OxBlog

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

# Posted 11:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SUNDAY MORNING ROUND-UP: It was a Senate-fest on Sunday, with John McCain all alone on NBC, Joe Lieberman all alone on CBS, and John Kerry as the headliner on ABC, followed by British Home Secretary John Reid.
McCain: B+. As always, more candor than most pols. But nothing exciting.

Joe Lieberman: B-. He insisted furiously that he has been critical of Bush. He insisted furiously that Lamont had deceptively portrayed him as a lapdog of the administration. Yet when asked where he disagrees with Bush about Iraq, he began by citing an instance in which they agreed. The only concrete point of conflict Lieberman came up with was his desire to oust Rumsfeld. Since Lieberman is so far ahead in the polls, perhaps there is actually a method to this madness. Yet I suspect that one of my favorite senators simply isn't sure of how to win.

Kerry: B-. My expectations were so low, it almost had to be a triumph for Kerry. He said Lieberman was just as bad as Dick Cheney. And what should we do about the mess in Iraq? Call together an "international summit" of Arab and European leaders. Remind me again which party is the reality-based one?

John Reid: B. Said absolutely nothing. Then again, there were no tough questions. The Home Secretary was probably just enjoying a break from the confrontational approach of the anchors on the BBC.
See ya in seven.
(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:
Why is Joe Lieberman "one of [your] favourite Senators"? The realistic take seems to be that he is mostly a party-line Democrat, with two exceptions: Iraq, and nanny-state morality laws. This doesn't really mark him as a great man.
 
How many pols have a clear set of principles -- good principles -- take positions based on those principles, and refuse to back away just because their party and its activists don't like them?

Integrity is in very short supply in Washington. That's why Lieberman is different and better.
 
Lieberman is far ahead in the polls? Not since yesterday. Via Daily Kos and Atrios, check out http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/
 
Rasmussen has the race tightening up too - and they have a post-primary benchmark. The big indicator will be the Q-Poll, which first showed Lieberaman way ahead.

My guess is that Lieberman loses in the end by a decent amount. Why? Two reasons. One - anti-incumbency sentiment is very strong nationwide. Two - Lieberman is a bad campaigner and Lamont is a good one. Lieberman hasn't had to campaign hard since 1988. His primary campaign was a cruel joke to his supporters. Just horrible. His ads were insultingly bad. Lamont, on the other hand, is quite savvy on the campaign trail. Putting their positions on issues aside, Lamont will get the momentum back.
 
Post a Comment


Home