Terry Cowgill

The ‘Thrilla’ In West Hartford

July 7, 2006 on 3:39 am | In Main, State |

In marked contrast to his tepid performance in the vice presidential debate of 2000, Connecticut’s junior senator looked more like Joe Frazier than Joe Lieberman in last night’s debate against challenger Ned Lamont. But as you may recall, despite a feisty performance and a pugnacious presence, Frazier lost the legendary 1975 bout with Muhammad Ali in the Philippines.

Such was the case at the WVIT studios. Did Lamont show himself to be a credible candidate who would “fight for Connecticut (a phrase Lieberman must have used a dozen times)?” I think he did, but then again I am biased — not for Lamont but against Lieberman.

Full disclosure: I pride myself on not reacting emotionally to matters of public policy. Emotion in analysis adds little to the debate. In fact, it usually detracts from it. But where Joe is concerned, I can’t help myself. Truth be told, I am probably closer to Joe politically than Lamont. But anyone who runs for VP and the senate at the same time (as Joe did in 2000) has unmasked himself as a phony. Now Joe has not only vowed to run as an independent if he loses the Aug. 8 primary to Lamont, but he wouldn’t even answer a question about it from panelist Gerry Brooks during the debate.

Joe came out swinging in his opening remarks (which along with the closing remarks are typically the blandest parts of these sorts of affairs). He quickly labeled Lamont an ultra-liberal “single-issue candiate” and accused him of “distorting what I have done.”

And he took a page from Lloyd Bentsen in his 1988 vice presidential debate with Dan Quayle. Referring to Lamont’s attempts to morph him into President Bush, Joe said, “I know George W. Bush. I ran against George W. Bush and I’m not George W. Bush.”

But Joe unwittingly wandered into a trap when he stated. “My position [on Iraq] has been clear.” This is precisely what Bush’s admirers point to when people question his war policy: “He sticks to his guns … he’s a man who knows where he stands.” But if you think the policy is profoundly wrong, why should you be impressed that Joe and Bush are sticking with it? To his credit, Lamont fired back against Lieberman’s unwillingness to admit a mistake (this is another unappealing Bush characteristic).

Joe appeared to have the edge on two points: when he emphasized his seniority (he is the second ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, which is important to defense-industry-dependent Connecticut) and when he characterized Lamont’s shifting positions on a possible pull-out from Iraq. And in an awkward moment, Lamont appeared not to know the difference between a timetable and a deadline.

But that was about it. Joe appeared tired, looked like he hated being held accountable for his vote on the war and resented the effrontery of having to share the stage with someone who hadn’t been in the Senate for 18 years. As he has in the past, Joe derided Lamont for having served “on a Greenwich town board.” That would be the Board of Selectmen, Joe. How long have you been representing the state again?

Then Joe showed how out of touch he is with local politics when he accused Lamont of having sided with Republicans 80% of the time while he was a Greenwich selectman. As anyone who has spent time in a town hall knows, party affiliations mean little on the local level. So Lamont snapped back, “I was compromising on matters of potholes, not national security.”

Then Lamont alluded to one of Joe’s other proclivities: his disturbing tendency to have his cake and eat it, too. “You can’t have it both ways … either I am too liberal or too cozy with Republicans. Which is it?”

Lamont also slammed Joe for his support of the “Bush-Cheney Energy Bill” (more morphing). Then Joe stumbled when asked by Brooks why voters shouldn’t be asking the same question Joe asked when he was running against incumbent Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker in 1988: “Isn’t now the time for a change?” All Joe could do was attack Weicker 18 years later.

Lamont finished by saying of the contest between the two, “This is not about anyone’s career.” How true. Does Lamont have a chance in the primary? Yes. Will he win? Probably not. So I’ll have to pin my hopes on the former mayor of Derby, whose position Joe will ridicule as he did Lamont’s. What’s a Joe foe to do?

P.S. In case you missed it, the video replay of the debate can be found here.