An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Chafee Confirms Bush Never Wanted To Unite
Surprised? Didn’t think so.
Still, a recent editorial from Chafee reveals that when Bush was President elect in December 2000, his administration was planning to turn the government into a partisan battleground.
I take a closer look here.
24 Responses to “Chafee Confirms Bush Never Wanted To Unite”
Hear, hear!!
Between this, coming out against Bolton’s renomination, and his comments after the election, I think it’s very likely Chaffee will be switching parties or doing something even more surprising soon. In any case I’ve been pleasantly surprised.
What rubbish!
Quoth Chaffee: “I was incredulous.”
I would note that this was in 2000! And Chaffee quite happily accepted WH Machiavellian assistance in kneecapping his more conservative primary opponent.
Recall the immortal Claude Rain’s line from “Casablanca”:
Rick: Louis, you’re closing my saloon. On what grounds?
Louis: I’m shocked…SHOCKED…to find that gambling is going on in here.
Croupier: Here are you winnnings, sir.
Louis: Oh, thank you very much.
Partisanship in Washington? Who could even imagine such a thing?
Marlowecan — it’s pretty obvious you do not like Chafee. Last I checked — the people of Rhode Island elected Chafee the last go around — he represented them — not you, not the Republican party.
Well I guess it shows they intended to be divisive from the beginning, but that was not much of a secret with Rove being involved. I wonder if he will switch parties, perhaps looking to a 2008 race under the Democratic banner.
Ack…
Yes, I agree with you that Chaffee was echoing the centre-left perspective of his RI constitutents in opposition to the war etc.
But to be “incredulous” that Cheney was partisan is like being surprised that the sun rises in the morning.
In 2000 it was widely know that Cheney was hard-core, and was brought on the Bush ticket to solidify Bush’s strength with the right.
For Chaffee to be “incredulous” strains the imagination.
Party loyalty is important in our system. It is representative…so that representatives can disregard constituent views when they see fit.
I don’t see how all this post-election dumping on the WH serves the interest of the people of RI. As Elizabeth noted, this burst of 7 year delayed outrage and incredulity suggests he is playing another game.
I don’t know of many folks who have crossed party lines in the US and survived. Jeffords supported the Dems but stayed Ind.
I suppose I am incredulous at his incredulity.
So when someone’s main theme is that he is a “uniter not a divider” we should just completely not expect that to be true? So everything that Bush states — we should just understand that it’s the oppostite? Please. You could mock Chafee and his “incredulous” if this hadn’t been the case — but many, many, many expected Bush to govern from the center.
And 7 year delayed outrage? Please. Chafee voted for Bush’s father in 2004 — choosing not to vote for Bush himself. Where have you been?
I’d like to see Chafee switch parties, though I’m not sure what difference that would make politically: we now have a Democrat in his seat (or will in January).
Strategically, I’d like to see Reid very quietly sounding out Snow, Collins, or even Specter about switching parties. It might be possible, if the wingnuts and evangels continue to make the GOP their own. It would certainly be nice from a Democratic standpoint, since I don’t trust Leiberman not to caucus with the GOP if it suits his vanity to do so.
Ack said: “Chafee voted for Bush’s father in 2004 — choosing not to vote for Bush himself. Where have you been?”
Ah, I had forgotten that one! Yes, I recall thinking that was pretty bad at the time.
While Bush campaigned for “unity” you might recall that the 2000 election was, well, divisive. Also, the Cheney-Rumsfeld bloc was identified as a key hard-core determinant even then.
Chaffee should not have been surprised if he talked to folks about Cheney…or read the papers.
In re: Chaffee’s recent comments…It is the public nature of his waffling which I find troubling. There are liberal GOPers who don’t go out of their way to dump on the standard bearer.
There is a memorable quote by Lyndon Johnson: “It is better to have someone on the inside of the tent pissing out, than on the outside of the tent pissing in.”
In Chaffee’s case, the GOP had someone on the inside of the tent pissing on those inside the tent.
Not nice…nor smart politics in the end…as you simply get a reputation as a pisser.
A reputation as a pisser prehaps by people like you, a reputation as someone with character, integrity and intellectual honesty by others, including me.
Good night. It’s late and this is going no where, obviously.
CaseyL said: “Strategically, I’d like to see Reid very quietly sounding out Snow, Collins, or even Specter about switching parties.”
I don’t think it happens often, or successfully, in the US. More often under the British system, but even there a taint hangs over one. Even so memorable a figure as Churchill could not escape the taint, and was never trusted by anyone fully after his crossings.
Plus, they would lose seniority! Reid was bending the rules as it is to promise Lieberman his seniority is protected when he returns to the fold.
I’m waiting for Chafee to challenge W or Limpbaugh to a duel to restore honesty to the Republican Party. Or Chafee could be lining up a job at CNN or BBC America. At least he isn’t as crazy as Zell Miller.
Ack…
I do respect Chaffee taking stands against the war, and disagreeing on matter of principle of deep importance to his constituents in RI (of which you may be one?)
Just so you know.
But I think party loyalty is important…hence my view on Chaffee. Otherwise, the US would be like Italy or one of those European countries with dozens of parties.
Maybe folks would like that?
Comrade Rudi observed: “Limpbaugh”!!!
Hahahahahahaha…I never heard that one before.
Is it yours? A viagra reference, I take it.
Hopefully, we all don’t get our asses sued by His Immensity.
No Limpbaugh is a slur on the LIAR from the Left. His hypocracy in going to the Dominican Republic for a Hookerfest is in line with his lying and carrying water. A Liberal or Libertarian can shop the market for trollips, a Social Conservative needs to be a responsible Puritan. Outside of the US the oldest profession is a profession, not a criminal offense. Some local Detroit politicians did the same thing with a fishing trip to the Carribean for Red Snapper and Latin Snapper, they were mostly of the Republican Personal Responsibilty crowd.
I keep reminding people that, given the actions of Lieberman recently, (indeed, his behavior that made him vulnerable in the first place), I expect the reasons for not fighting the close Senate races are because without the “independent” conn. senator, the Senate remains 50-50, with Cheney casting the deciding vote.
While I do not blame the Dems or the Con. Voters, it is extremly optimistic to believe that Joe will not exact his own form of petty revenge.
sickening.
Interesting article in today’s Washington Post about the demise of the New England Republican (alternatively called the Roosevelt Republican).
The classic New England Republican _ fiscally conservative, socially liberal _ is nearly extinct following a long and quiet decline that began more then a decade ago when the GOP nationally began its move to the right…
Yankee Republicans like Chafee’s father, the late Sen. John Chafee, former Sen. Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, or even President Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, once were the base of the party. Not anymore…
John Kenneth White, a politics professor at Catholic University of America in Washington, said the GOP is now “the party of Dixie.”
“George W. Bush has taken the party further and further south,” he said. “This has really severed off the Yankee Republican New England establishment.”
“That moderating voice in the party is going, resulting in a more conservative and more right-wing Republican Party,” said Gary Rose, a professor of politics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.
If the GOP has an epiphany about moving to the Center they will need leaders.
Chafee could go from maverick to Mentor.
The GOP will not go away so it is a reasonable goal to have them become more moderate.
Marlowecan, you have confirmed a truly sickening fact. Republicans like you knew, and accepted, that Bush was lying and you didn’t care. Lying about “uniter, not divider” and “changing the tone in Washington.” Worse still, you consider it stupid for anyone to have believed him. You are, you say, “incredulous” that anyone would have believed what Bush said in 2000. Wow.
Chafee should have switched over as soon as it became apparent that the voting public was duped by Bush and Cheney. The tragedy is that a good man who voted his concience regardless of the consequences paid the ultimate price for what the Bush administration has wrought on the country.
When RI voted Chafee out, they did so because even a moderate has to vote to pick a Republican senate majority leader. The country could not go in a new direction with the same old team in place.
Paul,
The GOP would have to have a decent number of members having an interest in becoming moderate. It doesn’t. The vast majority of Republicans believe like Marlowecan, wanting blind loyalty above all else and still thinking that they just weren’t conservative enough. They just don’t have a very good grasp on the issues. They still have no clue why so many people are worried about the economy given the numbers they look at.
Partisanship, like many other things, isn’t a simple partisan/non-partisan divide. There are degrees of partisanship, shades of how vindictive or positive it might be. The current Republican party took it to extremes I don’t remember seeing in the last 30+ years until they got going.
Their downfall has been brought about by their allegiance with the neocons on foreign policy and the theocons on domestic policy. Both groups take strong uncompromising ideological stands, and both have created extreme divisions in the populace. Before this, the main differences in the two parties were largely economic, with Republicans representing business interests and Democrats labor unions and the working class.