[umgud]

I will vote for a bad republican before I'd vote for a good dem. The reason is simple. Even a good dem adds to their drive to gain the majority. I'd hold my nose and vote for Chafee to retain the senate. Remember that the majority party sets the rules.

[goldstategop]

And if Chaffee keeps voting with the Democrats, how does that advance the conservative agenda? He's not a moderate - he's a LIBERAL! You people would be the first to vote to throw him out if he was a Democrat. But he has the "R" label beside his name, so he can be a collectivist and you would hold your nose and convince yourself dealing with the devil is needed to keep our majority. Fine, but how high a price would you pay to retain power? Make Chaffee happy by jettisoning tax cuts, stop naming conservative judges and pull out of Iraq? It seems to me there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

[nopardons]

BRAVO!

[scott7278]

I will vote for a bad republican before I'd vote for a good dem. The reason is simple. Even a good dem adds to their drive to gain the majority. I'd hold my nose and vote for Chafee to retain the senate. Remember that the majority party sets the rules.

That makes way too much sense!

[paudio]

Remember that the majority party sets the rules.

I agree with you. Those who think themselves as purist sometimes forget about this. Or about the threat of Islamofacist.

[wouldntbprudent]

Same here.

"Winning" is about winning a majority in Congress. That's what I mean when I say all politics is national.

The bigger and stronger the Republican majority, the more opportunity for conservative Republicans to marginalize the RINOs.

I saw this big-time in the Klintoon impeachment. We had a total RINO for a Congressman, yet his election led to a Republican majority, which in turn led to at least some action on Klintoon's crimes. Plus, it led to good men such as Henry Hyde being chair of the Judiciary Committee, etc.