Posted on 05/26/2005 8:07:14 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
The ONLY argument in favor of keeping Chafee in his father's old senate seat is that at least he votes for Republican leadership; that his vote is needed to keep Republicans in the majority. However, Chafee is on record as saying that if his one vote could switch control back to the Democrats, he just might do it.
(Excerpt) Read more at chuckmuth.com ...
Chafee didn't even vote for Bush.
STEPHEN LAFFEY FOR SENATE!!!!
This Seat is Going Blue next time, Chafee or Laffey, no difference.
Not necessarily. The 'Rats strongest candidate (Congressman James Langevan) decided not to run, and the two announced candidates (Secretary of State Matt Brown and ex-Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse) have generated little enthusiasm even in their own party.
What's the point? Chafee is the best we can hope to get from Rhode Island. It's the bluest of blue states and no conservative senator will be elected there in the foreseeable future. Chafee at least votes Republican on many procedural matters which is more than a Democrat will do.
The point is to replace the uber-RINO with an acceptable Republican. To say he is the "best" we can get in RI is defeatist and untrue. And lastly, Chafee cannot be counted on to vote Republican even on said procedural matters. He did not even vote for President Bush last November.
I'm no fan of Lincoln Chafee, but he's 1000% better than Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd, which is exactly the kind of politician that will likely replace him. If you want to get rid of RINO's, you should go after John McCain or others of his ilk that come from red states.
I just don't support going after Chafee because RI is a bit of a lost cause. As far as party registration is concerned, Democrats there outnumber Republicans by nearly four to one.
Arlen is serving his last term. I don't recall Orrin straying too far off the plantation lately.
That would be true if the said individuals were only voting, say, 95% Republican/Conservative, and targeting them because they weren't 100% (and what precisely is 100% Conservative is a bone of contention, anyhow). But the person in question is Lincoln Chafee, and he can't even qualify himself as a "moderate" (his positions, in fact, have put him to the left of some of his Democrat colleagues in the same state, and that is simply unacceptable).
"There are many regions of this country where a principled conservative does not have a chance in hell of being elected to office. In those situations you have to support the best candidate that can get elected."
Well, a "principled" Conservative managed to get elected to the Governorship of Rhode Island, so the theory that it's out of the question that a Don Carcieri can get elected is untrue. I maintain that Chafee is NOT the best we can do in Rhode Island. A Republican can only be so far to the left that eventually they start to become an opponent of the party's goals and interests. It is not in our interest to keep the Chafees in the party when we could swap them out for Democrats who are much more far to the right who are interested in promoting and voting for a Conservative agenda.
"I'm no fan of Lincoln Chafee, but he's 1000% better than Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd, which is exactly the kind of politician that will likely replace him."
But then again, with hard work and no party establishment-style kneecapping, we could get a Steve Laffey to succeed Chafee. I'll remind you that even "Sheets" Byrd voted FOR Judge Priscilla Owen this week... not even Chafee had the common decency to do so, voting with the radical far left of the Democrat party.
"If you want to get rid of RINO's, you should go after John McCain or others of his ilk that come from red states."
True, and he should've been dispatched a long time ago (media whores like him get to stay while distinguished heroes like Admiral Jeremiah Denton go down after a single term), though if you get rid of McCain's RINO flunkies and footsoldiers, he'll soon find himself rightfully politically impotent. We have 7 traitors, and we're going to make sure they get their rewards coming.
We had ample opportunity to depose Specter, but too many people were running around using your "let's not take out Chafee" argument. PA just reelected a "dead man walking."
As for Orrin Hatch, who also happens to be a native of PA, his problem is that (after 28 1/2 years), he's been in the Senate too long and allowed himself to get cuddly with the enemy. As others have pointed out, we don't send these people up there to make friends and participate in media circle-jerks, we send them up their to accomplish a "Conservative" agenda. We need more people who are unapologetic and bold in their political service.
Hatch should've acted as the "Rock of Gibraltar" against Clintonista judges, who pervert the role of the Constitution. He allowed way too many to get confirmed.
I'm REALLY torn on this one.
Before his vote against Owens, I was inclined to keep him.
Now...I'm leaning against it. Specter is starting to look like a hard-right winger in comparison.
Just know: Unlike Toomey in Pennsylvania, who may have lost, but who may have won as well, It's essentially giving up the seat in this state. Stephen Laffey will almost certainly lose. RI was the bluest of the blue states in 2000 (66% Gore) and I believe #2 in 2004. Without the Chaffee family name, we don't have a dogs chance in hell of keeping the seat. And I don't like the sound of 'Republicans lose seats' after election night 06.
So I'm torn, but I'm leaning in favor of throwing him off the boat.
Your wrong on that. If Chaffee survives the primary, he will win without much of a problem. Both Congressman have said no, and the other candidates have 0 name ID, cash, or party backing.
That said, I can't decide if we are better off w/o Chaffee or not. I'm leaning toward thinking we are better off without him.
First of all, the Democrats who are running or might run against Chafee are not as horrible a bunch of candidates as you paint them. If you really felt that way, why wouldn't you enthusiastically support Laffey's Senate bid, since those "two losers" wouldn't be able to win? The truth is that while they are not exactly first-tier candidates, someone who has been elected statewide as a Secretary of State like Matt Brown, and someone who was elected to Congress several times and might actually get pro-life Republican votes this time such as Bob Weygand, are at least Tier 1-A. Had Rhode Islanders known back in 2000 what a tool Lincoln Chafee is, he never would have won in the first place, and I don't think Chafee will be able to get the huge number of Democrat votes he would need to make up for his lack of support among Republicans. Frankly, I think Chafee's best shot at reelection is to switch to the Dems and hope that the DNC will go all-out to protect a party-switcher so that he can win the RAT primary with 40% or so; however, he would still face a tough general election battle from Mayor Laffey, and I think Laffey could win.
BTW, Laffey is not exactly a Jesse Helms conservative, you know. Yes, he's pro-life, but so are many Rhode Island Democrats, and if he can be elected in heavily Democrat Cranston (which only gave Bush 30.99% in 2000 and 40.95% in 2004, so it was 1% more Republican than the state as a whole in 2000 and 2% less Republican than the state in 2004), I fail to see why he would be unelectable in a statewide race.
And, as I have explained before, our optimal strategy would be to kick Chafee off of a sub-committee chairmanship or something so that he makes it official and finally leaves the GOP. I assume that the Democrats would discourage others from running in the Democrat primary against someone who recently switched parties in order not to discourage other RINOs from switching, and I think that a Republican Senate candidate with decent name ID (like Laffey) would have a good chance of defeating Lincoln Chafee in a general election, especially one in which Governor Carcieri is running for reelection.
Chafee sits in the following committees:
1. Foreign Relations (3rd of 10 Republicans and Chairman of the Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee)
2. Environment and Public Works (5th of 10 Republicans, and Chairman of the Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee)
3. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (6th of 9 Republicans)
See: http://www.senate.gov/general/committee_assignments/assignments.htm
I’m certain that the GOP would be able to keep its current 2-seat advantage in these committees even if the number of GOP Senators dropped from 55 to 54. In fact, I believe that this could be accomplished by keeping the same number of Republicans and Democrats in the committee, which, given the fact that Chafee has been an imposter on the GOP side, would mean that the GOP would have a net gain of 2 Republicans on those committees (one fewer de facto Democrat and one more real Republican). If the size of the committees was kept the same but Chafee became a Democrat member of the committees, it would benefit the GOP particularly in the Foreign Relations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, in which Chafee has seniority and would certainly be given a spot by the Democrats. The lowest-ranking Democrat—in fact, the only first-year Democrat—in each of those committees is one Barack Obama. The Democrats won’t want to drop their “rising star” Obama from those two committees, but none of the other Democrats with more seniority will give up without a fight. Republicans could just sit back and enjoy the show.
But if, instead, the Democrats insisted on each of those committees adding 2 members with the GOP still having a 2-vote advantage (which could happen, since it would mean that the GOP would have closer to 54% of the members of those committees as opposed to a bit over 55%), then the GOP would still have a pickup of two real Republicans. Chafee would join the other Democrats on the committee, but 2 real Republicans would be added to the committee. Obama would stay put, but we would have much stronger control of the agenda of the committees than we currently do.
So we would immediately gain power in Senate committees, would improve our chances of having a real Republican elected in Rhode Island, and would send a message to other RINOs not to take the GOP's conservative base for granted. I think it would be a win-win-win.
They wouldn't beat Chaffee, because he's from a Rhode Island family dynasty. I was arguing that they would beat just about anybody else.
That said, you make a good point about Laffey winning in such a city, so perhaps he could win, (although I still find it unlikely, I think the only reason Chaffee won is his fathers name) and I was leaning toward dumping Chaffee anyway nomatter what. So I do believe that I would support his challenge.
I still think, however, that Chaffee will win the general as a R if he makes it through the primary, and that anybody else is a longshot at best, although you have convinced me Laffey's chances are a longshot, instead of just flat out impossible.
Lincoln Chafee won because of the family name in 2000 because no one knew anything else about him, since he had only been in the Senate for a few months, and before that had been the mayor of Warwick (which, BTW, gave Bush 32.35% in 2000 and 41.02% in 2004, so it's about as Democrat as Laffey's Cranston). In 2006, just about every Rhode Islander is aware of the fact that he's a complete idiot, and Republicans know that, unlike his father (who was liberal but at least was honest and honorable), he will backstab the GOP at every turn. I don't think that Chafee can go to the well one more time on his family name.
For more information on Chafee's flailing chances and Laffey's moderate credentials, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411655/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.