2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

July 25, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - July 25

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: We're very disappointed, thus far, in the comments of Prime Minister Maliki. His comments condemning Israel were wrong, but predictable, but his refusal to condemn Hezbollah is painful.

NOURI AL-MALIKI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER: And we are not in the process of reviewing one issue or another or any government position. The important thing here is what we're trying to do is to stop to the killing and the destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, that answer today at the White House wasn't going to get Maliki out of trouble with Schumer and the other Senate democrats, and what got him in trouble was comments to include this quote from the weekend edition of the "New York Times," "The Israeli attacks and air strikes," he said, "are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. I condemn these aggressions.[and] call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression." No mention Hezbollah aggression, no mention of Hezbollah kidnapping and no mention since then of any distaste he might have, if he has any, for Hezbollah.

Some thoughts on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call"; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio. All are FOX News contributors.

So, Mara, is this a serious issue of this man having expected to speak before a joint session of Congress tomorrow and the serious policy disapproval, or is this a political opening being seized -- or both?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Both. Both. I mean, it's definitely a political opening, on the other hand, this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. I mean, this guy is our, pretty much handpicked, prime minister (INAUDIBLE) -- I mean, the guy we supported. The U.S. certainly wanted him in there, felt he was the best shot to get the violence under control there. He hasn't so far, in the few months he's had in office, but it shows you how much the Israeli-Lebanese -- the Israeli- Hezbollah fighting has complicated everything else in the Middle East. I mean, he's a Shiite politician, there is support Hezbollah among his party and among Shiites everywhere, and I think this shows you that no matter what happens in Iraq, we can't -- the U.S. cannot count on having someone who is with the U.S. on everything, you know, supporter of Israel, condemner of Hezbollah. That might just be too much to ask for. But I do think it complicates matters. I mean, he's coming here to speak to the U.S. Congress about what he's going to do to control the violence in Iraq, and he's unable, even, to say that he condemns what Hezbollah did.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": I agree with that. I mean, it does tell you something about the state of Iraqi politics. Here you have the Arab League willing to condemn Hezbollah, and Maliki is not willing to. He's a Shiite, he's close to the Iranians their -- ah, she

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: (INAUDIBLE)

KONDRACKE: He's got, he's got, he's got Muqtada al-Sadr, the Hezbollah of Iraq, in his coalition, et cetera et cetera, so look, he knows what he has to do. On the other hand, the democrats are not serving America's national interests here. They are making political points by demanding that this guy do something that might be politically suicidal back in Iraq, namely, denounce Hezbollah, in order to please them. I mean, they -- Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid said that Americans deserve to know whether Iraq is an ally fight against terrorism, well, Maliki might well say to them, well are you an ally in my fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgence, I don't think so, if you want to weaken me.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": I love that Senator Schumer saying he was in pain, just painful for him to see this, but I can't believe the democrats for seizing on this. This was an opportunity that was too good and so they jumped on it. I don't think -- the U.S. did not pick this guy to be prime minister -- accepted him, obviously...

LIASSON: I don't want to make it seem like he's a puppet, they were very hopeful he would be much better, much stronger than the guy he replaced.

BARNES: If they would have picked somebody it would have been Iyad Allawi or somebody like that, they the really liked, who would be stronger. I'll have to say that this guy, as a politician, is a klutz. You know, why would he say something like that coming to the U.S.? You know, you don't get in trouble for what you don't say and here is he right on wait to the U.S., at his press availability with President Bush, today, you know, one of the things -- I mean, be grateful. You know, grateful the U.S. liberated your country.

He'd be off -- he'd be back in Syria or someplace, somewhere else if it weren't for the U.S., and yet the best he could -- I mean, he doesn't have to come in and sing "America the Beautiful," but the best he could do was say that he appreciated Bush's interest in Iraq and he appreciated what the multinational forces had done. That's not enough. If you want to be effective in America, politically, which I think he does, he doesn't want, you know, people saying he shouldn't even address Congress. That is not the way to do it.

LIASSON: But clearly the most important thing is that he is able to bring sectarian violence under control, especially in Baghdad where just about five weeks ago he announce a big new plan for doing that, and since then 100 people a day have been killed.

HUME: We got to take a break here. When we come back, Fred Barnes will sing "America the Beautiful." No, just kidding. We'll be talking about the Lieberman-Lamont race. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I don't have anything against Joe's opponent. He seems like a perfectly fine man. He's got every right to run, and he certainly has waged a vigorous campaign, but I know that on the issues that I believe are critical to the future, Joe Lieberman's past is good evidence of his future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, that wasn't the most ringing part of Bill Clinton's speech on behalf of Joe Lieberman, but there he was, perhaps unexpectedly, sticking up for the incumbent senator who's in trouble in a race against a man named Ned Lamont, who has able to capitalize like crazy on Lieberman's position and support of the resolution to go into Iraq and his continued support of the war.

This is what the latest polls look like. That's -- that four point lead for Lamont is within the margin of error and you could argue that maybe even Lieberman's a little bit ahead, but look at the difference from back in June. Obviously, something has happened. And this is what would happen if there was a three-way race with Lieberman running, having failed in the democratic primary as an independence, when you get the rest of the state's voters involved, not just the democrat's, Lieberman has a tremendous amount of support. So, what is the deal here? And does Clinton change the equation? What about this? How's this playing out here?

LIASSON: Well, we don't know if Clinton's going to change the equation. He is very, very popular in Connecticut. That doesn't mean he's going to be able to transfer that to Lieberman, but the big events of this race have not changed the trend. In other words, the debate didn't help Lieberman, when he was there side by side with Ned Lamont, someone with almost no experience. So far, you know, it's to early to tell about Clinton, he was just there yesterday. But I think that if he does lose, those numbers for that three-way match up might change. There's also talk in Connecticut.

HUME: Lamont will get a huge.

LIASSON: And it'll depend on what he wins by. If Lieberman is decisively beat. I mean, losing by 10 points or so is one thing, losing by a few points -- one or two points is another thing. There's talk in Connecticut about maybe the republicans would pressure poor old Schlesinger, who's their candidate down there at nine percent, to leave the race and get in a more formidable republican who could really make it into a race, that would be a good thing.

BARNES: Is that what the White House says? That's not what the Republican National chairman says. They say just the opposite. They're not going to go in -- I mean, look, Lieberman.

LIASSON: No, they want him to win, but the Connecticut republicans might try to find a better candidate...

BARNES: Yeah, well they won't get any money from the Republican National Committee. They're not going in and try to defeat a martyr for Bush's policy. What Lieberman needs is a big turnout, not this particular poll Quinnipiac poll, but earlier polls have shown with likely voters Lamont wins, but when you broaden it to less likely voters, then Lieberman wins, in other words, the casual voters are the ones that -- who don't necessarily vote in the primary are the ones Lieberman needs. Getting them out on august 8, is going to be hard.

KONDRACKE: Lieberman does have most of the unions, except the teacher's unions, who all -- because he voted in favor of the D.C. Voucher Plan so that African-American parents can send their kids to private school if they have a lousy school, he voted for that. And so the teacher's unions have dumped him. But the -- most of the other unions in the state, which are famous for "Get Out the Vote," are for Lieberman.

But it's interesting what Lamont resents -- look, the big backing for Lamont is the moveon.org, "Daily Coast" left-wing of the Democratic Party, and it's -- it's no accident that at the same time that Bill Clinton was there campaigning and Barbara Boxer as well, who's pretty left, campaigning for Joe Lieberman, who did Lamont have in the state? Maxine Waters, who is about as far left as you can imagine. I mean, she was the one who famously said the CIA was pushing crack in the ghettos of America. You know, it's that sort of whacko left that is the base of the Lamont campaign.

LIASSON: Yeah look, this -- and even if Lieberman ends up winning the general election, I think a loss in the primary would be a very, very big deal. I was in Denver at the DLC meeting, which is this group of centrist democrats, and all of them are very depressed and pessimistic about the primary, they think he's going to lose, but also, they're worried about the repercussions. What message does this send to other moderate democrats running this year? What does it do to Jewish voters and Jewish donors, and the republicans will have a field day if he does lose, to say that the McGovernites have taken over the Democratic Party.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: Well, one race does not mean they have.

BARNES: Well, it certainly looks like it in what they're doing and saying in Congress.

KONDRACKE: And you know, there's a Rasmussen poll that indicates that things are worse for Lieberman than the Quinnipiac poll indicated, that Lamont is up by 10 points, and that in the three- way raise, it's tied between Lieberman and Lamont.

HUME: Well, if you people here on FOX News are trying to help Lieberman, don't say a lot of nice things him.

BARNES: My rule of thumb is, if it's a democrat I like, he or she can't win.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006