WOW!!!! -- I just started follwing the race after seeing several spots on the national news and the debates on C-SPANS -- the media has protrayed Laffey as an underdog - is this poll valid? Are there any other polls? I'll be catching up by reading some of the others issues have highlighted on thsi wonderfull website

If the press release said that 63% of those polls were Republicans and 37% were Independnets, and that Chafee led among Independents by 43% to 41% but trailed among all voters with 34% to Laffey's 51%, then Laffey must lead among Republicans 67% to 33%.

Anthony, your thoughts??

Jeff,
Ahh, it's an honor to hear that people are waiting to hear what I have to say, but my position (unlike some of Laffey's), hasn't changed in the past fews days.

I'll re-post what I said recently about the polls that showed Chafee ahead and apply it to this poll as well:

"I didn't criticize the ACCURACY of Fleming's, Rasmussen's or West's numbers because they released their entire polls. I did question the EFFICACY of polling in the primary because even if you have an accurate poll, you still have to pin-point likely voters which is difficult if this race has 50,000 or more voters."

I would put this poll in the same category as Fleming's Rasmussen's and West's. I don't question the RIC's poll's accuracy (at least they released the questions), but I still question its efficacy of it in predicting the race's outcome. Everything will depend on whose voters show up and whose campaign techniques worked better.

If the Chafee campaign has done their job, they will have ID'd their supporters and will get them to the polls. Likewise for the Laffey campaign.

I still believe that more Rhode Islanders support Chafee than Laffey and my conclusion is still the same: Chafee SHOULD win, but Laffey COULD win.

Other than that, I still believe Laffey can't win the general, so that view hasn't changed.

The debates and Chafee's negative ads have provided Laffey with the momentum.

I agree with Anthony. One must take polls - particularly polls of primaries - with lots of salt. I do think, though, that the trend is directionally correct, and it is due to recent events - Chafee's unfortunate choice to go with nasty ads, and the perception of the viewers (not the talking heads) of the debates.

I agree with Anthony on this one. There is simply no way to gauge what the turnout in this primary is going to be. The difference between 25,000 people turning out and 50,000 people turning out could be the difference between a ten point win for Laffey or a ten point win for Chafee. What it all comes down to now is which candidate has the better GOTV program in place.

Personally, I think this poll may help Chafee (hear me out). Laffey's supporters are going to vote for him even if a category 5 hurricane descends upon Rhode Island on September 12th, whereas Chafee's supporters are not your typical primary voter and are less likely to turn out unless the Chafee camp gets them out. This poll may light a fire under the Chafee supporters and make them realize that Chafee doesn't have this wrapped up by any stretch, and they need to vote for him on the 12th.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.

There is a trade exchange called Tradesports (www.tradesports.com) that takes action on anything from Hamas' recognition of Israel by Dec 06 (5.3bid/5.9ask) to the Patriots football game.

For what its worth they have a governors race at GOP 60bid-70ask, DEM 30-40. The Senate staying GOP took a dive on Aug 5th and is just now bouncing back up to 29/34. DEM is at 65/72 up from the 35/45 range it had since January.

There is a trade exchange called Tradesports (www.tradesports.com) that takes action on anything from Hamas' recognition of Israel by Dec 06 (5.3bid/5.9ask) to the Patriots football game.

For what its worth they have the governors race at GOP 60bid-70ask, DEM 30-40. The Senate staying GOP took a dive on Aug 5th and is just now bouncing back up to 29/34. DEM is at 65/72 up from the 35/45 range it had since January.

Hayden,
I agree with your assessment that this may serve to motivate Chafee voters to vote in the primary, but it only works if Chafee's campaign knows who the independent Chafee voters are. I would assume that this canvassing has already been done.

Chafee should do four things:

1. Get a mail piece out the door before the election from Bill Frist and/or Laura Bush that directly addresses Rhode Island Republicans. Something like "I need Lincoln Chafee in the US Senate. I understand that you may have reservations because he sometimes votes with Democrats, but without Linc Chafee we will lose the majority that Republicans all over the country have worked so hard. Losing the majority would lead to increased taxes and activist judges on the Supreme Court. I'm personally asking you to set aside your differences and support the re-election of Linc Chafee to the US Senate."

2. Get a mail piece out the door from Don Carcieri to registered Republicans asking them to vote for Chafee that says having Laffey on the ticket only hurts Carcieri's chances against Fogarty.

3. Go on the air with a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani ad.

4. Most important, work the GOTV effort with unaffiliated voters.

This is going to be a fun one!

Anthony,
That post of yours @ 5:45 could only have been written by someone who knows they are losing.

I could not disagree more with Anthony's points.

Chafee lost the battle when he went negative....last year.

He's run the campaign as if he was the challenger from day one. That two polls could be so offbase is quite shocking. The RIC pollster probably has nothing to prove but one has to wonders of the NRSC is trying to pump Chafee up to make Laffey, appear unelectable.

Jim,
Not at all. I said today, as I've said in the past, that this will come down to turnout (see my post above) and that the polls, while they may be accurate are not necessarily an effective way of predicting outcome in this race.

What this poll does tell me, assuming it's accurate, is that if neither Chafee or Laffey engages in a GOTV effort, Laffey wins. Does this mean Laffey will win? Of course not, because both Chafee and Laffey are going to have GOTV efforts.

Don't get me wrong, if I had a choice I would rather have Chafee ahead before the GOTV effort.

But my point is that there are some things in addition to the GOTV effort that Chafee can do to gain ground with the undecideds and with the weak lean-Laffey voters many of whom apparently only moved in the past couple weeks. RI Republicans have every reason in the world to vote for Chafee. They just need to be reminded.

Anthony,

What I don't think I've ever heard from you, with the exception of 'because he's electable' is WHY you're a Chafee supporter. Do you really, honestly believe in anything he's done in the last six years?

Greg,
I think I've been very up-front about where I stand.

I disagree with Chafee on taxes, abortion, his vote against Alito and some matters of foreign policy.

I agree with Chafee on his environmental efforts, trade and certain areas of foreign policy.

In the end, I'm a Chafee supporter for the same reason that liberal Democrats are opposing him:

Chafee is a vote for the Republican Senate majority from a deep blue state and while it may seem strange, without him the Democrats might very well have the majority and we'd all be left with higher taxes and liberal Supreme Court justices.

First of all, anyone in the Laffey camp who complains about negative advertising is a hypocrite. You are supporting a man who called his opponents "pigs" and "dupes."

Second, I'm curious to hear a few denunciations of Ann Coulter's latest. She said that [JW Booth]"shot the wrong Lincoln." Do we approve of calls for the assasination of a sitting Senator? What do you say, Laffey camp? Is this the sort of support you're gathering?

First of all, anyone in the Laffey camp who complains about negative advertising is a hypocrite. You are supporting a man who called his opponents "pigs" and "dupes."

Second, I'm curious to hear a few denunciations of Ann Coulter's latest. She said that [JW Booth]"shot the wrong Lincoln." Do we approve of calls for the assasination of a sitting Senator? What do you say, Laffey camp? Is this the sort of support you're gathering?

First of all, anyone in the Laffey camp who complains about negative advertising is a hypocrite. You are supporting a man who called his opponents "pigs" and "dupes."

Second, I'm curious to hear a few denunciations of Ann Coulter's latest. She said that [JW Booth]"shot the wrong Lincoln." Do we approve of calls for the assasination of a sitting Senator? What do you say, Laffey camp? Is this the sort of support you're gathering?

Sorry about the double post....

more like triple post. But, who's counting?

I think Laffey has gone way too negative as well. But, in my opinion a negative campaign hurts the incumbent more than the challenger. When an incumbent goes negative it signals to voters that the incumbent may not be as strong as we think.

Consider Whitehouse, who's cruising along with positive ads staying 'above the fray.' I think both Laffey and Chafee are making errors by going too negative.

Ultimately however, I think it hurts Chafee more than Laffey in the short run.

"I agree with Chafee on his environmental efforts, trade and certain areas of foreign policy."

Could you elaborate? Possibly cite an initiative of his, or a meaningful bill passed into law that he's sponsored? Otherwise your argument is "He's an (R)" all the wile chosing to forget that he votes like a (D) and promised to flip to their party if it became politically advantageous for him to do so*.

* http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/ussenate/2004-11-03-ri-chaffee_x.htm

Greg,
Sure. Chafee was the leading proponent of brownfields legislation. It wouldn't have passed without his efforts. He sponsored the amendment to CERCLA that provided relief to small businesses across the country.

He voted for CAFTA and in favor of promoting free trade agreement with several Latin American countries despite the opposition of US protectionists.

Chafee voted to expand NATO to include Eastern European countries and to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

He voted to require the reduction of dependence on foreign oil by 40% instead of 5% by the year 2025 and to put 100,000 hydrogen cars on the road by 2010. Laffey talks about the dangers of foreign oil dependence, Chafee has actually helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Chafee sponsored the Innocence Protection Act which promotes the use of DNA in criminal investigations. You might remember the project in Illinois were it was discovered several people were on death row incorrectly? This would reduce the possibilty and save human lives. I think this is important for the same reason that I disagree with Chafee on abortion.

Chafee supports school vouchers. He voted to cap medical malpractice suits that enriches trial lawyers and causes the shortage of doctors in many parts of the country.

I disagree with his opposition to Bush's tax cuts, but his agreement to repeal the capital gain tax cut--one of the things that CFG so frequently criticizes him about00was contingent upon that $45B being spent to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a war that Chafee opposed, but has voted in favor of funding to ensure troops have the best equipment. I have trouble criticizing him for this tax cuts as easily as CFG does. But we as Americans don't want to sacrifice, do we?

Politically, I'm probably closer to Steve Laffey than Linc Chafee. But the tar and feathering of Chafee as "just another Democrat" isn't true at all. It's easy to get your news from the mainstream media and then place labels like "RINO" on Chafee without bothering to really research and educate yourself about a senator's voting record. I understand that.

But please don't try to convince me that Linc Chafee is Ted Kennedy. I've done my own research and know better.

And we'll all know better when Ted Kennedy become chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course, by then it will be too late.

Klaus -

There is a big difference between the pundits such as Coulter putting out their witty satire and the political organizations with publicly noted financial sponsorship of a candidate spewing lies and deceit for their own self-interest. BIG DIFFERENCE!

As for the Laffey negativity, it is amazing to hear how facts about Chafee's ineffectiveness and therefore irrelevance based upon documented votes (or lack thereof) somehow concoct the image of negativity. Laffey is not afraid to talk about what is broken in the system and how he will fix it. If you happen to favor those that have contributed to the broken system, then maybe I can see how you might disagree.

But to try to compare factual, documented voting histories with the exploitation of taking comments (old people) and state-mandated situations (raising taxes in Cranston) and distorting them to the general public is abhorrent. The good news is Linc thinks like you folks and that is why he cannot connect with those that want lower taxes, limited government, secure borders, and accountability.

Tim2

Oh, what's the matter Klaus; you can't stand a little political satire? Are you that pathetically politically correct? Are you so incapable of taking this for what it is? I would not disavow Ann Coulter's remarks, particularly since I know how they infuriate left winger's like you.

klaus:

Nice job on the triple.

J Mahn

PS. The last time I talked to Ann she asked me to tell you that she still remembers the night you got drunk and threw up all over yourself.

I loved the new Ann Coulter piece - for what it was -- political satire. Loosen up.

(On a related note, I've often wondered if Chafee would have voted to censure or impeach his "namesake" President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, when the civil war wasn't quite going our way -- or for suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus?)! Thank god he wasn't, otherwise you'd be eating chit'lins right now!

"Losing the majority would lead to increased taxes and activist judges on the Supreme Court." -- so we should re-elect someone who strongly supports increased taxes and activist judges (with a Litmus Test, too)???

"Chafee supports school vouchers."

This is 100% FALSE. Chafee has said publicly, more than once, that he's against vouchers and school choice, especially where it might involve, God forbid (pun intended), parochial schools -- they might teach them things like "Thou shalt not kill"! Why do you think Laffey is always digging at him for being able to go to elite private schools, while he doesn't support the underprivleged being able to have that same choice?

As for polls, while I really don't put stock in any of them, as it pertains to trying to obtain a truly accurate prediction of the 9/12 Republican Primary here, the only real thing that I think should be worth noting about it at all, has to do with only one word: MOMENTUM. Laffey has it; Chafee doesn't. A 17% upward spike is "real," regardless of the precise number. Two weeks away from the primary is a better time to have momentum on your side, than let's say, in March.

PS "Do you know what day primary day is"? You've got to be kidding! That sets the bar so low, I'm wondering about what they'll ask them next "do you know how to connect the little arrows on the ballot"?

Will,
No Will, it's not 100% false. You'd just like to believe that. Once again, I suggest you go back and actually look at Chafee's record rather than rely on 30 sound bites.

Chafee has said that he opposes school choice as applied to PRIVATE schools. He supports school choice and has voted to allow parents to use equal opportunity scholarships (ie: VOUCHERS) for any publicly-funded school. He has also voted to support teacher testing and implement merit-based pay for teachers.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Lincoln_Chafee_Education.htm

Chafee believes that an E. Providence kid should be able to go to a better public school system like Barrington. What you're criticizing him for is for not allowing vouchers to be used for that same E. Providence kid to go to Providence Country Day instead.

Bottom Line: Chafee supports introducing competition into the US educational system.

"Politically, I'm probably closer to Steve Laffey than Linc Chafee."

But you're supporting Linc because 'he can win'. Wow. Way to be principled.

Will,
Judging by the NRSC poll taken after the debate, Chafee has the momentum. Judging by the RIC poll, Laffey has the momenutm.

Nobody really knows and it's going to come down to turnout.

Greg,
I know. How silly of me to support someone who will help keep the Republican Senate majority when I could support someone who will help the Democrats take over.

How silly of you to sell your soul for power. Why would I question that?

Greg, I'm voting for the guy who stands the best chance of implementing my principles by keeping a Republican majority.

How silly of you to sell your soul for vanity, helping on Laffey on his self-aggrandizing run which he stands no chance of winning.

Will,
One other quick comment. The "Do you know the primary date" question is question typically used to help identify likely voters in tight races. Don't worry about "setting the bar low", the point of asking this question isn't to demostrate the intelligence of the respondents.

Many times respondents will say they are likely to vote because that want don't want to admit that they aren't going to really vote. Statistics show that voters who can give the date of an election have a high correlation to those who actually do vote in an election.

I think that was the point of the NRSC mentioning it, even though it wasn't fully explained.

As for me, I'm shaking my Magic 8-Ball right now.....

"Greg, I'm voting for the guy who stands the best chance of implementing my principles by keeping a Republican majority. "

Sure. Unless it becomes a 51/40 Republican majority and Linc bolts the party as he's promised in the past. Then you'll have reaped the wind.

Vouchers ONLY for public schools.

You call that a choice?

go back to the NEARI/Chafee joint operations center and rethink that one

Gee, roadrunner, you don't want to get to choose between crappy, crowded, union-run public schools stuffed with kids that are legally required to be there but whom have no interest in learning?

What do you want? A chance for the underprivledged to be able to get out of the poverty cycle by getting a world-class education at a private school? Who do you think you are?!

Yes, I do call it a choice. Why?

Because I believe that greatest influence on a child's education is his or her parents. Not teacher salaries and not whether the school happens to be private or public.

The students in East Greenwich and Barrington public schools outscore most of the state's private schools. Why? Because the parents of the kids who go to school there are often professionals who are concerned about their kids' educations.

Your comments seem to say that public schools CAN'T offer a quality education, which is just wrong. If that were the case, you can bet that Steve Laffey wouldn't be sending most of his kids to public schools. Unless Laffey doesn't care about his kids' education..?

The problem lies with the underperforming public schools. You have parents who care about their kids' education who have to send their kids to schools where the vast majority of the parents don't care at all about education. These school tend to be in places like Providence, Woonsocket and Pawtucket, not Barrington and East Greenwich.

That is the real problem and Chafee recognizes that. By the way, I think Chafee's NEA approval is only 55%. That's not exactly an overwhelming union endorsement particularly when compared to Sheldon Whitehouse, who supports increased teacher pay and opposes all forms of school choice, vouchers and performance testing.

But once again, you would rather have Ted Kennedy become chair of Health Education and Labor than have Mike Enzi chair the committee. Gee, that will get you what you want.

"Because I believe that greatest influence on a child's education is his or her parents. Not teacher salaries and not whether the school happens to be private or public."

I would say that whether the teacher cares enough to really teach, or just read from the book matters more.

And whether the kid is worried about getting knifed in the hallway after class.

And is that kid getting distracted by the water dripping from the ceiling because we can't afford to fix the infrastructure because we have to pay more and more money for the teacher's healthcare.

Having mommy's who care is important. But the mommy can 'care' all she wants but if the quality of education isn't up to par, all the caring in the world won't accomplish spit.

I do love your Chafee talking points, though. Way to read from the playbook.

Laffey and Chafee will be on Sunday morning with George Stephanopoulos.

"Laffey and Chafee will be on Sunday morning with George Stephanopoulos."

His handlers just don't get it do they? Every time Chafee opens his mouth without being tightly scripted he loses supporters when they wake up and realize he's a very liberal.

Greg,
Yes, because kids in Barrington and East Greenwich go to school every day worrying about whether they are going to get knifed...

Is that really the best you can come up with? That public schools in places like East Greenwich and Barrington are violent and falling apart?

I flat out disagree with you.

I also stand by my statement that parental involvement has a greater influence on a child's development than who a child has teaching them for a year. But it's convenient to blame someone else, isn't it?

For the record, Chafee also voted to spend money school infrastructure as well. But Chafee was criticized for this vote because 'some people' considered this to be "pork".

I do appreciate your comment because you just wrote a perfect statement in support of the Chafee's, not Laffey's, position.

On top of it, you believe that teachers carry more responsiblity for a child's development than parents. You're more of a RINO on education than Chafee!

Better go back and do a better job of mindlessly memorizing what you're supposed to say.

HINT: Domestic spending on education infrastructure and technology is opposed by CFG and most pro-TABOR groups.

Here, go with this: If you cut expenditures on 'bricks and mortar' infrastructure for schools, you can redirect those funds to fund private school vouchers, thus giving parents--who are the most important people in a child's development--the power to have greater control over their child's education. Spending money on school infrastructure is just another way to give money to union tradesmen.

Greg, now that I've told you what you believe, you can now repeat it to others at the next CFG conference and get nods of admiring approval. If you go in there with what you're saying now, you might be ostracized.

No need to thank me, but tell Pat Toomey that I say hello. He knows all about pubic schools. He used to pass them on his way to LaSalle every morning.....

Here's a crazy idea.

Cut my friggin federal taxes. Stop federally funding schools altogether and let the local and state goverments do their jobs and raise those funds via their own taxes.

Give them back control of curriculum and staffing.

Ditch the moronic "No Child Left behind" plan.

Let states let teachers teach this generation with the same quality that OUR generation was taught.

Then, maybe, we won't NEED to send our kids to private schools because the public schools won't be a trainwreck.

By the way, why am I the guy
who has to tell Laffey supporters their talking points? Isn't Nachama Soloveichik getting paid to do that?

Greg, you may have a point. Because I know I'd trust the RI General Assembly to do a great job of teaching my kids and funding the schools.....

You don't supporting legalizing marijuana too, do you?

"You don't supporting legalizing marijuana too, do you?"

Yes, I do. Any constitutionalist who truly believes that government should leave its people alone would believe that we should have the right to injest any substance we want into our own bodies.

They'd also support gay marriage. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us?

For those who missed it, the nefarious CFG has endorsed Chris Chocola for Congress in Indiana.

I mention this for the very important reason that I used to like Count Chocula cereal.

I will only support Chocola if he pledges to bring back Count Chocula.

I encourage everyone to e-mail him at:

chris@chocolaforcongress.com

and urge Congressman Chocola to bring back Count Chocula from the dead.

Anthony,

Count Chocula is still available.

http://www.amazon.com/Count-Chocula-Cereal-10-75-Ounce-Boxes/dp/B000FIMVUE/sr=8-1/qid=1157137650/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7095865-0685667?ie=UTF8&s=grocery

Whew, crisis averted....

>>Chafee has said that he opposes school choice as applied to PRIVATE schools. He supports school choice and has voted to allow parents to use equal opportunity scholarships (ie: VOUCHERS) for any publicly-funded school.

That's about like saying you can have any color car you want, but the car must be a Yugo.

The presence of the teachers unions guarantees that all public schools are mediocre - some just look better than others thanks to the demographics coming in the door.

Also, that kind of "choice" is a false choice because there will still be no choice. Do you think that Barrington or East Greenwich will build additional schools to accommodate the kids from Providence? Get real.

I'm way late to the party on this, but a few comments are in order.

First, if I find calling for the assasination of a US gov't official (satire? right....)is flat wrong. I thought you guys were the moral ones? I'd love to see the reaction if someone said something similar about Bush. And if saying this makes me uptight or PC, then I'm guilty as charged and proud of it. I know, it's not "manly" as you boys define it. But a real man doesn't have to act tough all the time to cover up insecurities.

Bottom line is that Ann Coulter is not funny. Her 'humor' is a very thin cover for some very loathsome opinions. Like when Rush calls Hillary a murderer.

Second, Laffey used the words "pigs" and "dupes" himself, in open public forum. He uttered the line about the old people dying soon. Why is it OK for him to say these things, but not OK to remind people that he said them?

Finally, I loved the personal attacks. How I got drunk and threw up on myself. Really classy. And I'm oh-so devastated!. You've (sniff) hurt my poor little PC feelings! But if I did puke, it's because Ann made me really sick. So can you do a bit better next time? Or just dispense with the ad hominem?

klaus:

Are you admitting you puked?

Hey folks, I think he just admittted he puked.

J Mahn

Tom W., I'll ask the same question to you. Do you think Portsmouth Abbey or Providence Country Day would build more schools to accomodate the kids from Providence?

I would suggest to you that not every parent would send their kids out of town.

We all know that Steve Laffey wouldn't build more schools to accept kids from Providence, don't we?

Unfortunately, not every parent cares about their kid's education. However, for the one's that do want to be actively involved in making sure their children have the opportunity to get ahead, true school choice needs to become a reality for everyone. If parents had a true choice of any school they wanted their kid to go to, Providence's schools would be largely empty, with of course, the exceptions of Moses Brown, Wheeler, and Classical.

As someone who nearly went to PCD, but actually chose to go to public high school (though, given the total of my experiences, I probably made the wrong decision), I'll use some supply-side economics. In a nutshell, it states, "supply creates its own demand." If there is a great demand for more schools, and the money actually follows the student, then communities looking to make money will open additional schools to accomodate it. At least, that's what happens when market forces are in place.

Of course, the whole public school "problem" is that, in essence, they are government sanctioned monopolies that stifles innovation, and put teachers first, and children last. Some communities, such as limousine liberal Barrington, probably wouldn't want too many kids from certain "other" areas of the state, which is why private or parochial schools, which are more willing to take in kids from different backgrounds, which are actually located in the communities where the children reside, are the best overall solution.

Tom was right on the money with the Yugo analogy. Chafee wants parents to be able to choose between Manure, Poop, and Crap. Great choices!

I wish we could dismiss Ann Coulter as satire, but if you've ever seen her on TV, she obviously believes the toxic sludge she spews out (and so does a pretty good-sized audience). And "moderates" like Chris Matthews lap it up like licorice.
As for Chafee and others she attacks, I borrow an old Arab proverb: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Anne Coulter is plain funny and also not on the Laffey payroll, unlike the NRSC. She is briliant and witty and writes great satires. Even if you do not like her or her views, put your PC hats aside and recognize she is pretty good at what she does. I cannot stand Molly Ivins but must admit occasionally she makes me laugh to a good joke and her witty satires of GWB.

Give it a rest, Klaus, your underwear is getting too tight! If you take these pundits literally then I can just imagine how much fun you are at a Roast or cocktail party. Like, not.

Tim2

If I understand Anthony correctly, he supports Chafee because he thinks he can beat Whitehouse, but Laffey, he thinks, would likely lose to Whitehouse. If I remember correctly from previous posts, he admits he's closer to Laffey idealogically. I apologize in advance if I'm getting this wrong.

But what if Laffey has a chance to come out of this race with a lot of momentum? And what if money starts rolling into the Laffey camp because of his primary victory? And what if people start realizing that Whitehouse is a whitewashed version of Lamont in CT, and he implodes like he did when he ran against Myrth York?

Then we could have a conservative (for the most part) represent RI in the Senate, as opposed to a couple of versions of the same left of center, pacifist peas in the pod. No?

Anthony says "Because I believe that greatest influence on a child's education is his or her parents. Not teacher salaries and not whether the school happens to be private or public."

Great liberal-talk. I guess because the NRSC couldn't come up with anyone to run against Ted Kennedy. The Massachusetts senior senator is blogging here as "Anthony".

As a parent who funds the lousy public schools that I would never send my children to, (and by the way,I am not wealthy by any stretch), I exercise my influence on their education by paying paying private tuition in addition to taxes. Essentially I pay more than twice what I would pay, living in the same house, if my kids went to public school.

Real school choice would allow parents, less fortunate than my wife an I, to exercise their influence with a CHOICE in the quality of their child's education. It would also introduce something quite foreign to you, and Messrs. Kennedy and Chafee -- COMPETITION... i.e. a stimulus for better quality in public education.

One of Senator Chafee's talking points he keeps repeating is about throwing money at special education programs, which is, to me, perhaps the area of greatest need for parental influence.

How do you reconcile that Teddy?

"Then we could have a conservative (for the most part) represent RI in the Senate, as opposed to a couple of versions of the same left of center, pacifist peas in the pod. No?"

Chuck:

Yes.

As yoda might say, "A prophet you are, yes?"

J Mahn