"Should Chafee win, will the Laffeyites ... throw all ideology aside and vote against Chafee due to spite, even if he is still marginally more conservative than Whitehouse?"
Yes. Key word 'MARGINALLY'.
Like them or not, Chafee's positions are popular with general election voters in Rhode Island. He doesn't need to build any general election "groundwork" outside of what he has already done. He just needs to make sure he has the funds to communicate his message.
Don't forget, Chafee won his last general election by 16 points. Despite the negative ads and the free pass given to Whitehouse for the past few months, Chafee is still in a dead heat with Whitehouse.
Nothing in this race has changed over the past year. Chafee's biggest hurdle is getting through the primary and making sure that genereal election voters are given the opportunity to vote for him again.
As for the 25% of the electorate who are Laffey supporters, it will be their call. Chafee probably can't beat Whitehouse without most of them.
As for Laffey, he can't win without Chafee's traditional base voting for him. But even that won't be enough. He'll also need to convert about 10% of the people who currently say they are voting for Whitehouse AND capture over 85% of the undecideds.
Whether or not Laffey were ever in the race, in an a general election between Chafee and Whitehouse I'd just sit that race out.
Chafee is so close to Whitehouse that the "lesser of two evils" concept is not a consideration.
To me it would be essentially nothing more than a "Democratic primary" between two liberals, and I couldn't bring myself to vote "for" either one of them.
Laffey's never been tested on the statewide stage. So it's all conjecture as to whether or not he has appeal statewide. I just realized that I can't vote for Chafee. Meaning, I just don't like his policies that if he's in a race against Whitehouse I may just not vote. But, I think I'm in the minority on that one but if there are a few thousand people like myself, it could swing the election.
Hi!
I suspect the above Anthony may be a town council president and Chafee staffer?
I like Senator Chafee but have decided to support Mayor Laffey.I will support the winner of the GOP primary.
Regards,
Scott
This is what John Miller said about Chafee in the current issue (Aug 7) of National Review:
A close look at Chafee’s congressional record suggests that the senator would fit comfortably within the Democratic fold: The American Conservative Union gives Chafee a lifetime rating of 37 out of a possible 100. This is not only the worst performance in the GOP, but it actually places Chafee to the left of Democratic senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Chafee’s rating for 2005 is a dismal 12, which is precisely the score of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Only 24 senators received a lower score. Twenty-three of them are liberal Democrats, and the other is Jim Jeffords, the “independent” who caucuses with the Democrats. Even Feingold, who is actively courting his party’s left wing in anticipation of a presidential run, was rated a point better than Chafee. So it’s no wonder that a lot of rank-and-file Republicans have run out of patience with Rhode Island’s junior senator.
My comment on the above:
Real Republicans will vote for Laffey in September. Once Laffey wins, the general population will pay more attention to him and he will have a good shot, maybe even a better shot, at beating Whitehouse
This obfuscates the real issue - Laffey can't win. People think he is "unfit for command." His manic intensity is not registering with voters.
The Berlin Wall was never going to fall, and the Soviet Union would last forever, too...
Scott,
I've mentioned this a couple of times, but since you might have missed it, I don't work for anyone in government or for any campaign.
Also, if you vote for Laffey then don't complain if you get Senator Whitehouse.
Will, I do respect your optimism, but by the mid 80's it was clear the USSR wasn't going to be around much longer. With a month to go in the primary, it's increasingly clear that Laffey won't be around after November.
"Also, if you vote for Laffey then don't complain if you get Senator Whitehouse."
Anybody but Chafee.
I'm willing to take the risk. Honestly, what would we really be losing? Chafee is an avowed leftist, has nothing but disdain for proven conservative principles, and is the antithesis of everything Republican. I cannot in good conscience support him. I made that mistake in 2000. I deeply regret it and I'm not willing to repeat it.
Frankly, in a potential general election matchup between Whitehouse and Chafee, I would probably follow Tom's advice in that scenerio, and not vote for either of them. It might prove to be painful in the short term, but for the longer term health of the party, it'd be worth it. In the grand scheme of things, we would not be losing much.
PS In the hypothetical that Laffey doesn't pull off the primary win (which I still believe he will), for the sake of a little irony, I was thinking of writing in "John Chafee". :)
The vote "against" rather than "for" argument was trotted out in the 1975 Reagan/Ford match-up. Ford still lost to Jimmy Carter. As is the case with Laffey now, pundits dramatically underestimated Reagan's overall appeal. He very well could have beaten Carter.
The Chafee campaign has been run so poorly that they need help to get out of their own way. Whatever the modeartor likes or doesn't like about my comments I see it differently down here in Matunuck. The Laffey people aren't off the hook either. They run a mean spirited campaign thats bound to lose against anybody. Whitehouse will win this seat. I see Chafee edging out Laffey in the primarly only to lose to Whitehouse by 5 or 6 points in the general election. The debate of Laffey and Chafee will be soon forgotten.
>>Also, if you vote for Laffey then don't complain if you get Senator Whitehouse.
I won't complain about "getting" Senator Whitehouse; I'll just complain "about" Senator Whitehouse ... just as I currently "complain" about Senator Chafee.
Well, the truth comes out. So-called supporters of Republican "principles" aren't at all concerned about Republican "principles".
It's about pure selfishness, just as some so-called "principled Republicans" helped Myrth York against Don Caricieri after he beat Bennett.
Here's how our "principled: Republicans' efforts will unfold --Laffey will endorse Chafee after the primary and present him with a check. Then Laffey's people will work behind Chafee's back to help Sheldon Whitehouse. Those are "principles" that I'd be proud of! What a surprise!
As far as I'm concerned, if you help to elect a Democrat or if you are a "Republican" that is willing to let Democrats to control the Senate just to "send a message", you aren't a Republican at all.
Yes, we may have a Democrat-controlled Senate that introduces higher taxes, will only confirm liberal Supreme Court justices and imposes a unilateral retreat from the War on Terror, but hey we sent a "MESSAGE"!
And MESSAGES are powerful as the United Nations shows on a daily basis.
Invade a country? We'll send you a MESSAGE!
Commit state-sanctioned terrorism? We'll send you an angry MESSAGE!
Build nuclear weapons? Just wait, you'll get a super-angry MESSAGE and maybe even economic sanction restricting the number of almonds you can export!
If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican.
"If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican."
Are you talking to us or to Chafee?
Last time I checked, Chafee voted for Bill Frist to be Senate majority leader.
Laffey, on the other hand, gave money to Frist's Democrat opponent.
So Greg, tell me again, who is supporting the GOP?
>> Here's how our "principled: Republicans' efforts will unfold --Laffey will endorse Chafee after the primary and present him with a check. Then Laffey's people will work behind Chafee's back to help Sheldon Whitehouse. Those are "principles" that I'd be proud of! What a surprise!
Anthony,
With all due respect, you’re starting to sound paranoid. People saying that they will “sit out” a race rather than vote for Chafee – and do so because Chafee’s political principles (such as he has any) is an anathema to what we believe it - is a far, far cry from “working behind Chafee’s back to help Sheldon Whitehouse.”
>> Yes, we may have a Democrat-controlled Senate that introduces higher taxes, will only confirm liberal Supreme Court justices and imposes a unilateral retreat from the War on Terror, but hey we sent a "MESSAGE"!
And reelecting a so-called “Republican” that himself supports all of the above sends a “MESSAGE” … an even worse one, for it tells the world that in American political circles there is unity concerning the above among the Democrats, and support for same within the Republican Party. Advantage: Democrats, the United Nations and the rest of the collectivists.
>> If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican.
You should have been saying that to Lincoln Chafee for the last six years. As for many of us (and hopefully a majority of us), we hope to impose that message on him next September 12th!
"So Greg, tell me again, who is supporting the GOP?"
Was Linc supporting the GOP when he voted against Bush, against Bush's Supreme Court nominees, FOR higer taxes, for the death tax, etc, etc...?
http://www.cafepress.com/rhodeisland2006
Tom W.,
>>With all due respect, you’re starting to sound paranoid. People saying that they will “sit out” a race rather than vote for Chafee – and do so because Chafee’s political principles (such as he has any) is an anathema to what we believe it - is a far, far cry from “working behind Chafee’s back to help Sheldon Whitehouse.”<<
I'm referring to the precedent that was set in 2002. Many of the people on Steve Laffey's campaign supported 'moderate' Jim Bennett against 'conservative' Don Carcieri in 2002. Myrth York's people have since been very open that some members of Bennett's team helped her against Carcieri. I find it hard to swallow when these same people talk of Republican "principles".
And if you're a Republican and you sit out a race between a Democrat and a Republican, then you're basically helping the Democrat win anyway.
As for your other arguments, come back to me when you have evidence that Chafee is setting the Republican agenda in the Senate. And please let Senator Frist know, too.
Greg:
1. Did we get lower taxes? Yes.
2. Did Bush's nominees get on the Supreme Court? Yes.
3. Did Chafee prevent either of these things from happening? No.
Now ask yourself,
1. If Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader, would we have lower taxes? No.
2. If Ted Kennedy was chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee, would Alito and Roberts have made it to the Supreme Court? No and Robert Bork could help you answer that question....
Don't get me wrong there are alot of RI liberals who want Laffey to win the primary. Right now, incumbent Republicans senators are losing in PA, MO, MT, and OH. RI will seal the deal for them.
But let me warn you. When you find yourself agreeing with liberal Democrats, don't you even bother to ask yourself why?
1. Did we get lower taxes? Yes.
No thanks to Linc.
2. Did Bush's nominees get on the Supreme Court? Yes.
No thanks to Linc.
3. Did Chafee prevent either of these things from happening? No.
No, but he certainly isn't entitled to take CREDIT for those actions now in a feeble attempt to court the same republicans he's crapped all over for the last six years.
Greg, not surprisngly you missed the point. None of those things would have happened if the Democrats controlled the Senate.
But hey, Laffey is 30+ behind in the polls, so it seems ridiculous to talk about. If you want to elect a Democrat, that's your right.
"If you want to elect a Democrat, that's your right."
Vote for Chafee and you're exercising your right to vote in a Democrat, too. Except Linc hasn't switched parties...yet. He's only threatened to do it every election since he's got into office.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/ussenate/2004-11-03-ri-chaffee_x.htm
Posted 11/3/2004
Sen. Chafee considers leaving GOP
PROVIDENCE (AP) — Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he would consider switching parties if President Bush is re-elected.
"I'm not ruling it out," Chafee told The Providence Journal.
I think there is a grave underestimation of Laffey's ability to outmaneuver the polls.
First of all, I think Chafee is in trouble (he's showing signs of it) and will likely lose the primary.
Secondly, when the race between Laffey and Whitehouse really unfolds, Laffey will do to him what Carcieri pulled on Myrth Yorke. The problem I have, though, as a Republican is that Chafee's record is, as was mentioned above, more liberal then many Democrats in the Senate with an ACU rating of a measly 12 this year.
I will say, though, that were he to win against Laffey, I would, with deep reluctance, vote for him over Whitehouse. Though a wise old friend of mine once warned me that in the case of a liberal Republican in the US Senate, it takes 12 years to replace him with a true Republican, but only 6 for a Democrat, because you have to go through an additional election cycle to remove and replace the liberal Republican. Food for thought.
"If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican."
That's one quote I think you'll soon regret. I support what the Republican Party stands for; not just pretending because of family tradition to share something in common with it. The way I look at it, as nice a guy as Chafee may be personally, he was never cut out to be in the Senate. He won in 2000, because of his father's name and out of total ignorance of what he stood for. We know where he stands now, and it's not with Republicans. We're simply correcting a mistake. You occassionally have to prune a shrub for it to flower.
There are a limited number of likely outcomes:
Scenerio #1: Laffey wins the primary and then the general election. Net positives = An actual Republican representing us in DC; one less liberal in DC.
Scenerio #2: Laffey wins the primary, but loses the general election. Net positive = message sent to RINOs all across the country that they may be next, if they don't change their neferious ways.
Scenerio #3: Laffey wins primary, but loses general election to Whitehouse. We've made an even exchange of one liberal for another. No big deal.
Scenerio #4: Chafee wins primary, but loses in the general election (which if Chafee does win his primary somehow, I honestly think this is the most likely result).
Scenerio #5: Chafee wins primary and general elections. Result: More of the same, which is to say, very little.
GOP Senator Dr. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who was here in RI a few weeks ago, quoted William Wallace from the movie Braveheart, saying "People follow strength, they don't follow kindness." That's as apt an analogy for Laffey vs. Chafee as I've heard, and underscores why I believe that Laffey will ultimately win the primary. Even I didn't realize that the Chafee family tree went that far back! :)
Will,
Your scenarios conveniently omit one of the most obvious situations. Strange, because every poll says it is statistically far more probable than your Scenario #1.
Scenario #6: Laffey wins the primary and loses to Whitehouse by 30 points in the general. The Democrats pick up MO, MT, PA, OH (where they are all currently ahead) and become the majority party with the help of Jeffords.
As a result, only certain judicial appointees will get confirmed by the Senate, so "Republican" jurists in the mold of Earl Warren, Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens are appointed. This is the best case scenario and assumes a Republican will win the presidency in '08. If a Democrat is elected, only the most liberal justices will be allowed through the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy. We see Roe v. Wade and Casey affirmed and the government gains more power through cases similar to Kelo.
The Senate then moves to repeal Bush's tax cuts as they are "fiscally irresponsible" and begins to pressure the President into withdrawing troops from the Middle East.
This pressure is applied by holding similar Senate hearings into the "illegal" activities of the Bush Administration in executing the War on Terror. As a result, al-Qaeda is emboldened just as they were after the U.S. response in Somalia.
Sound far-fetched? All of these goals have been publicly stated as being on the Democrat agenda should they regain control of the Senate.
But, hey you succeeded in sending a message to those moderates, right? Good for you.
Anthony,
Point well taken on the issue of so called Rhode Island Republicans acrtively working against their own to get Democrats elected.
These so called Republicans were behind the Dennis Michaud effort and are no doubt going to support Charlie Fogarty. This is why the Republican party in Rhode Island has never gotten off the ground. Far too many people in the ranks (John Holmes and the Bennett mob come to mind immediately) care more about their own self interest than in party growth and success.
As we've discussed in the past this is the very reason I will never join.
"As a result, only certain judicial appointees will get confirmed by the Senate, so "Republican" jurists in the mold of Earl Warren, Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens are appointed. This is the best case scenario and assumes a Republican will win the presidency in '08. If a Democrat is elected, only the most liberal justices will be allowed through the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy. We see Roe v. Wade and Casey affirmed and the government gains more power through cases similar to Kelo.
The Senate then moves to repeal Bush's tax cuts as they are "fiscally irresponsible" and begins to pressure the President into withdrawing troops from the Middle East.
This pressure is applied by holding similar Senate hearings into the "illegal" activities of the Bush Administration in executing the War on Terror. As a result, al-Qaeda is emboldened just as they were after the U.S. response in Somalia."
If Chafee is re-elected, we can count on him to support the Democrats in ALL of these situations. So what's the difference? Chafee has repeatedly said that, if his switching parties would be advantageous to the Democrats, he would flip and 'officially' become a Democrat. As it is now, he's 'unofficially' a Democrat. He votes with them, but his (R) counts toward the total that allows the Republicans to retain power.
If the Republicans lose enough seats in this election, Chafee WILL switch parties to create a tie or give the Dems power. He simply CANNOT be trusted to remain a Republican.
I fail to see how your scenario won't come to pass either way.
From Greg's point, above, that IS the question facing Republicans in September. Do we, as Republicans, want an "unofficial Democrat" or a real Republican as our nominee to face the Democrat Whitehouse???
With all the pragmatism and various scenarios listed above, I think that is the paramount question. Everything else is a diversion.
By the way, Will, I like Tom Coburn's quote from "Braveheart's" William Wallace with regard to Laffey: "People follow strength, they don't follow kindness." It's an apt analogy and it is why Laffey won in Cranston in the first place.
Greg,
I've heard the "Chafee May Become A Democrat" thing for the past six years. It may work to raise money from the out-of-state Club for Growth crowd, but anyone familiar with RI politics knows its a red herring.
Although I won't be surprised if Chafee takes a harder line anti-Club for Growth appoach if he does get reelected.
Ultimately, I believe it comes down to this:
Do we, as Republicans, want a party that stands for Constitutionalism and small goverment, or do we want power at any cost, including our own principles and beliefs, as long as the houses of government are controlled by guys with (R) after their name?
Chafee gives us the second scenario. I don't know if Laffey will be any better, and I'm certainly not enthusiastically supporting him, but I'd support a Del's lemonade if it ran against Linc at this point, just to get rid of that principally retarded hack who only GOT the job because the old people in this state didn't realize they weren't voting for his father.
Coburn can quote away...doesn't take away the fact that without Chafee he may be out of committee chairmanships.
Laffey talks a good game about being the "real" conservative in this race, but he jacked up property taxes, giving Cranston the questionable distinction of having one of the highest tax rates in RI. The 20% spending increase he imposed on the city of Cranston doesn't really jibe with my idea of small government. But hey, maybe that's just me.
Tabby,
The Democrats handed him a bag of garbage. Had he not raised taxes (I am an avid opponent of higher taxes), had he not done so, Cranston would be in ruins instead of having a top 100 rating with MONEY Magazine.
Tax rates, by the way, came down a little this year. It was somewhat obliterated - particularly on the eastern side of the city - by the obligatory revaluation. I know, I know. It was not much, but it was a step in the right direction.
Chuck, I believe that government should generate just enough revenue to run well. My problem with Laffey is that he raised taxes far more than was needed to make Cranston fiscally stable. Taxes went up so much (the average Cranston family saw their tax bill go up $1000) Laffey generated a $20 million surplus. Even the Democrats on the city council wanted him to stop raising taxes.
And Chuck, you're right: the revaluation means Laffey can now say he lowered taxes, thus pacifying the Club for Growth while doing little to help overtaxed Cranston residents.
Tabby,
The reason for needing to create a surplus, wasn't just that Laffey felt like raising taxes more than was absolutely necessary. It was necessary, first, because the democrats that had run the city into the ground had completely raided the "rainy day" fund, so there would be no buffer if something were to go wrong in the future.
Secondly, in order to get Cranston's bond rating raised, building a surplus was necessary. Ultimately, it makes it a lot cheaper in both the short and long term for the city to obtain credit, in order to meet short term obligations, as well as to finance long term projects. It also means, that in exchange for money raised up front, the less will be needed in the longer term, thus resulting in less necessity for future tax increases. It's short term pain in exchange for longer term fiscal health.
Again, all that shows is that Laffey is able to make tough decisions when necessary, without regard as to how it will benefit him politically.
Anthony,
If I may state it bluntly, what's the difference if Laffey loses the general election by 1 point or by 30 points? I think my Scenerios #2 and #3 cover those possibilities. If Laffey wins the primary, but loses the general election, we've simply exchanged one liberal for another, plus it has the side benefit of making Chafee an example to other RINOs across the country that his kind of behavior will not be tolerated. I really don't think his specific seat will be the deciding factor nationwide anyway. Nationally, we're either going to stay essentially were we are at, or we are going to take a mud bath and deserve every drop.
I'm not very concerned about polling data, especially as the Republican Primary is concerned. Either one of them could just as easily lose or win against Whitehouse (though for much different reasons, which I'm sure I'll cover in a latter post). All things being equal, I'd much rather have Laffey facing Whitehouse. At least there would be a substantive debate, from people of different backgrounds, with differing political philosophies and points of view; not just a bunch of "me too's."
Here's why I'm not willing to sacrifice adherence to principle for political pragmatism: If it came down to Chafee to be the "deciding" vote for control of the Senate, I DO NOT TRUST HIM whatsoever to remain as a member of the Republican Party in his second term. If he somehow did remain as a member of the party, I am convinced that he would hold the possibility of "jumping ship" over the Republican Party's head for the entire six years of his second term (like he did before). I'm not willing to give to what sounds an awful lot like extortion, in order to retain power at all costs. I just can't do it.
Doing anything and everything in order to hold onto power, including chucking your principles out the window for the sake of retaining it, is too high a price to pay. To quote a great philosopher, "not gonna do it... wouldn't be prudent... not at this juncture."
Hi!
I will vote for Laffey and take the consequences!I like Linc Chafee and he gave me moral support when I opposed "Big Boxes" on Exit#1 in Hopkinton when I was a Town Council member in my town.I am seeking to return to the town council this year.I served previously from 1996 to 2004,.
The Governor did not even contact me.
Steve Laffey not only gave me moral support but allowed use of his name on my alternate slate of delegates and alternate delegates to the 2004 Republican National convention at large voted by the 2004 Rhode Island Republican State Convention.Wew lost I but appreciate that support.
Regards,
Scott
Hi!
I will vote for Laffey and take the consequences!I like Linc Chafee and he gave me moral support when I opposed "Big Boxes" on Exit#1 in Hopkinton when I was a Town Council member in my town.I am seeking to return to the town council this year.I served previously from 1996 to 2004,.
The Governor did not even contact me.
Steve Laffey not only gave me moral support but allowed use of his name on my alternate slate of delegates and alternate delegates to the 2004 Republican National convention at large voted by the 2004 Rhode Island Republican State Convention.We lost I but appreciate that support.
Regards,
Scott
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
"Should Chafee win, will the Laffeyites ... throw all ideology aside and vote against Chafee due to spite, even if he is still marginally more conservative than Whitehouse?"
Yes. Key word 'MARGINALLY'.
Posted by: Greg at August 3, 2006 4:45 PMLike them or not, Chafee's positions are popular with general election voters in Rhode Island. He doesn't need to build any general election "groundwork" outside of what he has already done. He just needs to make sure he has the funds to communicate his message.
Don't forget, Chafee won his last general election by 16 points. Despite the negative ads and the free pass given to Whitehouse for the past few months, Chafee is still in a dead heat with Whitehouse.
Nothing in this race has changed over the past year. Chafee's biggest hurdle is getting through the primary and making sure that genereal election voters are given the opportunity to vote for him again.
As for the 25% of the electorate who are Laffey supporters, it will be their call. Chafee probably can't beat Whitehouse without most of them.
As for Laffey, he can't win without Chafee's traditional base voting for him. But even that won't be enough. He'll also need to convert about 10% of the people who currently say they are voting for Whitehouse AND capture over 85% of the undecideds.
Posted by: Anthony at August 3, 2006 5:23 PMWhether or not Laffey were ever in the race, in an a general election between Chafee and Whitehouse I'd just sit that race out.
Chafee is so close to Whitehouse that the "lesser of two evils" concept is not a consideration.
To me it would be essentially nothing more than a "Democratic primary" between two liberals, and I couldn't bring myself to vote "for" either one of them.
Posted by: Tom W at August 3, 2006 5:25 PMLaffey's never been tested on the statewide stage. So it's all conjecture as to whether or not he has appeal statewide. I just realized that I can't vote for Chafee. Meaning, I just don't like his policies that if he's in a race against Whitehouse I may just not vote. But, I think I'm in the minority on that one but if there are a few thousand people like myself, it could swing the election.
Posted by: don roach at August 3, 2006 5:42 PMHi!
Posted by: Scott Bill Hirst at August 3, 2006 6:41 PMI suspect the above Anthony may be a town council president and Chafee staffer?
I like Senator Chafee but have decided to support Mayor Laffey.I will support the winner of the GOP primary.
Regards,
Scott
This is what John Miller said about Chafee in the current issue (Aug 7) of National Review:
A close look at Chafee’s congressional record suggests that the senator would fit comfortably within the Democratic fold: The American Conservative Union gives Chafee a lifetime rating of 37 out of a possible 100. This is not only the worst performance in the GOP, but it actually places Chafee to the left of Democratic senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Chafee’s rating for 2005 is a dismal 12, which is precisely the score of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Only 24 senators received a lower score. Twenty-three of them are liberal Democrats, and the other is Jim Jeffords, the “independent” who caucuses with the Democrats. Even Feingold, who is actively courting his party’s left wing in anticipation of a presidential run, was rated a point better than Chafee. So it’s no wonder that a lot of rank-and-file Republicans have run out of patience with Rhode Island’s junior senator.
My comment on the above:
Real Republicans will vote for Laffey in September. Once Laffey wins, the general population will pay more attention to him and he will have a good shot, maybe even a better shot, at beating Whitehouse
Posted by: Chuck Nevola at August 3, 2006 6:48 PMThis obfuscates the real issue - Laffey can't win. People think he is "unfit for command." His manic intensity is not registering with voters.
Posted by: Phuleez at August 3, 2006 8:50 PMThe Berlin Wall was never going to fall, and the Soviet Union would last forever, too...
Posted by: Will at August 3, 2006 9:51 PMScott,
I've mentioned this a couple of times, but since you might have missed it, I don't work for anyone in government or for any campaign.
Also, if you vote for Laffey then don't complain if you get Senator Whitehouse.
Posted by: Anthony at August 3, 2006 11:07 PMWill, I do respect your optimism, but by the mid 80's it was clear the USSR wasn't going to be around much longer. With a month to go in the primary, it's increasingly clear that Laffey won't be around after November.
Posted by: Anthony at August 3, 2006 11:10 PM"Also, if you vote for Laffey then don't complain if you get Senator Whitehouse."
Anybody but Chafee.
Posted by: Greg at August 4, 2006 1:28 AMI'm willing to take the risk. Honestly, what would we really be losing? Chafee is an avowed leftist, has nothing but disdain for proven conservative principles, and is the antithesis of everything Republican. I cannot in good conscience support him. I made that mistake in 2000. I deeply regret it and I'm not willing to repeat it.
Frankly, in a potential general election matchup between Whitehouse and Chafee, I would probably follow Tom's advice in that scenerio, and not vote for either of them. It might prove to be painful in the short term, but for the longer term health of the party, it'd be worth it. In the grand scheme of things, we would not be losing much.
PS In the hypothetical that Laffey doesn't pull off the primary win (which I still believe he will), for the sake of a little irony, I was thinking of writing in "John Chafee". :)
Posted by: Will at August 4, 2006 5:05 AMThe vote "against" rather than "for" argument was trotted out in the 1975 Reagan/Ford match-up. Ford still lost to Jimmy Carter. As is the case with Laffey now, pundits dramatically underestimated Reagan's overall appeal. He very well could have beaten Carter.
Posted by: bountyhunter at August 4, 2006 9:12 AMThe Chafee campaign has been run so poorly that they need help to get out of their own way. Whatever the modeartor likes or doesn't like about my comments I see it differently down here in Matunuck. The Laffey people aren't off the hook either. They run a mean spirited campaign thats bound to lose against anybody. Whitehouse will win this seat. I see Chafee edging out Laffey in the primarly only to lose to Whitehouse by 5 or 6 points in the general election. The debate of Laffey and Chafee will be soon forgotten.
Posted by: Rino Cooke at August 4, 2006 9:55 AM>>Also, if you vote for Laffey then don't complain if you get Senator Whitehouse.
I won't complain about "getting" Senator Whitehouse; I'll just complain "about" Senator Whitehouse ... just as I currently "complain" about Senator Chafee.
Posted by: Tom W at August 4, 2006 10:01 AMWell, the truth comes out. So-called supporters of Republican "principles" aren't at all concerned about Republican "principles".
It's about pure selfishness, just as some so-called "principled Republicans" helped Myrth York against Don Caricieri after he beat Bennett.
Here's how our "principled: Republicans' efforts will unfold --Laffey will endorse Chafee after the primary and present him with a check. Then Laffey's people will work behind Chafee's back to help Sheldon Whitehouse. Those are "principles" that I'd be proud of! What a surprise!
As far as I'm concerned, if you help to elect a Democrat or if you are a "Republican" that is willing to let Democrats to control the Senate just to "send a message", you aren't a Republican at all.
Yes, we may have a Democrat-controlled Senate that introduces higher taxes, will only confirm liberal Supreme Court justices and imposes a unilateral retreat from the War on Terror, but hey we sent a "MESSAGE"!
And MESSAGES are powerful as the United Nations shows on a daily basis.
Invade a country? We'll send you a MESSAGE!
Commit state-sanctioned terrorism? We'll send you an angry MESSAGE!
Build nuclear weapons? Just wait, you'll get a super-angry MESSAGE and maybe even economic sanction restricting the number of almonds you can export!
If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican.
Posted by: Anthony at August 4, 2006 10:46 AM"If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican."
Are you talking to us or to Chafee?
Posted by: Greg at August 4, 2006 10:56 AMLast time I checked, Chafee voted for Bill Frist to be Senate majority leader.
Laffey, on the other hand, gave money to Frist's Democrat opponent.
So Greg, tell me again, who is supporting the GOP?
Posted by: Anthony at August 4, 2006 11:10 AM>> Here's how our "principled: Republicans' efforts will unfold --Laffey will endorse Chafee after the primary and present him with a check. Then Laffey's people will work behind Chafee's back to help Sheldon Whitehouse. Those are "principles" that I'd be proud of! What a surprise!
Anthony,
With all due respect, you’re starting to sound paranoid. People saying that they will “sit out” a race rather than vote for Chafee – and do so because Chafee’s political principles (such as he has any) is an anathema to what we believe it - is a far, far cry from “working behind Chafee’s back to help Sheldon Whitehouse.”
>> Yes, we may have a Democrat-controlled Senate that introduces higher taxes, will only confirm liberal Supreme Court justices and imposes a unilateral retreat from the War on Terror, but hey we sent a "MESSAGE"!
And reelecting a so-called “Republican” that himself supports all of the above sends a “MESSAGE” … an even worse one, for it tells the world that in American political circles there is unity concerning the above among the Democrats, and support for same within the Republican Party. Advantage: Democrats, the United Nations and the rest of the collectivists.
>> If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican.
You should have been saying that to Lincoln Chafee for the last six years. As for many of us (and hopefully a majority of us), we hope to impose that message on him next September 12th!
Posted by: Tom W at August 4, 2006 11:18 AM"So Greg, tell me again, who is supporting the GOP?"
Was Linc supporting the GOP when he voted against Bush, against Bush's Supreme Court nominees, FOR higer taxes, for the death tax, etc, etc...?
http://www.cafepress.com/rhodeisland2006
Posted by: Greg at August 4, 2006 11:25 AMTom W.,
>>With all due respect, you’re starting to sound paranoid. People saying that they will “sit out” a race rather than vote for Chafee – and do so because Chafee’s political principles (such as he has any) is an anathema to what we believe it - is a far, far cry from “working behind Chafee’s back to help Sheldon Whitehouse.”<<
I'm referring to the precedent that was set in 2002. Many of the people on Steve Laffey's campaign supported 'moderate' Jim Bennett against 'conservative' Don Carcieri in 2002. Myrth York's people have since been very open that some members of Bennett's team helped her against Carcieri. I find it hard to swallow when these same people talk of Republican "principles".
And if you're a Republican and you sit out a race between a Democrat and a Republican, then you're basically helping the Democrat win anyway.
As for your other arguments, come back to me when you have evidence that Chafee is setting the Republican agenda in the Senate. And please let Senator Frist know, too.
Greg:
1. Did we get lower taxes? Yes.
2. Did Bush's nominees get on the Supreme Court? Yes.
3. Did Chafee prevent either of these things from happening? No.
Now ask yourself,
1. If Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader, would we have lower taxes? No.
2. If Ted Kennedy was chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee, would Alito and Roberts have made it to the Supreme Court? No and Robert Bork could help you answer that question....
Don't get me wrong there are alot of RI liberals who want Laffey to win the primary. Right now, incumbent Republicans senators are losing in PA, MO, MT, and OH. RI will seal the deal for them.
But let me warn you. When you find yourself agreeing with liberal Democrats, don't you even bother to ask yourself why?
Posted by: Anthony at August 4, 2006 1:52 PM1. Did we get lower taxes? Yes.
No thanks to Linc.
2. Did Bush's nominees get on the Supreme Court? Yes.
No thanks to Linc.
3. Did Chafee prevent either of these things from happening? No.
No, but he certainly isn't entitled to take CREDIT for those actions now in a feeble attempt to court the same republicans he's crapped all over for the last six years.
Posted by: Greg at August 4, 2006 2:01 PMGreg, not surprisngly you missed the point. None of those things would have happened if the Democrats controlled the Senate.
But hey, Laffey is 30+ behind in the polls, so it seems ridiculous to talk about. If you want to elect a Democrat, that's your right.
Posted by: Anthony at August 4, 2006 6:15 PM"If you want to elect a Democrat, that's your right."
Vote for Chafee and you're exercising your right to vote in a Democrat, too. Except Linc hasn't switched parties...yet. He's only threatened to do it every election since he's got into office.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/ussenate/2004-11-03-ri-chaffee_x.htm
Posted 11/3/2004
Sen. Chafee considers leaving GOP
PROVIDENCE (AP) — Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he would consider switching parties if President Bush is re-elected.
"I'm not ruling it out," Chafee told The Providence Journal.
Posted by: Greg at August 4, 2006 6:42 PMI think there is a grave underestimation of Laffey's ability to outmaneuver the polls.
First of all, I think Chafee is in trouble (he's showing signs of it) and will likely lose the primary.
Secondly, when the race between Laffey and Whitehouse really unfolds, Laffey will do to him what Carcieri pulled on Myrth Yorke. The problem I have, though, as a Republican is that Chafee's record is, as was mentioned above, more liberal then many Democrats in the Senate with an ACU rating of a measly 12 this year.
I will say, though, that were he to win against Laffey, I would, with deep reluctance, vote for him over Whitehouse. Though a wise old friend of mine once warned me that in the case of a liberal Republican in the US Senate, it takes 12 years to replace him with a true Republican, but only 6 for a Democrat, because you have to go through an additional election cycle to remove and replace the liberal Republican. Food for thought.
Posted by: Phe Propterhoc at August 4, 2006 7:32 PM"If you can't support the Republican Party, you should disaffiliate from the Republican Party because you're not a Republican."
That's one quote I think you'll soon regret. I support what the Republican Party stands for; not just pretending because of family tradition to share something in common with it. The way I look at it, as nice a guy as Chafee may be personally, he was never cut out to be in the Senate. He won in 2000, because of his father's name and out of total ignorance of what he stood for. We know where he stands now, and it's not with Republicans. We're simply correcting a mistake. You occassionally have to prune a shrub for it to flower.
There are a limited number of likely outcomes:
Scenerio #1: Laffey wins the primary and then the general election. Net positives = An actual Republican representing us in DC; one less liberal in DC.
Scenerio #2: Laffey wins the primary, but loses the general election. Net positive = message sent to RINOs all across the country that they may be next, if they don't change their neferious ways.
Scenerio #3: Laffey wins primary, but loses general election to Whitehouse. We've made an even exchange of one liberal for another. No big deal.
Scenerio #4: Chafee wins primary, but loses in the general election (which if Chafee does win his primary somehow, I honestly think this is the most likely result).
Scenerio #5: Chafee wins primary and general elections. Result: More of the same, which is to say, very little.
GOP Senator Dr. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who was here in RI a few weeks ago, quoted William Wallace from the movie Braveheart, saying "People follow strength, they don't follow kindness." That's as apt an analogy for Laffey vs. Chafee as I've heard, and underscores why I believe that Laffey will ultimately win the primary. Even I didn't realize that the Chafee family tree went that far back! :)
Posted by: Will at August 5, 2006 3:54 AMWill,
Your scenarios conveniently omit one of the most obvious situations. Strange, because every poll says it is statistically far more probable than your Scenario #1.
Scenario #6: Laffey wins the primary and loses to Whitehouse by 30 points in the general. The Democrats pick up MO, MT, PA, OH (where they are all currently ahead) and become the majority party with the help of Jeffords.
As a result, only certain judicial appointees will get confirmed by the Senate, so "Republican" jurists in the mold of Earl Warren, Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens are appointed. This is the best case scenario and assumes a Republican will win the presidency in '08. If a Democrat is elected, only the most liberal justices will be allowed through the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy. We see Roe v. Wade and Casey affirmed and the government gains more power through cases similar to Kelo.
The Senate then moves to repeal Bush's tax cuts as they are "fiscally irresponsible" and begins to pressure the President into withdrawing troops from the Middle East.
This pressure is applied by holding similar Senate hearings into the "illegal" activities of the Bush Administration in executing the War on Terror. As a result, al-Qaeda is emboldened just as they were after the U.S. response in Somalia.
Sound far-fetched? All of these goals have been publicly stated as being on the Democrat agenda should they regain control of the Senate.
But, hey you succeeded in sending a message to those moderates, right? Good for you.
Posted by: Anthony at August 5, 2006 8:36 AMAnthony,
Point well taken on the issue of so called Rhode Island Republicans acrtively working against their own to get Democrats elected.
Posted by: Tim at August 5, 2006 8:41 AMThese so called Republicans were behind the Dennis Michaud effort and are no doubt going to support Charlie Fogarty. This is why the Republican party in Rhode Island has never gotten off the ground. Far too many people in the ranks (John Holmes and the Bennett mob come to mind immediately) care more about their own self interest than in party growth and success.
As we've discussed in the past this is the very reason I will never join.
"As a result, only certain judicial appointees will get confirmed by the Senate, so "Republican" jurists in the mold of Earl Warren, Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens are appointed. This is the best case scenario and assumes a Republican will win the presidency in '08. If a Democrat is elected, only the most liberal justices will be allowed through the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy. We see Roe v. Wade and Casey affirmed and the government gains more power through cases similar to Kelo.
The Senate then moves to repeal Bush's tax cuts as they are "fiscally irresponsible" and begins to pressure the President into withdrawing troops from the Middle East.
This pressure is applied by holding similar Senate hearings into the "illegal" activities of the Bush Administration in executing the War on Terror. As a result, al-Qaeda is emboldened just as they were after the U.S. response in Somalia."
If Chafee is re-elected, we can count on him to support the Democrats in ALL of these situations. So what's the difference? Chafee has repeatedly said that, if his switching parties would be advantageous to the Democrats, he would flip and 'officially' become a Democrat. As it is now, he's 'unofficially' a Democrat. He votes with them, but his (R) counts toward the total that allows the Republicans to retain power.
If the Republicans lose enough seats in this election, Chafee WILL switch parties to create a tie or give the Dems power. He simply CANNOT be trusted to remain a Republican.
I fail to see how your scenario won't come to pass either way.
Posted by: Greg at August 5, 2006 10:31 AMFrom Greg's point, above, that IS the question facing Republicans in September. Do we, as Republicans, want an "unofficial Democrat" or a real Republican as our nominee to face the Democrat Whitehouse???
With all the pragmatism and various scenarios listed above, I think that is the paramount question. Everything else is a diversion.
By the way, Will, I like Tom Coburn's quote from "Braveheart's" William Wallace with regard to Laffey: "People follow strength, they don't follow kindness." It's an apt analogy and it is why Laffey won in Cranston in the first place.
Posted by: Chuck Nevola at August 5, 2006 12:12 PMGreg,
I've heard the "Chafee May Become A Democrat" thing for the past six years. It may work to raise money from the out-of-state Club for Growth crowd, but anyone familiar with RI politics knows its a red herring.
Although I won't be surprised if Chafee takes a harder line anti-Club for Growth appoach if he does get reelected.
Posted by: Anthony at August 5, 2006 1:12 PMUltimately, I believe it comes down to this:
Do we, as Republicans, want a party that stands for Constitutionalism and small goverment, or do we want power at any cost, including our own principles and beliefs, as long as the houses of government are controlled by guys with (R) after their name?
Chafee gives us the second scenario. I don't know if Laffey will be any better, and I'm certainly not enthusiastically supporting him, but I'd support a Del's lemonade if it ran against Linc at this point, just to get rid of that principally retarded hack who only GOT the job because the old people in this state didn't realize they weren't voting for his father.
Posted by: Greg at August 5, 2006 3:24 PMCoburn can quote away...doesn't take away the fact that without Chafee he may be out of committee chairmanships.
Posted by: cabot lodge at August 5, 2006 4:53 PMLaffey talks a good game about being the "real" conservative in this race, but he jacked up property taxes, giving Cranston the questionable distinction of having one of the highest tax rates in RI. The 20% spending increase he imposed on the city of Cranston doesn't really jibe with my idea of small government. But hey, maybe that's just me.
Posted by: Tabby at August 5, 2006 5:26 PMTabby,
The Democrats handed him a bag of garbage. Had he not raised taxes (I am an avid opponent of higher taxes), had he not done so, Cranston would be in ruins instead of having a top 100 rating with MONEY Magazine.
Tax rates, by the way, came down a little this year. It was somewhat obliterated - particularly on the eastern side of the city - by the obligatory revaluation. I know, I know. It was not much, but it was a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Chuck Nevola at August 5, 2006 6:32 PMChuck, I believe that government should generate just enough revenue to run well. My problem with Laffey is that he raised taxes far more than was needed to make Cranston fiscally stable. Taxes went up so much (the average Cranston family saw their tax bill go up $1000) Laffey generated a $20 million surplus. Even the Democrats on the city council wanted him to stop raising taxes.
And Chuck, you're right: the revaluation means Laffey can now say he lowered taxes, thus pacifying the Club for Growth while doing little to help overtaxed Cranston residents.
Posted by: Tabby at August 6, 2006 8:19 AMTabby,
The reason for needing to create a surplus, wasn't just that Laffey felt like raising taxes more than was absolutely necessary. It was necessary, first, because the democrats that had run the city into the ground had completely raided the "rainy day" fund, so there would be no buffer if something were to go wrong in the future.
Secondly, in order to get Cranston's bond rating raised, building a surplus was necessary. Ultimately, it makes it a lot cheaper in both the short and long term for the city to obtain credit, in order to meet short term obligations, as well as to finance long term projects. It also means, that in exchange for money raised up front, the less will be needed in the longer term, thus resulting in less necessity for future tax increases. It's short term pain in exchange for longer term fiscal health.
Again, all that shows is that Laffey is able to make tough decisions when necessary, without regard as to how it will benefit him politically.
Posted by: Will at August 7, 2006 1:50 AMAnthony,
If I may state it bluntly, what's the difference if Laffey loses the general election by 1 point or by 30 points? I think my Scenerios #2 and #3 cover those possibilities. If Laffey wins the primary, but loses the general election, we've simply exchanged one liberal for another, plus it has the side benefit of making Chafee an example to other RINOs across the country that his kind of behavior will not be tolerated. I really don't think his specific seat will be the deciding factor nationwide anyway. Nationally, we're either going to stay essentially were we are at, or we are going to take a mud bath and deserve every drop.
I'm not very concerned about polling data, especially as the Republican Primary is concerned. Either one of them could just as easily lose or win against Whitehouse (though for much different reasons, which I'm sure I'll cover in a latter post). All things being equal, I'd much rather have Laffey facing Whitehouse. At least there would be a substantive debate, from people of different backgrounds, with differing political philosophies and points of view; not just a bunch of "me too's."
Here's why I'm not willing to sacrifice adherence to principle for political pragmatism: If it came down to Chafee to be the "deciding" vote for control of the Senate, I DO NOT TRUST HIM whatsoever to remain as a member of the Republican Party in his second term. If he somehow did remain as a member of the party, I am convinced that he would hold the possibility of "jumping ship" over the Republican Party's head for the entire six years of his second term (like he did before). I'm not willing to give to what sounds an awful lot like extortion, in order to retain power at all costs. I just can't do it.
Doing anything and everything in order to hold onto power, including chucking your principles out the window for the sake of retaining it, is too high a price to pay. To quote a great philosopher, "not gonna do it... wouldn't be prudent... not at this juncture."
Posted by: Will at August 7, 2006 2:20 AMHi!
Posted by: Scott Bill Hirst at August 7, 2006 11:08 AMI will vote for Laffey and take the consequences!I like Linc Chafee and he gave me moral support when I opposed "Big Boxes" on Exit#1 in Hopkinton when I was a Town Council member in my town.I am seeking to return to the town council this year.I served previously from 1996 to 2004,.
The Governor did not even contact me.
Steve Laffey not only gave me moral support but allowed use of his name on my alternate slate of delegates and alternate delegates to the 2004 Republican National convention at large voted by the 2004 Rhode Island Republican State Convention.Wew lost I but appreciate that support.
Regards,
Scott
Hi!
Posted by: Scott Bill Hirst at August 7, 2006 11:08 AMI will vote for Laffey and take the consequences!I like Linc Chafee and he gave me moral support when I opposed "Big Boxes" on Exit#1 in Hopkinton when I was a Town Council member in my town.I am seeking to return to the town council this year.I served previously from 1996 to 2004,.
The Governor did not even contact me.
Steve Laffey not only gave me moral support but allowed use of his name on my alternate slate of delegates and alternate delegates to the 2004 Republican National convention at large voted by the 2004 Rhode Island Republican State Convention.We lost I but appreciate that support.
Regards,
Scott