Redstate

Context is important, and there are some things we take for granted (like the fact that moveon and dailykos are left leaners), that she may have felt necessary to spell out for her audience.

Perhaps theres more to be concerned about, but on this alone, I am not ready to toss her from the ship.

which it is, there are a lot worse strategies than tying someone to the Moveon's, KosKids, Cindy Sheehans, etc of the world.  Hopefully this is the start of a thought out strategy saying he is out of touch with WV after all these years.

Perhaps she should attack his age?  Or his keeping the Constitution in his pocket?  Or him being the Exalted Cyclops?  I believe that the only chance Repub's have is to keep Sen Byrd in.  Him swapping out and having the sitting Dem governor fill in may not be a better alternative.  Maybe it would be but I don't know.

Geez.

Byrd has been trying to pretend he is a moderate for a while now. That is for a reason. Because he is worried about his reelection in a conservative state. Remember what happened to Daschle? He couldn't get away with anything in the well worn "pretend to be a moderate in SD while being hard-left in DC" playbook. Byrd plays the same game. Dole is not the first to call somebody out for advertising with or taking money from radicals.

Gee...I don't know...BEING A FREAKING LIBERAL IN THE SENATE. You've only got 40 YEARS of evidence. Use it.

It is all interconnected. Guilt by association can be a powerful tool. It will either force him to acknowledge the support of the crazies or try to distance himself from the crazies. Either way it is a win.

You could just ask why the heck every public road/building/park/stoplight in the state has to be name after him.

...but the information is for those who Byrd is successfully hood-winking, with all of his recent efforts to speak in moderate tones. Connecting him with far-far-far-left organizations is not a bad idea, especially for the benefit of those who would not otherwise notice, and might be tempted to give the old byrd a final reward.

.

I hate to perpetuate stereotypes about one of our States, but.... Haven driven through West Virgina a few times, well. I have pictures of large lots chocked full of trash, garbage and old rusting auto's, And there, right next to the "I'm Union and Proud" poster is a "Robert Byrd" sticker. That's pretty much all over the state.

This is just a pebble on the rock pile.  The BIG rock pile.  Things like a total inability to recruit qualified electable candidates in a dozen states.  Things like giving Lincoln Chafee money for his PRIMARY campaign against Steve Laffey.

Liddy is beyond incompetent, she is pathetic.

more conservative until you are blue in the face.

Everything I've read about Byrd suggests he is a institution in the state, perhaps even a living legend. The man is surely undefeatable, short of becoming obviously senile (cue jokes about how this would explain his policy positions) or dropping dead.

Surely he's as secure as Lugar or Hatch.

Grow up. It's politics. And what's worse - it's politics that real voters have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

You're absolutely right, even though you completely missed the point. Most voters don't know what Daily Kos is, or why Senator Dole would call out Senator Byrd for advertising on that site. The point is, many voters are just curious enough to do a quick internet search and find out what the big deal is. And what they will find is one of the most foul-mouthed moonbat websites anywhere. That isn't going to leave a very good impression with the majority of voters who consider themselves moderate. Guilt by association is still a powerful rhetorical tool, and Senator Dole has used it well in this case.

In Europe? I'm surprised you find so much info on him in Europe to be able to posit such strong opinion on the matter.

Careful Skaffen, your skillfully crafted persona is starting to unravel.

that are represented by Lugar and Hatch?

Hmmm.....I think dahmich is on to something here.  Sniff sniff...do we have a troll in the house?

The White House, and it's failure to articulate it's  positions, did Liddy ZDole no favors in helping to find strong candidates. She, and the GOP, would have had more sucsess if the polls weren't awful for the president IMO.

he's a real nighthawk...what is it, 3 am over there right now?

While I'm not sure that this statement is necessarily Liddy Dole's biggest downfall - I certainly would be much more comfortable heading into this election year if Norm Coleman were heading up the NRSC.

He was supposed to win. Shows just how incompetant the Senate Republicans are. When their hides are on the line, they can't even elect the most competant person to head up the committee to get them re-elected.

Wasn't Tommy Thompson supposed to announce his "plans for the future" today?

To me, this is a "praise the Lord" moment. It is high time that Republicans held Democrats accountable for the 'friends' they cultivate. You think that the average person has no idea who Kos is? It is very much in our interest for that to change! And high-profile Republicans should be pointing to them, shining the light on them, tying them together every chance we get.

If Americans really did understand who the left really is, then we would not struggle as much as we do to win elections.

This is not lame. This is something that is long overdue. It won't be sufficient on its own, but it is a weapon in our arsenal that has remained sheathed entirely too long.

.. which is certainly not an excuse so let me attempt to rectify that.

Is it just this election cycle that she hasn't hit a home run in recruiting and funding strong candidates, or does it date back earlier than that?  

The quality of (or lack of) candidates entering  Senate races wouldn't be partially attributed to a reluctance by strong, accomplished, electible candidates who are concerned by the current slump in the party's public opinion would it?  If I was faced with the opportunity, I couldn't see myself wanting to risk "my one good chance at national office" on the 2006 election cycle.  I'd want my initial go for a national office to be at a time that would be a little more fertile to conservative ideas and consequently conservative candidates.

RE:  Chafee vs Laffey.. old news by now, but just refresh me.

It wouldnt have anything to do with electability?  Last I saw, RI was a firmly blue state, and wouldn't Chafee probably fair better in the general election than Laffey?

He could have bought some I don't know, maybe RedState?  

As seared, seared, in his memory, as Kerry's excellent adventure in Cambodia.

in the Senate as possible, doesn't attacking Laffey in the primary make perfect sense, given Laffey's complete and total lack of electability in Rhode Island?

Remember, she's head of the National REPUBLICAN Senatorial Committee, not the National Conservative Senatorial Committee.  Though I'd argue that bringing down Laffey is, long term, much more conducive to getting conservative prinicples enacted than letting him bump off Chaffee.

1. Actually, ignorance is a perfectly fair excuse.  What's not is stupidity, which is either unrecognized ignorance or unwillingness to consider the facts (not agree with a conclusion, just being unwilling to consider).
   
   
2. I honestly don't know a "full" history of the NRSC.  I do know that Liddy has been in charge for the last two plus years.  I'm not comparing her to a standard set by another chairman, I'm just looking at the number of very electable candidates, NONE of whom she's been able to recruit.  I don't know why, and I pretty much don't care.  I just know she has failed miserably.
   
   
3. With respect to reluctance based on the party's problems in polling, I don't think so.  I really don't think a potential candidate like Tommy Thompson would be dinged by W's polling.  He's a shoo-in.
   
   
4. Laffey is the Republican mayor of Cranston, RI.  Cranston is about 10 to 1 Democratic.  Laffey is a hard core conservative who has turned the City's financial situation around 180 degrees.  Chafee is, well, Chafee.  With respect to the electability issue, that is somewhat of a Trojan Horse.  Understand that RI is a VERY small state.  Laffey is well known so name recognition is not an issue - he's probably better known than any of the Democrats.  RI will elect Republicans, and not just RINO's.  Given that Laffey is well known and is widely known for doing a great job as mayor of Cranston, he's got a good shot at winning.  If Chafee survives the primary, people have to decide if they want a Democrat who runs as a Democrat or a Democrat who runs as a Republican.  Frankly, there's not much in the way of good will in the state toward Chafee and he could lose.
   
   
6. Having Chafee vs. whoever the Democrat is won't help a single judicial nominee get confirmed.  It won't let us drill in ANWR.  It won't get the tax cuts made permanent.  It won't get entitlements looked at.  It won't help national security.  Other that possibly voting for the Senate Majority Leader he brings nothing to the party and if his vote is the one that keeps the Republican majority don't be surprised to see him switch parties for a chairmanship.

See above.  Chafee isn't all that electable and Laffey could win based on his performance in Cranston.

Has that decision cost the NRSC and will it cost the NRSC in the future? Quite a bit I'm sure. That alone makes it not in the best interest of the party. Even if it didn't affect contributions, their resources are limited and resources spent there would be better spent elsewhere, where it can help elect Senators that will actually support Republican goals.

but I see this same phenomenon on Kos too.

Just because you agree with a candidate, doesn't mean most people will.  I crack up every time I see the Kos posters talk about how Howard Dean would sweep 40 states because he has the courage of his convictions or some nonsense.

Fact is, Laffey is a hardcore conservative in a hardcore liberal state.  Those are the facts, and every non-partisan observer with an ounce of credibility agrees that if Laffey is the nominee, barring some major gaffe by Whitehouse, he will lose.  

This business with his tenure as Cranston mayor is understandable but misplaced.  There is no Democrat or Republican way of paving the roads and keeping the trains running on time.  The position of Senator is orders of magnitude more partisan and "red meat issues" oriented than mayor- and whenever the campaign is about those things, in RI, the guy to the right will lose.  Sorry.

And yes, Chaffee is moderate, and he's opposed you guys on a bunch of high-profile stuff, but from your point of view he's still gotta be vastly superior to a Senator Whitehouse.  There are a lot of under-the-hood votes that Chaffee is with you guys on.

Remember, even if he only votes conservative 50 or 60% of the time, that's still 40% or so better than Whitehouse.  Laffey would be 90%, true, but he ain't getting elected.

Adam C seems to be the resident political junkie around here.  He seems pretty capable on these types of issues and I'd trust his analysis over those political morons at MyDD any day.  Ask him who the NRSC should support- I'd be greatly surprised if he took Laffey's side.

whether you'd rather see a Senator Chaffee or a Senator Whitehouse.  They're spending money to ensure the former.

Zero preference in the matter. Chafee is the definition of RINO. He has no loyalty to the party. He gives us nothing. He is about as useful to the Republicans as Jeffords is.

Even if I thought Chafee was a fantastic guy, the NRSC has no business getting involved in the primary. The Republicans of RI should be able to choose their candidate without interference from the national party. There's already enough interference in these matters from the state party. It's not their the party's job to protect incumbents from Republican challengers, especially when the incumbent does not support any Republican ideals and has zero support from the base as a result.

It's not their the party's job to protect incumbents from Republican challengers,

Yes it is, when one of those challengers is clearly unelectable compared to the other.

But hey- your call.  I just think you might be kicking yourself every time Senator Whitehouse casts a vote.

an uphill battle, but in RI it's potentially winnable.  In a larger state like MA or NY I would agree that he would be toast.  RI is more like a county election that a "real" state simply because of it's size.

Laffey has gotten a boatload of good press from his tenure in Cranston.  The city was on the verge of bankruptcy and he pretty much rescued it single handedly.  I agree that asphalt isn't R or D.  This was more than R or D.

With respect to Chafee's voting record, there isn't one vote in the Senate in the last five years that he made a difference.  On every issue of substance he votes with the Dems and there won't be a whit of difference between him and Whitehouse on issues that matter.  I have no use for Arlen Specter either but I wouldn't say that about him vs. a Democrat.  Chafee is a special case.

You could well be right that Laffey won't win.  You're probably right about Adam.  I still maintain that Laffey has a reasonable chance and Chafee is no different that any D they could possibly elect.

I don't entirely understand the level of hatred for Chaffee around these parts- even the Kos crowd understand that Ben Nelson is a Democrat running in Nebraska- but if Whitehouse and Chaffee are really no different in your mind, I guess I can see how you'd rather have a real conservative make a quixotic bid.

I still think Laffey's chances are close to nil in the general.  We'll see how close he comes in November.

if a politician wants to blog at Kos - kick the crap out of them eight ways from Sunday. If a campaign calls henry copeland and says, give me all the democratic blogs - not so much.

Sure, Lugar and Hatch are extreme-long term incumbents who are highly unlikely to be removed from office. Byrd more so.

I've read quite a few speeches by Byrd, he is an impressive figure. Also read in his wikipedia article about his past associations with the KKK and other controversies. Makes an impression.

Just have something of a fascination with the US Senate, it's a strangely interesting subject. The symmetries of 100 Senators, with such a range of personality and policy, the various powers and squabbles that go on there.

Also find the Jefford's party switch very interesting - the thought that a single man can change the letter after his name, and a whole arm of the government switches control. If it hadn't been for 9/11, which he couldn't have foreseen, would his move have meant lasting Senate control for the Dems?

And I would assert that I am a real person, but now that you've accused me of being a troll anything I say will just confirm that, even this.

Here's the thing that keeps me from saying "OK, I can buy that."

If one were to say "give me ads on all of the conservative blogs," one would get RedState, probably Instapundit, CQ, Protein Wisdom, JustOneMinute, BestysPage, and so forth.

If one were to say "give me ads on all of the liberal blogs," one would get Kos, MAK, Atrios, MyDD, Oliver, and so forth.

And if America in aggregate read all of the conservative blogs so grabbed, they might agree with some of it and disagree with some of it, but it would not be anything which would cause any but strident partisan liberals to blink.

But if Americans read all of the liberal blogs so grabbed, it would be a real eye-opening experience for them. In fact, nothing could be better for conservatism right now than for the core of the Democratic grassroots, so well represented in the blogosphere, to truly get their message out to the people.

It is not a matter of "they are just appealing to their base with ads, just like us." It is that their base is not at all "just like us." They should be a complete albatross around the necks of Democrats, and we should take advantage of every single attempt Democrats use to try to reach their fevered swamps.

I don't think anybody hates Chafee.  He doesn't rate hate.  Disdain is probably a better adjective.

Chafee is a clone of Jim Jeffords.  Jeffords voted with the Dems every time it mattered and when it really mattered, he left the party.  Ben Nelson may vote with the Republicans from time to time, but when push comes to shove, on an issue of political importance, he'll vote with the Dems.

For instance, if Reid calls for a filibuster of Terrance Boyle, Chafee and Nelson will both vote against cloture and against Boyle.

A more apt comparison would be Zell Miller.

Lets just have the party elders, in their infinite wisdom, determine who the candidate is in smoke-filled room. They can take all this into account when they make the decision.

It's a false choice. The Democrats have a whole stable of very liberal Senators from conservative states. If they didn't have these Senators they would be completely out of power, unable to even mount a filibuster. But when it's a Republican, we can only win if we find a Democrat-in-Republican's clothing to be the nominee. That makes a lot of sense.

Zell Miller is who is really comparable. Chafee supported Bush about as much as Zell supported Kerry, as well.

Weren't we just complaining about McCain limiting speech?  

Perhaps one could consider it an ethical aberration, bording on violation if so declared, for party elders to throw their weight around, but other than a possible unenumerated party ethics concern, why shouldn't they?

incumbant in a primary is generally the equivalent of jousting at financial windmills.

Chafee had $3.5MM in his account last year.  Laffey had $1,98.  Both men are personally wealthy.  As an incumbant, the party machinery should line up solidly behind Chafee.  His father was a US Senator from RI for a zillion years, his name recognition is off the chart and he even LOOKS like his dad.

With all that going for him and with a very close and contentious cycle, the NRSC should be saving their money for November in places that it will count.

Just for fun look at Chafee's record and Jim Jeffords' record.  Not much difference.

Did I say anything about the government stepping in and putting a stop to it? No. I did say that some people aren't going to be giving to the NRSC because of this sort of thing. It's bad for the party. They can do whatever they want to damage the party, it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it and send them money to help them in their task.

You don't feel it is ethical.  Are ethics rules defined for the position?  Should there be if not?

I never said anything about it being ethical or not. I don't think it's unethical. I do think it is inadvisable. There is a huge difference.

I'm not convinced the NRSC should be dealing with R primaries.  There job is to get Republicans elected.  When they are running against each other, I don't see why taking sides makes sense.  As a practical matter, the NRSC is just a subcommittee of the Senate Republicans.  Thus, I understand why they back incumbents even in primaries.  If I were Sen. Dole, I would be focusing on several other races before worrying about the RI primary.  Of course, I don't have the information she has.  Maybe Chafee has threatened to bolt the party unless he gets help in the primary.  

Chafee hasn't voted against cloture on any judicial nominee, including Alito.  That is one (slight) difference between him and Mr. Whitehouse.  It's rare, but it's something.

Throw in LGF and FreeRepublic.  The lefty blogs that would scare mainstream voters may be more numerous but righty ones exist as well.

I still think it's different, Adam--LGF and Free Republic are certainly more rabid than the blogs on Dales' list, but you don't find the leaders of the Republican party associating themselves with them.  For me, it's not so much the ads as the decision of Kerry, Clinton et al to have actual diaries on Kos--in other words to not just wink at the filth but to roll in it.  I don't care if their staffers write the pieces--by putting their names on those posts they are actively engaging in that world.  They might reply that there is no equivalent to RedState on the left so if they want to communicate with their blogger contingent they are forced to Kos, but that's their problem in a nut shell.

he didn't vote to filibuster because he knew it wouldn't make a difference.

Chafee is the simply untrustworthy, kind of like Arlen Specter and McCain.

If Chafee wins the primary and needs help in a close race in November, as much as I dislike the pinhead, I'd be OK with the NRSC giving him help.

taking down CBS over the TANG BS, we might have John Kerry reporting for duty at the White House today.  

I never, ever see the type of language that not only exists with the Kossacks but is encouraged over there in any LGF post.

Call me dense, but what blog is this?

Little Green Footballs

Exactly.  But given the electability of Chaffee compared to Laffey, this is an essential part of making sure Republicans get elected.

I don't see why people think getting Ds or Rs elected is something that is confined to the general election.  If you really want to play hardball politics, then getting Rs elected means getting Rs elected- who cares if you're fiddling in the primary?  

Oh, and sorry to drag you into this :)

What is it important to note, for those of us Americans who can't read Chinese?

Dole may have supported Chafey, but Santorum did the same thing for Specter against Toomey.  Are we going to suggest that he is incompetent?  The reasoning behind this--and I am saying that I agree, it's just the reason for it--is because the conventional wisdom is that it's easier to get incumbents re-elected than newcomers.  Now as far as her selecting lackluster candidates in other states or the lack of support for others is an entirely different story, but we can't lay all of that at her feet.  Some of the blame definitely belongs to the National Party.