Lieberman discovers his feisty side

July 7, 2006

I tried to watch the [tag]Lieberman[/tag]-[tag]Lamont[/tag] [tag]debate[/tag] last night with an open mind. I make no secret of the fact that I prefer the latter to the prior, but I wanted to consider their debate performances without that bias in mind.

And the one thing that I came away with was a surprise: I hardly recognized Joe Lieberman.

The Joe Lieberman television viewers saw on Thursday night in his debate with maverick challenger Ned Lamont was not the mellow, sleepy-voiced, decent, religiously observant man we used to know. No, this was Joe Lieberman, the savvy, battle-hardened, and very aggressive politician.

Face to face with his rival, Lieberman came across as a man absolutely determined to save his career in the Senate, a man who wasn’t going to bother being genteel.

I half-expected Lieberman to put on the charm, smile a lot, effectively tell Connecticut Democrats, “Forget all that Iraq stuff; I’m that likable guy you’ve voted for before.” Except Lieberman did the opposite: he frequently interrupted Lamont, he took 30-second rebuttal time whenever he decided he should, and he cracked no jokes. He hit hard, and repeatedly. This wasn’t about finding common ground — the Lieberman we see in the Senate — this was about fighting for his political life.

This [tag]fiesty[/tag] Lieberman, in other words, was the opposite of the Lieberman who got out-debated by Dick Cheney in 2000.

Lamont was well prepared, and for a guy who’s never done this before, he acquitted himself quite well. He lacked some polish, but Lamont came across as sincere, focused, and informed.

But Lieberman, a three-term senator, vice-presidential nominee, and presidential candidate, highlighted the fact that he’s done this before. In one exchange, Lamont talked about the priorities he’d fight for in the Senate, including job creation and reproductive rights. According to the [tag]transcript[/tag], Lieberman responded:

“You know my record on these things. The AFL-CIO wouldn’t have supported me over you if they didn’t think I would fight for jobs in this state. Planned Parenthood wouldn’t have supported me over you if they weren’t confident that I was for women’s reproductive rights. The League of Conservation Voters wouldn’t have supported me over you if they didn’t appreciate my strong, strong record on environmental protection. The Human Rights Campaign political action committee wouldn’t have supported me over you if they didn’t — be able to say that since the 1970s, I have been fighting to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. So look at my record and deal with the reality of it.”

After the debate, it was the one moment that I remembered most clearly.

This is not to say that Lieberman necessarily won on points. He came across as rather [tag]arrogant[/tag], suggesting the Senate seat was somehow his by birthright. For that matter, using Reagan’s “there you go again” probably isn’t the way to impress Democratic primary voters. Worse, some of Lieberman’s substantive claims were … what’s the word … false.

But ultimately, Dems had to come away from the debate thinking, “If Lieberman were this [tag]aggressive[/tag] and assertive with Republicans, he wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.”

“If Lieberman were this aggressive and assertive with Republicans, he wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.”

EXACTLY! Lamont should be asking Ct voters why the Joe he faced last night never made an appearance in the Senate. He might also point to some of the dubious claims made by Leiberman and suggest that his closeness to Bush Co. has influenced his rhetorical style.

Oh, and thanks a lot for bringing up the Leiberman-Cheney Debate. I am getting sleepy just thinking about it. “The Joker” vs. “The Penguin” the rumble full of mumble.

  • Let me be the first to say the Liberman won this debate in a big way. I hate to say it, but this debate wasn’t close. I say that as someone who is deeply disappointed in Sen. Lieberman and who very much welcomes the campaign of Ned Lamont. My views on the debate are based on my professional experience (a national champion debater in college and professor who taught debate, argumentation, perausion, rhetoric, and political communication at the college level for nearly a decade), not my personal preference in this race.

    In a nutshell: Liberman showed he was the experienced politician that he is. He was aggressive and basically made all the right moves. Lamont got off to a very slow start and came across as bug-eyed neophyte who let Joe roll him on his two big issues: Iraq and who’s a better Dem. Lamont got off one good line about he’d be the one to stick up to the Bush agenda, but that was half way through the debate after Joe had already established he votes with the Dems 90% of the time, stood up to Bush on X, Y, and Z, and was a life long Dem. He put his 18 year record on the line, defended his unpopular stuff well, hyped his bringing home the bacon to CT, and asked who the hell is this guy named Ned who wants to take my place, and why, what’s he going to do for you that I cannot. I did not, however, find him acting as though he deserved this seat and being arrogant about his right to keep it. He has certainly sounded this way before, but last night he acted as though he were willing to defend his seat and justify why he should keep it (as your quote clearly demonstrates).

    Lieberman may have been too aggressive for those expecting to see a calm, cool, collected elder statesman, but he showed he was willing to stand up to a challenge and really cleaned Lamont’s clock on the issues.
    He may not have won over some of the Dems who were already raging for a change, but any borderline fence-sitters and moderate to indy Dems had to like what they saw.

    Lamont never really direclty answered questions well and was clearly trying to mentally call up what he was supposed to say (which rarely happened). He was all over the place repeating tag phrases while looking and sounding like a novice. He made his best points attacking Bush, but never made a good case for why he should replace Lieberman.

  • Hey johnny d,

    Why such a spirited, verbose opinion?

    I would remind you that “opinions are like [mouths], everyone got one.”

  • Hey skip kid – maybe you should wipe your [mouth] before you open it up and dump on somebody else for no good reason………

  • Slip, come Happy Hour EST, I’ll be one of those trolls – this Friday has come too soon, and it wont be a happy sight.

  • Lieberman’s smooth, a good politician, but he doesn’t give a fig about breaking the GOP hold on the legislative, just in preserving his “right” to his Senate career. Please Dems of CT, show him the door. It’ll send a message to the rest of the country for November…. don’t mess with us! We’re mad and we’re going to change things.

  • While I agree that Trolls pop in once and a while…

    1) johnny d’s post didn’t really sound very “trollish” to me. He had an opinion that differed from CB, but he didn’t attack anyone or use foul language, and he explained his position well.

    2) if you happen to believe that johnny d is a troll, it is important to always remember not to feed the trolls. it only encourages them and attracts others.

  • I’m sorry s k n m, I must say that I appreciate johnny d’s analysis and it seems to confirm what I’ve been reading in other write-ups on the debate, (including Mr. CB’s, thank you very much). Dem’s want so badly for somene to step up and make a bold, irrefutably effective statement for our evolving “progressive” perspective that it’s a real disappointment when a hoped for slam dunk turn’s out to be a single foul shot. Magic bullets are pretty scarce. Ned’s not done but it’s obvious he’s going to have to bump up his game if he’s going to be a contender.

    That’s disappointing but we are, after all, a reality based community and we can take it : ).

  • Frustrated,

    See my above comment about trolls. (I’m going upstairs right now to check under my bed.)

  • The three-termer Lieberman probably did just what he had to to hold on to his precious seat. Once re-elected, don’t expect him to display those debating skills again. He can get back to being the Dems’ GOP schmoozer in that body (which is all he cares about) for six more years.

  • The only thing I’m gathering from his performance is thast Joe Lie has been “bellying up” to the Kool Aid watering trough. His piteous arrogance in that debate—unable to allow opposing comments without interruption, misrepresentation of facts, and his implicit, bullying attitude that “he” is the destined occupant of the seat in contention—regardless of what the voters decide—is why he’ll never have a place on a ballot outside of his own state again. After all, there is little need in this nation for “a George in a Joe Suit….”

  • i tend to think johnny d is probably correct. while the conventional wisdom in a situation like this (and i saw it oft-repeated in post-debate analysis last night) is that the mere fact of the debate usually helps the challenger, and by not screwing up Lamont “won,” i’m not sure that works here.

    Lamont did well for a relative novice. but my guess (as someone who lives in a state far, far away) is that people who have voted for Lieberman for years deep down want those votes validated. if they were moving toward Lamont, it was because they believed Joe L had gotten complacent and too conservative (both little c and big C) to effectively represent their views. That meant Lieberman had a little different — and easier — task than most candidates in debates. He merely had to give people a little reason to come home.

    As the quote in CBs post shows, he took head-on the “am I a real Dem” question, and by his aggressiveness he showed he wasn’t complacent.

    While I’d love to see Lamont take him out, I strongly suspect this performance was more than sufficient — particularly if leading Dems come in on the heels of it to help shore Joe up — for Lieberman to win the primary. Pretty or not, our preference or not, Lieberman likely did precisely what he needed to do to hold on. One of those times when political experience really comes in handy.

  • From the roughly half of the debate that I saw, I think Lieberman probably saved himself from what had looked somewhat like a meltdown. I don’t know if it really changed much–the key is still who comes out to vote in August, and I don’t think he changed the minds of many Lamont supporters–but he certainly didn’t hurt himself.

    As others have noted, he came off as a guy who wanted it badly, and in politics that generally helps. Lamont was okay, and I have no question that he’d be the better senator–but at least in the second half of the debate (I didn’t see the first), I think he actually should have hit Holy Joe harder than he did. In other words, don’t just link him to Bush; link him to all the odious ghouls of the right. Show that he’s a quisling, not a partisanship-transcending statesman.

    The question he should have asked wasn’t the one about Weicker; it should have been: “Senator, it’s probably safe to say that you’re the favorite Democrat of a lot of people who hate Democrats. Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and other hard right-wing personalities have all endorsed you. Why do you think that is, and how do you think both those people, the most rabid Republicans out there, and Connecticut Democrats can agree on your record and your qualifications?”

  • CB: “If Lieberman were this aggressive and assertive with Republicans, he wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.”

    Precisely. Joementum’s knives only seem to come out for felllow Dems.

    —

    MNProgressive: “The Joker” vs. “The Penguin” the rumble full of mumble.

    LOL!

  • This fiesty Lieberman, in other words, was the opposite of the Lieberman who got out-debated by Dick Cheney in 2000.

    Coached maybe? Arrogant and prone to interruption? Lying?

    Lieberman sounds more like a Republican every day.

  • Honestly, I didn’t think Lamont or Censorin’ Joe came off very well. Lamont stumbled too much and should have been prepared for real zingers to launch at Lieberman, which he didn’t. Joe on the other hand could barely conceal his arrogance and his sense of entitlement to the Senate seat. I’m not familiar with the Republican running for the Senate seat, but I’m almost wonder if he didn’t come off best by not being there.

  • A lot will depend on the attitude of Connecticut voters. If they think to themselves, “Yeah, Lieberman came out swinging, but what’s he going to do for us after the election?”, then even if Lieberman technically won the debate, he could still lose the election. If Lamont really cranks up his campaign after this and doesn’t fade in the stretch, he’s got as much chance to win as he ever did.

    It’s going to be an interesting race.

  • Sadly, I agree with those who feel that Ned did not do what he had to to beat the experienced and insufferable Joementum. He looked like a deer in the headlights at first, although he did gain confidence as he went along. I found Joe repulsive (as usual) but I don’t know that CT dems will. He did hit the points he needed to and was fighting for it, although rudely.

    I couldn’t agree more with dajafi’s comment that our guys just don’t know how to fight effectively. This is true for neophytes like Ned all the way up to Reid and Kerry. I’ll just quote what dajafi said should have been Ned’s question to Joe. Ponder it for a moment and think of what might have been and what we need to take back this country.

    dajafi wrote: “”Senator, it’s probably safe to say that you’re the favorite Democrat of a lot of people who hate Democrats. Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and other hard right-wing personalities have all endorsed you. Why do you think that is, and how do you think both those people, the most rabid Republicans out there, and Connecticut Democrats can agree on your record and your qualifications?”

    Sigh…

  • Well, I’m not in Connecticut, so it don’t much matter, but I think Lieberman lost when he said that Ted Stevens’ earmarks were ‘bad’ but Joe Lieberman’s earmarks are ‘good’. He has embraced wholeheartedly, the culture of corruption in D.C., and we need him off the Democratic line so we can fight it with a straight face.

  • Lieberman pretty much exposed Lamont for what he is: a neophyte who is out of his depth, who never would have gotten this far on merit, but on the backing of the anti-war left trying to make a statement against President Bush. As in the election of 2004, hating Bush, in and of itself, is not a compelling argument for dumping incumbants.

    Due to his performance, I’d guess Lieberman will win the primary and this whole thing will get a few “moral victory” posts from Kos and Atrios, then Lamont will sink into the Francine Busby/Ciro Rodriguez/Paul Hackett loser swamp.

    • Comments are closed.