The Sounds of Silence
I’ve so thoroughly checked out of the current RI Senate race that I didn’t even realize there was a debate last night. Ah well….the ProJo has it covered.
I suppose no one can really be surprised that the conservatives hereabouts have taken, at best, lukewarm interest in a race between Patrician “A” and Patrician “B” in which both try their hardest to show how unconservative (ie; “anti-Bush”) they are.
Patrician “A” owes his current electoral viability to the political groundgame orchestrated by the advisors of the President he currently castigates. Meanwhile, Patrician “B” offers no really new ideas and has basically chiseled his whole campaign down to the core theme that a vote for his opponent is a vote for BUSH. It’s politics as a game of “I know you are but what am I?” It’s certainly not a debate over political ideas and is really all about winning political power for its own sake. That’s fine, but it’s not very interesting to me. But, heck, if you’re interested, feel free to comment.
UPDATE: Chuck Nevola is a more intrepid man than I and has more analysis here.
I’m planning on writing in “Steve Laffey.”
I had reservations about Laffey, but he was far more moderate than either of the current candidates (Chafee the conventional liberal and Whitebread the uber-liberal).
Since under no circumstances would I vote for a socialist – liberal -progressive (choose your preferred label, they’re one in the same), my two choices are sit-out the U.S. Senate race, or write-in a candidate.
I very much resent how the Republican Party establishment in Washington, D.C. hijacked the RI Republican primary – using DEMOCRATIC voters to do it.
So instead of sitting-out this race, I’m going to write-in Steve Laffey as a protest.
Hopefully if enough people do this it will send a strong message to the Republican Party (RINO) establishment.
I watched the debate, and made several observations which I have posted at my blog.
In a nutshell:
These two guys are peas in a pod – even their respective fathers were buddies at Yale. This is essentially what Laffey warned us about.
Chafee unabashedly proclaimed his “Independent thinking,” saying that when we look up on top of the Capitol building in Providence and see the Independent Man, we should think of him. If it is Chafee, I hope he takes a swan dive.
Whitehouse was suave, controlled and attractive on the outside. Chafee was awkward, jerky and weird (as usual).
Chafee got in one or two good punches on Whitehouse relative to the scandal at Roger Williams. Evidently, Whitehouse was confronted with it and did nothing.
Whitehouse kept pounding home the point that although “Chafee’s opposition to the Iraq war was commendable (ahem!) his vote for the Leadership has assured Republican leadership instead of the necessary Democrat leadership we all desire (ahem!).
But I don’t think the debate mattered one iota. Laffey absolutely won his debates against Chafee, and he still lost by 8%. I suspect the same here. Chafee held his own here, but so what.
But I must say, I’d rather vote for liberal Chafee over not voting, which will assure a Whitehouse victory, helping to tip the balance in the Senate.
I’ll give a pithier answer — I really don’t care what either Chafee or Whitehouse say inside or outside the debates. I couldn’t even bring myself to watch the whole thing, and I had recorded it! When both sides of a debate basically agree on all the major issues, what could they say, really, that hasn’t already been said, that is supposed to convince me to vote their way?
As for voting, I’m just going to say “vote your conscience.” If your conscience, as a conservative, will permit you to do so, so be it. Mine won’t. If Chafee wins reelection, it will not be with my help, and I can be content with that. America is good because we can all agree to disagree and still be good Americans.
I am writing-in Steve Laffey too. It is the only choice that makes any sense.