lamont started off shaky, with a deer in the headlights look in his eyes and an odd rhythm to his voice. As the debate went on, he gained confidence. He even had a few witty lines: calling Lieberman’s bear ad “slightly cute but somewhat unbearable,” and telling Lieberman when he tried to talk over him that “this isn’t Fox news.” The points he scored were predictable but solid—on the Energy Bill, emergency contraception, and Lieberman’s independent bid.
Lieberman was focused and aggressive from the start. He interrupted Lamont frequently and rebutted after almost every question (he rarely paused to ask for the extra time). He counted the number of times that, in his estimation, Lamont changed positions on Iraq. After the debate, Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford said on MSNBC that the senator’s style reminded him of Ronald Reagan. Lieberman did take a page from that president’s playbook: “There you go again!” He invoked “the terrorists” whenever Iraq came up. He was lecturing more than debating, almost exasperated that he had to explain himself or wait his turn.
Many have noted that Lieberman was much more demure in his 2000 debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. "When it's debating a Republican, it's like a tea party," Lamont said. "When he's debating a Democrat he shows his passionate juices." Good point, but it would have been better if he’d made it during the debate instead of after. At least Lamont stayed to talk to the press; Lieberman apparently stormed out.
I watched the whole thing on my little DSL-fed computer screen.
Lamont seemed a little nervous at first - but later on he got it on. Lieberman seemed righteously pissed off that he to be there debating his suitability for office.
I wished Ned had focussed more on the larger points. He seemed to do well hammering home the points that he and his aides had rehearsed. But, I would have likeed to hear him say once or twice, something like
- these details are all fascinating, but it's what they all add up to that's important for America. You, Mr. Lieberman did not offer your unqualified support in congress for (insert policy proposal here) when you had the chance, and you stood against (insert policy proposal here) and the little guy when you could have stood up to the plate, etc. - and that's what American voters needed from you. You had 18 years to do the right thing and you failed us, time and again. Now, in the best American tradition, it's time to give someone else a chance to get better results for the citizens of Connecticut.
I think something like that would have left a clearer lasting overall impression.
July 7, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blogofascists? If that's supposed to be a joke, it's not very funny.
In America today, our right-wing government is putting people in jail without charges, setting up kangaroo courts in Guantanamo, torturing people ... and the leftwing bloggers are fascists?
July 7, 2006 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blogofascist sounds very nice to me.
In my mother tongue, "blogo-" is a prefix for holy, blessed or blissful. Russian has similar "blago-". There are no fascists like blogofascists.
July 7, 2006 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink