A beautifully crafted post, Justin. And your assessment of the current (and coming) situation is spot-on.

Now let’s see if the GOP / RIGOP apologists sally forth in an (ultimately futile) attempt to defend their RINO-maiden’s honor!

Excellently written, Justin. "What to do now" certainly does represent a quandry for any Rhode Island Republican -- and there are no simple answers. As I've stated, if a fellow Laffey supporter now feels comfortable in supporting Senator Chafee as "the lesser of two evils," I'm not going to mock that person's decision to do so.

Personally, I am not going to reward the NRSC and what was an utterly evil campaign of lies and deceit, and therefore Senator Chafee himself -- as nice a guy as he may be personally -- with my vote or with even a minimal contribution of time or money. As God as my witness, I will NEVER give a dime to the NRSC as long as I live. I'm still debating whether to drop my RNC membership, which I've held since I was 18.

Like most regular folks who aren't living off the family trust fund, my resources have limits, and I'm going to direct them as I please, for the causes and candidates which I choose to support. Regardless of whether or not we might lose the seat -- or even the Senate itself -- I feel that if I were to act (and it would be an act) like everything's just dandy, that it would only serve to encourage similar behavior by the NRSC and others in future elections. For me, it simply comes down to rewarding "good" behavior and punishing "bad" behavior. There has to be a price to pay for it.

Through their meddling, they've demonstrated what they think of our (conservative) involvement at the local level, by spending record amounts of Republican money against a real Republican, when they should have been spending that against Democrats elsewhere. They openly encouraged people other than Republicans, most of whom have utter contempt for everything that our party claims to stand for, to determine whom the nominee of the party will be going into November. They actively chose whom to ally themselves with, and what tactics to employ in their pursuit of retaining power. They can both reap any reward, as well as pay any consequences for those decisions as a result. When you cooperate with evil, you become evil. I will have no part in aiding it.

Justin,
People like Anthony are mere enablers for those in Washington that have led to the immoral compromsing of principals of Republicanism and conservatism. As long as his mindset persists, true conservativism and Republicanism will be lost. We need a change along the lines the Contract with America. Do you think Chafee would ever be part that? No way!

Unfortunately, the necessary change will not come until we lose a few things.

Oddly, the biggest favor you can do for true conservatives and Republicans is to vote for Sheldon Whitehouse.

Ladies please!!
If you think your nasal whine are in any way representative of conservative values well guess again.
Act like men would you please?
Your guy lost and you don't like Chafee.
Fine!
Vote for Whitehouse.
Fine!
Just stop the feminine whining.

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh a new day. I wonder what Laffey is doing today? Day 2 as a loser. I see you are still crying over your crushing. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Watch my show on public access this week and hear my take on how Laffey did himself in.

Rinny

Justin,
Don't over-generalize my comment. It is directed as those who are:

1.) making excuses for the Laffey's loss by suggesting that the election, while not "stolen", was unfair because of the number of unafilliated voters and those
2.) indicating that they will never vote for Chafee under any circumstances.

I stand by those comments. Everyone knew the rules going in. People who a mere couple of days ago were crowing how disaffiliated Democrats might help Laffey get through the primary are now decrying the disaffiliation system as somehow unfair? To me, that is a sore loser.

On the conservative Republican front, anyone who votes for Whitehouse over Chafee is not a conservative Republican. If you vote for Whitehouse over Chafee, not only are you voting for a more liberal candidate, you are also voting to give the Democrats the Senate majority. It is one thing to say that you are voting for Laffey because he holds conservative beliefs. It is quite another to say that you will be voting for Whitehouse just to get back at Chafee. And to me, that is pathetic.

"...you are also voting to give the Democrats the Senate majority."

If the Republicans are so weak that they'll lose the Senate over this single seat then they DESERVE to lose the Senate.

I honestly think that the Dems total lack of ANY message other than "Bush Sucks" for the last six years almost assures that we'll PICK UP seats, not lose them.

One other point. If Chafee wins the general election without any conservative support, you do realize the conclusion that will be made, don't you?

Like him or not, Chafee has campaigned for and contributed to dozens of conservative RI candidates. If Chafee without conservative support, you may very well find him completely abandon the conservative base.

And while many of you might say "he's already done that", he has in fact help many RI conservatives in their efforts. For once, I will say listen to Laffey. Unite.

So I think what you're telling us it that it's a possibility that Senator Chafee will switch parties, right Anthony?

"If Chafee without conservative support, you may very well find him completely abandon the conservative base."

His votes against Supreme Count noms and his holding up Bolton's confirmation pretty much shows me that he's long since done that.

Anthony,
Do you think before you open your mouth?
"On the conservative Republican front, anyone who votes for Whitehouse over Chafee is not a conservative Republican"
And your suggestion would be what - that Chafee is a conservative?
As long as we are going to use tortured logic to support Chafee, Anthony, which is all you did with your "at least we'll keep the seat in Republican hands", then let's have at it.
True conservatives and Republicans are not represented by Chafee. Therefore, we just have to lose the seat first, before we get a real conservative. Vote Whitehouse.

>>People who a mere couple of days ago were crowing how disaffiliated Democrats might help Laffey get through the primary are now decrying the disaffiliation system as somehow unfair? To me, that is a sore loser.

I can’t speak for others, but I only raised the “crossovers might help Laffey” in the context of a possible Democrat effort to (they thought) seal the general election for Whitehouse. Primaries should be closed except to those who are registered in that Party – the casual / disinterested / ignorant voters get to participate in November.

>>On the conservative Republican front, anyone who votes for Whitehouse over Chafee is not a conservative Republican. If you vote for Whitehouse over Chafee, not only are you voting for a more liberal candidate, you are also voting to give the Democrats the Senate majority.

BS. Voting for a “mainstream liberal” (Whitehouse) is not much different than voting for a “moderate liberal” (Chafee).

Secondly, if Chafee remains in office then he’ll be the presumptive “Republican” candidate six years from now. Indeed, he will be the only candidate, for after what the NRSC did to Laffey, NO Republican would consider running against Chafee in six years. So the only way to (hopefully) get some sort of real Republican - a non-liberal candidate - in six years is for Chafee to lose this year.

Third, if the Democrats get the Senate because Chafee loses, so be it. The Republicans in Congress have gone so off the farm they deserve to lose – after all, how pathetic is it that they’re counting on LINCOLN CHAFEE to save their behinds! A little time back in the wilderness would be good for the Party.

This isn’t about “getting back at Chafee” – it’s about restoring the GOP.

>>One other point. If Chafee wins the general election without any conservative support, you do realize the conclusion that will be made, don't you?

Obviously the GOP thinks that RI (and the rest of the northeast) is so liberal that Lincoln Chafee is a gift from the gods. To the GOP conservatives in the northeast are not a base to build upon, but a fringe annoyance. If Chafee wins the general without conservative support, it’ll merely confirm the GOP’s conventional wisdom – so nothing will change and it won’t matter.

CONVERSELY, if Chafee loses because he did not have conservative support, the GOP’s conventional wisdom gets turned on its head, and with national ramifications – if a northeast moderate can’t survive a general election in this bluest of states because the conservatives in that state turned against him, imagine the mind-blowing impact this would have on GOP strategists trying to save the bacon of “moderates” in less-blue states (not to mention on the “moderates” themselves)!

Anthony,
You've admitted that you yourself are much more conservative than he, but have based your support for him largely on the tactical point that only Chafee can win as a Republican in RI. In other words, you argued for the "hold your nose approach" in the short term to accomplish a long term goal of maintaining GOP control in the senate.

To my eyes, Justin is taking a similar tactical approach, albeit for the sake of obtaining a desired ideological goal (not political) sometime down the road. He's willing to risk the possible loss of a more conservative senate for the short term in hopes that a more ideologically conservative candidate can make a viable run for the theoretical Whitehouse seat at some future point.

I think the difference, as it has been all along, is on the emphasis. You are both willing to suborn ideology to politics. Justin's tactic is aimed at attaining a hoped-for, closer-to -ideal RI Senator at some future point by giving up the ghost in the short term and letting a liberal Democrat take the seat. Yours is to maintain the current, known equation by reelecting the current liberal Republican.

This debate is nothing the Democrats haven't (and still do) go through.
And it's nothing compared to what the GOP will be going through a few years from now when South Park conservatives (younger conservatives who support Bush and the Iraq war, but have no use for hardline right stances on social issues) butt heads for power within the party with religious conservatives.
This is a time when the GOP's grass roots should be inclusive, not exclusive. The Dems have a head start on learning that lesson.

"This is a time when the GOP's grass roots should be inclusive, not exclusive. The Dems have a head start on learning that lesson. "

Yeah, just ask Joe Lieberman

A few thoughts:

1. It's very difficult to attain the majority if you're the minority party. The media covers press releases issued by the majority party, not the minority party. This is particularly true when Democrats hold the majority, because the press LIKES to cover Democrats. They only cover the GOP majority because they are virutally forced to do so. Campaign contributions flow to the majority party helping to perpetuate incumbents, the majority can send federal dollars to states and districts, etc. It's just tough to get the majority and you don't want to throw it away so non-chalantly.

2. Because it is so difficult to get the majority, you should do everything to keep it. You shouldn't target moderate GOP incumbents in Democrat-held areas.

Look at the Democrats. They know that even if Lamont loses in the general, they will still have Lieberman to give them their seat. It was win/win. Either they get a moderate Democrat or a liberal Democrat.

If you're going to challenge moderate Republican incumbents, do it in places like Texas in instances where you know you'll still end up with a Republican-held seat at the end of the day. Not in a place like RI or MA, where you'll give the Democrats a seat for several decades.

3. Now to Andrew's comment. No, I don't think Chafee will switch parties. Much of the hype around that was due to the left-leaning media hoping to create a story. Unfortunately, Chafee's comment years ago fed into it. If there were ever a time for Chafee to be come a Democrat, it would have been right before this election. His victory speech was a re-affirmation of his committment to the GOP.

What I was referring to is the idea of what happens after a divisive primary. Chafee should hold the door open for people who want to come over from the Laffey side. Hopefully he will and frankly I believe this is more chivalrous than what Laffey would ever have done.

But Chafee will have no chance of ever being supported by those Laffeyites who vote for Whitehouse in the general election. They will continue to be against him in the future, so a smart politician would seek to eradicate their influence entirely. Andrew, I'm merely stating that it would be wiser for the conservative base to retain some influence rather than throw it away.

Look, this race has shown Chafee that he doesn't need conservative support to win in RI, even in an Republican primary. But it has also shown him the dissatisfcation of the conservative base. Rather than continuing a jihad against the most conservative, and yes, Chafee's voting record is still the most conservative, member of Rhode Island's congressional delegation, perhaps it would be better to open some communication with him? There's a very strong chance that he will be around for a very long time.

Greg, Lieberman isn't the only Democrat still backing the Iraq War, but other more conservative Democrats avoided devisive primaries because they stayed in touch with their constituents. Leiberman lost because he became such a creature of Washington - he was too busy trying to be the darling of the DC elite punditocracy, and forgot about the people who put him in office. Joe got sucked into the thrill of Don Imus and Chris Matthews kissing his tush.
Say what you want about Chafee, but he's not trying to be Mr. Capital Social Scene or kissing up to the networks' Sabbath Gasbags. If Linc had been such a creature of the Washington status quo, I'm willing to bet Laffey wouldn't have challenged him.

Also, Justin, to suggest that I "owed" you (as is indicated by your use of the word 'reciprocate') for asking people on the blog not to engage in personal attacks is strange. It's your call what you allow and the degree to which you want to allow it.

Alot of people called me all sorts of names when I predicted that Chafee would beat Laffey. I don't need to be defended. As I said from the beginning, I was just telling the truth that no one wanted to hear.

While I think it makes for a better experience if people offer insight rather than inflammatory rhetoric, the truth is the only defense I really need.

Anthony:

>>If you're going to challenge moderate Republican incumbents, do it in places like Texas in instances where you know you'll still end up with a Republican-held seat at the end of the day. Not in a place like RI or MA, where you'll give the Democrats a seat for several decades.

Chafee isn’t a “moderate” – Don Carcieri is a “moderate” – Chafee is a LIBERAL.

>>If there were ever a time for Chafee to be come a Democrat, it would have been right before this election. His victory speech was a re-affirmation of his committment to the GOP.

No, it reflects his commitment to the millions of dollars the GOP has waived in front of him to help keep him in office.

If he wins the general election, it’ll be back to business as usual, including pulling a Jeffords if he deems it in his own best interest.

>>Look, this race has shown Chafee that he doesn't need conservative support to win in RI, even in an Republican primary. But it has also shown him the dissatisfcation of the conservative base. Rather than continuing a jihad against the most conservative, and yes, Chafee's voting record is still the most conservative, member of Rhode Island's congressional delegation, perhaps it would be better to open some communication with him? There's a very strong chance that he will be around for a very long time.

DOES A LIBERAL CHANGE HIS SPOTS???

Chafee has known about conservative dissatisfaction since Mr. Post attempted to oust his father in a primary. Chafee doesn’t give a rat’s behind about conservatives or Republican principles – never has, never will.

As conservatives we may not get perfection – for instance, I wish that Don Carcieri were more conservative, but he’s certainly “good enough” that I support him. But Chafee isn’t a moderate; rather he openly disdains and opposes what conservatives hold dear. Supporting Chafee isn’t pragmatic – it’s selling out.

"Look, this race has shown Chafee that he doesn't need conservative support to win in RI, even in an Republican primary."

Which is why, as painful as it could be for us locally, or even nationally, we cannot afford to keep him in the US Senate. There is no sense in having a Republican primary, if Republicans cannot be allowed to choose their own candidates without outside influence. He's already shown contempt for people like us by showing that he doesn't need us to win -- the feeling is mutual. If he doesn't like his base, he just imports some people from elsewhere to offset it. I'll have no part of it.

Sometimes, when a cancer is threatening to kill someone, removing a portion of the body is the right course of treatment, in order to save the remainder of it from certain death. It's often not pretty, but sometimes is absolutely necessary.

This is going to sound morbid, but at this point in time I really don't care. The Porkbusters™ movement has succeeded in getting some major transparency legislation pushed through to W for signature, and other appropriations and earmarks accountability bills are in the works. The Dems desired tax increases would only be enacted by a sitting Dem POTUS. Hence, the ability to tax and spend (unlike the current "just overspend") will be limited. So, aside from infuriating and cockamamie social crap, the only thing the Dems in majority can really screw up is NatSec. If (when) they take their eye off that ball, people are going to get hurt. And they will demonstrate - hopefully at not too great a loss - that they are institutionally incapable of dealing with internal or external threats.
Where are their Trumans or FDRs? Joe Liebs is being drummed out as we speak. Give 'Em Hell Zell is sadly gone. Hillary! is probably the scariest Dem out there, and has more badass cred than any of the "men". So what is the bottom line? The Democrats need the ability to obstruct the GWOT before they are exposed and forced to rehabilitate (in serious minority). The execrable left is borderline schizo, and the feckless moderates need to see it in blood apparently. "Senator Whitehouse? It's your testicles on line two, sir... long distance".
PS - who is this Cooke fellow? Does Krusty know he's filching his schtick?

It's either Caswell Cooke, the RINO GOP Chair of Westerly and public access talk show host, or a poor immitation thereof. No one really cares.

Some recalcitrant children only respond to a good ass whuppin. Put both the national GOP and RI GOP in that category.

Our economy has been propped up for years by easy money, a massive stock market boom, and a massive real estate boom. We have had only two quarters of recession in the last 25 years. Unprecedented in U.S. history.

The odds are that the next four years will be marked by a bad recession and possibly even a slight depression. Look at the indicators: A negative savings rate, real estate prices coming down, record credit card debt per capita, record levels of wasteful government spending sapping productive private investment.

Losing the Senate to the democrats would create a threefold positive: A change for the better in GOP leadership and tactics; a new breed of GOP politican entering the fray with a Steve Laffey-type anti-pork message; and, most important, the democrats will get blamed for the inevitable recession.

Let the democrats win this year's battle; the victory will by a pyhric one at best. Go Whitehouse!

What's strange, Anthony, is that you are particularly concerned about my lead-in. It may mitigate the offense to your ego to know that I meant "defend" more in the sense of "stood up for" rather than "protected." But I may be guilty of thinking of private conversations while writing for a public audience.

The upshot is that I've said before that I thought your points to be made succinctly and sometimes persuasively. In other words, I thought you to be simply wrong (when I did), rather than either a mole or a villain. And there you went and discounted the possibility of reasonable foundations for an opinion that I hold.

Well, hooray for the big strong man who doesn't need to be "defended."

Well, Justin, I am neither a "mole" nor a "villain" (if I were a mole, I would have stopped posting as of yesteryday), but I do sense bitterness in your comment.

Forgive me my reaction when I took people on this blog at their word ("You should vote for the person who is closely aligned with our philosophical beliefs") only to find that isn't really what they meant.

What they really meant is "I don't care about beliefs, ideology or party-builidng. I just want Chafee to lose to anyone, even a liberal Democrat who will oppose everything for which conservativism stands."

Anthony,

1. The first thing I will look at when voting in the Senate race, as I do in any Federal election, is which candidate is stronger on foreign policy and national security. At the moment, I don’t know which candidate that will be.

2. It’s wrong to say that “Chafee will have no chance of ever being supported by those Laffeyites who vote for Whitehouse in the general election”. Anyone who believes this is obsessed with personality and labels. “Laffeyites who vote for Whitehouse” will be perfectly willing to praise and support Senator Chafee when he supports policies they believe in. But support for free trade and tort reform is not enough to cancel out the fact that the Senator is as far or further left than mainstream Democrats in major areas like foreign policy, immigration reform, social and life issues, and tax cuts.

3. Just so I don’t miss it, how will I recognize this “holding the door open for people who want to come over from the Laffey side” if it happens?

In reality, the time for “holding the door open” was during the primary campaign. Senator Chafee chose not to, making clear that if Republican voters didn’t like his version of Republicanism, he would find new voters. Politically speaking, it was a perfectly valid choice, and it worked. At the very least, I will be wishing the Senator and his new voters well as they ride off to take on Sheldon Whitehouse.

I know many of us are still smarting over Laffey’s defeat. However, we could consider how we might turn this into an opportunity. I have a modest proposal. What if we were to band together as a block and negotiate to get something out of Chafee – a concession, if you will. Normally, the victor in such a race reaches to the other side because he or she will need the votes for the general election. What if we were to give him something to get something? What if we agreed to vote for him (albeit with great reluctance) to get him to commit to Bush’s court appointments? Do you think it could work? Would the Chafee camp be willing to negotiate? So many of us have outright stated we plan to either stay home or even vote for Whitehouse (!@%$!). Instead, why not get a small concession for our vote?

Good commentary on Townhall re: Chafee and should conservatives vote for Whitehouse:

http://www.townhall.com/blog#385a149d-f762-44ab-b4a6-6b2919a32abb

Chuck, I think your approach might be more productive in the long run than the "let's beat Chafee" mantra

Chuck,

(This is not a direct analogy...)

When you attempt to bargain with the Devil, you're a lot more likely to get burned, as opposed to getting what you truly desire. It's simply not worth it.

Look - we can support the other Republican candidates without supporting Chafee.

All the sweeter if Governor Carcieri et als. prevails in November with our support, and Chafee goes down in flames without our support.

Justin said: "I'm open to arguments that I should only inflict one negative for Chafee on election day (i.e., the not vote) rather than two (the not vote plus the opponent vote)."

I hope you'll inflict none, since the stakes are much too high.

If President Bush's presidency rises or falls on Chafee's one vote, it isn't worth it -- and he's got a lot more problems than I thought. I'm not going to vote for Chafee, based on an irrational fear of something that will almost certainly never happen. Simply put, we can afford to lose one seat -- and it might as well be this one.

If we back Chafee now, after everything that he and the NRSC did here, we're saying to them "it's alright" and openly inviting similar behavior here and elsewhere in the future. I won't have any part in supporting that.

What were Chafee and the NRSC thinking? Man, they actually tried to win the election. I hope they don't do this to liberal Democrats across the country in the general election......I'll have no part of it.

I believe in winning, but not at any cost. They showed an absence of principle, and that they will stoop to any level to win. The point is, they should have been doing that against liberal Democrats all along, not against other Republicans, on behalf of a liberal Republican who more often than not, stands against what the party purports to believe in. The money that they spent here could have been directed in support of Republicans who actually support what the Republican Party stands for.

That they felt a need to interfere with our ability to locally determine who our own choices says a lot more about them, than it does about us. The NRSC was going to "write off" Rhode Island if Laffey won -- and now, I'm writing off them.

It all comes down to two kinds of Republicans on this board.

There are those who believe that one should "support the team" no matter what.

And there are those who believe that the team should support the expressed principles of the Party - and if particular team members, or coaches, don't support those principles - then (for the long term good of the team) they should be booted from the team (even if it hurts in the short run).

This Republican is sick of watching Chafee sit on our bench while throwing passes to the other team.

Will,
I think it's time to move on from the Senate primary, but I will offer these thoughts.

It's well established that the national GOP tried to warn Steve Laffey about what would happen if he ran.

The RNC, NRSC, RI GOP, Carcieri, etc. never wanted to see a primary where they would be forced to shoot down Laffey. They did everything possible to avoid it.

It was Steve Laffey's hubris that led to this fight and subsequently the national GOP's efforts against his campaign.

There was no way the GOP was blissfully let the Senate go Democrat and that's precisely what would have happened had they not done what they did.

Tom W, in my opinion there are actually three types of folks on this board. Two you have concisely described. But I know there is a third kind -- those who won't take the chance that their well-intended actions to remove one bumbling appeaser, could lead to an army of appeasers, terrorist sympathizers and dumbfounded moral relativists taking the reigns of power against an enemy that will instantly eat them alive, and then kill us all.

Rocco,
Unfortunately, many people can not see beyond their immediate surrounding.

These people look at RI's Senate race as a race that affects only them, not considering how it affects the rest of the nation and indeed the world. They can not understand, and in fact lament the national GOP for becoming involved in a "local" race for the UNITED STATES Senate.

To these people, visceral hatred for a "traiterous" Republican moderate like Chafee surpasses the need to maintain strong national leadership during time of war. They are fully willing to replace strong national leadership with liberal leadership that will undoubtedly weaken our country. Wartime or peacetime makes no difference.

To these people, it does not matter who controls the House, Senate and White House, provided that narrow adherence to a political orthodoxy is maintained.

Rocco,
Unfortunately, many people can not see beyond their immediate surrounding.

These people look at RI's Senate race as a race that affects only them, not considering how it affects the rest of the nation and indeed the world. They can not understand, and in fact lament the national GOP for becoming involved in a "local" race for the UNITED STATES Senate.

To these people, visceral hatred for a "traiterous" Republican moderate like Chafee surpasses the need to maintain strong national leadership during time of war. They are fully willing to replace strong national leadership with liberal leadership that will undoubtedly weaken our country. Wartime or peacetime makes no difference.

To these people, it does not matter who controls the House, Senate and White House, provided that narrow adherence to a political orthodoxy is maintained.

Anthony and Rocco –

I beg to differ. My (and some others’) view is not myopically focused on RI and rigid political orthodoxy.

But Linc Chafee is so off the farm that he is poisoning the Republican Party. If it comes down to him to maintain the Republican majority, it’s all doomed anyway. He will be a reliable swing vote in favor of the Democrats.

Further, we look at his loss and (hopefully) putting the fear of God a/k/a fear of conservatives into the Specters, McCains, Collins’ and Snows – which is about as macro or national a focus as you could ask for.

Ultimately the Republican Party should stand or fall on defined principles and ideals – a federal government sized as contemplated by the U.S. Constitution; fiscal responsibility on the SPENDING side, etc. The current leadership of the Party does not believe in those, as their actions in office have shown.

That the RNC came in and warned Laffey is irrelevant - the national GOP has sold out the principles upon which the Party is supposed to stand.

Given the current state of the Washington GOP, a Democratic takeover will be worse, but only by degree, not wholesale. This is a battle to restore the GOP, for its soul, not protect incumbents by using a Democrat takeover as a boogeyman.

Had there been no Jimmy Carter, there would have been no President Reagan (or conservative revolution within the “Rockefeller Republican Party.” The Republic survived Jimmy Carter (barely). As painful as it would be, a Democrat takeover of one or more houses of Congress might be necessary at this time. The current Republican leadership will be chastened (if not purged), and a Speaker Pelosi and/or Chairman Kennedy might provide a necessary reminder to the electorate just how bad the Democrats are.

It pains me to say all of this, but the conservative base has been betrayed by the Republican Party leadership and officeholders – it’s time for a coup – and I’ve reluctantly come to conclude that the loss of one or more houses of Congress may be necessary to effect this … PARTICULARLY IF LINCOLN CHAFEE IS THE “TIPPING POINT” BETWEEN “REPUBLICAN” CONTROL AND DEMOCRAT CONTROL.

Anthony, Lincoln Chafee is not a 'moderate' Republican by any fair measure. What criteria are you using to arrive at the assessment that he is? In my opinion, Chafee is best described as a left-of-center Democrat. He is a Republican only because his 'Rockefeller Republican' father was.

If stripped of political association, Chafee is best described as an obstructionist and a egotistical, sanctimonious jerk.

I think the frustration expressed on this thread is a logical extension of the betrayal of Conservative principles by the Bush Administration. People get mightily pissed when they're delivered a Yugo after having been promised a Rolls Royce.

In the case of the Chafee-Laffey contest, The RNC acted based on a hard reality -- Laffey could not have beaten a viable Democratic opponent like Whitehouse, no matter what. Had Laffey won the primary, it would have been many years before any RI Republican won a seat in Congress.

Mayor Laffey, and for that matter no reliably rightwing candidate, will ever represent this state on the national level, unless the state's demographics change radically, and the unions that warp its economy and own its legislature, are stripped of that power. Critical mass cannot be achieved in a lump of lead.

(Tom W, in a time of peace I would agree with your course of action.)

*******

Do any of you gentlemen think that the NSRC would have stepped in to help Chafee by destroying Laffey if America had not been in the opening stages of a conflict that will decide the fate of the West?

I place more blame on the Democratic Party for Laffey's fate then I do on the RNC/NSRC. Here's why: If the Dems were not the immoralists they are, they would have prioritized countering the threat posed by Islamism, forsaking the quest for political power at the 'expense' of helping present a politically united front to our enemies. Had that been the case, NSRC would have left the race alone, since who controlled the Congress and guided war policy would not have been anywhere near as important as it currently is.

Ignore Chafee. Focus on the real enemies-- mendacious politician/movie stars like John McCain, who give fools like Lincoln Chafee ample cover to operate.

Rocco,
I'm relying on the National Journal's ranking based on a Senator's total voting record and not geared towards any one particular issue. It puts Chafee in the middle of the Senate, well to the right of Lieberman.

Chafee's problem is that he has taken some high-profile anti-Bush votes, notably on taxes, Iraq and Alito and is portrayed in the media as very liberal. Don't get me wrong, he has taken some very liberal votes. But when you compare him to Jack Reed, Patrick Kennedy and yes, even Jim Langevin, he votes more conservatively than any of them.

Look, I believe that if Laffey had shown himself to have been an electable candidate in the general, the RNC would have sat this race out on the sidelines. I don't think anyone at the RNC was saying "We get to beat a conservative Republican to help keep a moderate Republcan in power. Yes!"

It was just the opposite. That is why the national GOP spent so much time meeting with Laffey and urging him to run elsewhere. You pick the battles that you stand a chance of winning. No complained when the NRSC didn't intervene on Bob Tingle's behalf against Jack Reed. Why? It would have been a waste of resources.

>>Do any of you gentlemen think that the NSRC would have stepped in to help Chafee by destroying Laffey if America had not been in the opening stages of a conflict that will decide the fate of the West?

I think you give them waaaayyyy too much credit. George W subscribes to the import of the battle with radical Islam; the RNC / NSRC is only concerned with maintenance of incumbency and the prestige and perks that come with being in control (e.g., lobbyist funded junkets).

One primary goal of radical Islam is to destroy our economy - and thus our ultimate capabillity to oppose radical Islam.

I submit to you that the current Republican regime is doing far more to achieve that Islamic goal than Osama bin Laden has even dreamed of being capable of: selling out to K Street; earmarks; largest expansion of the welfare state (prescription drug benefits) all without addressing entitlement reform; running up the debt at about 600 billion dollars a year; gaming the CPI numbers to make the devaluation of the dollar appear to be less than it actually is (simultaneously accelerating the decline of our manufacturing base); refusing to take on the NEA/AFT for producing the next generation of "workers" which will be unable to compete with their peers from India / China; etc.

You may think I'm engaging in hyperbole - I commend your attention to a recent article - published by the U.S. Federal Reserve - entitled "In the United States Bankrupt?" at

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf

Yes, the Democrats will be a disaster for the military side of the War on Terror (and it is a war); but though I hate to say it, perhaps some "defeats" will be necessary to focus (many of our) collective minds on the fact that we are at war, albeit an unconventional one (i.e., one of philosophies and civilizations rather than nation states).

Wow, I never thought I'd see they day when conservative Americans would be hoping for "defeat" to teach others a lesson.

I recall that many anti-war protesters in the 60's would call for a defeat in Vietnam in hopes that it will prevent the US from getting engaged in other areas of the globe,

Fortunately, I suspect this attitude is held only by a small minority....

Anthony -

Some of us consider a Chafee "win" (whether primary or general election) to be a "defeat" ... for Republican principles.

As for whether it is held by a small minority - 30,000 voted for Laffey. Some will crossover for Chafee in November. Many will not.

BTW Anthony –

Many of us are coming to the same conclusion:

Washington Monthly: Time For Us To Go - Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

Tom W.,
Thanks for the suggestion, I just started reading Chris Buckley's article--

"This glum aperçu has been much with me as we move into the home stretch of the 2006 mid-term elections and shimmy into the starting gates of the 2008 presidential campaign. With heavy heart, as a once-proud—indeed, staunch— Republican, I here admit, behind enemy lines, to the guilty hope that my party loses; on both occasions.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. In 2004, I could not bring myself to pull the same lever again. Neither could I bring myself to vote for John Kerry, who, for all his strengths, credentials, and talent, seems very much less than the sum of his parts. So, I wrote in a vote for George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom I worked as a speechwriter from 1981 to ’83. I wish he’d won."

Is this your definition of conservativism? Maybe Chafee is a conservative after all! And I thought Chafee's writing in Bush 41's name was evidence that he wasn't a conservative. Stupid me.

Go ahead, vote for Whitehouse, Kennedy (he'll help make the House Democrat), Fogarty or whoever else you want. Vote to replace Hastert with Pelosi and Frist with Reid. Heck, write in Osama Bin Laden for Senate so that you can "send a message" that we should have caught him by now. That will provide our country with just the right "defeat" that you would like to see befall the United States.

If I were any elected official, I think I'd rather without support such as yours or Jane Fonda's.

Tom W.,
Thanks for the suggestion, I just started reading Chris Buckley's article--

"This glum aperçu has been much with me as we move into the home stretch of the 2006 mid-term elections and shimmy into the starting gates of the 2008 presidential campaign. With heavy heart, as a once-proud—indeed, staunch— Republican, I here admit, behind enemy lines, to the guilty hope that my party loses; on both occasions.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. In 2004, I could not bring myself to pull the same lever again. Neither could I bring myself to vote for John Kerry, who, for all his strengths, credentials, and talent, seems very much less than the sum of his parts. So, I wrote in a vote for George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom I worked as a speechwriter from 1981 to ’83. I wish he’d won."

Is this your definition of conservativism? Maybe Chafee is a conservative after all! And I thought Chafee's writing in Bush 41's name was evidence that he wasn't a conservative. Stupid me.

Go ahead, vote for Whitehouse, Kennedy (he'll help make the House Democrat), Fogarty or whoever else you want. Vote to replace Hastert with Pelosi and Frist with Reid. Heck, write in Osama Bin Laden for Senate so that you can "send a message" that we should have caught him by now. That will provide our country with just the right "defeat" that you would like to see befall the United States.

If I were any elected official, I think I'd rather without support such as yours or Jane Fonda's.

>>If I were any elected official, I think I'd rather without support such as yours or Jane Fonda's.

Perhaps.

But at least I won't have to go into rehab to treat a Kool Aid addiction.

IF the moderator will humor me, appearing below is a Wall Street Journal article from Thursday discussing the RNC / Chafee “victory,” the anger of many conservatives – particularly concerning the last-minute attack ads against Laffey. The article concludes by citing RNC sources figuring that between now and November they can (in effect) scare conservatives back into line by citing, e.g., “Speaker Pelosi.”

This riles me even more. They’re saying to conservatives “we don’t believe in what you believe in, therefore we don’t believe in Republican values, and we fully intend to continue governing that way, but you’d better play along because the Democrats are even worse.”

I don’t like being politically extorted. This is keeping me riled up “post-primary.” I’ve come to conclude that conservatives should selectively vote for conservative candidates, and otherwise sit out this election (and perhaps in 2008 as well, for the prospect of Presidential candidate McCain / Guiliani / Frist is beyond discouraging).

Indeed, here in RI, voting for Whitehouse as a means of burying this RNC “tactic” is beginning to look like the best immediate means (over the long term) of bringing the GOP back home.

Tom W

REPUBLICAN’S STRATEGY MAY BACKFIRE

By JEANNE CUMMINGS
September 14, 2006; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- The Republican Party leadership won the primary battle in Rhode Island, getting their preferred candidate, incumbent Sen. Lincoln Chafee, past a conservative challenger. But at what cost?

To boost prospects of holding the Republican seat, the party backed the moderate Mr. Chafee and spent nearly a million dollars on direct-mail and television advertising against Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, who ran as the kind of conservative the White House usually likes and who pledged to support the very Bush tax cuts Mr. Chafee opposed. That tactic angered Laffey supporters and could deter them from voting in November when Mr. Chafee squares off with Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, a former attorney general whose campaign is flush with cash.

"When you aggressively attack a candidate who stands for the ideas shared by the vast majority of Republicans, that's demoralizing," says Pat Toomey, a former congressman who heads Club for Growth, an antitax group that backed Mr. Laffey.

Just as trends may be turning slightly more favorable for Republicans, Tuesday's back-to-back clashes between the Republican Party machine and its base in Rhode Island as well as in Arizona could diminish turnout among conservative voters in November. Turnout by that voting bloc carried the president in 2000 and 2004.

But frustration among those voters has been mounting for years and covers issues such as government spending, the Iraq war and illegal immigration. "Conservatism traditionally was a philosophy of smaller government. In the Bush years, it appears it isn't," says David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Washington Monthly this month published a collection of essays, titled "Time For Us To Go," by conservatives on the theme that Republicans have so lost their way they would be better off losing their majorities as well.

In his essay, former congressman and now television talk-show host Joe Scarborough recalls the moment a magazine representative called and "meekly" asked if he would consider writing an article about why "Republicans should get their brains beaten in this fall. 'Count me in!' was my chipper response," he says.
On the political battleground, conservative groups have been trying to change the party profile in primaries.

In California this spring, they backed Howard Kaloogian, who lost to moderate Brian Bilbray, in a race to fill the San Diego seat vacated by Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The party backed Mr. Bilbray and used $5 million to win the primary and special election against Democrat Francine Busby.

In Michigan, Mr. Toomey's Club for Growth and the National Right to Life Committee rallied behind evangelical minister and former state Rep. Tim Walberg to defeat moderate incumbent Rep. Joe Schwarz, who was endorsed by President Bush.

In Rhode Island, party officials backed Mr. Chafee, who voted against many of the president's tax cuts and the Iraq war, because they thought Mr. Laffey was too conservative to hold on to the Senate seat in the heavily Democratic state.

Laffey activists expected that move, says the Heritage Foundation's Michael Franc, adding: "Incumbent survival instinct trumps all else."

What stunned them was a string of last-minute attack ads paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Republican National Committee that blasted Mr. Laffey's record and his character.

"They really hit low," says Don Devine, editor of the American Conservative Union's newsletter.

In Arizona, the battle was for the seat of retiring Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe. Conservatives supported state Rep. Randy Graf, whose get-tough immigration platform fit with a House bill passed earlier this year. Pro-Graf forces were startled when, in the final weeks of the campaign, Speaker Dennis Hastert and other House leaders poured cash into the race of moderate Steve Huffman, who embraced a Senate immigration bill that would have created a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
Mr. Graf beat Mr. Huffman by six points, but conservatives yesterday were still fuming about House leaders' decision to interfere in a race where they had no incumbent to protect.

"It's outrageous," says the Cato Institute's Mr. Boaz.

Party strategists are working to reconnect and reinvigorate their base and believe they have enough time to do that.

"At this point, conservatives are fairly lethargic, if not discouraged. But the prospect of [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi and [Democratic National Committee Chairman] Howard Dean running the country can be a great motivator," says Whit Ayres, a Republican polling expert.

Will, Tom W and bountyhunter are right.

If you're going to stop Karl Rove and the RNC from continually stealing elections, the best way to do it is to remove Chafee from office.

We saw what the Rove-led RNC did to Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Whether you agree politically with Gore and Kerry is not the point. Rove and his hooligans were responsible for stealing the election in both instances. As Will points out, they have now done the same thing in RI against Laffey.

While no one will ever say that Laffey and Whitehouse hold the same positions on every issue, Whitehouse does share Laffey's position on energy independence. Like Laffey, Whitehouse also believes that Rumsfeld should be fired for his incompetence in Iraq and will do everything possible to prohibit the use of torture against detainees. Chafee won't even go so far as to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. Sheldon Whitehouse will get us out of Iraq immediately.

A vote for Chafee is a vote for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party's dirty tactics. A vote for Whitehouse is a way of saying NO to the RNC that does not care about you. It cares about power.

If anyone would like to volunteer for Whitehouse, they can do it at:

www.whitehouseforsenate.com

Sheldon2006:

It will be a bitter pill to swallow to vote for Casablanca. Your reminder of that only makes it even harder to swallow.

My honest advise is shut up!

J Mahn

Sheldon2006,

1. Joe Mahn is giving you sage advice.

2. When you say that “Sheldon Whitehouse will get us out of Iraq immediately”, are you telling us that Mr. Whitehouse has changed his position on Iraq yet again?

3. When you say “Whitehouse does share Laffey's position on energy independence”, does that mean he will endorse construction of the Cape Wind project, no matter what Senator Kennedy says?

"Sheldon Whitehouse will get us out of Iraq immediately."

Really. Does he "have a plan" like Nixon did?

Andrew,
Sheldon's position is what it has always been: a rapid and responsible withdrawal of our troops from Iraq with most, if not all of our troops, out of Iraq by the end of this year.

I know that you a have different reason than I have for voting for Sheldon Whitehouse, but our goal is the same: A United States Senate controlled by the Democratic Party.

Fine, you may want to throw the Republicans out because you feel the national party has abandoned conservative principles while I want to see the national leadership become more progressive. That's a difference of opinion, but we can at agree that the national Republican party has mismanaged its power. We also agree that Karl Rove and his hacks have no place stealing elections. Chafee is part of the national Republican establishment.

Your vote for Sheldon counts as much as mine. I wrote to let interested people know they can do more than vote.

Sheldon2006,
Karl Rove didn't steal the Chafee/Laffey election, the Bush/Kerry election or the Bush/Gore election. Stop whining and get over it.