Are they coming to save Linc from Laffey or from himself?

----

{Greg, you can make the remainder of your point with a little less personal invective.

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/003138.html}

Methinks that the "Rapid Responders" will "know" the location of the $500k provided the RIGOP ... the disposition of which, for now, no one seems to be able to explain.

Just another reason to:

DUMP Chafee!

The state party's top priorities are to keep the governorship and the Senate seat Republican. They are doing EXACTLY what they're supposed to do.

I think it's sad that ole Linc has to reach out to a group from out of state to try to bail him out. He just doesn't have the support here! More evidence that Linc is gone and Ian Lang should be fired for doing such a poor job. This campaign is too funny.

Memo to the Chafee Vapid Vesponders:

Bring. It. On.

Bierman was once known as a stand-up guy...now he defends RINO's.

Et tu, Brock?

But with CHAFEE, they're NOT keeping the seat REPUBLICAN!

It's a scam, just like the State GOP itself!

By the way, Brock Biermann: cast in the Chafee mold, allergic to work, probably never experienced it.

Sorry Moderator. My 'personal invective' was simply a juxtaposition of Patches Kennedy's 'personal issues' with Linc's incompetence.

Whitehouse will be the next senator from RI. Guaranteed!

That's fine with me. It's been a Democrat note for the last six years anyways. Might as well make it official. Linc would have flipped parties already if he thought it would have helped the Dems get things done. He's admitted such.

The true Republicans in Pennsylvania made a valiant effort to unseat RINO Specter in a primary. Alas, they were unsuccessful ... largely due to the efforts of the "moderate" Republican" establishment (including George W).

What an honor it will be for us here in RI if we are successful in unseating RINO Chafee in a primary, in spite of the efforts of the "moderate Republican" establishment!

So, in other words, Tom, to be a "true" Republican, one has to subscribe to the unadulterated positions that Specter's opponent (sorry, forgot his name) stood on?

Out of curiousity, what percent of the population holds those views? Maybe something like 30%? (I suggest that number as being roughly equal to Pres Bush's lowest poll number.)

If you agree to that, then doesn't it follow that either:

a) 70% of the population doesn't agree with Republican positions; or

b) You think that a smallish minority should impose their views on a group that's more than twice as large as they are?

Is this how democracy is supposed to operate?

>Is this how democracy is supposed to operate?

Klaus:

Yes it is. People vote – including voting to eliminate candidates they don’t agree with.

Moreover, in general political parties are supposed to adhere to, and promote, certain values and goals.

The post-1960’s Democratic Party promotes a radical and ever-expanding version of the FDR-LBJ neo-socialism.

The Republican Party (is supposed to) promote adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States – a small federal government, respect for the rights of the individual (as opposed to the Democrats’ “respect” for the collective), etc.

While it would be unrealistic to expect any particular candidate (from either party) to be 100% - members of that party should expect reasonable adherence to that party’s principles. And when a candidate such as Lincoln Chafee not only does not adhere, but repeatedly and openly repudiates those principles, it’s appropriate that the members of that party “fire” him and replace him with a candidate that is much more (if not entirely) aligned with Republican principles.

There are virtually no “moderate” Democrats in the U.S. Senate (and fewer still if Lieberman is ousted). In such circumstances, Republicans can’t make the good fight against neo-socialist Democrats while being stabbed in the back by Chafee, Collins, Snow and Specter.

Tom W,
Listen to what you are saying! The reason the GOP has the majority is because there are virutually no "moderate" Democrats left in the Senate. They've learned that ideological purges don't work and have gone out and recruited guys like Casey to run in Pennsylvania and Webb in Virgina to recapture the majority. Your advocating that the GOP become the permanent minority party just to "send a message".

Fine, send your message. As for me, I'm more concerned about paying less in taxes and pushing forward a conservative agenda.

Laffey supporters saying that Linc is reaching out of state for help is ridiculous. Laffey's entire campaign is being funded by out of state people through the club for growth. Laffey has barely gotten any rhode island support -- So sad Laffey has had to sell his soul to the club for growth in order to even have a campaign

On all of these posts, no one, i repeat, NO ONE, has made a remotely persuasive case for why we should elect Stephen Laffey as Senator.

What is the evidence that this vain narcissist would actually improve life in Rhode Island? One would think that a pre-req for the job is a good temperament needed to get along with others...only a small glimpse at his personality show that Laffey has has a likeability problem. And if you're unsure how effective Laffey has been as a public official, just try talking to folks in Cranston. Every conversation I've had with folks from the Mayor's stomping grounds always reveal that they cannot wait to see him go. Exibit A is just one of many examples:

http://www.cranstononline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1268&Itemid=35

"Senator Laffey?"...I think not...

Jimmy,
I agree, but a "likeability problem"? That's like saying New Orleans experienced some storm flooding.

Steve Laffey is running for the US Senate, a legislative body that requires compromise and the ability to work with other legislators to develop solutions to the nation's problems. Laffey has shown himself incapable of doing so, both in politics and prior to that, in business.

On top of it, Laffey really doesn't seem to have a consistent set of beliefs and that leads to character issues.

Most of the message being delivered by the Laffey camp is just noise at this point. At first, Chafee was accused of ducking debates because he was afraid of Laffey, now Laffey's supporter are saying Chafee's agreeing to debate Laffey indicates Chafee is behind--even though no poll seems to show it.

When Chafee started the race, he said that he'd debate after the session is over. Well, the session ended and guess what? He's debating Laffey. So who is consistent?

Rhode Islanders see this. It's why Steve Laffey can't break 30% in the general election polls.

But Laffey's ego and inability to deal with others may result in the GOP losing a Senate seat and control of the Senate.

That will be Laffey's legacy: a poorly executed campaign effort that succeeded at doing nothing more than dividing Rhode Island Republican voters and hurting other Republican candidates running locally.

Anthony,

Good points all around. For the good of the Party (and our sanity), Laffey should bow out of the race now. My hope is that God will send him this very message (just like the Lord Alrighty encouraged you to enter public office, right Steve?).

>>Listen to what you are saying! The reason the GOP has the majority is because there are virutually no "moderate" Democrats left in the Senate. They've learned that ideological purges don't work and have gone out and recruited guys like Casey to run in Pennsylvania and Webb in Virgina to recapture the majority. Your advocating that the GOP become the permanent minority party just to "send a message". Fine, send your message. As for me, I'm more concerned about paying less in taxes and pushing forward a conservative agenda.

Anthony,

If keeping Chafee in the Senate meant “paying less in taxes and pushing forward a conservative agenda” then I’d be with you. But the opposite is true.

I’m concerned with principles, not labels. An “R” label on the majority, accompanied by a “D” legislative agenda, is no victory at all. Under so-called Republican rule we’ve had out of control spending and at best a tepid adherence to the conservative agenda. A major contributor to this is the reality that the Republican majority is one of labels only – when one factors out the ideological non-Republicans of Chafee / Collins / Snow / Specter the Senate is effectively at impasse - and the continued pandering to the “moderates” means that the whole Republican is moved decidedly left.

Better to have a minority of Reaganites than a majority of de facto Democrats.

>>On all of these posts, no one, i repeat, NO ONE, has made a remotely persuasive case for why we should elect Stephen Laffey as Senator.

Try this. The alternative is either "Senator Chafee" or "Senator Whitehouse."

I've got major reservations about Laffey. But "reservations" will always be preferable to "liberals."

>>I’m concerned with principles, not labels.

Hey Tom,

If the above statement is true, how do you account for your support for Laffey in the name of "principles"?

Let's see as I go down the list of Laffey's lack of principle:

Myth #1: Laffey claims he is fiscally responsible
Fact #1: Laffey used Cranston city government resources (taxpayer money!) to pay for a political campaign mailer

Myth #2: Laffey claims he is fiscally conservative
Fact #2: Laffey raised taxes not once, not twice, but three times as mayor, and now Cranston taxpayers suffer from the highest property taxes in Rhode Island

Myth #3: Laffey opposes embryonic stem cell research
Fact #3: Laffey invested his personal wealth in the Geron Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company that develops cell-based therapies from human embryonic stem cells

Myth #4: Laffey claims he is the “strongest voice” in Rhode Island
Fact #4: Laffey’s absence at the RI GOP Convention and Young Republicans ‘Meet the Candidates’ (both in Cranston incidentally) demonstrates an awfully quiet voice

It’s always nice to support a particular candidate out of principles. It’s obvious that Laffey is not that candidate, however.

I think this RNC thing is going to work about as well as the Delta Force hostage rescue in Iran back in 1980...

"For the good of the Party (and our sanity), Laffey should bow out of the race now."

Someone down at Chafee HQ sure sounds pretty scared of a Laffey upset in September! YOU SHOULD BE.

In response to "Klaus" (von Bulow?), what a wonderful observation you have made about a "smallish minority [imposing] their views on a group that's more than twice as large as they are" ...However, my friend, that smallish minority would be RINOs!

YOU (collectively, as RINOs and their collaborators) are the one's imposing your beliefs on the rest of the Republican Party. Nationally, the Republican Party is a conservative party, with a conservative platform. 80% of Republicans consistently describe themselves as conservative or very conservative. The leadership and the representatives of the party should accurately reflect the grassroots of the party, without whom, there would be no Republican Party. The only thing that people like Chafee represent, is the continued influence of old money and the access and "forgiveness" that it provides.

I've heard RINOs described as being "like rats heads in a cola bottle". When you find one in the bottle, you don't just set it aside and buy another. You change brands, you tell others to change brands, and then word spreads that the brand is unreliable. RINOs are like those rat heads. They destroy the Republican brand. We need to protect the party from the (RINO) wolves in (Republican) sheep's clothing that seek to destroy it, by destroying the values and principles which made it the majority party.

I wasn't going to respond to the above silly "myth list", but I'm going to, if for no other reason than just because I can. I'll pick it off quickly:

Answer #1) Laffey did not send out a political mailer. He sent out a yearly tax letter, which he's done every year, in which did not once mention his candidacy for any office. Coincidentally, at just about the same time, Sen. Chafee spent over $120,000 to send out his own "disaster preparedness" mailer at taxpayer expense, which directly talked up his hand in legislation and "accomplishments" in office.

Answer #2) In regard to taxes, Laffey didn't do what was politically expedient, he did what needed to be done considering the unique circumstance that Cranston WAS in, due to previous liberal mismanagement of the city. He cut where he legally could, then made up for the revenue shortfall. Unlike the federal government, Cranston can't just print more money. Cranston is now thriving. This year, taxes went down; not up.

Answer #3) Laffey does oppose EMBRYONIC stem cell research, not stem cell research in general (such as cord blood or adult stem cell research). As he also stated, he's not for banning that research, he's just against wasting federal money on it. However, as he clearly stated, he was not aware that his investment in the particular company, which was made as part of a larger portfolio of stocks, had any relation to embryonic stem cell research. When he later found out, he sold off the stock.

Answer #4) I respect Mayor Laffey's decision to sit out of those two events, both of which I personally chose to attend (though, part of me regrets spending quite so much time at the former). As you know, the state party "leadership" has already chosen who's side they are on. Any participation by Laffey would have just been for show. If one truly thinks something is rigged, one has the right not to take part in it. He's truly more interested in appealing to regular folks; he's not interested in pandering to party insiders and to those whom Republican principles don't really matter all that much anyway. He's for remaking the RI Republican Party, into a party that stands for something much more than continued self-inflicted irrelevance.

Jimmy,

Let me take your points #1 and #2 and put aside the fact they are unconvincing on their merits (for instance, claiming the Federal campaign finance law prohibits local officials from communicating with their constituents about their taxes is quite a stretch. And making that claim in the same week that a Senator sends around franked mailings printed with taxpayer dollars saying what great things he’s done for his constituents borders on hypocritical)

However, let’s pretend you presented a worthwhile example, and look at the basic premise of what you’re saying. The case you want to make is that Steve Laffey isn’t the perfect candidate for a conservative. Then, you want to argue that, because Laffey is not the perfect conservative, conservatives should vote in droves should for the candidate who is far less conservative by any reasonable standard (Lincoln Chafee, for those not paying attention).

Do you understand why this argument isn’t really resonating with “the base”?

"If one truly thinks something is rigged, one has the right not to take part in it. He's truly more interested in appealing to regular folks; he's not interested in pandering to party insiders and to those whom Republican principles don't really matter all that much anyway."

Will, do you really believe this? Do you think the endorsement process was "rigged" or corrupt in any way? If so, how?

And do you really think that Republican principles don't matter to members of the state party? Who are these "regular folks" Steve Laffey hopes will vote for him that don't currently play active roles in promoting Republican politics but are more committed to Republican principles than members of the state party?

Here's what I think:

Laffey tried really hard to win the insider game. He tried to co-opt the party through moves like removing Traficante and installing Manning (which by the way, is the closest thing to 'corruption' that I've seen in the RI Republican Party--and even that wasn't 'corrupt', but just a below-the-belt power play).

Laffey then tried unsuccessfully to block the transfer of RNC funds to the RI GOP, knowing that it would be difficult for him to win over many of the delegates.

As it became obvious that Laffey's insider power plays weren't working and that he was losing rank and file support, he had no choice but to adopt an outsider strategy. So he did.

In order to fund his campaign, Laffey knew he didn't have support within Rhode Island, so he had to look elsewhere. Enter powerful, out-of-state interest groups like Club for Growth.

But to win the support from monied out of state interest groups, Steve needed to change some of his positions and become more vocal on others. Hence, he reversed his immigration position and adopted a hard-line pro-Israel approach to contrast himself with Chafee.

From the start, Laffey faced a difficult challenge.

He needed to portray himself as a traditional conservative outside of RI to raise money, while portraying himself as "maverick" inside RI to avoid being painted with the "right wing" label that is the kiss of death in blue state Rhody.

However, Chafee had the "maverick" label locked up and, with the help of the NRSC, defined Laffey before he defined himself. Most Rhode Islanders began to see Laffy, not as an independent, but as a "right-wing" Republican.

There has been no groundswell of support for Laffey from Republican voters in RI as is happening in Connecticut where Democrats are rallying Lamont in his challenge to the incumbent Lieberman. Laffey's campaign tried to do what Lamont's people have done, but failed.

We're through with 11 months and have a month left to go. There is nothing to indicate that anything will change from where we started 11 months ago.

Chafee is still beating Laffey in the primary polls by a thin margin, showing that the primary outcome will be determined who turns out. Laffey is still losing to Whithouse by 30 points. Chafee is still in a tight-race with Sheldon Whitehouse.

Republicans have wasted a lot of time and treasure in the political equivalent of WWI trench warfare.

I find it amusing that Brock Bierman is organizing the Vapid Responders.

This is the same Brock Bierman that could not get the Cranston GOP behind him in the GOP Mayoral Primary in 1998. He could not get the Cranston GOP behind him for the nod as their Mayoral candidate in 2002.

Now he gets to rally the troops to defeat his old nemesis? The true Republicans in this state will see to it that he enjoys strike 3 in Li'l Rhody!

I find it amusing that Paul the Paperboy's e-mail address is Paul@paperboy.com

As I recall, Bierman was a popular state representative in western Cranston, is conservative and ran against one of Traficante's people for mayor before Laffey hit the scene. Isn't he exactly the type of guy who should be supporting Laffey?

Oh wait, Laffey probably alienated Bierman somehow....