Redstate

I didn't want to ruin a perfectly normal piece of political analysis with any firebreathing extremism, but neither did I want to give the impression that I was supporting Chafee's candidacy.

You all know where I stand on "choice". And, whatever the political realities are, I will not have the support of someone who is personally okay with mass infanticide on my conscience, even if in all other respects he was Jon Kyl. Even if that just means another pro-infanticide candidate wins, at least I'll be able to say I didn't help either of them.

Excellent account of the gruesome choice facing Rhode Island Republicans. Like you, I think I would have to hold my nose and vote for Chafee to avoid having an even more liberal Democrat fill his seat.

It reminds me of the 2003 California gubenatorial recall election. I really wanted to vote for the principled and serious fiscal conservative state Sen. Tom McClintock over Schwarzenegger (even though on abortion I was closer to Schwarzenegger), but even the remote prospect of Gov. Grey Davis' moonbat lieutenant governor Bustamente winning the election to replace Davis was enough to make me rally behind Schwarzenegger.

I suppose Rhode Island's example should offer me some small comfort, that there are even worse places than California to be a Republican.

is who gets to be committee chairman. Without the blue state RINOs, the Republicans are back in the minority. I'm much more exercised about the existence of red state Democrats, and I'd like Pat Toomey to spend his influence and money on supporting actual electable conservatives there.

That said, I don't mind him making a important point about Chaffee, if only to highlight the NRSC's disgraceful practice of running attack ads against fellow Republicans in primary races. That particular perfidy has to end.

First, how Chafee hurst Rs in committee.  Say you have a committee of 13 on some issue.  Right now that committee would be split 7 Rs and 6 Ds.  If Chafee is one of those Rs and he votes with the 6 Ds, then a bill dies before it makes it to the floor.  This also gives him amazing negotiating power.  If we lost the seat to a D (and kept the majority), the breakdown in said committee would still be 7 Rs and 6 Ds.  A new R would replace Chafee rather than the new D.  This issue definitely is positive regardless of if Laffey or a D defeats Chafee.

Second, why Chafee being an R matters.  To my knowledge, he has never joined a filibuster against a leadership position.  He may vote against judges, tax cuts, or other specific issues but his replacement by a D would add one vote for filibusters on every nominee, etc.  

Quandry, I'm not sure that I could fault your analysis very much.  At the very least, it's reasonable, even if I could say you're wrong about something.

But that's not really the point.

My feel on this is that the GOP is sort of at an ideological crossroads.  We have spent the last 20-30 years leaving the principles of limited government, federalism, and fiscal discipline behind.  Have our political fortunes increased?  Absolutely.  Has that political power done anything to advance conservative movement policies?  Minimally.  

Then what's the point?  Why would I support a party that won't stand for what I believe in?  A political party derives its meaning, it's purpose for existence from the ideology it puports to advance.  The GOP has sacrificed too much of core conservatism  on the altar of political power, and the result is that the party doesn't fulfill its reason for being --- advancing the conservative agenda.  Instead, it advances the causes of the party elite of the moment.  Luckily for us, that often equates to the same thing.  Too often it doesn't (seems like I heard something about a temporary guest worker thingy lately from some dude from the White House).

This is why it's important that Chafee be defeated.  We've got to stop sacrificing conservatism for votes, because it's self defeating.  How do you think we got here in the first place?

Is a dingbat

I lived in Rhode Island for a while and it is not the liberal bastion many make it out to be.  It's next to Taxachussets, but it has a bit more of a "red state" feel to it than you would think.  I beieve that Laffey could easily win in a general election  Why settle for a RINO when you don't have to?

I live in RI and have to make this decision in the primary.

Even if I agree with him on some (most?) issues, I do not like Steve Laffey, and it seems to me that the more Rhode Islanders get to know him, the more they personally dislike him.  

Moreover, you should not assume that this is a re-run of Specter-Toomey.  Even if you dislike Sen. Linc Chafee, that does not mean that you would like Sen. Steve Laffey.  Look at his record and, equally important, his unpredictable and (sometimes bizarre) nature.

Laffey has a chance in the primary, but stands little chance of winning the general election.  The Democratic nominee will likely be former AG Sheldon Whitehouse or Sec. of State Matt Brown.  On the ground here in RI, I simply cannot agre with EricH's assertion that Laffey "could easily win in a general election." The Dems are salivating about a statewide race against Laffey.  If he wins the primary, I say Laffey can't get over 45% in the general; there is little doubt that this will be a Democrat pick-up.  

The choice then, for me, is not so much between Chafee and Laffey, but between Chafee and the eventual Democrat nominee.   Makes it kind of hard to vote against Linc in the primary.  

us on.

I think the one issue with Chaffee is that as squishy as he is, I am not sure RI or several other NE states are going to send anyone less squishy.  The GOP up here just tends to run more in line with the Chaffee types.  About the only state that is an exception is NH, and that is only because NH doesn't quite fit the typical NE mold-the GOP actually sees far more victories than losses in NH, unlike other states that tend to have dem controlled state legislatures with a token GOP governor.

if the so-called nuclear option is invoked in confirming Judge Alito, and Chafee decides to switch to the Democrat party.  Not likely, but still a possibility.  

I think the key point was the ACU rating.  His rating of 41 destroys Liebermans of 16.  Who doenst love Lieberman all of a sudden?

Look, this guy every day now for 6 years has had whispered in his ear by Daschle and Reid, join us.  Imagine the problems we would have had if he jumped with Jeffords.  He could have.  Think about it.

Do you agree with your spouse every time?  Would you get a 100 from the ACU?  I sure as hell wouldnt.  Chaffee aint my guy, but he has been loyal to the Repub party and he deserves our support.  If the RI Repub's want to slit their throat and show disloyalty to boot, it is their choice.  And that analysis of a conservative Repub winning in RI is poopycock.  RI is rated by Dick Morris the bluest state in the Union.  And if you dont agree with him, then what is it?  #2?  #3?  

I'm not happy defending Chaffee per se, but the answer really, really is he is the best we can do there.

That's the big question with Chafee: will he stand with us on Alito or not?  If doesn't, we really have no choice but to back Laffey, IMHO>

I really don't know that much about Laffey.  I'll check up on his positions.  But he's got to be better than that RINO they have now.  Right?

We want to keep a comfortable margin in the Senate at least for the purposes of organzing.

I can pretty confidentally say that Chafee will vote to end a filibuster (for cloture) on Alito.  He may vote for or against Alito, but we have 51 votes either way.  And he will not vote for the Nuclear/Constitutional Option because it would be political suicide in RI.

Frankly, I can't stand him and am thankful he won't be on my ballot next year.  But I think conservatism loses more than it gains by handing the seat to a Democrat.  The only possible gain of nominating Laffey is to send a message to other "RINOs" in Congress that incumbency is not a free ride.  That's a perfectly fine message, but this particular race is the wrong venue for it.

Keeping him is a net positive in regards to committee seats, as the more "R"s we have the better.  The leadership can surely find a committee for him where he can at least vote with us more often than not.  I'm not familiar with the specifics on his voting record, but there's has to be SOME issue where he agrees with us, or else he wouldn't call himself a Republican.

Chafee couldn't even vote for W in '04 so I wouldn't call him loyal to the party.  However, being loyal to the party doesn't necessarily make you a good conservative or republican either.  Unfortunately, Chafee is neither of these.  To me, whether Laffey can win the general is a moot point.  (I belive it is possible, though).  Priority number one is ejecting Chafee from his seat and, down the line, others of his ilk.  If it means RI elects a democrat, so be it.  A good thing happened in 1988 when BUCKPAC ousted Weicker for Lieberman in Conn.  At the very least, I hope something similar could happen in RI.

Ask yourself three questions:

1. What is the objective? (What do you want out of this?)
   
2. Is a fight necessary to obtain this objective?  Can the objective (or most of the objectives) be achieved with little or no resistance?
   
3. Are the objectives in this fight worth potential costs (i.e., do we win this fight but pay a heavier price down the road than if we did not have this fight)?

Simple questions, and they really will help avoid bad decisions.  But all too often, I do not think these questions get asked enough - it's as if too many people are interested in thumping their chests and saying, "I stood on principle" than getting a solution that works.

doesn't make him not loyal to the Party. Silliness on your part. He did vote for another Repub after all, just not one that was too conservative for him.  You are confusing CONSERVATISM for the Republican Party.  Not the same thing.  Chaffee, Chaffee Sr, Snowe, Collins, Perry, Pataki, Javits, Giulaini, Rell, Weld, the list of N.E. Rockefeller Republicans can just keep going til the cows come home.

No, this is a case where Realpolitik rears its ugly head.  And if he is one of 50 Repub Senators in '06 left standing (unlikely he stays if we drop 5 seats, but strange things happen)  you will be thanking Lincoln Chaffee for remaining in the Caucus.  

I bet he could have cut himself some sweet deal in the time period before Jeffords jumped.  He stayed.

Would like to see how that 41 rating compres to even the most conservative Dems ratings.  And he has stated consistently that he will vote for cloture but not necessarily for approval of the judicial nominees.  So far he has proven to have kept his word on this subject and I believe that if he wants to vote against a nominee, he has that right.  Isn't that our call:  An up or down vote, not a guaranteed "Yes" vote.  He's abiding by it.

"You will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without good prospect of inflicting . . . greater damage on the enemy."

Portion of Nimitz's orders to Spruance prior to the Battle of Midway, June 1942.

Give me a break.  He voted for Bush 41.  That was a ridiculous ploy to show how "nuanced" he was in his views.  Look at his voting record.  He may as well be a Dem.  And I am not confusing conservatism with the Republican party.  Conservatives are the republican party.  How do you think republicans get elected?  They run on conservative agendas except in liberal bastions like RI.  Even most moderates run conservative campaigns though they may not live up to expectations once they get elected.  I am well aware that there are numerous Rockefeller Republicans.  That doesn't make their stances on certain issues correct.  Chafee is wrong on just about everything.  And if you think that he would stay in the party if the Senate were evenly split you don't know who you are talking about.  It doesn't matter though, because we are not going to have a net loss of five seats anyway.

Hmmmm.

So the difference is between a guy who'll stab you in the back (Chaffee) or someone who will stab you in the chest (Democrat)?

Man that's some choice.

I think Leon's analysis leads us to the correct conclusion.  Supporting Laffey means turning an "R" seat into a "D" seat, or into an "I" seat that caucuses with the Ds.  

As long as Chafee votes with the GOP to organize the Senate and votes for cloture on filibusters, he serves a useful purpose.  This is especially true as there are a number of GOP senators up for reelection in 2008 and 2010 who currently have approval ratings below 50%.  In 2011, a single vote could determine whether Reid or Allen (I'll explain this prediction another time) is Senate Majority Leader.

I keep hearing a lot about how valuable Chafee's votes are for cloture when a filibuster is imminent.  Can anyone tell me when any of these particular cloture votes passed?  If it came down to his vote to garner the necessary 60 on an issue such as the Patriot Act renewal of today, would he still vote for cloture.  I bet not.

Given your propensity to assume that you, of all people, are the most pragmatic man to have walked the face of the earth, your equally maddening habit of calling people who disagree with you liars, and now your new hobby of impugning the motives of those who stand on principle (by calling them "chest-thumpers,") it is long past time someone straightened you out.

Ask yourself three questions:

Herein is error number one - your crass and unfounded assumption that you can dictate to another person how their political decision-making process will go. So you have a little three question test that works for you. Good for you. Did you make it up all by your onesies, or did you have some help from the first junior high civics student you ran across?

Here's a news flash, Harold - for some people, there's only one question that needs to be asked. For some people, they ask five or six. For some, the questions themselves might be totally different. So don't come in here and throw your cutesy little test around and pretend that everyone who doesn't accept it is just a witless chest-thumper.

Just for kicks and giggles, I've decided to take your silly test to see where it leads me:

What is the objective? (What do you want out of this?)

I'd like to see the end of the legal slaughter of 1.1 million unborn in this country every year.

Is a fight necessary to obtain this objective?

Yes.

Can the objective (or most of the objectives) be achieved with little or no resistance?

Thirty-two years of experience says no.

Are the objectives in this fight worth potential costs?

Yes. Gee, that was simple.

Simple questions, and they really will help avoid bad decisions.

Yeah, there are some other ones, too - What Would Jesus Do, etc. etc. The difference is that I have the good sense not to assume that I can lecture a Muslim on his preferred course of action be demanding that he ask himself WWJD, whereas you are apparently not possessed of that level of basic good sense. Perhaps you should have posed your three question test to yourself before responding thusly to this post, and most especially before including this last sentence:

it's as if too many people are interested in thumping their chests and saying, "I stood on principle" than getting a solution that works.

Yes, how horrid is it that we wish to stand on principle. Oh, that we could all be as unprincipled as you, Harold. That we could also be so wise as to know the motivations of others - and to be so... above it all, that we can transcend silly questions of mass infanticide and get down to the real brass tacks of fixing the marginal income tax structure.

So Harold, since you've frankly admitted that you have no principles, or at least none that are worth getting in fights over, what is it exactly that you're attempting to accomplish? Pragmatism (as defined by you) for all? That we should all work our very hardest to exact some highly workable compromise solution, that basically involves the continuation of the problem?

I've been watching you post here for a long time, Harold, and I've yet to determine anything you actually stand for, as a principle. The closest you've come was advocating a "guest worker program" which evidently you found important enough to call one of the other editors a liar when he called it (with justification) an "amnesty program."

You're perfectly free to be a man without principles, that's your own business, but don't you DARE impugn my, or anyone else's, motives around here ever again. Because as befuddling as it may be to a man of your character (or lack thereof), there are many of us who actually (wait for it...) care about those principles, and could care less how good we look defending them. And if you really are such a man that you have nothing over which you'd be willing to do something as drastic as deliberately sitting out a vote to send a message over, then perhaps its time to take a good, hard look in the mirror before you come in here chucking stones at other posters who feel more passionately than you do.

First, it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media becomes aware of the fact that Laffey is the frontrunner in the primary.

Rhode Island may be a blue state, and yes conservatives are in the minority, but conservatives are still conservative.  In a GOP primary, where real conservatives vote, Chafee will get trounced.  Why do you think the NRSC spent so much money running ads against Laffey and spent so much time trying to keep the Club out of the race?  It's because they've seen the polling numbers and realized that they have to bash Laffey hard and bash him now...with several months left before the primary.

Incumbents rarely bash challengers this early in the race.  Everyone should know now why that is the case.

So RedStaters now have a choice.  If/When Chafee bolts the party, will you support him as an independent or support Laffey as the Republican?

The pragmatic political arguments outlined here are all very good, and have been brought up at AnchorRising.com, for which I am a contributor.   It's a difficult choice which is debated nearly every day on our blog. I'll refrain from further promotion of a different site, but I think all who are interested in the "inside" look at what Rhode Island conservatives are debating within the context of this race, they should stop by.  

In essence, the debate within RI conservative/Republican circles actually encompasses many other lines of thought.  What should be the priority?  Safeguard the seat for Republicans and help to maintain a Republican majority nationally, which will help advance a conservative agenda nationally? But that will probably mean the further undermining of conservative principles in RI?  Especially in a state with an anemic Republican party that can hardly be considered "conservative" in nature.  Or does Laffey offer an opportunity--even if he ultimately fails in the general election--for conservatives to "take back" the RI GOP and build from there? Or is Laffey even really conservative? He has given a few hints that may indicate he styles himself more of a populist?  The list goes on.  

I was not trying to dictate to anyone.  I was just offering a very frank (and brutally honest) opinion.

I like a lot of what conservatives favor.  Low taxes, ideally a flat tax (I oppose the FAIR tax for strategic reasons).  I think government needs to largely butt out of things.  I want the welfare state and the entitlement system eliminated.  I also want to succeed at doing so, and not make a gallant and futile effort.  On the other hand, there is one big issue that trumps all others: I want to win the war on terrorism and have a strong national defense.  That is the big issue, and I see only one party really serious about that - the Republican Party.  That also means that for me, the other issues (including to some extent, tax cuts) are secondary.  Thankfully, the Republicans have generally been good on those other issues, so I have not had to make that sort of hard choice yet.

But let me give you a little background.  I first voted in 1994 in Virginia.  I put some effort - and cast my first vote - for Ollie North to be a U.S. Senator.  I also tried to talk some of my classmates into voting for him.  And because of someone named John Warner's backstabbing (by supporting an independent candidate), those efforts went for nothing.  It left a bad taste in my mouth.  And it left me with little patience for people who make nosies about taking their ball and going home, and no patience for those who actively try to sabotage people, particularly after a primary.  Maybe that lack of patience and being a little hot-tempered about that is a failing of mine, but there are far worse sins in my book.  Incidentally, John Warner hasn't gotten a vote from me because of what he did to Ollie North.

I know you must be horrified that I am asking for people to do such abhorrent things like think about strategy and tactics needed to as actually win a fight - not to metion something so awkward as considering the consequences of their actions and picking a certain fight.  How awful of me to abhor Phyrric victories.  How heretical of me to suggest that perfect can be the enemy of good enough.

I'm not unprincipled, as you claim.  I simply fail to see see how action or inaction electing people who are opposed to virtually everything I stand for helps the situation, and I'm not shy about saying so to people, without really caring if their feathers get ruffled.  "First do no harm" is something I remind myself when approaching any situation.  Good intentions and four bucks will get me a copy of today's Washington Times and a cup of hot chocolate at Borders.  I don't just judge by how much a politican agrees with me, I also judge him by how well he performs (namely, getting the principles enacted into law).

I want to get as much as I can done for what I believe in, and make the situation better, then come back for more later.  I wouldn't risk wasting the time, money, and effort of the many folks who do things like donate to the RNC or for various candidates by rendering officeholders or the party unelectable.  I'm going to move the ball forward as much as I can - then go for more the next time, and so on.  It might be slow, it might require patience, but even if there is a reverse at some point, and the other side is in power, they have a longer way to go for their agenda.

You want see where I direct fire at people over a principle?  Take a good look here.  But my intention when I fight is to win and actually do something for my principles, not just to say I fought the good fight.

As per the specific charge you leveled - I am of the opinion that a guest-worker program that require those who are applying in the United States to admit they entered illegally and pay a hefty fine is not an amnesty.  They face punishment for breaking the law.  The term "plea-bargain" is a far more accurate term for what Congressman Flake, a conservative with a 93 lifetime rating from the ACU - and a 96 rating in 2004 - is proposing.

In many areas, we want the same things, Leon.  But I am also acutely aware that we have irreconciliable differences on how best to achieve those ends.  You have decided that I am unprincipled, and quite frankly, I don't think you think things through sufficiently - and doubt I will be convinced otherwise any time in the near future.  I'm willing to leave it at that if you are.

Here's another way to look at it.  Right now a significant portion of the RIGOP State Central Committee, including a majority of the leadership, are primarily involved in Republican politics because they want access to Sen. Chafee.  (A smaller number want access to Gov. Carcieri, who is much less influential.  There are so few GOP state legislators that they don't matter at all.)  The direction of the state GOP is thus determined by what furthers Chafee's interests.

If Chafee loses, that leaves the RIGOP with Carcieri people and local activists of various persuasions.  Would RI Republicans be better off without Chafee determining the direction and message of the party?  Could a Laffey-type populism become the basis for a growing movement?

is totally appropriate.  And for those like me who wanted to check out the site you referenced, Here is a link.

Wet rat, that's the heart of the matter.  There are conservatives and independents in RI who feel ill-served by the current GOP leadership and, obviously, won't even think of "going Democrat." Thus, one of the big questions is if a Laffey senate run--regardless of outcome--will shake things up enough on the state level to bring the RI GOP more in line with the national party. Short term pain for long term gain, if you will.