Controlling the Tides
There have been times, over the past year, when I’ve felt compelled, in public and private intra–Anchor Rising discussions, to defend commenter Anthony. This is how he reciprocates:
If you can’t vote for Chafee over Sheldon Whitehouse, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are just a disgruntled, pathetic sore loser.
Granted that, in his comment, Anthony is not addressing me directly, but a personal insult is no less personal for being broadly cast. What anybody who has read Anchor Rising for more than the past few weeks should know and keep in mind is that I am manifestly not a “Laffey guy,” as some would have it now. Indeed, until very recently, I was pretty much intending to sitting out the primaries.
I long ago resolved never to vote for Linc Chafee, but my handling of his opponents remains an open question. Whatever votes I cast from here on out, while they may result in part from disgruntlement, will not be spurred by the sting of Laffey’s loss.
The closing weeks and months of the primary emphasized for me two considerations:
- I am unimpressed with the national Republicans’ leadership.
- I am beyond unimpressed with the Rhode Island GOP.
Chafee is central to perpetuating both of these factors. In the former case, his vacillation and liberal contrariness weaken the hands of those whose policies I would support, and it was on his behalf that the National Republican Senatorial Committee lay bare its ugly lust for power. In the latter case, he contributes credibility to an uncredible organization — emboldening those invested in the status quo of a me-too “alternative” party in the state.
With increasing obviousness over the past fifteen years, we have been heading into a critical time for national security. The decades to come will also be critical for the fiscal security of the United States and its citizens. And throughout it all, technology and the berserker gasps of moral relativism will make it crucial, during the next half-century, to reinforce the bulwark principles of our culture.
Although I had been drawn in to what may prove to have been a period of conservative fantasy that problems might actually be solved following the dreamlike false peace of the previous decade, the palliative of power among our leaders has begun to convince me that calamity is inevitable. Moreover, the longer we postpone the inevitable, the worse it may be. And whether the damage is maximal or not, a change in leadership will come.
Now that he’s actually begun to put his face forward in the campaign, my opinion of Sheldon Whitehouse is that the Democrats could not have chosen a better incumbent to be overthrown down the road. (His last name isn’t even Kennedy.) Even a coworker of mine who is a reflexive Democrat, from a demographic that has been ill served by its support for that party yet has hardly changed its voting habits, mocks Whitehouse’s presentation in his commercials.
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’m increasingly persuaded, however, that there may be something of hope in the odor of stale baby powder and pressed silk against which I will have to hold my nose should I fill in the arrow for the trust-funded Democrat at the top of my ballot.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.
“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.
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.”
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, 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
>>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.
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:
http://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
“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.