Primary election day . . .

[D-Backs Hack]

In a lot of states, including mine. Get out and vote if you can.

And Rhode Island Republicans: If you boot Lincoln Chaffee in the senate primary for wingnut Stephen Laffey, much thanks for the Democratic Senate seat pickup in November.

Funny, I haven't seen any hand-wringing on cable news about how the far side of a party is putting democracy in peril by threatening to evict a moderate senator, in part because of Iraq (Chaffee was the only GOP senator to vote against the resolution).

If you're in Maryland, however, good luck:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091200535.html

My God, why is it so hard to run a simple election in this country?

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

The comparisons between Chafee and Lieberman are faulty.

Lieberman was an absolute, mainstream Democrat except for one issue. Chafee is to the far left of most Republicans and, if he were a Dem, also would be considered a liberal. He is not moderate in any sense of the word, unless your perspective is to the left of Lenin.

 

[cranberry]

The comparisons between Chafee and Lieberman are faulty.

Lieberman was an absolute, mainstream Democrat except for one issue. Chafee is to the far left of most Republicans and, if he were a Dem, also would be considered a liberal. He is not moderate in any sense of the word, unless your perspective is to the left of Lenin.

Wrong. I spent a long time in Connecticut and, in fact, lived a few blocks from Lieberman. He's always been on the conservative side of the party.

 

[Oz]

I voted in my state primary, what, two months ago? Been waiting for Nov. 7 ever since.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

The comparisons between Chafee and Lieberman are faulty.

Lieberman was an absolute, mainstream Democrat except for one issue. Chafee is to the far left of most Republicans and, if he were a Dem, also would be considered a liberal. He is not moderate in any sense of the word, unless your perspective is to the left of Lenin.

Wrong. I spent a long time in Connecticut and, in fact, lived a few blocks from Lieberman. He's always been on the conservative side of the party.

Well, he votes with the party about 90 percent of the time, so the party must be a lot more conservative than most people think.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

The comparisons between Chafee and Lieberman are faulty.

I think they are more similar than you think -- except, of course, in media reaction to it.

Regardless, your description of Chaffee suggests that you feel Rhode Island Republicans should be able to elect a senate nominee that is more in line with their views. I still don't know why you and others wouldn't afford Connecticut Democrats the same opportunity.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

The comparisons between Chafee and Lieberman are faulty.

I think they are more similar than you think -- except, of course, in media reaction to it.

Regardless, your description of Chaffee suggests that you feel Rhode Island Republicans should be able to elect a senate nominee that is more in line with their views. I still don't know why you and others wouldn't afford Connecticut Democrats the same opportunity.

Were Connecticut Demorcrats barred from voting for Lamont? Doesn't seem that way.

I just think it's funny that a candidate who agrees with virtually everything its party believes was rejected so soundly. When it comes to party loyalty, I don't think Chafee comes anywhere close to Lieberman.

 

[Point of Order]

I just think it's funny that a candidate who agrees with virtually everything its party believes was rejected so soundly. When it comes to party loyalty, I don't think Chafee comes anywhere close to Lieberman.

1. Holy Joe lost touch with his constituency - that's not about right or left, it's about Connecticut.
2. Being on the wrong side of the Iraq issue, and so firmly on the wrong side of it, isn't the same as dissenting on a run-of-the-mill appropriations bill. Iraq gets weighted more heavily.
3. Lieberman has been migrating to the right side of American politics since 2000. He was the last Democrat to abandon the Bush plan to privatize social security, giving the administration bipartisan cover long after the American people rejected his idea (and if republicans maintain control of both houses of congress, it will be privatized).
4. Lieberman has always been a values-voters type guy. He condemned Clinton, regularly. He condemned Hollywood, regularly. Iraq made the difference. Losing touch in Connecticut made the difference.
5. If the Democrat can't win in R.I., regardless of whether it's Chafee or Laffey on the republican side, then I feel sorry for the state of Rhode Island. I watched the debate Laffey and Chafee had and it looked more like a junior high class election debate. Both of these guys are an embarrassment to campaigning. The senate campaign up there will look like a community theatre production of Phantom of the Opera

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I just think it's funny that a candidate who agrees with virtually everything its party believes was rejected so soundly. When it comes to party loyalty, I don't think Chafee comes anywhere close to Lieberman.

Let's not forget Joe's alliance with that tower of virtue, Bill Bennett.
I do like the notion of RI having a senator named Whitehouse, though.

1. Holy Joe lost touch with his constituency - that's not about right or left, it's about Connecticut.
2. Being on the wrong side of the Iraq issue, and so firmly on the wrong side of it, isn't the same as dissenting on a run-of-the-mill appropriations bill. Iraq gets weighted more heavily.
3. Lieberman has been migrating to the right side of American politics since 2000. He was the last Democrat to abandon the Bush plan to privatize social security, giving the administration bipartisan cover long after the American people rejected his idea (and if republicans maintain control of both houses of congress, it will be privatized).
4. Lieberman has always been a values-voters type guy. He condemned Clinton, regularly. He condemned Hollywood, regularly. Iraq made the difference. Losing touch in Connecticut made the difference.
5. If the Democrat can't win in R.I., regardless of whether it's Chafee or Laffey on the republican side, then I feel sorry for the state of Rhode Island. I watched the debate Laffey and Chafee had and it looked more like a junior high class election debate. Both of these guys are an embarrassment to campaigning. The senate campaign up there will look like a community theatre production of Phantom of the Opera

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

We'll see how much Lieberman's "lost touch with Connecticut" when he wins re-election.

 

[Point of Order]

Monday, Sept. 11, 2006 3:36 p.m. EDT

Zogby also found that Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is running as an independent in Connecticut, has seen his lead over Democrat Ned Lamont shrink from 10 points in August to four points in the new poll.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/11/154024.shtml

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Here are some differences between Chafee and Lieberman:

--Chaffee has the complete support of the party's establishment. The NRSC has said they will disavow Laffey if he wins. This is in direct contrast to Schumer, et al. vowing to support the winner of the primary, which only encouraged Dems to vote for Lamont.

--The outside influences (Club for Growth, etc.) in the GOP primary have a clear agenda (electing conservatives that they like) and supporting Laffey over Chafee fits with that agenda. On the other hand, Daily Kos has said that his agenda is putting more Democrats into power and into office. It's a nakedly partisan agenda. It's his right to do so. Lord knows there are GOP groups with the same agenda. But pouring money and resources into toppling Lieberman only takes away resources from other Senate races (NJ, TN, PA, MT, MN, OH, MO, etc.) where those resources could be the difference between winning and losing. If your only goal is to take back the Senate for the Dems, how does the Lieberman/Lamont sideshow help that cause?

 

[D-Backs Hack]

Monday, Sept. 11, 2006 3:36 p.m. EDT

Zogby also found that Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is running as an independent in Connecticut, has seen his lead over Democrat Ned Lamont shrink from 10 points in August to four points in the new poll.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/11/154024.shtml

There was an election of some sort recently where Lamont closed pretty good against Lieberman, wasn't there?

 

[Football_Bat]

Rove is so desperate to keep a GOP incumbent he unleashed the smear hounds on Laffey. Matthews showed a couple of them.

 

[Webster]

I just voted in NYC, in which there were two blowout races (Hillary for Sen. and Spitzer for Gov.) and one contested race (Attorney General). Besides my 13 month old daughter, there wasn't anyone at the polling place except for the workers. They said that it was the worst turnout that they had ever seen.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Rove is so desperate to keep a GOP incumbent he unleashed the smear hounds on Laffey. Matthews showed a couple of them.

The White House has a policy that they always support incumbents. This is a virtual repeat of Specter v. Toomey in 2004 and the WH came down hard in favor of Specter, even though Toomey would have not broken ranks as much as Snarlin Arlin does.

 

[terrier]

Joyful tidings from the Ocean State - Linc Chafee has pulled out a primary win over a guy Chris Matthews donned his kneepads for two weeks ago.
My state stood up to Club for Growth. The independents turned out for Linc. Problem is, even though Laffey gave a gracious enough concession speech, most of his supporters would rather have their fingernails ripped off than vote for Chafee in November.
One sad note: my mayor, who takes campaign contributions from mobsters and basically says screw you"to anyone who asks about it, won the Dem primary for secretary of state. And Patrick Kennedy made plenty of robocalls for him. Guess I'm voting for two more Republicans in November.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

The White House has a policy that they always support incumbents. This is a virtual repeat of Specter v. Toomey in 2004 and the WH came down hard in favor of Specter, even though Toomey would have not broken ranks as much as Snarlin Arlin does.

But Toomey might not have even won the general election. It's not like the Dems put up a great challenger, but he was a good speaker and said the things a lot of Dems wanted to hear in 2004, in a state that Kerry won. Toomey is either to the right of, or in the general viscinity of Rick Santorum. Politically, that isn't a good place to be in Pa right now. Santorum will find that out two months from now. Toomey would have just found that out first.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

The White House has a policy that they always support incumbents. This is a virtual repeat of Specter v. Toomey in 2004 and the WH came down hard in favor of Specter, even though Toomey would have not broken ranks as much as Snarlin Arlin does.

But Toomey might not have even won the general election. It's not like the Dems put up a great challenger, but he was a good speaker and said the things a lot of Dems wanted to hear in 2004, in a state that Kerry won. Toomey is either to the right of, or in the general viscinity of Rick Santorum. Politically, that isn't a good place to be in Pa right now. Santorum will find that out two months from now. Toomey would have just found that out first.

You're basically making the same argument that the GOP made in favor of Chafee.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Here are some differences between Chafee and Lieberman:

--Chaffee has the complete support of the party's establishment. The NRSC has said they will disavow Laffey if he wins. This is in direct contrast to Schumer, et al. vowing to support the winner of the primary, which only encouraged Dems to vote for Lamont.

--The outside influences (Club for Growth, etc.) in the GOP primary have a clear agenda (electing conservatives that they like) and supporting Laffey over Chafee fits with that agenda. On the other hand, Daily Kos has said that his agenda is putting more Democrats into power and into office. It's a nakedly partisan agenda. It's his right to do so. Lord knows there are GOP groups with the same agenda. But pouring money and resources into toppling Lieberman only takes away resources from other Senate races (NJ, TN, PA, MT, MN, OH, MO, etc.) where those resources could be the difference between winning and losing. If your only goal is to take back the Senate for the Dems, how does the Lieberman/Lamont sideshow help that cause?

All nonsense, Your Holiness.
The Club For Growth is as interested in electing Republicans as Kos is in electing Democrats. (When either one endorses across the aisle, give me a call.) CFG is interesting in electing ITS KIND of Republicans, which is a distinction without a difference.
The Democratic establishment supported Lieberman all through the primary campaign. He lost. Now it supports the candidate who won the Democratic primary. Color me shocked.
There is no zero-sum game in political fundraising. There's no salary cap. If you want to worry about people sucking up the available money, then you want to look at people like Hillary, who has eight or 10 million in the bank for an election that she is going to win by about 45 percentage points.