How dare Lincoln Chafee think for himself! If he won't stay in lockstep, our angry friend Paul is willing to hurt the country.
How could the GOP promote Roy Bunt?! It seems that if Paul doesn't get his way then democracy itself should be punished!
I think multi-party (meaning more than two) systems are generally bad for democratic government, but I'm not sure how longer we can maintain the two-party system when this is the best we can do.
So if you don't get EVERYTHING you want you may just support something you believe is generally bad for democracy. You ARE a good little Republican aren't you? A bad American, but a damn good example of how the Republican party as raised a generation so selfish that they are willing to risk destroying our nation if they don't get their way.
Man, I hate to do this on consecutive threads, but it's time once again to break out the MQAblog theme:
Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?
Can he walk at all,
Or if he moves will he fall?
Is he alive or dead?
Has he thoughts within his head?
We’ll just pass him there
Why should we even care?
He was turned to steel
In the great magnetic field
Where he traveled time
For the future of mankind
Nobody wants him
He just stares at the world
Planning his vengeance
That he will soon unfold
Sorry, Paul, I'm having a brain freeze on Black Sabbath. Maybe I could just quote plain old Ozzie instead? ("Crazy, but that's how it goes . . . ")
Seriously, the Republican Party has a major malfunction when it comes to enforcement. The great irony is that the GOP is frequently accused of marching in lockstep when, in reality, it has a far harder time actually getting party membership to act as a united front. Contrast this with those lovers of diversity across the aisle, who all but vow to strip campaign funds from those who stray ideologically.
Seriously, the Republican Party has a major malfunction when it comes to enforcement.
Indeed.
The thing is, I can almost understand why they supported Specter. He's a RINO, but more than nominally a Republican, and they thought that the Senate margin would be tighter. But Chafee couldn't even bring himself to vote for the President in 2004. By comparison, he makes Specter look far-right. I really don't understand at all the party's need to back him.
Paul, I am kind of torn when it comes to what to do about what could most optimistically be dubbed diversity of opinion and more negatively be dubbed lack of discipline. While the Chafees and the Snowes are irritating for their off-the-reservation attitude, I am not so sure the solution is doing what the DNC does (i.e., enforcing uniformity by threatening loss of campaign funds, etc.).
While it may seem counterintuitive for fund-raisers and party-builders, perhaps the solution is for the RNC to step away from the primary process (even in incumbent situations), wait for a nominee to emerge, and then throw financial support to that nominee.
Whatever your take on the above, I think we both agree that John Chafee (God rest his soul) is rolling over in his grave, wondering how he could have produced such a waste of space for a son.
I like that solution (waiting until the primary is over).
Again, to repeat: I don't expect all members of the party to march in lock step, but there has to be a point where a guy is not just considered an independent voice but is actively hostile to his own party. The same holds true for Zell Miller. If I were a Democrat and he were running for re-election, I don't think I'd want my party financing him and running negative ads against a liberal primary opponent.
I'm going to pose a question to Paul and GC. In all seriousness, can Chafee really be faulted for opposing Alito? Isn't there a strong argument to suggest that he is obligated to vote in a manner consistent with his constituency. RI, like it or not, is a left of center "blue" state, whose residents likely oppose Alito. Doesn't Chafee owe that at least some consideration, or does that not matter when the Party's position is the opposite. Same would go for Zell Miller, whom would have exactly the same problem in right of center "red" Georgia. I'm asking because this, in my opinion, legitimate possibility (though there is an equally strong argument the other way) seemed to be lost in the debate about party loyalty.
I think we both agree that John Chafee (God rest his soul) is rolling over in his grave
Gotta disagree. The only difference between the Chaffee's is that old John was called a "Rockefeller Republican" in his day. Lincoln is now called a "RINO."
Other than that, they're the same: never met a tax they didn't like levied, a baby they didn't like (given the right to be) aborted, or a federal piece of pork spent. No, I'm not a fan of the Chaffees.
Paul, the GOP support for Chaffee makes no ideological sense. But perhaps it's a reflection of the GOP's fear of losing several Senate seats in the 2006 election and a victorious Chaffee pulling a Jeffords. If they're confident in a continuing majority, why not cut him lose. Or maybe they're not.
Jeff, fair enough with regard to Chafee the Elder being a Rockefeller Republican, although I do not think he would have gone as far off the reservation as his son. Liberal tendencies? Sure. Refusing to support a Republican president's nominee to the Supreme Court? Not likely.
Also:
[T]he GOP support for Chaffee makes no ideological sense. But perhaps it's a reflection of the GOP's fear of losing several Senate seats in the 2006 election and a victorious Chaffee pulling a Jeffords. If they're confident in a continuing majority, why not cut him lose[?]
I chalk it up to a misguided White House strategy that believes it unwise to let incumbents loose (note: I used "loose" instead of "lose" intentionally -- it is not a typo), lest doing so endanger the Senate majority. I understand the fear, but two concerns come to mind:
1) they (i.e., the White House) may ultimately be doing more harm than good by attacking otherwise solid potential future candidates who just happen to be challenging an incumbent (i.e., Toomey v. Specter); and,
2) at some point, this becomes a forest-for-the-trees equation, because you find yourself supporting people who are hostile to your agenda despite the fact that they all share a party. At what point do you say, "This incumbent is just way too moderate or liberal, and we need a more conservative candidate in there to represent our interests?"
Put more bluntly, if your only goal is to hang on to the Senate, you have to wonder why you are hanging on to the Senate at all if the only candidates you are supporting are moderates who will not support you on issues when the time comes.
True enough, GC. I'll grant you the point about Chaffee Sr. I looked up the 1991 vote for Clarence Thomas in comparison. Chaffee Sr was indeed a YEA. Only Republicans to vote NAY were Jeffords (big surprise) and Bob Packwood (irony!).
Otherwise, your comments on the misguided WH strategy seem right on point to me. It's an obvious 'if not now then when?' moment.
Commenting by HaloScan
