Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Rhode Island Primary Today

Moderate Chafee Faces Conservative Laffey

For some reason, this isn't being called a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. How odd.

In any event, today's primary in next-door Rhode Island will still be one to watch, as its expected to go down to the wire. An interesting R.I. primary tidbit:
Rhode Island has a hybrid primary, meaning independents -- technically called unaffiliated voters -- can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Registered Republicans are limited to voting in the GOP primary, and enrolled Democrats can cast ballots only in their party's primary.

There are 365,658 independents eligible to vote in either primary, 68,864 Republican voters who cast only GOP ballots, and 236,665 Democrats who can vote only in their party's primary. (MacKay)

Laffey is supported by the conservative Club for Growth, which almost took out Sen. Arlen Specter in 2004. There have been some reports that Republicans will essentially abandon the field in Rhode Island, a heavily Democratic state, should Laffey win.

The race is being seen as a test of anti-incumbent sentiment, and has been compared to the August primary between Lieberman and Lamont. However, this race is not drawing national media attention, nor are pundits lining up to decry a too-conservative tilt to the GOP or a purge of moderates. Funny, that. I suppose only liberals have purges.

The seat could be a pickup for Democrats regardless of the outcome.

Source
MacKay, Scott. "It's a nail biter in the Chafee, Laffey primary contest." Providence Journal 8 September, 2006.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

There's a simple response to your musings here, GC. The main issue that seperates Laffey from Chaffee is economics. Not the war on terror. The former issue is certainly being debated within the GOP. The latter is, quite truly, forming a schism among Democrats nationwide.

Anonymous said...

There is an obvious response to your smug comments regarding how this attention isn't garnering national attention, how "only liberals have purges" GC: Since unaffiliateds can vote, the pool is tainted. It isn't purely an intra-party battle.

GMR said...

Chafee is fundamentally different from Lieberman: Chafee was not the party's VP candidate 6 years ago, nor woulld he have ever been a serious presidential candidate (although it is certainly debatable whether Lieberman fits this description).

Chafee didn't even vote for George W. Bush in the 2004 election. His ACU (American Conservative Union) rating is in the 30s, Lieberman's was in the 90s. In other words, Chafee is truly a Republican in name only. If you examined his voting record and actions, and didn't know his party label, you'd be hard pressed to determine which party he belonged to.

Compare this to Lieberman, who usually votes with the Democrats, except on the Iraq war. The Alito vote was more of a tactical vote as part of his membership in the Gang of 14: had he voted for filibuster, the Republicans would have used the "nuclear option".

Anonymous said...

Most Republicans don't give a darn whether Chafee wins or loses. And R's outside of the Northeast would prefer that the Northeast float away. Northeastern Republicans are a different bird than the rest of the country.

Anonymous said...

Chris MC--From what do you say their is anti Bush opinion among Ct Gop'ers???

Bush increased his votes in Ct in 2004, granted that was among all voters, but your "analysis" does not hold true.

And look at the Lamont/Lieberman primary--Joe captured 48% of the Dem vote after Ned virtually recast Joe as the second coming of George W. So even among Dems, the anti-Bush mantra may not be holy grail so many seek.

Anonymous said...

Can we get back to CT, please?

I heard that Ned Lamont was seen playing golf at his former Country Club last week.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Seems pretty hypocrital, if true.

Anonymous said...

Another angle to consider: Dem-leaning Us may favor Laffey in an effort to boot Chaffee, all but ensuring a Democratic pickup in the fall as well.

GMR said...

Lieberman's ACU rating is nowhere near in the 90s:

My bad: I meant it was in the 10s, which would make him a 90% democrat!

CC said...

Chaffee is easily the biggest RINO (Republican in Name Only) in the Senate. As pointed out above, he was never the GOP's VP nominee, and never would be. The party is supporting him because even though his politics largely flout the GOP agenda Laffey has virtually no chance in the general election and would therefore help the Dems pick up the seat. To compare this to Lieberman-Lamont is to compare apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

What does the Rhode Island Republican Senate Primary have to do with Connecicut politics??

Anonymous said...

Any comparison between CT and RI begins and ends here:

“Rhode Island has a hybrid primary, meaning independents -- technically called unaffiliated voters -- can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Registered Republicans are limited to voting in the GOP primary, and enrolled Democrats can cast ballots only in their party's primary.”

This means that Republicans – and Democrats – in RI do not control their own primaries. That is not the case in CT.

When Tom D’Amore was the chairman of the Republican Party, he proposed a similar scheme for both parties. Unwilling to commit suicide, Republicans rebuffed him. And later, after Weicker refused to run against for governor (wonder why?) he went off to work on other national campaigns, backing some winners (Jesse Ventura) and some losers. He’s now working for Ned Lamont, who would not be the nominee of the Democrat Party had D’Amore’s plan to destroy the parties been adopted way-back-when.

Ain’t life full of ironies?

Anonymous said...

truebluect I can understand why you want to avoid answering my question and, instead, attack Joe Lieberman for the kind of coffee he drinks (which, by the way, is a pathetic attack).

Perhaps I should spell it out for you so even someone with your limited intelligence can understand it.

Ned made a big deal about leaving his country club because it was not diverse (as if he hadn't noticed that during the 10 years he was a member). Therefore, his going back there to play golf calls his statements into question and damages his credibility.

Now, I would argue, this is a pattern with Ned. He leaves a club, but goes back there to play golf. He praises Lieberman's floor speech regarding the Clinton affair, then he attacks him for it. He supports Lieberman with a hefty campaign contribution, then says that Lieberman hasn't done the job the last 18 years. He was for withdrawing our troops immediately, now he says he's not.

Get it! Want more ... there's planty of it. It's a pattern that shows hypocracy and political opportunism. It shows that he is an amatuer!

GMR said...

Why do people care where the guy buys coffee? (I hate coffee, so I have no preference). Is Starbucks that upper class?

When William F. Buckley's brother was running for CT's senate seat a bunch of years ago, he went to some factory, and then the blue collar guys invited him to some bar they frequented. At the bar, Buckley ordered a sherry. Not the thing to order there...

Oh, and unless Lamont is yammering about inequality of incomes or something, don't mention his art collection. It's not a very good argument, unless that purchase falls into "OK for me but not for thee".