An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Republican Lincoln Chafee Should Switch Parties
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “Republican Lincoln Chafee Should Switch Parties”
this is a big loss to both parties…while i would welcome senator chaffee into the dem party, his voice is important in the republican party
In a perfect world, the GOP would already be working to reform their party with their moderates like Chaffee.
Uncle Joe said: “…this is a big loss to both parties…while i would welcome senator chaffee into the dem party, his voice is important in the republican party”
This is nada loss. Seriously.
Compare Chaffee and Lieberman:
(1) with the notable exceptions of the ME and Clinton’s follies, Lieberman could be counted as a solid Dem. liberal vote…Chaffee could also be counted as a solid liberal vote.
(2) when the Dem party turned on Lieberman, he got his licks back, but still Lieberman declares: “I am a Democrat.”
When the Repub. party throws tons of cash and support to help Chaffee, and even knee caps his more conservative opponent to help him in the primary, Chaffee declares: “Maybe I should be a Democrat.”
Yes, I can see why liberal websites are fawning over that odious character.
I am a moderate conservative…pretty liberal in a lot of ways…but Chaffee was odious and unreliable. This isn’t ideology but the facts of political life. When you are in the trenches, you want to be sure your trench mate isn’t gonna frag you at the last second, and run over to the other team.
I am sure WH repulsion at his announcement of continued opposition to Bolton – after the WH moved a lot of operatives and money his way for the election – had something to do with the announcement they would try to get Bolton through anyhow.
Schumer and Clinton have both committed to vote for Bolton – or at least not block – given the Jewish lobby was very pleased at Bolton’s support in the recent war, and leaned heavily on them.
It will be interesting to see if it get through.
But losing Chaffee…bah…good riddance to bad rubbish!
Well, I don’t consider Lincoln Chafee a true conservative Republican. Barry Goldwater was a true conservative Republican.
Lincoln Chafee and many Northeastern Republicans are more in the mold of Rockefeller Republicans –moderate to liberal on social and domestic policies, in favor of New Deal Programs (run efficiently), favors balanced budgets, and supports long term economic growth mainly through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. As are Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Jim Jeffords (now independent) and quite a few other Republicans from the Northeast. Including Lincoln’s father, John Chafee.
Whether or not this type of Republican will be welcomed in this modern GOP party — I highly doubt it. If not, the GOP better be prepared to lose the northeast.
Ack…you make some good points.
But Snow and Collins are reliable, in the same way Lieberman was a reliable Democrat — one knows where their sensitive points are, and can generally predict how things will go.
Chaffee waffled and couldn’t be relied upon.
I ask you to compare Lieberman’s attitude towards the Democrats (yes, self-serving, but even so) after being nailed in the primary, to Chaffee’s public comments towards the GOP after being SUPPORTED by the GOP in the primary and election.
This isn’t about ideology, but about political loyalty. The GOP hasn’t mounted witchhunts on the basis of ideology — else Guiliani and McCain would have been long gone. McCain supported the side in the election, as did Guiliani.
Your points are well-taken. I hope the GOP does never goes to the far-right. But Chaffee…bah!!!
Marlowecan — I believe that Chafee’s statements about GWB and the modern GOP have been consistent all along. I am one of his constituents. He has been very, very consistent on who he is and what he believes. He was the only Republican who voted against the war. He was a true representative of both Republicans and Democrats in Rhode Island.
And let’s face it — GWB’s ratings in Rhode Island are at around 22% — we are the Official Bush Hating State.
Rhode Islanders knew long ago that Chafee did not like the modern GOP — that was not a secret.
And as to Lieberman — his becoming an Independent after losing the Democratic primary — um, that was a bit of a slap in the face to Democrats.
Yes, I agree, Chaffee had a difficult line to straddle. Actually, I don’t fault him with his vote against the war. One respects people’s principles on such matters. And yes, as you say, he represented his constituents in that regard.
But there was no need to slag the GOP yesterday, especially after the support the party has thrown him in the primary and the election. Yes, W. was a weight around his neck…but Presidents are like gravity like that, no sense complaining as we are all stuck with it…plus, the WH did whatever it could to help him.
Well, Lieberman is now caucasing with the Dem.s and will be back in the fold. He has been notably restrained in his bitterness, after the attacks on him. Yet Chaffee was treated with kidgloves by the leadership, and he turns around and p****s on them.
Please note, this is not about ideology. I respect many liberal Dems. Barney Frank, for example, has always had my respect…increased after the Eason Jordan fiasco at Davos, where in the midst of a liberal audience Frank called Jordan on his slagging the US military. I respect my friends who are against the war, against the Patriot Act etc….
There is an old political saying I was told years ago, that about sums it up my feelings:
“You dance with them what brung ya.”
The GOP support was not so much in support of Chafee, but more to understanding the political reality that his opponent polled terribly against Sheldon Whitehouse.
And what Chafee said after the election was no different in tone than what he had said consistently before the election.
But, I guess we differ on our thinking about that and I’ll leave it at that.
Although, one quick aside. How many incumbents do you know who had a favorability rating of 66% and still lost their race! Remarkable. And the Providence Journal had an interesting article right after the election — interviewing many, many voters who all basically said “I really like Chafee, but this year I couldn’t vote for him.” These statements were from identified Republicans and Democrats. And if they had interviewed me, an independent, I would have said much the same.
Ack – I agree with you about Chafee. His loss was not due to Rhode Islander’s dissatisfaction with his performance, but with their dissatisfaction with the Republican Party as a whole. I think uberloyalty to party was the Republican’s problem not the solution. If more Republicans had taken their oversight roles more seriously and voted their conciences instead of the party line, they might still be in the majority.
Chafee did what his constituents sent him to Washington to do—represent them. He unfortunately got caught in the crossfire, leaving the Republicans with few moderates.
If Chafee would be more comfortable as a Democrat- I see nothing wrong with changing parties. It might send the same signal to the Republican party that the voters sent—-they want bipartisanship, moderation and oversight of the executive. All three have been largely abandoned by this congress.
Colorado senator Ben Campbell was a Democrat, then became a Republican, then left politics altogether. I think he didn’t fit well with either party and retired. It looks like Chaffee has the same problem. He might have been treated with kid gloves by the Party but Conservatives reviled him. As Ack pointed out he did represent the district and if he had been a Limbaugh waterboy Republican he would never have been elected in the first place. You can be the true believer all you want on the sidelines, when you run for office you have to be somewhat in tune with the district you will represent. Trying to go it alone has tremendous hurdles, but if a moderate independent party could start to form around him who knows? The trouble is that in his home state he is done, where could he go to run for office?
I think that’s exactly right, Kim. And it will end up as a problem for the Democrats, too, if they run the same games.
I’ve long thought he should become an independent.
He doesn’t think like the new republicans. His ideas are not in line with the extreem views held by his party these days. Plus, I’ve heard the gop wants to purge the moderates like him.
He should become an idependent. He would have won if he was. If party affliation dooms a decent and honest person I think these guys should be independent.
I’m not a republican but, I do admire his spirit.
Grogard said: “Colorado senator Ben Campbell was a Democrat, then became a Republican, then left politics altogether. I think he didn’t fit well with either party and retired.”
Grogard makes a very good point here. People who cross lines are never fully trusted.
I was reading a couple of bio.s of Winston Churchill this summer past…who moved from the Tories to the Liberals to the Tories (well, sorta more complicated because of weird coaltions at the time over Ireland and all, but you get the point).
For all his ability and genius – and even saving the country – he was never really trusted by anyone in British political life. This has shaded conservative historians views of him to this day.
My point being, I suppose, analogous to the theme of Scorsese’s “The Departed” (yah, politics, crime, what’s the difference)…nobody trusts a “rat”…even when they are titans.
And it will end up as a problem for the Democrats, too, if they run the same games.
Yes, I agree totally. I think that they realize that and at least appear to want to work with Republicans and the president. They will be in a tough position as well, a lot of their base want investigations and accountability, which inevitably leads to a more hostile, partisan environment.
Also, their margin of victory is not overwhelming, especially in the Senate, where they would have needed the help of someone like Chafee to get a 2/3 majority for any legislation. But, at least the Republicans got a badly deserved lesson, and we now have restored our checks and balances.
I don’t think it is just the base that wants investigations and accountability. I read on the Cunning Realist’s Blog the other day — a Republican who is horrifed by Bush — this:
and this:
What the Democrats have to be careful with is the tone and degree.
The secrecy under which the GWB Administration has habitually operated opens up a huge field for potential investigations. Bush’s approval ratings are testament to the public’s general skepticism about what his minions have been up to.
Marlowecan,
You said “I hope the GOP does never goes to the far-right.”. I hate to tell you this but they already have. After this loss I think that the leadership’s reaction will be to misread what happened and think that getting more of the hyperconservative base out to vote and it will only cost them more. Then they’ll temporarily self destruct. The other option I can see the current crew trying is to move towards the middle in their public statements while assuring their current base in private. But that will leak out and still cost them the center. The other option is an attempt to move backwards to something that doesn’t rely on the religious right so much but will win back the enthusiasm of the fiscal conservatives. This strategy would take some time to take effect but would win them back fiscally conservative centrists.
The reason people can argue about the GOP moving right and correctly identify reasons that it either will or won’t do so, is that there are various ways of moving right or left. The GOP can easily move to the center on social issues, and stop playing to the RR. Those who feel upset by that will either continue voting R anyway (because they may not like the GOP not pushing their agenda but they know that the Dems are pushing an opposite one), or they will stay home next election cycle. But the GOP can simultaneously move back to the right on economic issues. If it does so in terms of returning to fiscally conservative principles of reducing size of govt and reducing deficit spending, but stays fairly centrist on business issues (saying no to excessive corporate interests, and saying yes to sensible environmental regulation AND incentives for development of renewable energy technology), they will have a winning platform. Add to that the hawkishness on national security, and the Democrats will have a short lived comeback.
I agree, jjc- but if the Dems pursue them too aggressively they will be seen as petty partisans. Its definitely a fine line they are walking. It would be better to have some bipartisan consensus on which investigations to pursue. Otherwise, they’ll face a backlash in ’08, the way the Republicans did after Monicagate.
While I agree with you on the platform — I have to say I shuddered with the “short lived comeback” for the Democrats. I really don’t think it is healthy for a democracy to have one party represented in all branches of government. This leaves roughly half of the country not really represented.
And I don’t think that is what our founders intended.
Jeez, after that last sentence, I feel like breaking out into a patriotic song.
LOL, I agree with you, Ack, that we shouldn’t return to one party rule and I wasn’t suggesting that I think that would happen. I was just outlining ways that I see how the GOP can rise from the ashes in order to make sure that the Democrats don’t become the one party that rules all!
CS- , I honestly think Republicans should go back to their small government, fiscal conservative libertarian roots. They have lost a lot of supporters by overspending and getting overly involved in our private lives. Terry Schiavo was a low point for the party.
I also think the party’s neocons will not survive for long, but that we will go back to a realistic foreign policy, when negotiating with our enemies wasn’t labeled appeasement, and get more input from our allies in making decisions. I see this entire period as an overreaction to 9/11. 9/11 was a tragic event that should have woken us up, but what we are doing now is not making us any safer. There’s no way to stabilize Iraq without the help of Iran and Syria- Baker has already talked to them unofficially.