Makes sense to me. Linc needs voters who relate more to Howard Dean, not Liddy Dole. The conservatives have already turned their back on him.

Marc,

The "now and November" phrasing makes me think about a 3rd possibility: Dole is telegraphing that she won't be helping Laffey in the general, should he win the primary.

But that would be 'cutting off their nose to spite their face' for the Republicans.

"Our candidate didn't win, so we won't support the running Republican and will instead sit out the race and willingly lose the seat"

Sounds far-fetched for a party already seriously looking at returning to minority status

Astute point Andrew, and contrary to the impression that the Washington Times' Don Lambro had as he told Dan Yorke earlier this week when posed the question of whether the Nat'l GOP would support Laffey should he defeat Chafee.

"Lambro said they'd support him, but the depth of that support will be interesting. Given the controversy over tacit GOP support for Lieberman in CT, he doesn't think they'd be to keen on NOT supporting Laffey. In short, he thinks the national GOP would support Laffey if he should win the primary."

Maybe not Elizabeth Dole, though!

West is right. It wouldn't make any sense for Dole to come to RI on behalf of Chafee. She is a conservative and Chafee is looking for independents.

I had to laugh when I saw the skew to the comment "Dole Giving Up on Chafee", though . That tag only works if "giving up" is defined as spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a person's behalf. One could only be so fortunate has to be "given up" on!

As for the NRSC supporting Laffey if he should win the primary, you guys really are drinking the Kool-Aid.

I mean I'm sure that Bill Frist wouldn't have more important things to do than to work on behalf of the guy who gave to his Democrat opponent and is behind 30 points in a Democrat state like RI.....

No doubt that the NRSC would issue a perfunctory press release saying "The NRSC endorses Steve Laffey" and then move on to the viable races.

"I mean I'm sure that Bill Frist wouldn't have more important things to do than to work on behalf of the guy who gave to his Democrat opponent and is behind 30 points in a Democrat state like RI..... "

And of course we can't count on the pseudo-conservatives like you to support Laffey if he wins the primary despite your natural assumption that we'd support the liberal just because he's stenciled an (R) next to his name.

Thanks for not disappointing me Anthony, I made that slanted headline just for you! Glad you enjoyed it! It's probably the first time I've ever done something deliberately to evoke a response from a particular commenter, and it worked....ah, the power!

Marc,
Glad I could oblige. I've gotten used to the overt bias, but it's OK. I figure that my posts piss off more of the non-thinking people on this blog than your's do...so I am left with a feeling of self-satisfaction anyway.

I love how Anti-liberal Republican = non-thinking. I'm proud to be part of the non-thinking crowd.

No, Greg, unlike many of the so-called Republicans on this blog who whine that they'll just sit the election out if Chafee wins the primary, I'd actually vote for Laffey in the general election.

I think that sitting out an election because your guy loses the primary is the adult equivalent of a whiny little kid taking his ball and going home because he's not good enough to hold his own in the game. I didn't like those types of brats when I was a kid and I don't like them now.

In fact, I've answered that way in some of the telephone polls that I've taken.

So yes, when Steve Laffey looks at his numbers and sees that the polls are showing him 30 points behind Whitehouse in the general election, he should be thanking me. Without my responses, the polls might be showing him down by 31 points.....

So now Greg, let me ask you. What are you going to do if Chafee wins the primary?

Okay, I'm not letting this slip by...

"Elizabeth Dole has good credibility on the right, (but) Chafee is pursuing independent voters now more than Republican voters," West said."

Liddy Dole has next to no credibility on the right. If you read anywhere as close to as much as I do, you would agree with that assessment. If she did, the NRSC would not be way behind its democratic counterpart by a factor of anywhere from 2-to-1 to 3-to-1.

I'm sure anyone to the right of Rudy Guiliani is considered a "right winger," to Darrell "I'm a Leftist" West, but nationally, she's got major problems. She's going to be replaced after the elections anyway, so there's no incentive for her to put more effort into a lost cause.

The RNC and the NRSC will support Laffey after the primary, because they will have no other choice. Right now, they, as well as we, do have a choice. After Laffey wins the primary, they will do this (even if reluctantly) if they are truly serious about their drumbeat about keeping the "Republican Majority." It's as simple as that.

"So now Greg, let me ask you. What are you going to do if Chafee wins the primary?"

I've repeatedly admitted that I cannot support a RINO.

Nice implication there, Anthony...I hope that I'm not supposed to infer that since my posts appeal to the "non-thinkers" that the contents of what I post is non-thinking. Much of what I post is meant to prompt discussion and be thought (or comment) provoking.

I suppose it's time for the quarterly, where-does-Marc-stand commentary. I've made no bones about the fact that I prefer Laffey over Chafee. However,lest you forget, I long ago posted about how I'm often uncomfortable with Laffey's "populist" rhetoric and have misgivings about how his political style will translate in the Senate. That being said, in this race, I agree with him on the issues much more than I do Sen. Chafee.

However, I hope it's been plain that I'll vote for whomever wins the GOP primary over The Picnic Man. No matter who the GOP puts up, they will be--even if only marginally--better than the Democrat alternative.

Personally, I can't vote based on some grand political stratedy (ie; GOP may lose the Senate if I don't hold my nose and vote for Chafee in the primary, yada yada). Instead, I, like most people I think, want to vote FOR someone based on general agreement on the issues, not because of predicted POSSIBLE political ramificiations.

Dear Anthony,

Without my responses, it would be 32.

Marc, not at all.

My "non-thinker" comment wasn't aimed at anyone specifically and it has nothing to do with political parties or ideology.

I'll take a stab at defining some attributes of non-thinkers:

-They are followers. Deep down they want to be told what to believe and do by a Type A personality. After all, it's just easier the easier way to live life, right?

-They don't do well with ambiguities. They prefer clearly defined, pre-analyzed packets of information as opposed to developing an opinion through analyzing raw information. They watch CNN Headline News but would never watch C-SPAN.

-They may have passionate beliefs, but the emotions associated with their beliefs cause them to analyze the world based on the way they would like the world to be, not how it really is.

Those are a few attributes.

There are some thinking Laffey supporters and there are some non-thinking Laffey supporters.
But from what I've noticed, my posts draw the most virulent reactions from the non-thinking Laffey supporters.

I value the intellectual discourse with the thinkers, but I have to admit, the strong emotional reactions from the non-thinkers provide me with a perverse source of entertainment.

Why else do you think I post so often?

My only fear is that after the election everyone might agree on everything....

Oh wait, I just saw Greg's "no matter what I can't support a RINO" post.....I may be good through November....

"-They are followers. Deep down they want to be told what to believe and do by a Type A personality. After all, it's just easier the easier way to live life, right?

-They don't do well with ambiguities. They prefer clearly defined, pre-analyzed packets of information as opposed to developing an opinion through analyzing raw information. They watch CNN Headline News but would never watch C-SPAN.

-They may have passionate beliefs, but the emotions associated with their beliefs cause them to analyze the world based on the way they would like the world to be, not how it really is. "

Good GOD, man. You've done an exceptional job of defining Lincoln Chafee!

>>I think that sitting out an election because your guy loses the primary is the adult equivalent of a whiny little kid taking his ball and going home because he's not good enough to hold his own in the game.

Not all of us are Laffey accolytes.

Even if Laffey had never run I'd still not vote for Chafee in a primary.

And for taking that position I'm not the one who is disloyal to Republicanism (though perhaps to the existing powers controlling the Party), Chafee is the one who has been (and will continue to be) disloyal to Republicanism.

AFTER ALL, WOULD IT BE DISLOYAL FOR A NE PATRIOT TO "VOTE OFF" THE TEAM SOMEONE WHO DELIBERATELY KEEPS PASSING THE BALL TO THE OPPOSING TEAM????

>>Even if Laffey had never run I'd still not vote for Chafee in a primary.

OOPS - I meant to say "I still would not vote for Chafee in a general."

Greg,
I don't think Chafee is a follower at all and he certainly doesn't blindly follow Type A personalities.

I also don't think he relies on pre-packaged information.

If anything Chafee gets criticized for bucking the leadership and spending too much time overanalyzing information.

And Tom, it's because of people like you that Republicans will never have the majority in RI.

Well, actually it's because of people like you COMBINED with RI Democrats who are willing to accept pro-life, pro-Second Amendment candidates into their ranks that prevents Republicans from getting the majority.

But don't worry, I understand your message, which is all you're trying to do anyway right? Send a message?

Now that we all know your message, we can all go back to paying our overinflated taxes.

>And Tom, it's because of people like you that Republicans will never have the majority in RI.

No Anthony, it's because of people like you who don't have the courage of Republican convictions sufficient to believe that the people of RI will embrace Republican convictions when give the opportunity and reasonable messengers to articulate them ... and you belief that so instead we must offer slightely watered-down Democrat philosophy with "R" labels glued on.

Then how come they elected Don Carcieri? If Rhode Islanders will reflexively disdain Republican principles they'd have never voted for the (relatively) conservative rich ex-CEO whose initial campaign ads said that the General Assembly is the problem and that he'd take it on (which by your conventional wisdom should have nipped his candidacy in the bud since everyone likes the present General Assembly because it provides "state jobs" to friends and family).

Anthony, under your scenario, why even have a "Republican Party?"

I have to agree with Tom. Republicans will never have a majority here, as long as we continue to "settle" for what crumbs the Democrats here are willing to throw our way, in exchange for our continued irrelevance. We don't need Democratic wolves in Republican sheep's clothing.

As Marc stated, regardless of affiliation, most people instinctively want to vote "for" something tangible, not do it because they fear something intangible. The vast majority of people are not going to vote based on what amounts to a giant chess game. People just don't do that.

PS I have not made up my mind, nor will I close it, in regard to whom to vote for in the general election, unless I am FORCED into considering that alternative. Right now, I'm not worrying about that, because I'm content to vote my conscience, based on the issues that I believe in.

I'm another vote for agreeing with Tom. He's dead on.

Tom,
Don Carcieri's supporters ranged the gamut in political philosophies. He had just as almost as many Democrats supporting him as Republicans and embodied the "big tent" concept.

Look back at his campaign. His campaign chair was David Duffy, one of Jack Reed's friends. His campaign finance chair was James Rosati, a Democrat that Sundlun first appointed to the Airport Commission. One of his key advisors was Richard Oster, a big-time donor to the Democrats.

He didn't win because he narrowly construed his concept of "Republican". Just the opposite.

>>Don Carcieri's supporters ranged the gamut in political philosophies. He had just as almost as many Democrats supporting him as Republicans and embodied the "big tent" concept.

Which is the point. The Republicans - advocating Republican-compatible proposals if they get a majority in the General Assembly - could reduce the Democrats in this state into minority status. For example:

1) Hang 'em on their decades-long (and continuing) culture of corruption - an add showing all of the faces and names in sequence comes to mind, up to and including Patrick Lynch - with a tagline something like "is this really the Party of 'working families?'"

Drive a wedge between the Democrats / unions and voters (particularly seniors and parents), turning Democrat support (really ownership by) by unions from an advantage to an albatross around their collectivist necks by ...

2) What I call the "Lottery Promise Restoration Act" - 100% of all lottery / gambling proceeds should be pulled away from the General Assembly and distributed (on a per capita ratio) to each city and town for property tax relief.

3) Discuss the outrageous state / municipal pensions - and the mutli-billion dollar unfunded liability - and propose freezing pension vesting and converting all state / municipal employees to a 401(k) with a private-sector level match.

4) Declare that since they were allowed to come here in 1966, teacher unions have proven to be a disaster for taxpayers and, more importantly, "the children" - stirkes, work-to-rule, protection of mediocrity can no longer be tolerated as we are now competing in a global economy. Therefore the permission by the General Assembly for the teachers unions to be in RI will be withdrawn - no more teachers unions in RI.

Talk about bright-line differences between Republicans and Democrats! Talk about things that would appeal to every "non-state worker" voter, particularly seniors!

Alas, the RIGOP has neither the desire, will or requisite cajones.

Tom, if you're looking for political Armegeddon here, let's bring it, just to see what happens.
Plenty of union members vote Republican (and enjoy the rights and rewards of membership), contrary to what those in power tell us. When these people see their livelihoods on the line, they'll have to make some difficult choices - what do you do when the party you believe in is trying to take food off your family's table?

Yes, most (and their immediate family members) would vote in what they perceive to be their financial self-interest.

But on the "hard edged" side, picking up the senior vote and others sick of ever-rising taxes funneled e.g., to the teachers unions would vastly outnumber the loss of "state worker" votes.

On a softer side, nobody is saying that government employees should not receive a competitive (with the private sector) compensation package.

But public sector compensation -particularly pensions / health care - is way out of whack, indeed "exploitive" of the private sector taxpayers who fund it. I believe that even many public sector employees realize this and see the writing on the wall that something will have to give.

This will become more widespread when the new accounting rules kick in and the state / municipalities have to start calculating and publicly disclosing the unfunded liability they have accrued for those benefits.

(At the RI state level it is estimated to be something just under a $5 BILLION undunded liability for retiree benefits).

There are just as many people who think seniors get too big a piece of the pie - if younger folks ever start voting in the numbers they should, we could have ourselves a really good fight (and the kids won't back unions because they've grown up hearing about how evil they are LOL).

Dear Anthony,

That was 4 years ago. Nobody on our side buys him any more.

The Democratic good 'ol boys (including Whitehouse) bought The Don in '02 because they feared and loathed Myrth York. The good 'ol boys are not liberal.