Redstate

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

They might well do it again.

He is polling even with Whitehouse because he has Dem support. They are probably just identifying those Dems and Independents who will vote for Chafee in the general and voting them now. Furthermore, if you vote in a party primary in RI, you are registered as a Republican.

Think of it as a registration drive.

And get a clue about the process

Perhaps with good reason. He makes a compelling, two-pronged argument in support of the RNC strategy of going after Democrats and Independents in the primary on behalf of Senator Lincoln Chafee that is hard to refute. First, such voters under Rhode Island law become Republican changeover registrants if they vote for Chafee in the Republican primary. Second, if they vote for Chafee in the primary, they are likely to vote for him in the general election.

I would only add a few things, and I say them as a conservative Republican and former congressional aide who is troubled by the Chafee voting record and respectful of the conservatives who have posted in this thread. One is that it is the policy of the RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Republican administrations to support incumbent Republicans in primaries - as it should be. Another is that if there was a compelling reason (which basically comes down to being unelectable in November) not to support Chafee, the President and the Party would have used hardball tactics against him a lot earlier in the game in order to try and get him out of the race. The problem is that no such compelling reason exists and, in fact, an argument can be made that Chafee is the only electable Republican in the race.

While many of us would rather have Laffey and Toomey in the U.S. Senate instead of folks like Chafee and Specter, the reality is that incumbents are going to get the benefit of the Republican Party doubt for reelection. And in the east such moderate Republicans are usually the only kind that can get elected. A conservative would get slaughtered in Maine, even if they beat Snowe or Collins in a primary. And, frankly, such intraparty fights drain money that is better used to defeat Democrats in general elections.

I share the concern of CSD that this site, which I think is first rate, should be doing more homework and reflection when it comes to some of these election issues. For posters (and I stipulate that Erick did not do or imply this) to question the electoral savvy of Ken Mehlman reflects badly on themselves and only shows that they have never worked in a serious federal election or in a responsible political position for the Republican Party. Mehlman is certifiably among the best chairpersons the Party has ever had. His fundraising, registration, and get out the vote results speak for themselves.

I am very sensitive to this issue, even as I decry how so many Republicans are campaigning as conservatives and governing like liberals. In my tenure for three very solid and conservative Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives I spent almost all of my political time fighting off other Republicans who simply wanted to mount primary challenges for their own advancement without being able to make the compelling argument that the seats were in jeopardy of Democrat takeover. This kind of intraparty squabbling is killing us.

If an incumber Republican can win reelection in November and will cast his or her vote for Speaker or Senate Majority Leader for the Republican candidate then they deserve our support. Mehlman and Rove understand that, and so should those here on Red State.

the reality is that incumbents are going to get the benefit of the Republican Party doubt for reelection

There seems to be some disagreement as to who and what constitutes "the Republican party". Rove, Bush and Mehlman may believe that "the Republican party" is themselves. I think most here would differ. These people are not getting the benifit of our doubt.

And in the east such moderate Republicans are usually the only kind that can get elected.

I don't think that is true at all. It is true that by the time the party apparatus gets done tearing down Laffey he will be crippled in the general election. The same is true in most of the country. The party leaders seem to wish to decide what the appropriate ideology is for the party, and they railroad conservatives on a consistent basis.

Mehlman is certifiably among the best chairpersons the Party has ever had. His fundraising, registration, and get out the vote results speak for themselves.

Since I am the one who suggested that Mehlman be replaced, let me respond to this. I get his emails on a regular basis, and ignore them just as often. His "fundraising, registration, and get out the vote" efforts have actually been the efforts of me and lots of people just like me, who contribute our time and money to the party.

The national party seems to be under the unfortunate misapprehension that it exists to decide who the nominee should be from each state, and our role is to then work hard to get that person elected. If that is the case than I suggest that they should start thinking about their own job security.

Jon, with all due respect, the jobs of Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove are to win elections with Republican candidates. They have been doing that - with impunity. You ought to give them credit, I think, and quit aiming your fire at the wrong targets.

And as much as I would like to have more conservatives in the Senate and House, you don't win elections with Republican candidates by conducting primary battles in seats where there is either no risk of the incumbent losing in November or where the incumbent would be the stronger nominee in the general. The data clearly indicates that both Laffey and Toomey, whose ideologies are certainly closer to mine than Chafee and Specter, were weaker November nominees than the incumbents they took on.

I promise that if you were in the positions of Mehlman and Rove you would be making the same calls - supporting Republican incumbents who are safe or superior nominees to their potential primary challengers. And if you didn't, the members of the RNC and the President would show you the door.

The job of Mehlman and Rove is to maximize Republican wins, not purify the Republican ideological spectrum - even though I am sure they are with us in wishing there were more conservatives in Congress.

First off, that was an incredibly well written post, and I agree with almost all of it. I think the party is doing the right thing in supporting Chafee over Laffey because Laffey cannot win in Rhode Island, and the incumbent needs the benefit of the doubt from the national committees. Unless there's a Bob Smith/John Sununu situation, I generally think the party should support the incumbent.

That being said, I'm not sure that necessarily translates into redstate supporting them. I personally want Chafee to win because he's the party's only shot at holding the seat, but two years ago I was pulling hard for Toomey over Specter. For any number of reasons (PA is a better state for us and 2004 was a better year for us for two), I thought the challenge made sense. Making the party more conservative and effective at governing toward Republican goals with the majority is an important goal as well.

But yeah, Mehlman is the man, incredibly intelligent and driven. Turning out Independents and Dems is a perfectly reasonable thing for your party to do if they're voting for a member of the party. The NRSC isn't out of line here. Forfeiting a Senate seat isn't something good to do in any year, and certainly isn't a good idea this cycle.

You might want to consider that we've probably had dozens of discussions about the topics you cover in your post, and you might notice that we've not come out and endorsed Laffey, despite the fact that he's probably much closer ideologically to pretty much everyone on the site. We're aware of the pragmatic concerns, thanks very much.

We're also aware that the NRSC should support Republican incumbents, even the squishies - what we're also aware of is that Jim Talent, Rick Santorum, and Mike DeWine are fighting for their life, not to mention four or 5 challengers with legitimate shots of taking out Dem incumbents - the amount of resources the NRSC is using to run attack ads on a Republican is a ridiculous waste of resources.

We are, quite simply, not going to be able to win all the competitive races this cycle. Of all the Republicans in those competitive races, Lincoln Chafee is the least worth bending over backwards for. That's what irritates us.

"[T]oday, the enlightened children of skeptics are discovering for themselves that man does not live - or live well - by bread alone, not even by bread and circuses, and that science's accout of human life and the world is neither adequate to the

I think all Republicans are irritated by the looming November elections. But I simply and strongly disagree with the solutions suggested by Red State and this thread to the crisis. With all due respect, they seem amateurish in the extreme and unworthy of serious political people, which is not what this site aspires to.

In terms of lecturing, Red State deserved such, in my opinion, for criticizing the RNC in applying their 72 hour program to the Rhode Island primary without knowing that Democrats and Independents who vote for Senator Chafee in the primary will be automatically re-registered as Republicans under state law. That was a major oversight and omission. Clearly someone should have inquired more about the reasons behind utilizing the 72 hour program in Rhode Island rather than jumping to conclusions.

In addition, I think all those criticizing Ken Mehlman also deserved to be lectured. Only an armchair quarterback who has never played in an actual Republican political game would be clueless enough to claim that Mehlman and Karl Rove have been detrimental to the Republican Party and should be removed. Such a contention is laughable. The Republican Party would not control the White House and Congress absent Mehlman and Rove.

I would only add that the fault for the Republican Party extinguishing resources in Rhode Island that could better be used against Democrats lies with those supporting the Laffey candidacy and not with the RNC and NRSC. If we are going to have a policy of supporting incumbents - and it is a policy you acknowledge and seem to support - then it is nice to see that the principle is acted upon and followed through with when necessary. Again, credit to Mehlman and Rove. I have been there when the principle was merely paid lip service to by the national party types. It is good to see whenever the Republican Party follows some of the principles it has established, which doesn't always happen.

Campaign strategists and operatives will tell you and can show you that among the keys to winning a congressional election cycle are minimizing retirements and primary challenges and recruiting well for open seats. Frankly, the Republican Party has done a mediocre to lousy job this cycle with all three. The self-destructive committee chairmanship term limit rule in the House has created unnecessary retirements there. And the failure to support incumbents who do not pose a threat to losing their seats in November has wasted resources in primaries that will be needed in the general. (And be reminded that the Alaska gubernatiorial race is an example of a primary challenge that was justified because it has kept the office in play for the Republican Party.)

If you are going to be irritated at the Republican Party, I think you should be irritated that they have not excited the electorate with inspired policy and governance, that they have not minimized House retirements, that they have not recruited very well in open congressional seats, and that they have not convinced serious Republican folks like those on this site that only if a seat is in jeopardy should a primary challenge be mounted. I don't think you should be irritated that the Republican Party is spending money to support an incumbent whose ouster will not make the seat more winnable; in this way the Republican Party is standing on principle - much more of which is needed across the board if we are to be successful with policy and with elections.

True that if someone votes for Chafee in the primary, they may be more likely to vote for him in the general as well. However, most of the really committed liberals and Democrats in Rhode Island who want to see Sheldon Whitehouse in the Senate will be voting with conservatives for Laffey in the primary because they think he will be the most likely to lose to Whitehouse.

Face it - no one wants Chafee in the Senate. Neither conservatives nor liberals. There's absolutely nothing to like about the hollow man called Lincoln Chafee.

I think it is more likely that Chafee will get crushed as these two forces converge to vote against Chafee than that Chafee pulls it out. And the RNC, if it activates the 72 hour voting machine, is wasting valuable resources that should be spent on seats that if we win actually mean we get a vote for out side.

It seems to me that to giving aid and comfort to the voters of the other party is to politics, what giving aid and comfort to the enemy is to war.

And when the Republican National Committee is the one helping Democrats vote, this like Alger Hiss having FDR's ear at Yalta.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

The national GOP establishment has developed a track record at this point of taking sides in primary elections. And it seems to do so in favor of the more liberal candidates.

They're not driven by ideology, choosing liberal candidates over more conservative ones. They're driven by protecting each other's power and membership in the club. The RINOs are the club members that are always in danger, so they're the ones they continually have to rally around.

If war is politics by other means then politics is war by other means. If a=b then b=a. One is forcing your will on others in a civil manner while the other is forcing your will on them in a violent manner, either to do something or not to do something.

The RNC which doesn't do anything without the White House's approval and the NRSC are trying to force their will upon Republican voters. They want Laffey to lose by whatever political means necessary. Mehlman isn't going to step down merely for following the strategy of his superiors.

This isn't much different than Toomey and Specter, with all the usual suspects including the White House involved. The only difference this time is I don't expect Santorum to show up to save a RINO. At least someone got the message the last time around.

I'd be surprised to learn that Mehlman calls the shots on things like that. I think his job is to make the trains run. I don't think he decides where the tracks go. This is either Rove, or the Elizabeth Dole show.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I may not agree with everything he does (especially in Rhode Island), but Ken Mehlman is a brilliant organizational leader and administrator, and our party is stronger for having him at the helm.

Calling for Mehlman to step down over this is over the line. He is simply too great an asset to the party in almost every other respect.

But if the RNC made itself into the Conservative National Committee, then our days as a national majority would be over fast.

Conservatives aren't even a majority in the party, let alone the country.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I think conservatives are certainly a majority in the party, and probably a plurality in the country. (With due disclaimers that "conservatism" means different things to different people.)

Every candidate for national office seems to feel a need to pose as more conservative than they actually are, including Bush and Kerry in 2004. If conservatives are such a tiny portion of the electorate why would they do that?

The religious right in general is. It's those people we snatched from the Democrats, particularly in the South, to build the southern part of our current majority.

We HAD the conservatives before, and weren't the majority. Who's new? Who's gotten us the Congress? Who turned out for Bush in 2004 but not so much in 2000?

Not us, speaking as a conservative.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

We were moving in that direction through attrition in Congress and winning at the state wide level so we could get districts gerrymandered for the Democrats corrected. Ronald Reagan won 58% of the popular vote and 49 out of 50 states running as a conservative. When was the last time a Democrat or “big tent” Republican pulled that off?

I don’t see the Democrats or liberals staying above 50% in this country in my lifetime, but I see the Republicans sputtering down from their Reaganesque and mid 90s highs in Congress and at the state and local level as they become the party of big government and other “big tent” policies.

When it comes to actual policy, this is a right of center country with a slightly left of center party, the Republicans, and an unhinged (borderline treasonous) leftist party, the Democrats. The current Republican establishment is right of center on taxes and the courts, but not the size of the federal government, the entitlement state, nor the role of the federal government. It is the Republican Party’s movement from Reagan and its mid 90s’ campaigns in the latter categories that is causing it to lose support rather than build a national majority. The majority of Americans are conservative and the majority of Republicans are certainly conservative. It is the majority of Republican office holders that vote and govern in a less than conservative manner.

Clinton never managed a majority of the vote, but the Republican vote split. Bush winning was simply the natural result in a two man race. All else being equal the GOP is the majority party in America, because it is seen as the more conservative of the two.

We can quibble of what we mean by the term, but I think that religious Southerners who are socially conservative fit into my own definition of "conservative".

Who's gotten us the Congress?

I'm pretty sure we got it ourselves. If we lose it, it will be because it will take the hit for what is seen as Bush's lurch to the left.

lots of times "conservatives" do indeed sink their own. I recall the 1998 elections, when many of the now termed paleocons sat out to protest what they believed was less than aggressive handling of impeachment. What did that do? It led to Feingold beating Marc Neumann, Evan Bayh winning in Indiana, Schumer winning in NY over D'Amato, Lincoln winning in AR and John Edwards in NC.

Also, the GOP majority in the House was reduced.

And then they are the same ones to complain about the above idiots' behavior.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

What is your comment supposed to infer?

What my comment implies – that is, what the regular readers are to infer – is that you're a Democrat coming here to discourage us from giving to Republican candidates in this election year.

Because nowhere in this post is it shown that giving to candidates is bad. Giving to the RNC or RNSC, yes, but not to candidates like Santorum, Steele, Irey, Bouchard, and others.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I haven't voted for a Democrat since I voted for George McGovern in a second grade election because I was sweet on the girl next to me.

You are free to give your money to whomever you wish. That doesn't change the fact that expecting any returns on your "investment" is pure foolishness. Unless you are a corporate donor or wealthy enough to give many thousands of dollars, your donation means squat. That is the system that we have allowed the Washington DC elite to create and perpetuate.

Do you think your individual donation really means a whit to someone like Rick Santorum? This is a guy who had the gall to write, “In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do.” That's pretty rich coming from a guy who has received ~$100K from the pharmaceuticals, an industry rife with price-gouging and anti-freemarket ideology.

I'm not a Democrat. But in all honesty, I'm not much of a Republican these days either. I have very little faith left that any who reside in DC have any genuine interest in the citizens of this country. That is why I haven't sent a dime to a candidate in almost ten years.

I'm sorry if that strikes you as verboten. But I don't think I'm alone.
Why has election turnout steadily declined over the past few decades?

Why are we allowing dirtbags like Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens to treat the Senate as their private piggybank social club for OVER 30 #$(%*# YEARS??

Why have we seen American politics turn into a revolving door of nepotism?
ie....Clinton, Bush, Murkowski,....and lets not forget the state govts....they are even worse.

Money. That is why. Politics is about profit now. I refuse to donate.

Thanks.
Chris

Politics is and always will be driven by money. Just like failing to vote is effectively the same as voting for the winner---whether you prefer him or not---failing to donate is effectively the same as donating to the winner.

In other words, there is no such thing as "none of the above" or "no thanks." Inaction simply allows the existing system to perpetuate.

Why are we allowing dirtbags like Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens to treat the Senate as their private piggybank social club for OVER 30 #$(%*# YEARS??

Whatever else may be said about these men, nobody I know of has suggested that they are personally pocketing any money from the public purse. Until you did. If you have any evidence that this is so you ought to contact the FBI.

The aggregate turnout is quite high and goes up pretty much each election. The figure that gets bandied about by Ds and their running dogs is turnout as a percentage of registration, which has gone down steadily since, guess what, motor voter. Everybody and his dog and long-dead grandmother is registered, often several times and in several locations and with nary a hint of positive identification.

The National Extortion Association trots the HS kiddies down to register, the union registers everybody at the job site and hiring hall, the social workers register everybody who signs up for any social program, the unemployment office registers everybody who shows up there, and on, and on.

Who knows how many of those people are the same person over and over, the same person using different names, or whether they're even lawfully eligible to vote. Add to that the feds have put all sorts of restrictions on purging the lists, so a person can be long gone from a jurisdiction and still be legally required to remain on the lists. My own daughter hasn't lived in Alaska since June of '94 and until last year was still a registered voter here, notwithstanding the fact that she owns a home and a car and is registered to vote in WA.

Even the admittedly imperfect system used to cancel drivers licenses in one state when you get one in another would be a great help and purging the name if you miss more than two or three generals would be good too.

In Vino Veritas