Posted on 08/25/2006 10:22:03 PM PDT by neverdem
I would state holding several meetings with Democrats about switching parties is substantial cause to suspect his loyalty to the Republican party.
Yes, and not voting for Bush in 2004. Absolutely a snake in the grass.
I am so eager to see Chafee bite it -- even in a general election against the Rat, if that's what it takes.
RI is a huge Blue state, Dem hacks. Laffey will not be very close in the primary but for the sake of the Union,he is the candidate. Too bad Chaffee will win that primary and perhaps even beat his Dem opponent. Conservatives are a rare breed in RI. I wish it were not true.
Why is it that liberals have "patrician pedigrees" while conservatives have "silver spoons?"
Because conservatives are greedy scum, and liberals aren't. Get with the program or you'll never be a member in good standing of the Establishment. LOL.
The meetings you might have read may be MSM speculation, i would trust it as I would trust a used car salesman.
If wanted to defect, he would done it in 2001-2002 when the defection would have mattered.
I dont think he wants to defect, Dems desperately want his seat to get the senate power balance, which I see even a few conservatives want to assist.
If his vote would make the difference, Chafee would probably defect. Not voting for your party's presidential candidate, especially when he's president, and then publicly stating that you didn't, is a serious break with the party. Combined with Chafee's voting record, there is serious cause for concern.
The defection would matter as much as Jeffords' did in 2001. All we need is another 50-50 Senate, and there's a fair chance that we'll have one.
And it's not just in a 50-50 situation that Chafee could, and I think would, stick it to us. If the Republicans had 51, he could caucus with the Rats in order to make it 50-50, which would force a power-sharing deal, just as it did (pre-Jeffords) in 2001.
Even if Republicans have 52 or 53 (probably the best we can hope for out of this upcoming election), people can die or resign. We could get to 51 or 50 during the session, without an election, or with a special election that goes the wrong way.
And regardless of any of this, Chafee takes up a Republican seat on the Foreign Relations Committee and on at least one other committee. That seat is wasted if it has to go to someone who's basically a Rat.
There is no other Republican in Congress who I'd like to see lose. But Chafee is a special case. His liberalism and disloyalty put him in a class of his own.
If Chafee wanted to switch, then why did'nt he switched in 2001-02?
Back then, the senate was split 50-50(49 Dem+ 1 traitor independent), so Chafee switch would have tilted the senate leadership to the Dems and Chafee could have got a plum job in the Committees?
I dont think Chaffee will switch to the Dems.
I am not a big fan of Chafee and if Laffey can beat Whitehouse then I support him, but it looks like he cant and Chafee can. Chafee should be supported simply because he contributes to the Repub numbers in the senate and keeps the like of Leahy out of Committee chairmanship.
Dems desperately want Chafees seat, Republicans should be looking to maintain their hold on the senate.
It's a reasonable point of view. I just disagree. As to your point about Chafee not switching in '01, these things are affected by who else does it, or doesn't. Jeffords may have beaten him to it. Also, Chafee has probably moved to the left, at least psychologically, since then. New England certainly has (though it was already liberal, it has become even more so).
There is a possibility that either Laffey's candidacy, if successful, or Chafee's defeat by the Rat in the general, could deliver the Senate to the Rats. I'm willing to take that risk. There are three reasons. One, I do believe there is a good chance Chafee will screw us anyway. Two, excessively "moderate" Republicans in the Senate are a HUGE problem. Incumbent senators are extremely difficult to defeat from the right -- our record on this in recent election is very weak. Senators take notice, and sometimes mend their ways, when they feel threatened. Defeating Chafee in a primary is a good way to change the votes, now and then, of some of the RINO senators. Three, pride and self-respect, in this case that of genuine Republicans, must sometimes be asserted in serious ways or they warp our souls. In other words, they must find an outlet that at least might be useful. Put more simply, we must be able to tell ourselves credibly that we have real clout.
Regarding defection, my point of view is Chaffey would have switched in 01-02 even after Jeffords defection, Jeffords defection caused a tie, Chaffee defection would mean a Dem control of the senate.
He didn't, so I dont supect Chaffee of doing so.
Judicial appointments are crucial, a Leahy controlled judiciary committee would not let a Bush nominee pass by, this is a crucial issue,Chaffee or Laffey, republican control of the senate is important for judicial appointments.
Incorrect. The election caused a tie, Lott agreed to power-sharing (he may have had no choice), then Jeffords gave the Rats control by switching. Officially, the resulting lineup was 50 Rats, 49 Republicans, and "Independent" Jeffords. But Jeffords caucused with the Rats supported Dasch-hole for majority leader. The Rats got the chairmanships and Dasch-hole became majority leader. The real lineup, thanks to Jumping Jim, was 51-49. Also, I seem to remember that shortly after Jeffords' betrayal, Chafee was asked a couple of times about his plans and he didn't firmly close the door on a defection.
You're right that a Rat-controlled Judiciary Committee would bury any conservative nomination to the Supreme Court, and a Rat majority leader would not bring that nomination to the floor for a vote. But I think if we're talking about the fifth conservative vote on SCOTUS (caused by a Stevens, Souter or Ginsburg retirement), the Rats would filibuster, very seriously, anyway, no matter what the partisan lineup in the Senate was. If we have fewer than the 55 seats we now have, there is no chance that we will win a "nuclear option" vote, which would be the only way to break such a filibuster. So your point is valid, but only as far as it goes. In my humble opinion, it's valid but probably moot.
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.