An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Chafee Is Targeted By GOP Conservative Group
First the Democratic left went after and got Joe Lieberman….now the Republican right is going after Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee:
Fresh off their first victory over a Republican incumbent, GOP conservatives seeking party purity on taxes and spending are focused on ousting moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
The Club for Growth and its 36,000 members spent around $1 million to help challenger Tim Walberg unseat first-term Rep. Joe Schwarz in Michigan’s Republican primary on Tuesday. The win came despite Schwarz’s support from President Bush and the National Rifle Association.
Since its inception in 1999, the group has spent millions to help dozens of conservative Republicans win seats in Congress – often at the expense of more moderate party members. The Club’s president, former Rep. Pat Toomey, nearly defeated Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in 2004.
This year, the group’s top priority is defeating Chafee, who angered many Republicans by voting against President Bush’s tax cuts and then casting a write-in vote for the president’s father in the last election. The Club has helped Cranston, R.I., Mayor Stephen Laffey raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat Chafee, and polls show the two Republicans running even a month before the Sept. 12 primary.
The prospect of a Laffey win worries national Republicans, who consider Chafee the party’s best bet for holding the seat in a heavily Democratic state. Polls show Laffey trailing far behind the leading Democratic candidate, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.
The Club’s Web site says that’s fine: “It wouldn’t be much of a loss if a new Democrat senator were elected, as he would vote much the same as Chafee does now.”
That about says it all, doesn’t it?
The Lieberman loss and the Chafee battle are likely to mean politicos of both parties are going to be far more careful in the future about adhering to strictly party lines. Some will argue this would be a welcome development for American politics — that party choices would be clearly delineated. Others will argue that it will mean less give and take — less political horse-trading — since politicos of both parties wouldn’t want to be seen as partisan turncoats. Time will tell which theory is correct. Or perhaps it’ll be both…
14 Responses to “Chafee Is Targeted By GOP Conservative Group”
The problem is, we have come to a big fork in the road. There is no way to split the difference.
Republicans-more of the same
Democrats-something different.
Thanks for the glimpse into the otherside of the fence that seems to be missing from the corperate media. The terrorism overdose that has been going on lately on CNN and cable is crazy. The adminsitration is on a full court press, but I think most people have ralized Iraq does not=GWOT.
Time for moderation and bi-partiasanship when we get off this road, and onto something a little more reasonable.
There’s one huge, and certainly notable, difference between this race and the Lamont-Lieberman race, as noted in the article.
The latter was in Connecticut, a (mostly) “blue” state between two blue candidates. This one is in a (very) blue state between two red candidates. This is far more damaging to the Republican Party than Lamont-Lieberman will ever be to the Democrats. Should Chafee fall, a Democrat will likely take the seat.
So where’s the media circus on this one?
The right wing can’t stand moderates because in thier world either your with us and every issue that we support or you are the ENEMY, period! The American people are getting sick and tired of the name calling that ther right wing engages in just because you may not support their stance on an issue. It makes no difference if you support most of their issues, disagree on one and you soon find your self being labled anti american. Their idea of democracy is fall in line, raise your hand and yell Zeig Heil at a picture of Bush.
Look at what is happening to the voters of Connetticut, Leiberman lost (rightfully so) and now any Democrat that voted for Lamont is now a terrorist linked to Al Quida, unbelievable what these Right Wing smear merchants will do to take over this country.
In Maine we have two popular moderate Republican Senators, one more moderate and therefore more popular senator. The right wing extremist haven’t started there attacks on Senator Snowe’s re-election campaing yet, but I think it is just a matter of time before the Rovian wing of the party will be spewing their venom against her because she unlike Lieberman listens to her constituents and does not always tow the party line making her a target to the RoveRepublican extremist.
As a Rovian venom spewer, I’d like to point out another key difference between the CT and RI primaries: in CT, Lieberman was charged with differing with the party on a single issue. The war aside, he’s walked the party line pretty firmly with few exceptions. Chafee, on the other hand, has broken with the GOP on the war, taxes, spending, gay marriage, right to life, energy policy and foreign affairs. As a New York Republican, I know that our elected officials can’t be Tom Coburn clones, but at the end of the day, even our most liberal GOPers stand with the party more than Chafee.
NYCR- Lieberman also broke with his party on Terry Schiavo and the bankruptcy bill. He criticized Bill Clinton, a friend of thirty years, on the floor of the Senate when he had the affair with Monica Lewinsky, then repaired the relationship when he needed his help in the primary. He’s also been critical of Democrats who opposed Bush’s policy on Iraq. I don’t think the situation with Chafee is that different than the one with Lieberman, except that the press seized on the Lieberman/Lamont race to show a split in the Democratic party.
Lieberman seems to do what’s best for himself, not the Democratic Party. In 2000, he kept his Senate seat, leaving open the possiblity that Connecticut’s Republican governor could replace him with a Republican in the event that he won the race for Al Gore’s Vice President. Now that he’s lost the Democratic primary, he wants to run as an independent, which would split the vote three ways, again opening the possibility for a Republican victory. He seems to have very little party loyalty, and seems out of touch with his constituents. In 1988, he defeated Independent Lowell Weicker by saying that eighteen years was long enough to remain in power, and promised that he would leave office after eighteen years. Well, its been eighteen years, and I guess that was just another empty promise.
This is an interesting situation, if the Dems were not going so far to the left they could pick up moderate Republicans, including ex- candidates, and really become a political powerhouse. The Dems won’t do this and that leaves the DLC and moderate Republican groups in the political wilderness. Can they come together in a third party? The trouble with a moderate party is that there is no “party line� , moderates are independent thinkers without the demagoguery and preoccupation with purity of ‘beliefs�. What moderates need is s platform of some commonly held principals, such as fiscal responsibility, but acknowledge that candidates will act independently, because that is what makes us what we are. The best way to differentiate ourselves from the extremes, and endear us to the electorate, is to always be measured in our speech. Let the hypervenataltors go at each other with vitrol, and show people that the reasonable adults are in the middle.
The press and web pundits like a quick story and do little research. The Club for Growth spent a lot of outside money to go after Rep. Joe Schwarz. The only reason Schwarz won in 2004 is that as the moderate he allowed the hard Conservatives split the vote. the 2004 Republican primary had 4 or 6 candidates. The far Right destroyed each other and Scharz snuck in. Chafee is an incumbent of many years were the few modertae Republicans are stronger. The NE is the land on Rockifeller(sp) and years ago they had an elephant known as Liberal.
As a Rovian venom spewer, I’d like to point out another key difference between the CT and RI primaries: in CT, Lieberman was charged with differing with the party on a single issue.
Thats a lie, and you sir are a liar. Or too ignorent to be offering up your two cents. Kim covered some of the other things, and I include . Joe also gave cover the the attempted rape of social security. His worse sin was that he destroyed party unity at every oppertunity.
Once again- you are a liar.
The big problem for moderate candidates is that many of today’s issues demand strong support or opposition. It is difficult to be a little bit for the war, for example. Liberals can harvest the wealth of bad feeling voters have towards the Bush administration and also benefit from the largesse of rich liberal donors. They also seem to garner intense support from liberal websites like Moveon.org. Conservatives are also extremely organized and get tremendous support from Christian right organizations and conservative-owned radio and TV stations.
But there is no strong political, internet or monetary support for moderates, so they are more easily attacked and replaced. Once party affiliation is gone donation sources dry up, and candidates flounder. Purging of moderates is a dangerous trend, however, that will lead to more gridlock and bitter partisanship, with fewer politicians willing to buck the party line and cross the aisle to work out a compromise.
I personally oppose the war in Iraq and am anti-Bush and so would have voted for Lamont if I lived in CT. But I think this country needs its moderates–or there will be wild political swings in the pendulum.
Kim, yes, yes, yes, very good points to consider. Do you see any way to overcome these issues? You are right, the one problem of moderates is that we don’t jump up and down and scream at someone on command, we reflect on things and know when our chains are being yanked.
Grognard-What’s going on with Unity ’08? I haven’t heard anything about it in a while. I thought the concept was an interesting one.
I remember that the political parties were also more radicalized during the Viet Nam War– remember 1968???? The left was really full of wackos and the right was full of hawkish squares who just didn’t get the counterculture. The current political clime is heading in that direction. The difference, as it appears to me, is that this time around the Republicans are the ones way out of the mainstream, having taken a hard right after Newt’s Republican Revolution.
I am feeling a bit less moderate myself these days, as I would do just about anything to wrest power from this party. I don’t think moderates will survive the purges in national politics—so the best we may be able to do is try to balance the wacko right with a hard left–so that neither side can get their agenda underway. I would be satisfied if the Dems win at least one house of Congress in November-and that is how I plan to vote.
Kim, I am in the same place you are, I will vote for Dems only to keep a balance of power. I agree we might have a hard left vs. a hard right that just gets us gridlock, what a way to run a country! Good observation on the radicalization of the left and right, I don’t know how many time I have read that right wingers came to be so radical as a result of being ostracized on campus. Of course “campus� is not all of society but by the time they got out of college the damage was done as far as the bitterness. I still think that there is a role for us as far a moderating political speech, if we don’t turn it down who will? As far as unity 08 I will have to take another look, maybe recent events have overshadowed things. thanks for the thoughts, I always look forward to reading your comments.
Joe–
As of right now, this post of yours in the number two story that comes up in Google News if you search on thie word “Chafee”.
Congratulations–others who are paying attention will know you’re paying attention, too.
By the way, Joe, as if you don’t have enough to keep track of, the Hawaiian Democratic primary for Senate is getting closer. The incumbant, Daniel Akaka, is more liberal than the challenger, Ed Case.
Rassmussen Poll link HERE.
And a recent story on the race by the Honolulu Advertiser is HERE.
Snarky—
If you need to call people liars to shore up your case, that’s all well and good, but seeing as I was in CT, and watched the actual campaign, I can speak with some authority to the fact that Lamont made the case to the voters that Lieberman should be replaced almost exclusively for his vote on the war. If you ask primary voters in CT as to what issues the candidates differ on, there’s a good chance that’s the only one they can name.
It doesn’t matter where else Lieberman has broken ranks: the fact of the matter is the Lamont crew sent a message to voters that dissent from the party line on a single issue warrants replacing an otherwise qualified incumbent.
Liar? Ha.
PING:
TITLE: Does Chafee Equal Lieberman For The GOP?
BLOG NAME: Captain’s Quarters
Now that the left wing of the Democratic Party has kneecapped Joe Lieberman, a staunch liberal but a hawk on Iraq, some have accused the conservatives of the GOP of committing a similar mistake with Lincoln Chafee, the liberal Senator…
PING:
TITLE: Chafee Is Targeted By GOP Conservative Group
BLOG NAME: Booker Rising
The Moderate Voice, a moderate-liberal blog, writes about a political party targeting a centrist: “First the Democratic left went after and got Joe Lieberman….now the Republican right is going after Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee….The Lieber…