Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Establishment Rallying Around RINO Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
The Boston Globe ^ | December 5, 2005 | Rick Klein

Posted on 12/06/2005 5:19:59 PM PST by Clintonfatigued

But with the Republican Party's hold on the Senate looking tenuous, the party of Wall Street and the religious right is suddenly chummy with its most prominent environmentalist. With a tough race looming, and a solid conservative challenging Chafee in the primary, Republican elites are sending checks to Rhode Island -- to help Chafee.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Rhode Island
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2006; actuallyademocrat; chafee; gopprimary; laffey; leftwinggoper; mediafavorite; msmrepublican; rino; rinos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-237 last
To: Badray
It seems that we can agree on defining the problem but can't quite get together on the solution.

That is because you are talking about what ought to be, the way you wish things were, and I am talking about how things are.

Again, I'm not talking 3rd party or extreme views.

This is a perfect example. You may not be suggesting or encouraging third party alternatives but that is the practical result of your choices.

As things are today you either work inside the Republican Party, to try to make it more conservative while supporting the best candidate you can get, or you help the Democrats. That may not be your intention but that is the result.

221 posted on 12/10/2005 9:36:44 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
"As things are today you either work inside the Republican Party, to try to make it more conservative while supporting the best candidate you can get, or you help the Democrats. That may not be your intention but that is the result."

Mr. Mind (as you will forever be known to me as): You said it well. Succinctly. Beautifully. The irresistible logic of your statement can not be refuted.

222 posted on 12/10/2005 11:41:27 AM PST by aligncare (Wasted my time...got my Journalism degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; Badray
For some reason America is a two party country. Other countries must deal with multiple parties. That seems too chaotic. American parties are populated by disparate groups that form coalitions, and a certain level of tolerance or acceptance of the other groups is required before you pull the lever for the (R) or the (D).

"Can we work together to get something done", is the refrain often heard.

223 posted on 12/10/2005 12:07:54 PM PST by aligncare (Wasted my time...got my Journalism degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: aligncare
Another thought for your consideration. A political party is simply an apparatus for gaining political office. Like minded people become members of the party to get their ideas into law. Because the Democrats controlled the Congress, meaning the country, for over forty years they learned all the ends and outs of using the government and party apparatus to gain maximum personal benefit. Keeping that power became the most important thing to them and as such, the apparatus became the most important thing.

(Keep in mind the Communist influence in the Democrat Party started in the early 1900s and increased from there. By the 1970s they had almost completed the socialization of America with Hillary's Healthcare to later be its crowning glory.

Under Communism, the Party is the supreme power, its main apparatus. That is why its functionaries are called apparatchiks. Also keep in mind that lying is a basic strategy of the Communists. )

To regain power, the Republicans came up with better ideas for governing and presented them to the people. (Their ideas were to get back to free enterprise and the original intent of the founders.) That elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and it gave the Republicans control of the House in 1994 (Contract with America) and the House and the Senate in 2000 and 2004.

Today, the Democrats are the Party of the apparatus, or the party of the Party, just like the Communists. Party unity and party discipline are key to them

Republicans are the party of ideas. As such, they end up being the party of the big tent, home of many competing ideas though all are generally headed in the same direction. As some said, leading them is like herding cats.

That is where we are today. The Democrats are unified, unscrupulous, scheming and cunning, and have the support of all the MSM, all the labor unions including public employees and the education systems, the trial lawyers, and Communist money from outside the country. We are up against a juggernaut.

What do we have going for us? Still, basically, ideas. That is why it is important that we don't go running off in many different directions over minor differences or even major differences on one issue.

I know some "freepers" are moles whose purpose is to stir up as much discontent as possible among us. Some will harp on trade, others on the borders, still others on evolution, etc. All the debate is fine and interesting as long as we don't let it fragment us. If we lose to the Democrats the debate is over!

Those who claim to be so down on the Republicans as to never vote for them again, or who are going to vote for the Constitution Party or whomever, just to "teach the Republicans a lesson", are either Democrat moles or Stalin's useful idiots. The moles know who they are and are purposely deceptive. They useful idiots are well meaning but naive people who have no idea that they are working against their won best interest.
224 posted on 12/10/2005 6:26:20 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

I see the party as it is, what's wrong with it, and I am prescribing a course of action to make it healthy, just as a doctor does with a patient.

I told you that I am remaining in the party to work to correct it. I told you why others -- in huge numbers -- are not. I can't, don't, and won't blame them. The party doesn't deserve their support when the candidates are little different from those the Dems (communists) run.

Supporting those candidates brings us closer to socialism albeit at that slower rate, but why would you condemn those voters for refusing to be party to that downward slide? They know the Dems are worse, but evil is still evil and they refuse to advance evil. Giving the GOP a victory with those candidates merely encourages them to do more of the same. Just like any deal, if they can get your support by offering you 'less' why would they offer 'more'?

As I have said countless times on FR, Bush and the pubbies -- including those claiming to be conservatives -- have given us laws that would have had us marching to DC with pitchforks in hand had Clinton's done the same thing. We don't watch the pubbies as close as we do the Dems. We stopped lots of things that Clinton proposed just because he was Clinton, but Bush has got things done that Clinton could only have dreamed of that weren't much different.

Liberals wearing our team's jersey are the enemy inside our gate. They can do more damage than liberals outside the gate. That's why sometimes we must accept the loss of a seat.


225 posted on 12/11/2005 12:01:28 AM PST by Badray (Protection for all. Favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: aligncare

In #216 you applaud my assessment of the 2 parties.

In #221 and #222, you 'see the logic' in the opposite point of view.

Are you confused or have you changed your mind?

Deleting a liberal from our ranks may lessen our numbers but it does not weaken our position. Our position is stronger when the philosophy is consistent and weaker and much more vulnerable when it is diluted.

Remember, the liberal interests -- as represented by the Dems -- compete for top priority, but are not in conflict with every other interest within the party.

The Republican party on the other hand, tries to be the champion of both sides of mostly every issue. Therefore, our consituencies do conflict with each other and it stands to reason that some voters will withhold support from candidates who support the opposing view.

The Dem's candidate may not promote one constituent's position, but at worst only ignores it. The Republican candidate that you don't agree with will work against your issue, so why vote for them?


226 posted on 12/11/2005 12:16:07 AM PST by Badray (Protection for all. Favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Badray

Ooops.

Make that #222 and #223.


227 posted on 12/11/2005 12:17:44 AM PST by Badray (Protection for all. Favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Badray; Mind-numbed Robot
Had to review my comments. I see why the confusion:

1. I support conservative ideology.

2. The only political party that comes closest are the Repuplicans (not a spelling error). But - they are spineless and will frequently capitulate to media and democrat pressure. Booooooo!

So, not having a conservative party to vote for on the national level, I experience the constant ebb and flow of doubt regarding the pubbies. When Mr. Mind, or anyone else, makes a per se logical statement, I am capable of seeing the merit.

And, frankly, I do try to assess the truth of my assumptions. I don't want to rigidly support a poor idea.

I don't believe I was expressing opposite positions. Merely exploring valid statements. I empathize with those who struggle with the same doubts.

Gain any clarity?

228 posted on 12/11/2005 1:35:53 PM PST by aligncare (Wasted my time...got my Journalism degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: aligncare; Badray
Gain any clarity?

Yes, until .... Nah, I won't do that again.

Since the discontent seems to be that the Republicans are not conservative enough to suit some, why don't we list what the Republicans have done that is conservative and what isn't? I'll lead off with just a couple or so with no intention of making a complete list.

1. The first tax cuts since RWR and much more extensive.
2. The first president and party to mount a true war on terror. In fact the Bush doctrine was a major sea change in our foreign policy.
3. Tort reform.
4. Many conservative judges. How important is that?
5. Excellent conservative cabinet.
6. Increased the Republican margin in the house and the Senate.

Well, that is all that pop into my mind at the moment. You guys add what you want on either side.

229 posted on 12/11/2005 9:13:18 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Badray

"That shouldn't be too tough, if they only had a brain."
ah but here is the problem my friend!. it is amazing to me that they cannot put two and two together. Still we must keep trying.


230 posted on 12/12/2005 5:14:32 AM PST by DM1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; Badray
Busy here at work. But, wanted to acknowledged your post.

Interesting article by Michael Barone, and relevant to our discussion.

Yes, I'd like to play the "Good Party - Bad Party" game. I'll be giving it some more thought.
231 posted on 12/12/2005 11:50:57 AM PST by aligncare (Wasted my time...got my Journalism degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: DM1

Agreed.


232 posted on 12/12/2005 5:41:15 PM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: aligncare; Mind-numbed Robot

Gain any clarity?

Yes, until . . .

LOL

Yes. I understand what, on the surface, appeared to be a contradiction but wasn't.



233 posted on 12/12/2005 5:43:22 PM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

"1. The first tax cuts since RWR and much more extensive."

Cuts, yes. More extensive than Reagan's, I don't think so and they are only temporary.

"2. The first president and party to mount a true war on terror. In fact the Bush doctrine was a major sea change in our foreign policy."

Here is the one area that I am solidly behind Bush, but I am not at all certain that 'conservative' is the proper term. It was absolutely necessary though and will have long term benefits for the region and America.

"3. Tort reform."

Some steps in the right direction, yes.

"4. Many conservative judges. How important is that?"

Good judges, great. Some not so good too, and we had to drag him -- kicking and screaming -- to get rid of Myers and get Alito. I'm still unsure of Roberts and don't think that he should have been made the Chief Justice.

"5. Excellent conservative cabinet."

I'll admit to not paying a lot of attention here.

"6. Increased the Republican margin in the house and the Senate."

Ahhh, that's a stretch. The GOP promised a conservative agenda would be pushed if we gave them more pubbies. We did just that, but they reneged. They sabotage their own efforts by supporting RINOs like Specter and Snowe and Chaffee. We built their lead, but got stonewalled in return.



234 posted on 12/12/2005 5:54:06 PM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; Badray
Yes, that is a good list to start with. You hit the marquee points. And just how many years were you in the Optimists club?

1. The first tax cuts since RWR and much more extensive.

2. The first president and party to mount a true war on terror. In fact the Bush doctrine was a major sea change in our foreign policy.

To your first point, yes, tax cuts are as conservative as it gets. On the second point, however, would't any administration similarly respond to a national threat?...Oh, wait, it appears that politics has prevented the DNC from demonstrating normal survival instincts. Why else, with a thirty 30 year history of attacks against the U.S. and Western interests, would they not fight back after the attack of 9-11?...In Afghanistan, in Iraq, or anywhere else, to defeat a dangerous enemy. Darn globalists dems.

3. Tort reform.
Did I miss some legislation?

4. Many conservative judges. How important is that?
Very. This is the stuff of 'Legacy'.

5. Excellent conservative cabinet.
I think the jury is still out on the Homeland Security Mega-Agency. Should have worked on improving inter agency communication - bringing down "The Wall", without creating a bigger bureaucracy.

6. Increased the Republican margin in the house and the Senate.
The Senate Republicans are almost useless as ruling-party Republicans, much less, Conservatives.

I drew a blank on adding any more to the "Yes, the Republicans are good for conservatives" list.

I'm currently compiling a "Republicans are weak supporters of Conservative causes" list. Back to you soon.

235 posted on 12/13/2005 9:26:07 AM PST by aligncare (Wasted my time...got my Journalism degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Lincoln Chaffee is no blessing - he's a curse.

Like Whitman and Giuliani, they block meaningful alternatives to rampant socialist corruption in Democrat controlled states.


236 posted on 12/13/2005 9:34:25 AM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: aligncare
3. Tort reform. Did I miss some legislation?

Yes, you can't turn your back on these guys for a minute.

In February they passed a bill to take all class action suits for more than $5 mil and between parties resident in more than one state from state courts to federal courts. This minimizes jury shopping and corrupt practices in some states.

It also brought more into line the gaps between the fees received by lawyers and the plaintiffs, the so called coupon system, to take away some of the greed aspect of filling frivilous suits.

It is not complete reform but it is a step in the right direction and they are still working on it.

237 posted on 12/13/2005 2:27:47 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-237 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson