RI Sen: Primary Open Thread
Let's get it started.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (119) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Follow the tally here. If there is another site that seems to be updating faster, let us know in the comments.
Updates as the results start coming in.
UPDATE by Erick: I'm told turn out in the Republican primary has been very high, which probably is not good news for Mayor Laffey, who has suffered a barrage of attacks lately.
UPDATE by Adam: Results coming in from local news. WPRI has 35% of precincts reporting.
Chafee 13,835 53%
Laffey 12,072 47%
UPDATE by Adam: They're coming fast right now (9:49 EST). With 46% reporting:
LINCOLN CHAFEE 18,216 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 15,769 46%
UPDATE BY Erick: Rob Bluey is getting drunk with watching the returns with Pat Toomey and Andy Roth. Check it out here.
10:06 PM EST by Adam C: Still from WPRI with 66% reporting.
LINCOLN CHAFEE 22,613 53%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 19,761 47%
10:26 PM EST by Adam C: I'm ready to call this for Chafee. With 80% reporting:
LINCOLN CHAFEE 27,155 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 23,163 46%
10:56 PM EST by Adam C: Laffey has conceded. Chafee is the Republican nominee and Republican chances to hold the Senate are improved. Sen. Dole probably feels vindicated. Laffey probably can't run for any other office in RI now. And a bunch of Club for Growth, conservative activists, and NRSC money has been wasted on a lose-lose race. Hopefully, CfG can focus on the 3 Mikes (WA, MD, and MI), conservatives can focus on general elections, and the NRSC can start mending fences and put its money toward electing Republicans in partisan races.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | We can’t trust ’em. — Comments (127) »
RI Sen: Primary Open Thread 119 Comments (0 topical, 119 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Since a lot of deeply partisan Democrats and liberals who are even more radical than Chafee are pulling for Laffey to win because they believe he would be easier for Sheldon Whitehouse to defeat than Chafee, a lot of them will be voting or Laffey. The KosKidz are pulling for Laffey and encouraging their members to vote for him in the primary since there aren't any other interesting federal primaries.
While I agree with Laffey on the issues way more closely than I do with Chafee, wouldn't it be better to have the more electable candidate in the general election (which is, by the polls, Chafee)?
I think this line of reasoning especially holds true given the danger of Republicans losing the Senate (with the Tennessee and Virginia races waaaay closer than they should be).
What are Laffey's chances of victory should he win tonight's primary?
* * *
but what's really sour is the NRSC's willingness to write him off if he wins tonight.
While I am cheering for Mr. Chafee, I won't loose sleep if he looses to Laffey. Laffey's win would make the RI seat harder to retain, but the NRSC should at least fight, rather than wave the white flag.
Libby Dole and her staffers demonstrated some of the worst leadership I have ever seen in the NRSC. John Ensign and Bill Frist were better.
It's best that liberals (the bad guys) always wear the same label - and have a "D" after their names. That way liberals who happen to have "Rs" after their names don't sully the reputation of conservatives, who also tend to have an "R" after their names. Less guilt by association that way - and being an elected representative of the Republican Party is a strong association. They're like team uniforms. Lincoln Chafee is a liberal, he just is such a dope he doesn't know he's wearing the wrong uniform.
Lincoln Chafee is an idiot and an absolute embarassment to the party. He is everything that Democrats accuse Republicans of being but most are not - stupid, silver spoon fed trust fund babies who only got where they are in life because of daddy's money. We are better off keeping men like Chafee out of the spotlight. Having a seat in the Senate and being a party's nominee to continue to be the Senator representing Rhode Island is the spotlight.
Also, it makes the hand of conservatives stronger as long as we are able to hold the majority of the Senate because the committees with Chafee on them (including the very important Foreign Relations committee where Chafee is holding up UN Ambassador John Bolton's nomination) will no longer have to cowtow to his liberal orthodoxy in order to get business done and passed out of committee. Instead, we'll be able to place someone on those committees who will inevitably be more conservative than Chafee.
if only for his perfect record on Judicial Filibusters. This is a big issue these days. He's got a lot of warts but is still better than Whitehouse.
I really doubt he'd vote with us if his vote actually were a potential difference maker on judicial filibusters. Just look at his vote on John Bolton.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
His record on Judges is the same as Chuck Schumer. The ONLY vote that he would possibly have made that would have made a difference is the vote on the NUCLEAR option. He made it clear that he won't EVER support that if it comes up. Since the Dems would definately filibuster ANY judge that couldn't get well over 50 votes anyway, any one Senator's vote on the potentiality of the Nuclear Option is the ONLY vote that matter. Remember, you vote only matters if you are the 50th vote. As I count, we have Chafee and the Ladies from Maine who will DEFINATELY poose the Nuke option if invoked. The rest of the caucus is AT LEAST open to the possibility. Therefore: we need to retain at least 53 seats to maitain the threat of the nuclear option in the new Congress if Chafee is re-elected, but we only need 52 if he isn't, so effectively, he doesn't matter.
A process where the red states produce conservative senators and blue states produce liberal ones is a good thing. If this ends up being part of that bigger process, so be it.
Laffey can't beat Whitehouse, and may be willing too take the chance in 2002 or 2004. But this election can really go either way and the Democrats have a real chance to take the Senate, being the sixth year of an Administration. In the end, he is certainly not perfect, but Chafee does one thing--caucus with the GOP and this race could end in a near tie. We cant just hand them a state this easily.
What was Strom's quote? "My heart is with Reagan, but Nixon's the one?"
"My heart is with Laffey, but Chafee's the one."
What good is a senator who will caucus with the GOP but then votes with the Democrats on the most important issues.
If we had a 51-49 Senate with Chafee, then we have a majority in name only. In effect, we are forced to rely on Cheney's tiebreaking vote when it comes to passing significant legislation or confirming solid conservative judges. Considering the other RINOS in the Senate (Snowe, et al), I'd say this argument bears little weight. If Chafee gets us to 51, we are already in serious trouble. If, alternatively, Chafee brings us to 50, we're already sunk. Finally, if Chafee puts us at 52-55, we don't need him.
At bottom, then, a slim majority with Chafee is really no majority at all (Jeffords, anyone?). A several seat majority makes Chafee expendable (and good riddance). This being the case, I see no persuasive argument for Chafee, and I'll gladly stand with Laffey---a candidate that actually stands for the principles that prompted me to become a Republican.
Either way, I have no plans to donate to the National GOP in the foreseeable future based solely on this race. I'll be supporting individual candidates only.
- - -
I don't mind people talking rot in my presence, but it must not be utter rot. --P.G. Wodehouse
53% of 515 Reporting
LINCOLN CHAFEE 19,778 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 17,103 46%
For those not adept at subtraction, Chafee is winning by 2675 votes, with 47% of precincts left. (WPRI)
LINCOLN CHAFEE 21,879 53%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 19,099 47%
A difference of: 2780 votes.
I really hope Sen. Chafee wins this one. Otherwise the party is giving up on Rhode Island, and we can't afford to lose another seat in the senate (remember the Daschle days????)
Wisdom in government is not a one-way street that always runs downhill. More often, the higher up the ladder of government you go, the less common sense you find.
-Ronald Reagan
Otherwise the party is giving up on Rhode Island
It occurs to me that one of these days, we're going to have to figure out who, exactly, the party is. Because at the moment it does not seem to be us.
The major problem is that Chafee doesn't know who he is. He's his father's son, and therefore a Republican, but I'm not sure he knows what a Republican is, or does.
Now, Senator, be a good boy and vote to confirm John Bolton.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
I served today as a poll supervisor in North Providence RI-- two precints polling in the same place.
Here at least (I read aloud the results for our precinct) Laffey beat Chafee by a few dozen votes.
I would say at least 75% of the voters I checked in today were "unaffiliated" voters who chose which primary to vote in and immediately disaffiliated again afterwards.
Many, many people were torn-- they turned out to support Mayor Ralph Mollis (D) in his primary for Secy. State, but they also wanted to vote in the (R) primary.
Obviously, I have no idea how those unaffilated voters actually voted.
But, I'd also estimate that I saw less than ten actual registered Republicans all day.
Based on that I guess the unaffiliated voters must have split their Chafee/Laffey vote pretty close.
I don't know how the "Democrats in Unaffilated Clothing" were sussing out their strategy. Many liberal friends I spoke to in earlier weeks were dropping their (D) affliation to "cast a vote against Laffey no matter what."
But it seems to me more savvy to vote FOR Laffey since he's polling so poorly against Whitehouse, and since Chafee (supposedly) stands the better chance of beating Whitehouse.
The whole notion of the unaffiliated voter was driving me nuts all day. It doesn't bother me to let them choose which primary to vote in, but it would seem to make a lot more sense NOT to automatically affiliate them with the party whose primary they enter. Twice the paperwork. Somebody's going through and affiliating them one way or another, and then somebody else is going right back through all those disaffiliation forms to undo those affiliations.
Though of course, having seen it in action up close today, I can't see that it really serves any purpose other than allowing Democrats to play spoiler in the Republican primary.
Sorry for rambling, but the last thought I have tonite is how unbelievably pissed off I am at the NRSC. They really, really burned their bridges here. If Laffey comes through (and I voted for him, I hope he does) then the NRSC has done him massive (irreperable?) harm with their scorched-earth campaign "supporting" the incumbent Chafee. I'm really sick over it.
For those of us outside the state, how is Laffey regarded within the state? Being elected mayor suggests he is not too far out of the RI mainstream.
I honestly couldn't say-- I am new to the state (2003) so my exposure to Laffey has been largely through the campaigns. I wouldn't want to express an erroneous opinion based on recent campaign oversaturation.
Affiliating that close to the primary and then unaffiliating so quickly?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
of "open" primaries.
I'm actually thinking of registering "Unenrolled" here in MA just so I can vote in Democrat primaries - it would give me an opportunity to vote against Fat Teddy TWICE this year.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
They had to have disaffiliated quite some time ago-- I'd say months. I think it's 90 days.
Assuming they got that paperwork in on time, they can then vote, as an independent, in the party primary of their choosing.
If they do nothing else, they'll end up affiliated with the party whose primary they chose to vote in.
If they fill out the disaffiliation form, they will be disaffiliated.
I don't know how long either of the above processes takes; however, I think it's largely irrelevant, as the next election is the general election.
As long as you disaffiliate before the next primary, you're all set.
...to look at the downticket races to see which cities have come in. Pawtucket has come in, as has Cumberland. However, most of Cranston, all of Providence and all of Warwick have yet to come in.
73% of 515 Reporting
LINCOLN CHAFEE 24,953 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 21,576 46%
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Looks like the 72 hour program and RNC GOTV proved to be magic tonight. Maybe it can carry Dewine, Santorum and Talent back in come January too.
I got plenty of "pollsters" calling me in the runup to the election, in which I made clear my intent to vote for Laffey.
Despite the fact that I volunteered as a poll-checker for the Republicans in 2004, I was never contacted in any R-GOTV effort. If there was such an effort here this year, they wrote me and/or my precinct off.
In fact, there wasn't even a Republican vote checker at our polling place. (However, as I said above, there were literally less than a dozen registered Republicans in my precinct.)
We keep seat.
Chafee sits in it.
Come November we'll be wasting more money trying to carry this guy over the line, while real candidates go short.
80% of 515 Reporting
LINCOLN CHAFEE 27,155 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 23,163 46%
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
It's still gonna be a fight even with chaffee as the nominee. Aparently, Chaffee's only up by 2 points on whitehouse.
That is all.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Chafee I meant. My spelling is horrible. Libby Dole's nasty ads paid off. So much for Reagan's 11th commandment.
Well I suppose you could turn around and say that RI Repubs. voted with their heads instead of their hearts.
Tonight we separated the wheat from the chaff, and threw away the wheat.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Unfortunately, it was probably the right strategic decision though. If Laffey could not convincingly win the GOP primary, where the voters were undoubtably more friendly to our wheat than they will be in the general election, then he would absolutely have lost in the general. And if he could not weather the negative attacks Chafee threw at him, odds are he would not have been able to weather the negative attacks Whitehouse would have thrown at him.
In the grand scheme of things, RI voters prefer what we consider chaff. And while Chafee is far from my kind of Republican Senator, I am pretty certain he'll vote with us more often than Sheldon Whitehouse will.
Your Democratic turnout machine appears to have paid off. Have fun trying to convince them to stay home in November.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
After having spent almost a cool mil tearing down Laffey they now have to dump more perfectly good money to try to convince these same Democrats and "independents" who pushed Chafee across the finish line to not vote for Whitehouse.
Gee, great strategy for getting Republicans elected - drive up Democrat turnout...
This probably costs Carcieri the Governor's office as well.
Like I said - depressing.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
... they've probably made Laffey radioactive for any future races as well.
He's now finished - and has fellow Republican Liddy Dole to thank for that.
Chafee will lose the general to a weak, awful candidate (Sheldon Whitehouse) - my only wonder is whether or not he loses by about 25,000 votes...
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I'm one of those who, were it not for the Senator Dole's ridiculous kissing up to Senator Chafee with RNSC dollars, would have precious little interest in the outcome of this primary.
But as someone who will vote in the primary for the real Republican over the pro-abortion, pro-tax RINO every time here in California; who would rather a group like the RNSC would avoid a race like this where a weak, non-mainstream incumbent is in primary trouble; and certainly would rather the 11th commandment be respected in an unfriendly state like this; I'm pulling for Mayor Laffey tonight.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
with 84% reporting, Chafee's 27899 to Laffey's 23899.
84% of 515 Reporting
LINCOLN CHAFEE 27,899 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 23,899 46%
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
after the last minute attack on Bush and Rove. It hinted of self destruction and an inability to overcome the weathering attacks. Did he get confused and think this was the General?
Frankly, I have given up on RI altogether. Next trip to NE I am going around RI Western MA.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
As soon as Laffey concedes, that is, it's time to support Lincoln Chaffee.
I don't mean it's time to praise his views, I mean it's time to avoid criticizing him. If you haven't got something nice to say, don't.
--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.
I won't wish him defeat, but he can buzz off if he expects nationwide Republican support. He won this primary with Democrats, and he can do the same in the general for all I care.
He and Liddy are on their own.
--
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 has gone out of control. They honestly seem to believe that its their job to pick for us who our representatives shall be. Chaffee is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
however, they are asking themselves a simple question.
Will spending money help us control the Senate?
In this case, they saw (rightfully I believe) that Laffey had no chance of winning.
I'd rather have a guy who votes with us 25% of the time(CHafee) than a guy who votes with us 0% of the time(Whitehouse, the Dem candidate and a real jerk).
What would have been better for us to have CERTAINLY gotten Whitehouse, instead of the possible loss of the seat now.
Thats a funny word to throw around. We have a likely loss either way. One way we might have gained something. This way we gain nothing even if we "win".
Do you think Laffey had a shot in 100 at keeping this seat Republican?
Chafee probably has an even money shot at beating Whitehouse.
Laffey would have needed Whitehouse literally to be found murdering someone. He was doubled up in the polls.
The RI Republicans who got the shaft from the national GOP?
If Chaffee does win (unlikely) it will be by tilting even further to the left than he already is to pick up more Democratic support. Not that this would bother some people in the GOP. But I'm missing the reason why we are expected to support and pay for it. I'm also missing how it gets the party where it is allegedly trying to go, policy wise. I'm sure you can explain it to me.
Who is going to vote for Chafee? Well, Chafee has been polling about even with Whitehouse thus far, so clearly there's some support.
What does the NRSC exist for? It wants to elect Republicans to the Senate. Who can be elected to the Senate from Rhode Island as a Republican? Lincon Chafee.
You don't have to support the national party. Feel free to donate to individual candidates.
How does it improve where we go policy wise? It makes things easier when we vote to organize the Senate. Plus the odd one in three or one in four votes he'll side with us.
It isn't a great situation no matter how you slice it. Divisive primaries seldom are.
Obviously not electing Republicans. Or perhaps the definition of Republican has changed.
I'd be surprised if Chafee votes with the Repubs more than 1 in 10.
What does the NRSC exist for? It wants to elect Republicans to the Senate. Who can be elected to the Senate from Rhode Island as a Republican? Lincon Chafee.
It is not the role of the NRSC to decide who can or cannot be elected from any district or state. If the RI GOP wants to nominate someone other than Chaffee that should be up to them. Supposedly this kinds of decisions are made in a democratic fashion, not in a smoke-filled room where the party bosses cut their deals.
If the NRSC likes Linc so much, they can vote for him. And Kean, and all the other losers they are foisting on us.
How does it improve where we go policy wise? It makes things easier when we vote to organize the Senate.
How does it do that? Are you one of those who think that he will stay a Republican if the Senate is tied? In which case, can I have some of what you're smoking?
a Republican his whole life. He remained a Republican when the Senate was tied in 2001. Honestly, if you want to talk about him not supporting the President's priorities, that's fine. However, there's no reason to believe that he would switch parties. The burden of proof on that debate is on people who think he will switch, since he, um, hasn't.
And why can't it be up to the NRSC who can and cannot be elected in a district or state? In a case like this, it is an objective decision. One guy had a shot at keeping the seat, one guy didn't. Simple as that. They took that information, and used it to do the best they could given the facts on the ground.
Maybe we should just ban all 527s and out of state donations and party contributions.* Until then, the NRSC has just as much of a right to influence who is the winner of the GOP primary in Rhode Island as the Club for Growth or anyone who is on this board that isn't from Rhode Island.
*Sarcasm
What ever happened to Reagan's 11th commandment? When our party decides to spend a million dollars to DEFEAT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN something is seriously wrong. The Club for Growth, Democrats for Chafee, etc., can spend all they want. But National Republicans should not spend money to defeat other Republicans. That is money that can't be spent to defeat Democrats. That is the ultimate goal, isn't it? Though sometimes I wonder if Dole remembers that...
Does that apply to conservative challengers to incumbent RINOs like Chafee?
And this was money spent to defeat Democrats, if only indirectly. If this money was not spent beating Laffey, the GOP would have no chance at beating Whitehouse.
If this money was not spent beating Laffey, the GOP would have no chance at beating Whitehouse.
The GOP has no chance of beating Whitehouse. The GOP is not even in the race. We have two Democrats running against one another in November, one of whom is sucking up our resources. It's a win-win for the Democrats.
One of these days I'd like us to test this maxim that only a hard-core liberal can win election in the north-east. Republican mayors have done pretty well there over the years. It's not at all obvious that they cannot do well at a higher level, if only they had some support from their party.
He would be interested to find out Chafee was a Democrat. It'd save him a lot of effort in the next eight weeks.
the NRSC has just as much of a right to influence who is the winner of the GOP primary in Rhode Island as the Club for Growth
AT the end of the day the NRSC is supposed to answer to us, the Republican party. It is not this autonomous entity which can run around doing whatever it wishes.
As I say, this problem is a lot bigger than Chaffee. He's just a symptom of it. The party got upset that CFG knocked off one of its anointed people earlier and is now trying to show us who's really the boss.
Nobody is buying what the national GOP is selling. The Democrats sure are not. And increasingly the Republican faithful are not either.
The blogs need to start a campaign to get Dole removed from her position. That's the minimum neccessary response to what has been a catastrophic term as NRSC head.
AT the end of the day the NRSC is supposed to answer to us, the Republican party. It is not this autonomous entity which can run around doing whatever it wishes.
The NRSC is not made up of elected committeemen and women like the RNC. The NRSC is not beholden to the Republican rank-and-file like the RNC. And the NRSC Chairman is not elected by a large number of committee people, but by other Republican Senators. 55 men and women to be exact.
The main purpose, goal, ideal of the NRSC -- first and foremost -- is to elect Republican Incumbent Senators, second elect Republican Senate Challengers. The NRSC is a club to maintain the Republican incumbent status quo – period. It’s in their charter. Check it out.
Secondly, to affect real change at the NRSC is to simply withhold contributions. But mind you, that is a double edge sword, being that they are the only ones standing between you and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Clearly, Senator Dole is not the attack dog we need her to be – not like past Chairman McConnell who dominated the Sunday talk shows. But the people she has on the ground know what they are doing as shown in RI and will execute a solid plan coming down the election stretch run.
the people she has on the ground know what they are doing as shown in RI and will execute a solid plan coming down the election stretch run.
It is not their technical ability to accomplish their goals which concerns me. It's whether their goals and my goals are even roughly in sync.
And the NRSC Chairman is not elected by a large number of committee people, but by other Republican Senators. 55 men and women to be exact.
And those 55 men and women answer to who? In practice they seem to answer to nobody.
they are the only ones standing between you and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
No, and I get tired of hearing this. We, the voters, are the only thing standing between Reid and majority leadership. The egotistical fools in the senate are our employees. I'm getting tired of them thinking that they may pick for us which people they will allow to join their august company. Perhaps a spell in the minority would concentrate their minds somewhat after all.
on Senate Majority Reid. Higher taxes, liberal judges and impeachment will be all that you get.
I'm not willing to take that chance.
In every other Senate race this year, I urge you to vote for your Republican candidate.
But given 1) Chafee's record and 2) what the RNSC has done, if I were in RI, I would be gladly vote for Whitehouse in November.
The Senate will be better off with Whitehouse than with Chafee. Chafee is of NO value to the Republican majority.
Remove Chafee.
Make it so.
He is a RINO, yes, and not "one of us." However, he may very well be THE Senator preventing us from the spectacle of Kennedy, Biden et al chairing Senate committees and a Majority Leader Reid. As much as I dislike Chafee, the thought of those Al-qaeda-crats in power makes me physically ill. We've dealt with him this long - he's much preferable to the alternative.
If Dems offer him a better chairmanship and some liberal publisher offers him a book deal.
I mean seriously, I can't think of one single instance in which he would provide us the 50th vote. Ben Nelson is more likely to support the nuclear option than Chafee.
Dems who crossed over to vote for him to avoid any chance of even a remote Laffey victory in Nov will vote Whitehouse.
Dems who crossed over to vote for Laffey because they figure he'd be easier for Whitehouse to beat will vote Whitehouse.
Many of whatever conservatives (few as they may be in RI) who voted for Laffey may be so turned off that they stay home in Nov.
So who is left to vote for Lincoln anyway? Won't that be the ultimate irony if the NRSC blew a wad of dough trashing Laffey and then they lose the seat anyway?
but conservatives won't stay home. At the very least, they will want to vote for Carcieri (one of the best governors we have ever had), who is facing a moderately difficult reelection. So once they're in the booth, I have a hard time believing that they would willingly allow Whitehouse to win.
A Chafee loss may have cost us the Senate in the short-term, but it would have kept Senators Snowe and Collins more conservative down the road. Hopefully a close win will have the same effect.
Still, the idea of using Republican dollars to support someone who publicly announced he was not voting for President Bush is depressing. At some point, principle is more important than power.
the cocern of many of the good conservatives here in what they feel about Chafee. But the fact is, despite his record, he has never left the party, and remember he could have when Jeffords jumped.
I normally would be with you guys, but Rhode Island is just so liberal we can't get greedy. The fact is, there are senators like Ben Nelson who offset him. This is a good thing, friends. Its not full campaign season and we have yet to concede a state in primaries. This is tough but good news. If Laffey had won, we would have to assume that we were already one down. The fact that the Kossack nutjobs were out there pushing people to vote for Laffey proves how afraid the D's are of losing this election now tht Chafee is the nominee.
Make no mistake, Chafee can still lose to Whitehouse, no doubt. But its not a given anymore.
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this." - George Mason
I agree with most except the second sentence in the second paragraph which should say
there is a senator, Ben Nelson, who offsets him.
I think the rest are gone, since Lieberman is actually really liberal.
Because the GOP will be stronger without Chafee.
we just write off the whole northeast?
A GOP senator from Rhode Island is a gift. Bush's approval in the state is like 20%.
He's the worst member of the caucus, but he's a member of the Senate Republican Caucus.
we write off the liberal wing of the GOP?
Bush's approval rating has no bearing on this. He is not running for election. If the NRSC wants to turn the GOP into the New Democratic Party they can do it without our help.
The biggest obstacle facing Laffey was his own party, and that is not an unusual situation in the north east. Anyone who is not a Democratic clone gets hammered by his state GOP and the national GOP, so that we end up with people who are literally, Republicans In Name Only. That is the best case, mind you. More often than not the voters turn up their noses at these imitation Dems and opt for the real thing.
The primaries are supposedly the chance the voters have to get some input in party direction. The national GOP has decided that this is not permitted.
Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. One way or another, the brain dead idiots who run this party are going listen to us.
Bill Frist is the Majority leader... But he hasn't been able to accomplish anything because of the fillibuster rule. If Harry Reid is the Majority leader, he won't be able to accomplish anything either. But at least we won't get the blame as the "do nothing" party. I'd rather be a minority party with valuse than the majority party that stands for nothing.
to actually run a government. You can have all that minority stuff you want, you can be righteously out of power all you want; I'd rather have me and my friends make the decisions than them and their friends. And in politics, one has to have a very expansive definition of friend.
In Vino Veritas
I'm just a simple guy who runs a heating & air conditioning company, so I'm slow when it comes to politics. Please explain to me what decisions that "our" friends make that are better than "their" friends make? "Our" friends should want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. But "our" friends can't make that happen. "Our" friends want to open Alaska for oil, but they can't make that happen either. "Our" friends want to allow illegal aliens pay only 3 of 5 years worth of back taxes, while wanting me to pay 5 of 5 years worth. "Our" friends put secret holds on earmark transparency legislation. How does this differ from "their" friends? I'm all for me and mine, but only when me and mine actually work for us...
HillaryCare, cut and run from Iraq, card count union "elections," dramatically increased social welfare spending, and no tax cuts, temporary or otherwise; that'll do for a start. That said, I don't think the Senate leadership had to go as far as it has to "get along, go along" to avoid pitched battles on these subjects, but as long as the filibuster remains an option in the Senate, the Senate will prevent any large swings in policy unless you have a firm 60 plus one. Even so, I am not a fan of the "nuclear option" on filibusters for the simple reason that "when the enemy is in range, so are you." We might want that filibuster come some January.
In Vino Veritas
A) A RINO is a caucus vote only as long as he feels like it.
B) The RINO's rot the party out from the inside. They echo and reinforce all the MSM/liberal talking points about how "those other Republicans" are extremists, bigots, etc. They make it progressively harder for conservatives to get elected.
Our principles are popular. We don't need to run from them. We need to stop acting as if yes, indeed, conservatives are not fit to govern.
Face the facts, Art: the current GOP, at the national level, is intensely hostile to conservatism.
is as good as you get, and I'll take all of them I can get. I agree that in truly Red States, you can and should take the RINO out in the Primary, but the Northeast and the West Coast aren't fertile ground for that. If MacGavick (sp) wins in WA, he'll be a RINO or a one-termer, but he sure beats Hell out of Cantwell.
In Vino Veritas
That whole terminology leads to a bad mindset. It encourages the belief that certain states should be written off, which is what we are doing here. I wish those terms could be banished from the political lexicon.
People vote for personality and character as much or moreso than they do policy positions. Get the right people and we can win in any state. We just have to want to and to believe we can. What's that bit by Disreali, about how the common working man could and should vote for his Conservative party, because his policies were right for them?
Pataki is governor of NY. Romney is governor of MA, for crying out loud. Neither is the next Edmund Burke but they are a thousand times better than Chaffee. Sorry, I don't accept that we have to settle for this. We can and must do better.
but only because I don't beleive the we should be considered the Opposition Force; that's what the Red Force is in wargaming, but we've accepted it obviously.
That said, show me a state with a large urban area, with high minority populations, unionized "legacy" industries, unionized public employees and I'll show you a state that will vote Democrat unless the times and the candidate are truly exceptional, e.g., the Carter malaise and Ronald Reagan. As far as I know, my state, Alaska, is the only exception, and that is principally because of the influence of the oil industry and the huge military establishment here - and many here at Red State don't consider us very good conservatives or Republicans either.
In Vino Veritas
How do you get to 50%+1 in Rhode Island in a federal race in 2006 without the liberal wing of the GOP (and moderate-liberal independents who like a guy like Chafee for voting in a liberal fashion)?
The NRSC supports conservative senators (Santorum, Burns, Talent) and more moderate ones (Dewine) and liberals (Chafee) if they are members of the party. It isn't an organization that exists to set policy for the party or country. It wants to elect Republicans.
It isn't just electing Republicans for sport, it is trying to get Republicans elected so Repuublican policies are enacted. On that front it isn't hugely helpful to help Chafee around, but compared to Whitehouse, it's better. He will vote for organization, he votes with us on occasion.
Before I said having a Republican senator from Rhode Island is a gift. It's a gift more along the lines of a candy bar rather than a new car, but it's more than nothing.
Having Chafee in the Senate isn't something worth doing cartwheels over, but it's better than having Sheldon Whitehouse.
You stated: "It isn't just electing Republicans for sport, it is trying to get Republicans elected so Repuublican policies are enacted." So explain to me how electing a "Republican" like Chafee-who votes against the Republican agenda more than he votes for it-helps get the Republican agenda enacted????
And if he managed to beat Laffey on his own, and beat Whithouse on his own, then it would be a gift.
But since we (and I emphasise WE) have to cough up lots of resources just to help the guy win his primary, and will have to cough up a lot more to help him perhaps win the general - well, this is looking like a pretty shabby gift.
Olympia Snowe of Maine has a lifetime ACU rating of 50. Susan Collins is at 55. Arlen Specter clocks in at 45. In the House, Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson of Connecticut clock in at 47. Rob Simmons, of the same state, in a deep-blue district, hits 54. Mike Castle in Delaware hits 57. Out of all the New York moderate Republicans, only Sherry Boehlert goes below 60, and he's on his way out.
Linc Chafee hits 37. Lower then all of them.
And his 2005 score was a pathetic 12.
The problem here is that the NRSC has decided that no matter how much you do, no matter if you refuse to vote for the President from your party, vote against the tax cuts, vote against Alito, hold up John Bolton and time in and time out attempt to block nearly every facet of the Republican agenda, it's all okay, because you count for a vote in the caucus.
And then what inevitably happens is that the moderate wing of the party is emboldened, and will buck the conservative agenda even more.
This isn't about sacrificing the Northeast. You can plausibly call a lot of the aforementioned moderates or centrists, if only moderate-liberal in some cases. This is about saying that there is a line. There may be a short-term loss. But if your goal is the advancement of a philosophy and an ideal instead of holding onto power for power's sake, then the case for Lincoln Chafee should speedily evaporate.
Has a Deep Blue district, what the heck is Rhode Island?
Kerry won 59% of the vote in Rhode Island. That's higher than any other place you mentioned there. Simmons's district and Maine both checked in at 54%. And ask how Shays, Johnson, and Simmons are enjoying being a Republican in the Northeast this year. The last thing any of these people need is sniping from other Republicans.
As a sidenote, I'm shocked Chafee was at 37%. That's not as bad as I would have thought.
Chafee is a lout, dim-witted boob – no question. But his victory tonight just inched us closer to protecting the Republican Senate Majority. Laffey, while clearly the better Republican, was not a viable general election candidate in Rhode Island -- period.
And with the political environment as it stands now, we need all the Republican Senate seats we can get. With Santorum, DeWine, Burns, and Talent all battling to stay alive, the Chafee victory – while distasteful – puts Republicans closer to protecting our Senate Majority.
Now we can waste time debating principle over political expediency. And we can spend hours deciding if a Republican Majority with Chafee in it is a real Majority at all.
But the simple fact is, Chafee is still a vote for Senator Majority Leader McConnell and for that I am thankful. Because what’s the purpose of having all those high and mighty conservative Republican principles if you don’t have the Majority to work them?
Are we all losing sight of what a Democrat Senate Majority means, not only to the Bush Presidency, but for this country? No chairmanships, no setting the legislative agenda, no conservative judges, higher taxes, wider open borders, cut and run from the war on terror and best of all, endless impeachment and kangaroo court proceedings.
Granted the Republican Senate Majority has been lackluster thus far, but hell, I’ll take lackluster and being in the Majority than being out of power looking in. At least we still have the opportunity to do something.
The NRSC/Dole calculated risk to support Chafee now proves genius – with the Hotline reporting that the DSCC has to spend an additional $3 million dollars to knock off Chafee, in a state they thought was theirs in a cake walk. Now DSCC funds have to be diverted away from real races in PA, MO, MT and OH – funds they didn’t think they needed to spend for an easy blue state seat.
Political expediency? Hell yeah. Where are my Machiavellians out there?
For saying anything I was trying to say and more.
Interesting news on the DSCC. Looks like the investment might end up being a wash anyhow.
You wrote: "Granted the Republican Senate Majority has been lackluster thus far, but hell, I’ll take lackluster and being in the Majority than being out of power looking in. At least we still have the opportunity to do something."
True... And we have used this opportunity to pass... Ummm... It will come to me... Good legislation like... Ummm... Oh yeah! The "bridge to nowhere!"
The Republican Senate sucks. And Linc Chafee is one of the main reasons it sucks. Is being a minority member of a dysfunctional group any worse than being a majority member of a dysfunctional group?
Chafee is not the only problem in the Republican Majority. I can think of a few other Republican Senators that suck eggs just as well as Chafee.
But your ire with this "dysfunctional group" can be laid soundly at the feet of our esteemed Senate Majority Leader Frist. (Or shall I say, President-elect Frist?)
Frist has allowed Reid and his band of liberal obstructionists more power and opportunity than they deserve.
And I guarantee you that Senate Majority Leader McConnell – with Chafee in the Republican caucus – will be tough as nails, where Frist was outsmarted and outmaneuvered time and time again.
I’m willing to take a chance on the future Majority, rather than wallow in the minority. And if Chafee gets me to that Majority, so be it.
You keep referring to Mitch as the Future Majority Leader. Have you heard something I haven't? I have seen nothing to suggest the Republican Senate Caucas is ready to replace Frist. Any links/info would be greatly appreciated.
Frist did not run for re-election. He either has a fantasy about running for President, or he's decided that there's no money in being a Senator. Either way, I hope the gold-plated doorknob didn't hit him on the way out.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
There is a lot to be said against Bill Frist, but let us say this in his favour: he promised to serve a limited period and he kept his promise. Others who have done the same - Mark Sanford and Tom Coburn spring to mind - have gone on to greater and better things, though I share your view that Frist is hopelessly outclassed in his Presidential ambitions. Let's also note that those who have broken their pledges - Tancredo, for example - have not progressed. Good.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
that many of the people supporting Laffey were doing so precisely for long-term reasons.
As in, you cannot continue to write-off New England on the national level forever and expect to stay a national party.
And you cannot re-build the GOP in New England - which is more or less uniformly in shambles - on the back of trust-fund-welfare legacy blue-bloods like Lincoln Chafee.
And as to "The NRSC/Dole calculated risk to support Chafee now proves genius"? Get back to us the day after Chafee switches from (R) to (D) in a 50-50 Senate with how "genius" you think this investment was.
So far from "all losing sight of what a Democrat Senate Majority means" - many of us thought it would be much better spending scant NRSC resources in the places where loyal Republicans are fighting for their lives (Jim Talent comes to mind almost immediately) so that we are not confronted with the possibility of a 50-50 Senate. Heck, pour the money into Ohio to save Mike DeWine - annoying as he is, he's no Linc Chafee.
Spending the money in midnight-blue Rhode Island to tear-down someone who represented a possible future for the party when you have likely a 25% chance he'll keep the seat (50% of winning, 50% of then switching) is many things, but genius ain't among them.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Rules of Engagement:
1. Primary challenges belong in "red" states. Go for Hagel or Stevens in states where an insurgent conservative can win. I suggest Osbourne, Ricketts, or Johanns in 2008 in NE. If you really love fighting against Rs, those are the places to do it. That's how the "netroots" got a D vs. D race in CT. Do the same in NE or AK.
2. More Rs = Less Ds. A wishy-washy R is generally a better vote than a solid D. If Chafee was running against Ben Nelson, this would be tough for RI Republicans. But Whitehouse is a vote to filibuster qualified judges. Chafee for all is faults will not do that. He voted for Roberts. And he has never supported filibustering a judge. If you care about judges (or a slew of other Republican issues), Chafee is better than Whitehouse.
The vote for cloture is not what matters. The potential vote on the Nuclear Option is what matters. Chafee has said he won't support it.
. . .to see some of this energy devoted to letters and emails to the Senate Republican leadership "suggesting" that they take Senator Chaffee aside to make it clear that if he even *thinks* about pulling a Jeffords, that the consequences will be downright draconian should the Republicans ever retake the majority while he is in office--and remind him that Jeffords was abandoned without remorse by his "friends" in the Democratic Party when he was of no more use to them. The prospect of an office in Sub-Basement Z and a parking spot next to the local drug dealer's hangout should focus his attention nicely.
"If the cultivation of understanding consists in one thing more than another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions."- Mill
...that NRSC spending may have been the carrot. That is, it also serves the purpose of a hedge against Chaffee being part of a tied Senate -- if he feels "appreciated" by the Republican powers-that-be, it makes him rather less likely to jump ship. I don't know that I'd call it a good investment, but I suspect that's part of the calculus.
Sometimes there has to be a consequence for consistently bucking the party line. If Chafee were to have lost, other suspect Republican Senators would have stayed on the reservation more of the time. Chafee was the perfect guy to sacrifice to ensure that others stay honest in the future. He may be the most disloyal Republican in the country.
If Chafee means the difference between 50 and 51 GOP Senators returned in November, then I hope, begrudgingly, that he wins. But if it looks like we've got at least 51 GOP Senators, then I'm pulling for Whitehouse to kick Chafee's tail in the November elections. And right now, I'm confident that we will have AT LEAST 51 GOP Senators if not more.
Most RINOs obviously make me upset some of the time. Lincoln Chafee upsets conservatives ALL OF THE TIME. That is the difference. Arlen Specter may frustrate me on many things, but the way he has conducted the Senate Judiciary Committee and shephered in two phenomenal Supreme Court justices and rebuffed the ABA over their unfair treatment of Michael Wallace's nomination to the 5th Circuit has been nothing short of steller. Does anyone think that Chafee, if put in the same or similar position would be as awesome?
Same goes for Susan Collins. Now, I'm less a fan of Olympia Snowe because, much like Chafee, I think that she is lacking in intellect - but not nearly to the same degree as Chafee.
While I think that Laffey would have been a great Senator, most polls showed him losing the general election to Sheldon Whitehouse by a margin that would have been extremely difficult to close by the beginning of November. My arguements for a Laffey victory were primarily that we are better off without Chafee.
Sure, sometimes, a wishy washy Republican is better than a Democrat...but most of the time, I'd say not.
I want every single one of the RINO house members in Connecticut and Ohio and Pennsylvania to win - EVEN Christopher Shays.
Mike McGavick would be more liberal to moderate on social and environmental issues, for sure, but on fiscal issues, he would be a rock star.
Believe me...I wish there was something that I could point to about Chafee and say, "okay...that's enough for me to support him." But there's nothing. The GOP needs to be cleansed of Chafee...and if not by Laffey, then by Whitehouse.
is whether the Republican manage to retain 51 seats in the Senate.
Over 51 seats, the use of resources protecting Chaffee was an enormous waste that only puts an impossibly leftist Senator in key committee positions. At 51 seats, Chaffee could have lost and the Republicans would still have the tiebreaking vote from Cheney, it puts them at risk, but if they could hold the caucus together, we'd be stronger for it, without Chaffee running committees. 50 seats retained, well, Mr Senator Chaffee, would you like the Senate leaders position? We're screwed with him there at 50 seats, but less so than without him with only 49 seats.
I'd be happy for them to support him vs Whitehouse in the general election. It's the use of GOP money to trash Laffey in the primary that I have a problem with.
the likes of Chafee and Snowe, and even Specter. When the Republican party sticks to its principles and when Republican candidates run on solid conservative values, and stick to them. Then the party wins in all but a handful of areas.
We would have a much bigger majority in both houses if it were not for these liberal Republicans that have succeeded in watering down or changing nearly every good bill Republicans have tried to pass.
The country would be much better off with a clear and distinct choice, if you vote Dem you get someone left of center, if you vote Rep you get someone right of center, and if a politician wants to be middle of the road, let them run as an independent.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
That last entry by Adam C was rather snarky. I see it more as the Republican Party and Sen. Dole wasting a whole lot of money on a guy who will rarely vote for anything Republican. If the Senate ends up 50/50 after November, what are the chances that Chafee pulls a Jeffords?
I agree with your opinions. It is obvious and disgusting that members of Congress put their priorities in the following order:
1. support an incumbent
2. electability of an R vs a D trumps position on issues.
I look at congress critters, and I think conservative vs liberal. moral vs immoral.
I don't vote for Senator from Conn. or RI. If Lamont and Whitehouse win I will not be happy. My unhappiness has nothing to do with incumbency or party affiliation. My unhappiness is the congress will be more liberal and immoral than the previous group.
A high Republican turnout is good for Laffey, but a really high turnout probably does mean a lot of crossovers.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill