The following excerpt is from a Reuters story today. It illustrates the consequences of the RNC supporting "moderate" incumbents over Republican primary challengers (and why we need to knock Chafee out in the primary, no matter the ultimate outcome of the general election):

==U.S. Senate leaders warned President George W. Bush on Wednesday his next Supreme Court nominee will likely face a far more contentious confirmation battle than conservative John Roberts, who is poised to become U.S. chief justice.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, emerged from a White House meeting to say he had advised Bush to hold off on making his second nomination for the court in order to see how Roberts performed as chief justice.

Specter said Bush should ask retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on through the court's coming October-June term. He said he spoke to her and she agreed to stay if asked.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan made clear Bush would not accept the proposal. He said O'Connor had expressed her desire to retire and Bush would pick her replacement soon.==

So does Chafee get any credit for supporting Roberts?!? He offered a very strong endorsement of Roberts while Laffey gave a short, printed statement.

I don't think Chafee goes out of his way to appeal to conservatives, but I also think many conservatives fail to praise Chafee when he does something good, either.

It is a two-way street....

Chafee's Roberts endorsement is good, but then Leahy is going to vote to confirm as well.

Is Chafee in the Senate more palatable than Whitewash or Brownnose? Absolutely. Chafee is a moderate liberal while the other two are absolute liberals.

But the bottom line is that we don't need or want liberals of any stripe in the Senate.

By any standard, Roberts is extremely qualified to be Chief Justice.
I have to take issue with the idea that Chafee "offered a very strong endorsement of Roberts while Laffey gave a short, printed statement."
Chafee, perhaps understood that it does him no good to vote against someone who will be confirmed, most likely overwhelmingly. I heard Chafee announce his "support for Roberts" at the East Bay GOP brunch on Sunday, before it was in the press, and it hardly sounded like a hardy, unqualified endorsement, so much as it sounded like someone sensing political reality and how a "NO" vote could be used effectively against him. He also seemed to use a lot of qualifiers, such as "right now, I plan to vote for Judge Roberts, assuming nothing comes up" (like an Anita Hill problem or something like that), or "despite his conservative views" or "depsite some questions not having been fully answered," stuff like that.
My understanding regarding Laffey's letter of support, is that it was meant to be "to the point" and that he "unequivocally" supports Judge Roberts. Brevity is not a bad thing when one is certain where one stands on an issue. Laffey is also not in a position where he has a vote, so a statement is just fine. Chafee has always seemed to abhore the idea of anyone being certain about anything.