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

---

August 09, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - August 9

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NED LAMONT (D-CT), U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: We want a change of course in Iraq and we want to start investing in our own country again.

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT), INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE: My opponent, if he ever got to Washington, would be just another partisan polarizer who would stand in the way of progress and solving problems and...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman giving their spin on Lamont's victory in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Time now for some analysis from our team of experts. Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Juan Williams, senior correspondent for National Public Radio; and the syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, FOX NEW contributors all.

Well, let's start with some historical perspective. Joe Lieberman is only the fourth senator to lose his party's nomination since 1980 and I think we'd agree the biggest Democrat to lose, most prominent, since J. William Fulbright of Arkansas in 1974.

Charles, how significant is it for Lieberman to be rejected by his own party?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, it tells you how strong the anti-war sentiment is among Democrats. And let's remember, Lieberman lost among Democrats. There is a general uneasiness, of course, about the war, but even among Democrats and even given his, sort of, swimming upstream on this issue, Lieberman only lost by 10,000 out of an electorate that, last time around, was 1.5 million. Now it'll be smaller with an off year election in November. But if only he lost among Democrats by 10,000 you'll presume that with a very weak Republican, he'll beat Lamont among the Republicans by at least 10,000, so if he wins among Independents, he wins. And the math as of today is that Lieberman would win. Now, of course, losing is a dynamic of its own. You'll have some Democrats staying with Lamont who might have supported him, but ultimately, I think, if he runs a strong campaign, he can win.

WALLACE: Juan, I mean, I was going to say that one of the other differences that we see is he's no longer the Democratic nominee, Lamont is. You saw that unity rally today. Chris Dodd, Lieberman's college, endorsing Lamont so will the entire party leadership. But I mean, how big a deal that his own part is rejecting a senator running for reelection?

JUAN WILLIAMS, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: All over town, today, it's the talk of the town. It is what has many Democrats who are, first of all looking to get reelected themselves, wondering whether or not they should be confident in their posture.

You know, Hillary Clinton does not have a Ned Lamont on her right now in New York. There's no chance that she's going to lose.

WALLACE: (INAUDIBLE)

WILLIAMS: Yeah, but she -- but she, you know, everybody's saying, look at what Joe Lieberman did. Joe Lieberman took this for granted, thought that Ned Lamont was not to be taken seriously. He made a big mistake. And so you have Maria Cantwell in Washington state, Diane Feinstein in California, all of thinking, you know, wait a second, I know, I voted for this war resolution. What does this mean to my base and what does this mean for Hillary's 2008 campaign?

WALLACE: Fred, in Crawford, Texas, White House spokesman, Tony Snow, didn't waste much time saying that the Democratic primary shows the Democrats are, in fact, the Connecticut primary -- the Democrats are soft on terrorism. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: It's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left and their party, they're coming after you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Does Lamont's victory push Democrats across the country to the left on the war on Iraq and is that, in fact, such a bad posture for the party to be in come November?

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, I think -- it's not so much pushing them as it is indicating where they're going. And it is very indicative, particularly dumping Joe Lieberman and he's not just any Democrat, I mean, he was the vice presidential running mate to Al Gore in 2000. Why was he brought on the ticket?

One of the reasons was that he's a hawkish pro-Israel Democrat, that's what was deemed in -- only six years ago to help the ticket. Now that's regard -- something Democrats what to get rid of. He really is, as described himself, the last remnant of this whole FDR, Henry Jackson, JFK, you know, hawkish Democrats on National Security, that whole tradition, he's the last one. Democrats have rejected it and particularly this guy who is the No. 1 Democrat, probably the foremost pro-Israel Democrat among other things, and they've tossed him aside. That is very meaningful; it tells you where the party is.

WILLIAMS: Wait a second. I think you're rewriting history.

BARNES: No I'm not.

WILLIAMS: The reason that he was brought on that Gore ticket was because he had been critical of, guess who, Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat.

BARNES: That wasn't it.

WILLIAMS: Yes it was, that's exactly right. It was to insulate Gore and to say, you know what, we're moving in a different direction of this man that was caught in scandal. And you also have to remember that Joe Lieberman, much as we all admire him, was a guy who sided with the Republican leadership on Terri Schiavo. You know, Joe Lieberman.

BARNES: No, no, what he said was that if it were left up to him, he would have allowed her to keep the feeding tube.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Wait, wait a second, I want to go back to Iraq, one, and the question is, is it good or bad for the Democratic Party to have then positioned like this that it is going to be the party that is critical of the war.

WALLACE: I think that one -- Charles said, wait a second, you know, this is really a reflection of Democratic sentiment in the country. I think you're wrong, Charles. I think more than 60 percent of the American people, in fact more than 60 percent, are opposed to what's going on in Iraq at the moment, so it is good for the party. Now, if the contrary position is up this is a replay of Vietnam when the party was portrayed as weak, soft in the knees, all that, not to be trusted. I think we've got a different dynamic in place...

WALLACE: Forget Vietnam, we could talk about 2002 and 2004. If this is going to be, as Tony Snow and the Republican clearly want, cut and run, as they'll try to portray it, versus stay the course as the Democrats try to portray it, who wins?

KRAUTHAMMER: If the issue is Iraq, the Dems will win and I think they will have the advantage on this issue in this election. But in the longer run, the issue is the war on terror, the war in Iraq is going to end and the Bush administration is going to end and if the Democrats are remembered as they were in the `60s and `70s as the party of cut and run, even if in the short run it's going to help them, it's going to hurt them a lot in the long run as it did not `70s and `80s and `90s on the larger issue of foreign policy.

WILLIAMS: You heard Mr. Krauthammer. You heard, it benefits the Democrats.

BARNES: It probably marginally does. But look, if the Democrats come off as all of them Ned Lamonts, standing up there on his victory night with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters somewhere around there, and the head of NOW there, I mean, this is the far left of the Democratic Party who are obsessed with the war in Iraq.

Now you cited 60 percent of the American people who don't like the war, that's true, but most of them -- for most of them, it's not a passion, an obsession the way it is for the Ned Lamonts, and the noisier this far left gets nationally, it hurts the Democratic Party.

WALLACE: You get the brief final word.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think at the moment, Fred, that there is a wind blowing across the political landscape, you can't ignore it. And it seems to me that people are not only upset about the war and the cost of life, but the people think the way this administration conducted the war demands change. And that's what they're looking for, change.

BARNES: Well, that's what Democrats think.

KRAUTHAMMER: It's more like a breeze.

WALLACE: Well, you know, it's just like Sundays, nobody every gets the final word.

Next on SPECIAL REPORT, as the U.N. struggles to come up with a peace plan for the Middle East, Israel's Security Cabinet approves a wider ground offensive. So, what now? We'll ask the all-stars, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASSAN NASRALLAH, HEZBOLLAH LEADER (through translator): I talk as (INAUDIBLE) enemy. Welcome to the extended ground operation. You can come anywhere on the ground, by air force and by any military power. All of that will bring you losses. South Lebanon will be a graveyard for your soldiers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, taunting Israelis after they announced an expanded ground offensive in South Lebanon, today. And we're back now with our panel. Israeli officials as they announce this new offensive, said that the fighting could last 30 days or more.

Fred, do you really think we're looking at another month of fighting there?

BARNES: Probably. I think we are. By the way, Nasrallah is fast becoming a blowhard. You know, he needs -- with him, I think less is more. He needs to stay off the tube for a while. Anway.

WALLACE: You want to act as his P.R. spokesperson, his adviser?

BARNES: Well, he needs one. Here's what I was surprised at. One, I do think with the clash over what kind of a force is going to come in there and the disagreement, are we -- is this going to be a Lebanese army or some international force? Who knows where they'll wind up at the U.N., but they were so hesitant on the part of the Israelis in finally agree to do this. Only nine of the 12 cabinet members voted for it and even Shimon Peres abstained and didn't vote for it and Olmert was -- the prime minister, was described as hesitant before going with a vote in favor of this and worrying about casualties and asking for other plans, but look, if the Israelis stick to this, I think they'll have 30 days to do it and get to the to the Litani and beyond.

WALLACE: Well, this hesitation is one of things I want to ask Juan about. I mean do you think that they really mean to engage in a month or more of fighting or do you think it's an effort to try to put pressure on the U.N., hey, let's get a resolution that stops the fighting because otherwise we're going to go crazy in South Lebanon?

WILLIAMS: I think they truly mean that they will go crazy in South Lebanon. I think it's meant as a threat to Hezbollah as much as it is to put pressure -- I don't even think anybody in this situation believes in the power of the U.N. to act and act effectively at this juncture.

But I mean --but what strikes me as different here was the news today when Tony Snow from the Bush White House in Crawford -- that they want Israel to stop and they want Hezbollah to stop, and that's the first time we're hearing the Bush White House say to Israel it's time to stop. And then you hear from the French president, Jacques Chirac, saying it's immoral to allow this to continue. So, there's further isolation, I think, for Israel, for the first time the U.S. pulling away, and of course, the France and the allies saying listen, it's -- we really can't allow this continued shelling of Lebanon.

WALLACE: Charles, I mean, this last week when we did FOX NEWS Sunday, they had just come out, the French and the U.S., with a draft resolution and they were really promoting it as this is the answer, we're going to pass it by Monday and it's going to call for a cease-fire. Well, the Arab League came in said no they're not willing to go along with, now the French have backed away from it. Where is the diplomatic track now?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well look, the U.N. resolutions are meant to sort of set in concrete the results of the military campaign. So, the U.S. and the French resolution are based on the assumption that Israel had succeeded. It talks about the getting Hezbollah out of Lebanon up to the Litani. Well, the Israelis have not cleaned out Hezbollah. They aren't even halfway to the Litani. So in the absence of the military cards dealt, the U.S. and French resolutions are rather empty and sort of in abeyance.

The Arab resolution, the one by the Arab League and Lebanon in which Hezbollah has endorsed, is a way of saying let the Lebanese army go into South Lebanon alone, essentially. Which, of course, is a sham and a farce. It would be a cover for allowing Hezbollah to stay. The U.S. and the French resolution says, the Lebanon army, only if it's backed by international force. But that, again, assumes that the Israelis have done the job which is why Israel's announcement of an offensive is late and tentative, but it has to actually take place otherwise we're going to end up with a status quo ante, which is exactly what the U.S. had said it did not want.

WALLACE: Fred, you know, you were saying earlier that Nasrallah is a blowhard, but as you look at this, a month into this war, Hezbollah looks pretty strong, doesn't it?

BARNES: Certainly stronger than the Israelis or American intelligence or anyone else thought they would be. They are dug in and Israel, you know, one, they misgauged what air power could achieve, then they misgauged what a small ground offensive could achieve and now they're going al the way, we'll see what it can achieve. But they've been a little late in the game all along.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think one question to ask is exactly how much damage is being done to Israel now? You have today 11 -- 15 Israelis soldiers dead today.

WALLACE: Which, in that country, is huge.

WILLIAMS: That's terrible. It's not -- and then, and the second thing now there's the possibility that you have.

WALLACE: We should also point out there's been over 1,000 Lebanese who have been killed as well. So, there's carnage on both sides.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, I understand. But what I'm saying -- the other thing to point out here is that you also may have the possibility of Iranian fighters coming into the theater. This really then can escalate and go out of control and go beyond what Israel has anticipated.

---

Sponsored Links

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