Skip to comments.
Laffey Takes Commanding Lead in Republican U. S. Senate Primary
RHode Island College ^
| Date Posted: August 31, 2006
| Rhode Island College
Posted on 08/31/2006 11:46:13 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 341-354 next last
To: .cnI redruM
Praise The Lord.
Dear Lord, PLEASE MAKE IT SO in November that we have much more of a conservative in that position, in Your Name, Lord.
Wake up the whole state to the evils of George Soros' DIMRATS, Globalists et al, please, Lord.
161
posted on
08/31/2006 4:04:07 PM PDT
by
Quix
(LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
To: .cnI redruM
Primaries are for "takin out the trash!"
162
posted on
08/31/2006 4:06:00 PM PDT
by
stocksthatgoup
("Is it real? Or is it Reuters?")
To: .cnI redruM
The Lieberman phenomenon, where a partisan base closes ranks around the true partisan candidate, seems to be at work in Rhode Island, as it was on the Democratic side in Connecticut. Leiberman is 99% pure Liberal, and loyal to his party. The fact he stands for protection of this country doesn't equate him to a Liberal Republican, out of sync even with the more Liberal Republicans in the Senate, that has NEVER demonstrated any loyalty whatsoever. And, Laffey isn't even CLOSE to partisan.
That stated...WooHoo!!
Chafee gives us NO advantage. He'd stick a knife in our backs in a split Senate, and he commands campaign funding and activity that should be used in better races. Why the hell the GOP has rushed protect this worthless RINO rather then funnel more to Santorum, Steele, Bouchard, House seats (and challengers like Irey) etc...is beyond me. They have been slitting their own throats when supposedly their job is to protect the Majority of their caucus. I'll bet the rest of the Republicans on the Hill could have made far better use of that money and the First Lady's campaign stops.
Yet, don't underestimate the crossover Dems Chafee has signed up to vote for him. Also, like they did for Specter, the GOP has sent in its hired activists to tend to this race.
163
posted on
08/31/2006 4:07:24 PM PDT
by
Soul Seeker
(Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
To: Mo1
Clean the Party. Purge the RINOs
I agree .. it's just that we can't do it all at once
We need to pick our battles carefully
Hmmmm...Maybe it would be a good idea to pick battles with the DEMOCRATS. Novel thought, HuH?
To: goldfinch
Hmmmm...Maybe it would be a good idea to pick battles with the DEMOCRATS. Novel thought, HuH? Chafee is a democrat ... Hiding behind his father's name
165
posted on
08/31/2006 4:17:03 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(Just a reminder .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be just 2 heart beats away from being President)
To: Ogie Oglethorpe
Actually, even Hewitt is onboard to throw Chafee overboard. At least he was last time I checked.
IMO, the fact Chafee announced he wouldn't vote for Bush is why. Hewitt is a GOP man to the core, and I think that greatly offended him. It certainly can't be because he isn't conservative enough, given some of the other positions Hewitt defends by Republicans. When even Hewitt jumps, the party firsters on this board should know they are outnumbered by far.
166
posted on
08/31/2006 4:21:46 PM PDT
by
Soul Seeker
(Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
To: Soul Seeker
The Lieberman phenomenon, where a partisan base closes ranks around the true partisan candidate, seems to be at work in Rhode Island, as it was on the Democratic side in Connecticut.
Well...it isn't quite the Lieberman phenomenon. The Democrat partisans were far smarter in their choice of targets. In Connecticut, a Democrat will continue to hold a Democrat seat. In RI, the phenomenon will result in a Democrat taking a Republican seat. Is that what the 'partisan' base wants?
Why the hell the GOP has rushed protect this worthless RINO rather then funnel more to Santorum, Steele, Bouchard, House seats (and challengers like Irey) etc...is beyond me.
Because the GOP realizes that Chaffee can win, and Laffey can not. Unlike the partisans, the GOP knows that the keeping control of the Senate is an important goal. The partisans seem to think they would have more luck advancing their agenda in a Democrat controlled Senate.
To: seanmerc
What's the point of "winning" the general election if the guy is going to oppose the President on all the key issues?
The most important vote a Senator casts is the vote for Majority Leader. Even if Chaffee votes identical to a liberal Democrat, so long he remains a Republican for the purpose of determining the majority, he is valuable.
I have read several posts from people how think Chaffee would pull a Jeffords...but the Democrat who will be elected in his place will not have to pull a Jeffords. The importance of retaining control of the House and Senate cannot be overstated...and it is worth tolerating even a worthless wimp like Chaffee.
If Republicans want to be the majority party, they are going to have to learn to target DEMOCRATS instead of eating their own.
To: staytrue
And what good if Chafee if he wouldn't even vote for Samuel Alito? The only republican not to do so.
Saying "vote for Chafee to stop the democrat" is tantamount to saying "vote for Hillary Clinton to stop the democrat."
To: goldfinch
In RI, the phenomenon will result in a Democrat taking a Republican seat. The Democrats already own the seat policy wise. No loss.
If you are refering to numbers, if it's split 50/50 Chafee jumps. Whether you believe that doesn't matter. He's held meetings with Dems before and announced that's a probability. Fact is he's EARNED distrust. If that bothers you, direct it to candidate that has convinced people he'll pull a Jeffords in a heartbeat.
Because the GOP realizes that Chaffee can win, and Laffey can not.
Last I checked some of the polls had Chafee losing in the general election. So, no, they don't know he can win. They hope he can win. And they would waste campaign funds that could result in gains elsewhere, or at very least SAVE seats, to save a candidate that isn't reliable, may jump ship, and is more Liberal then Feingold and Clinton.
This is the only response you'll get from me. I'm spent too many months arguing the issue and I'm tired of the repetition. Nothing I'm saying now is different then what I said three months ago. Address my old posts for answers to your questions about Chafee. The same responses given then will apply to any statements you direct me now.
The fact remains that when even party man Hewitt is on my side I consider the argument won.
170
posted on
08/31/2006 4:39:32 PM PDT
by
Soul Seeker
(Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
To: Dog Gone
I watched their debate on C-span a few days ago and NO THAT IS NOT SO> Chafee sounded like a SOCIALIST talking about everything. HE MAKES ME ILL>
171
posted on
08/31/2006 4:44:09 PM PDT
by
therut
To: staytrue; California Patriot
"/i/If there are 30 red states capable of producing 60 GOP senators/i/"
"Because there are not 30 red states. There are maybe 20 with the rest like Ohio, Florida Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada are swing states where GWB won by less than 3 percent."
President Bush carried 31 states in 2004, 27 of them by over 4.5%, 25 by over 7% and 22 by over 10%. Kerry, on the other hand, only won 13 states by over 4.5%, 12 states by over 7% and 7 states by over 10%. The GOP has a HUGE natural advantage in Senate elections.
172
posted on
08/31/2006 4:52:00 PM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
To: goldfinch
Lemme see.
Chafee runs as a pubbie.
He wins as a pubbie.
He gets ousted as a pubbie, by pubbies.
Apparently he's not making someone happy there. I guess we'll know in November for sure.
173
posted on
08/31/2006 4:59:42 PM PDT
by
Badray
(While defending the land called America, we must also be sure to preserve the Idea called America.)
To: Gay State Conservative
...And the sheep will be separated from the goats...
To: goldfinch
"However, given the options of Chaffee or a Democrat occupying this seat, I think the odds of Chaffee caucusing with Republicans is far greater than that his Democratic opponent would do so."
Having Chafee caucus with the Republicans actually costs the GOP its majority control of every committee and sub-committee on which Chafee sits; we'd be better off if Chafee became a Democrat. See
http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-to-do-about-insufferable-senator.html And if the Senate somehow becomes 50-50 after the November elections (which won't happen; the GOP will have between 52-57 seats), you can be sure that Chafee will switch and give control to the Democrats. He has said countless times that if switching would give control to the Democrats that he'd strongly consider it, and when the Democrats offer him the Environment Committee chairmanship (same one they offered Jeffords, by the way), Chafee will jump in a second.
175
posted on
08/31/2006 5:12:27 PM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
To: goldfinch
I mistyped. I said 'real conservative' and I meant real republican.
When you make an omelet, you have to break some eggs. In cleaning the GOP, there will be some loses but it is for the ultimate and greater good. We aren't losing much in losing Chafee.
176
posted on
08/31/2006 5:13:21 PM PDT
by
Badray
(While defending the land called America, we must also be sure to preserve the Idea called America.)
To: dangus
You nailed it regarding how Chafee makes committees that should have a 2-vote GOP advantage evenly split, thereby forfeiting GOP control over legislation. I actually wrote about that last year (when I argued that we'd be better off if Chafee switched), and a link to it is on post #175.
177
posted on
08/31/2006 5:17:04 PM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
To: AuH2ORepublican
No, the GOP has a small natural advantage. Winning a state by a few percentage points, especially if you're, like Bush, an incumbent running in good times against an unattractive challenger, does not mean the state can reliably be placed in your (our) party's column.
However, incumbent senators, or at least incumbent Democratic senators, have a large natural advantage.
178
posted on
08/31/2006 5:19:30 PM PDT
by
California Patriot
("That's not Charlie the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
To: stocksthatgoup
That's a rule made up by incumbents to enhance their chance of being reelected. Anytime is the time to take out the trash.
179
posted on
08/31/2006 5:19:57 PM PDT
by
Badray
(While defending the land called America, we must also be sure to preserve the Idea called America.)
To: caresistance
And we have to make the most of the ones we have.
180
posted on
08/31/2006 5:21:27 PM PDT
by
California Patriot
("That's not Charlie the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 341-354 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson