Redstate

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

Because there weren't any other tight Senate races where the money could have been better spent against a Democrat?

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

. . . (as much as I can be) at the time of the RI primary and the month beforehand, y'all had no reason to expect TN and VA to be this close, did you?

This is all within a broader context, now, that Mehlman is taking over for Dole and setting up an OH-MO-TN firewall and perhaps giving up on PA-MT-RI.

We have GOT to hold Montana. We can't let it become another North Dakota/South Dakota.

Bush and Cheney need to camp out there - one of the few states where they're still fairly popular, and since it's so rural would probably by star-struck - and drag Burns over the finish line, and as a condition, they should make him promise to not run for another term. Let Senate leaders start recruiting for his replacement ASAP.

--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"

. . . in which he's 7th most popular out of the fifty, only a net minus-one.

find a conservative to run against her in the primary next time she's up. There is no reason to be "fair" to complete incompetence.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

. . . that Vernon Robinson will be available.

I disagree that voting for Whitehouse sends any correct message (see my post above). I often found this line of reasoning odd and found this article to be very on the mark:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100305A

I dont disagree with your sentiment that Chaffee is no real republican but I would argue that, unless you are a moby, you still want to vote for him just to keep a majority if possible.

By the way, I think Alan Schlesinger is probably another republican that isnt going to get many republican votes either.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

Specter helped with the majority.
Snowe helps with the majority.
Jeffords did not help with the majority.

Chafee is of the Jeffords ilk. Not of the Specter or Snowe ilk. A Chafee win is of no benefit to a Republican majority whatsoever.

His loss will be our big gain. Lesson: Going that far off the deep end has consequences. Don't become the next Chafee.

A Chafee win is of no benefit to a Republican majority whatsoever.

My point was that he helps the majority ONLY in retaining a majority.

If it ends up that by losing chaffee we lose the majority altogether including the committee positions that come with it, then it would be counterproductive to vote D just to "send a message".

When Jeffords was the key to maintaining a R majority, he split.

If Chafee's seat is the reason we barely have a R majority, he will split, too. Instant fame and political fortune awaits his desertion.

He's Jeffordsian, not Specterian.

We ARE better off without him. He gives us absolutely NOTHING.

If nothing has been learned from Jeffords, we're in REAL trouble.

RI has a choice:

a. vote for chaffee: a win is one more person who at the very least lets other good reps keep their committee posts. Unless he pulls a jeffords which is just a maybe (i havent even heard that was a possiblilty

b. voting for whitehouse: pulling a pre-emptive jeffords

so its a choice of a possible democrat shift or guaranteed one.

question: this is all based on the assumption he's already lost. would you still be sending a "message vote" if the race were dead even and it was possible yours was the deciding vote?

Whitehouse now becomes a permanent safe D seat

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

... that's what it has been with Chafee sitting in it anyway.

No loss.

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

n/t

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

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

i generally dont think that anyone should ever sit out.

BUT if you really need to make a statement then I DO think it is better to sit out or vote for a third party candidate that actually DOES fit your views (that, I believe sends a much much better message) than to give the opposition a bigger boost. Actually voting third party is the best option.

you sit out we lose one vote, you vote D we basically lost two. Im not talking about a great scenario, just the better option for a bad one.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

There is no "sending a message" in a defeat unless you want to send the message that you like the winner better.

Vote, and vote Republican. The ONLY way to get a candidate more to your liking is to convince people that the seat SHOULD be filled by a Republican (even if it's Chafee), then get a candidate like Lafee to win in the primary. Lafee didn't get money from the Republican Senate committee becuase they didn't believe a "true" Republican could win.

Get out and vote for Chafee. Make this a HUGE landslide for Chafee and make it a SAFE R seat. Then beat Chafee with a conservative next time. Or better yet, get a conservative to beat Reed next time he's up (2008?).

If there was a dimes worth of difference between Chafee and Whitehouse on actual message and policy, that would be one thing. If Republicans vote for Chafee simply because he has an R after his name, they'd be cowards because they'd be voting for someone who stands for something that they don't actually believe in. They'd be voting for a liberal who happens to be a Republican.

If you think elections are all about superfluous things like parties and people, then by all means vote for Chafee. But if you think that elections are about ideas, and you are a conservative, you cannot vote for Chafee.

Given the choice between a Democratic liberal, a Republican liberal, and a Libertarian weirdo, the Republican to me would seem to be the best choice for advancing any kind of conservative-friendly agenda.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

To having elected officials out there bearing the Republican label while not supporting any of the Republican agenda. It hurts the party long term.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Undoubtedly that cost does exist. But do you see Chafee as being the type capable of leading, and causing serious party problems, such as those a McCain does?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Is not him personally being disruptive. The cost is disaffection of voters who will be a lot less inclined to support us in the future when we foist worthless clowns like Chafee on the voters of RI today. If we could count on him for a critical organizing vote, I still would think he'd be worth a vote just for that. We cannot do that, however. He is disloyal and cannot be trusted.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm tired of seeing stuff in the press like, "...and not just Democrats think socialism is a good thing and that everyone should be forced to be vegetarians, it's a bi-partisan feeling on Capital Hill." And who is the Republican? Lincoln Chafee.

Christopher Shays and Sherwood Boehlert are as far to the left as I'm willing to stray in order to hold an R - and that's testing it. Lincoln Chafee is waaaaay to the left of even THEM! I wouldn't be surprised if Chafee were more in line with socialist Bernie Sanders than Christopher Shays.

And then in committee, the GOP has to placate Chafee in order to get anything done. It is this VERY problem that has so demoralized the GOP base.

CHAFEE HAS GOT TO GO!

Again, conceeding the seat to someone even MORE liberal than Chafee is not a victory. And the only message that will be sent to Sen. Dole is that Chafee wasn't liberal enough for RI. The time to fight internal party battles is the primaries. But keep the seat with an R. I don't agree with Dole violating the eleventh commandment and have lost a great deal of respect I had for her, but that still isn't a reason to conceed the seat to a Dem.

Sheldon Whitehouse is not more liberal than Lincoln Chafee.

If Whitehouse receives about the same amount of support that Democrats usually get in Rhode Island and Chafee's support craters because all 10,000 Rhode Island Republicans refuse to vote for him, then the appropriate message will be sent.

I'm all for electing the most conservative candidate who will win by at least 1 vote, but Lincoln Chafee is no conservative and he has no major policy differences with Whitehouse.

Liddy Dole spent $1.2 million for what, again?

CHAFEE MUST GO NOW!

I have never, and will never, donate to the NRSC. I give directly to candidates.

With any luck, and I know better, the NRSC will be shut down after this cycle.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Seriously.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

The reason many of us really don't care of Chafee wins or loses, is that we don't trust that he'd STAY with the Republicans if his vote were needed to maintain the majority.

If it's 51-49 to organize Republican, his vote is extra. If it's 50-50 with Cheney breaking the tie, he's decisive. If it's 49-51, again he's irrelevant.

So think about the 50-50 scenario. If the Democrats bring him over, suddenly it's 49-51 and we wasted lots of money to elect him.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

So we are willing to throw the Majority away, and do nothing to protect it because we are assuming Chafee will jump ship?

Now, I agree that Chafee leaving the Republican caucus is a very real possibility -- it is, no doubt -- given his voting record and public statements.

But can anyone point to his public statements saying he'd leave the party if the Senate was tied? I'm not sure there is any out there.

My point being is that Dole, Mehlman and the whole lot of them are assuming the other way, as their job descriptions demand that they do and are doing the political expedient thing to maintain the Majority.

I just can't fault them for that line of thinking. And the other line of thinking, taking your ball and going home because you are assuming Chafee bolts just doesn't sit with me as well.

My point being is that Dole, Mehlman and the whole lot of them are assuming the other way, as their job descriptions demand that they do and are doing the political expedient thing to maintain the Majority.

Can you show me where in their job descriptions it says anything about throwing contributors money down a rat hole trying to defend a RINO who is about as trustworthy as a rabid pitbull with its leg caught in a trap? Or down that same rathole savaging fellow Republicans in misleading attack ads?

I don't think "being played for a sucker" appears anywhere in their job description, either.

But can anyone point to his public statements saying he'd leave the party if the Senate was tied? I'm not sure there is any out there.

Seriously. You must be kidding. Who is going to telegraph this kind of thing in advance. Can you point to any Jefford's statements saying the same thing before was reelected (with Republican money and votes), only a few short months before he jumped?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

You're assuming that we'll need Chafee to maintain the majority.

Right now, I'd say that the GOP looks like they will lose Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Montana - and possibly pick up New Jersey. So the 55 seat majority in the Senate becomes 52 or 53.

A 52- or 53-seat majority WITHOUT Chafee is going to be far stronger than the 55-seat majority was WITH Chafee.

Going forward, the NRSC, Club for Growth, and Focus-on-the-Family types need to get together and do a better job of recruiting strong Republican candidates that the GOP base can really rally behind in order to knock off Red State Democrats in the 2008 election cycle. And they will be more successful without the monkey that is Lincoln Chafee dragging the party down and to the left.

"A 52- or 53-seat majority WITHOUT Chafee is going to be far stronger than the 55-seat majority was WITH Chafee."

with your post. I dream of a Senate Majority without Chafee.

And I am sure Dole, Mehlmen and the lot dream of that too. My point being is that we are faulting them for doing the political expedient thing, which is their jobs.

It seems to me that there must be a 2-pronged test for political expediancy:

1. Party Affiliation
2. Party Loyalty on legislative votes, and
3. Incumbency

In a scenario where Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine, Rick Santorum, Mark Kennedy, Mike Bouchard, Mike McGavick, and Michael Steele had all opened up comfortable leads on their opponants - okay...knock yourself out with Lincoln Chafee in the single most most heavily Democratic state in the country. Although, I think she would have owed Katherine Harris some financial support to help build her back up after all of the damage she did to her, I wouldn't have faulted her for supporting an incumbant over a challenger in THAT scenario. (Rush recently commented about how he was dismayed at the tactics the GOP used in an attempt to torpedo Katherine Harris, too, by the way.)

But what she did was basically take $1.2m to Vegas and she's going to lose it. She's obviously a complete idiot when it comes to political strategizing.

I added the third and forgot to revise the opening line to relfect as much.

Harris was unelectable - everyone down here in Florida knew it except for her. She could have stayed in Congress as long as she wanted, but she had try for more. Had she run in the last election, the GOP would have lost, not won the seat. Had she sat out this time, the GOP would have gotten a better candidate. But no one wanted to risk it because she had enough name recognition to make it hard to get the nomination. We are going to badly lose this seat - someone else might have given BN a run for his money - at least tie up some $
And Harris has proved just how lousy a candidate she is - most of her problems are of her own making - not because the establishment didn't like her.
Nor do I accept this argument that the GOP would be stronger without Chaffe. The thought of a Senate filled with 55 Brownback clones creeps me out - I like having all wings of the party represented.

...the last time she lost an election was...uh...hmm...never?

Lincoln Chafee doesn't represent ANY wing of the GOP, he represents liberal Democrats in the GOP majority - as evidenced by all of the Democrats it took to win the GOP nomination for him - which is why purging him is just as important as defeating any Democrat.

Forget 55 Brownbacks in the U.S., give me 60 Senators who are all Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, John Shadegg, and Kenneth Blackwell clones.

:-)

She doesn't ever want to see Chafee out. She has no problem with Chafee at all. The people she has the problem with are those who dare to challenge a sitting Republican (and a Senator, no less) in a primary. The audacity!

She is a complete failure in her post and needed to lose her job a long time ago.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/12/senate.chafee/
In 2001, he said he might switch parties to keep the Republican Party out of control.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/ussenate/2004-11-0...
In 2004, he said he might if Bush were re-elected.

And while I can't find it now, he made a similar statement a few months ago.

On a more important note, primaries are very important. They are often the only chance we have to effect change. Primaries are when the rank and file of parties get to have a say. While I may feel that the connecticut primary where lieberman was purged from the dems was stupid and insane it is a reflection of the will of their party.