First Lieberman. Now Lincoln Chafee?

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060812/ap_...24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Conservative group sets sights on 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 (news, bio, voting record) 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.

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.



Both parties are in the midst of ideological purity campaigns.
It started back in Bushes first year in office when a Republican Senator, Jim Jeffords DARED to oppose Bush on his tax cuts. The Rove led party told Jeffords to his face he would not get a bill passed nor have an ounce of influence unless he toed the party line.
Jeffords then switched parties and never ran for Senator again.
The Republicans self proclaimed "majority of the majority" decision making process has also contributed to this. The Republicans have decided that with almost pure party unity that whichever group can muster 51 percent of support of the 55 Republican Senators will get their way. EVEN if, say, 27 Republicans and 45 Democrats are opposed to the wishes of these 28 Republicans.
In effect it is Senate rule by a small minority.
THIS is what is wrong with the Congress and specifically the Senate.
It has forced the Democrats to turn against any Senator who supports the Republicans on any issue. Say, Bye-Bye, Joe Lieberman.
IN fact, if Republican Senators McCain and Collins (of Maine) weren't so undefeatable in their home states they too would be on the hit list.
This is good for the Democrats, by the way. The 28 Senators ruling the Republican party are the extreme right wing and their policies are killing the Republicans who are more middle of the road.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
There shouldn't be a Republican senator in this part of the country. Democrats should support his challenger in the primary, then get rid of the whole lot.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,824
2,613
136
Originally posted by: senseamp
There shouldn't be a Republican senator in this part of the country. Democrats should support his challenger in the primary, then get rid of the whole lot.

Absolute and utter nonsense. The moderate GOP is the only hope for the survival of the GOP (and of this country).

I think Chafee is pretty safe in his seat. He is highly respected. Lieberman was a totally different situation-those of us in CT were fed up with him for two main reasons: (1) He ignored his constituents in favor of being a national persona and (2) he didn't represent the will of the people he was elected to REPRESENT, and every time this was brought up to him, he would lecture us, his bosses.

So-called party purity had nothing to do with Lieberman losing the primary. In fact, almost every Dem bigwig-including Bill Clinton and Thomas Dodd, our other senator, campaigned for him long and hard before the primary. The people broke with the party leaders and expressed their own interests.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
It started back in Bushes first year in office when a Republican Senator, Jim Jeffords DARED to oppose Bush on his tax cuts. The Rove led party told Jeffords to his face he would not get a bill passed nor have an ounce of influence unless he toed the party line.
Jeffords then switched parties and never ran for Senator again.

The Republicans self proclaimed "majority of the majority" decision making process has also contributed to this. The Republicans have decided that with almost pure party unity that whichever group can muster 51 percent of support of the 55 Republican Senators will get their way. EVEN if, say, 27 Republicans and 45 Democrats are opposed to the wishes of these 28 Republicans.

In effect it is Senate rule by a small minority.
Jeffords opposed pretty much everything Bush proposed, not just tax cuts. IIRC, at the time the senate was split 51/49 or 50/50. If you're not going to be a team player you should expect to get spanked. It's nothing new. It happens in legislatures all over this country. You don't have to agree with that line of thinking (I know I don't) but you can't pretend like it's something new.

And he didn't switch parties, he became an independent.

The Republican "majority of the majority" rule is no different than how things ran when the Dems had the senate. Even after they lost the senate to the Rs, a small miority of Ds managed to hold up judges and legislation that would have easily passed in an up/down vote with many Ds voting in favor of both. Daschle would not let his party help to break any filibusters even if those members would have voted yes to the bill or judge in question. In that case a minority of the minority, although not in charge, weilded an incredible amount of power.

I totally agree with your contention that the Rs are putting party before country. But it isn't just them. Both sides are guilty of this. Party politics and power posturing have replaced any concern about "doing the people's business." The fact that moderates on both sides are under fire and being replaced with more extreme candidates is a sure sign that things are not going to get any better any time soon.

Amd FYI... It started lonnng before the Jeffords episode. You can trace the seeds of this back to 1994. And if you look harder, you can trace back a lot further than that.