The 'purge' not worth mentioning (RI)

Why should state law trump party decisions on matter pertaining to the party itself? The DNC is saying to NH: You’re cutting in line, and it’s not fair. They’re right. The party rules should be decided on a national level, not held hostage to one state’s insistance that it go first. BTW, no one else in that thread appeard to agree with your claim that it was undemocratic either. Let’s not hijack this thread over that issue, though. If you want to continue debating this, let me know and I’ll join you over that original thread. OK?

Because election days are set by the government, not the parties, and they are paid for with public money, and the polling stations are on public property. And not just NH, but EVERY state, AFAIK. If there are states where this is not the case, I will back off my claim, for those states at least.

John, you’re correct that we shouldn’t be hijacking this thread. My apologies to RTFirefly. John, if you or anyone else cares to respond about the prinary issue, please do so in the thread I linked to above.

Hmm, that’s interesting, actually. Local ‘buzz’ is that Laffey is pretty much a lauging stock. He’s tried to be the local union buster and it hasn’t worked. Even the people in the city of Cranston, where he used to be mayor, don’t seem to like him. There must be people being polled that aren’t part of my social/political circle. Shocking!

My point remains the same, though. Rhode Island is quite a liberal state, and I think the only reason that Chaffee has lasted like he has is that he’s a moderate Republican. Laffey’s just an idiot who says he’s conservative. I don’t think he has a chance.

(BTW, I’m not sure what my location says any more, but until two weeks ago, I worked in the heart of RI, so I heard all about the news and commentary.)

Laffey is a bit of a freak with the silly ideas and tough talk. There was a big broohaha over in Cranston, where he’s mayor, over crossing guards, for Christ’s sake. He was against them, btw.

Laffey isn’t running for any Chaffee-related reason, I’m sure. It’s all about his own dumb-ass ego.

Chaffee is a good, honest, moderate guy. Now, I’m a Democrat who, under normal circumstances, would rather eat her own lungs than vote otherwise, but I’m voting for him if he gets the nomination - even though the Democratic candidate, Sheldon Whitehouse, is cool guy too. Personally, I think Chaffee just stays Republican in honor of his father who was a moderate Republican back when there were more of them. What does my mom call them? Oh, yeah - Rockefeller Republicans!

As an aside, I saw Senator Chaffee getting his own soda at McDonalds in the Arcade in Providence back when it was still there. And he wasn’t even talking to people at tables or anything.

Anyway, I love guys who protect women’s reproductive rights.

In the general election, there’s no question that he’d go down in flames. But the primary won’t be decided by the RI electorate as a whole, and the polls have shown him competitive among Republicans.

And I don’t live anywhere near RI - I’m in Maryland.

But I’m not handicapping the race here; I’m just commenting on what appears to me to be a double standard by the Beltway pundit class.

Reminds me of a scene from Duck Soup

The thing is, I’ve never seen any evidence that anyone’s trying to get rid of Lieberman on account of his overall centrism. And since I’m a regular reader of the lefty blogs to which the purge efforts are usually attributed (most notably Firedoglake and MyDD), I think I’m qualified to say that if their opposition to him is simply a matter of Lieberman’s overall conservatism, it’s an extremely well-hidden agenda on their part.

That’s all well and good, Arty, but you’re not gonna get the straight facts there, doncha know? Like how the Dems are in total disarray over this whole Iraq thingy, really, just coming unglued while under the relentless domination of the Hillary-Moore-Soros Cabal…

Well, I don’t read either lefty or righty blogs, so I’ll trust you on that. I was only basing my opinion on what I’ve read on this message board in the Lieberman threads. What I saw was very little of: *He’s against the war, and we have to get rid of him. Too bad, because otherwise he’s a decent Democrat. * What I see more of is: We need to get rid of him because he’s against the war. Besides, he’s just a DINO. And that latter statement simply isn’t true. The voters in CT, though, seem to have more of an attitude along the lines of the first statement, from what I’ve seen of interviews on the news (plus a feeling that he’s “gone national” since the 2000 election and isn’t as tight with his constituents anymore).

There are issues that transcend party politics. The Iraq Debacle is one. Not only the Dems should be demanding accountability, but so should the Pubbies,and loud, and unified. Sending a message isn’t going to work, they don’t get messages, these people interpret a razor thin victory as an unshakeable mandate. We need to be in a position to terrify them with that magic word: subpoena.

What we know is bad enough. I want to know what they’re hiding. This should be the focus of the Pubbies, the Dems, the Greens, the Anti-Vivisection League, and the Vegetarian Party! Oh, yes, and the Libertarians, of course.

Although I share your sentiment, pardon my cynicism about it doing any good. Subpoena’s are for wimps. Bush et al will just declare executive privilege and tie it up in the courts until they’re out of office. Witness: Guantanamo. With all the victories that have been declared over Bush’s policy, nothing has changed.

The Libertarians are clean. That takes care of 0.3% of the country right there!!

Another Republican purge that the media is ignoring.

Well, it’s not clear from that (the article linked/excerpted in the link, I mean) that Palin’s politics differ any from Murkowski’s. She seems to have beaten him just by criticizing his performance in office.

So if pundits don’t talk about a purge that doesn’t happen, will RT still whine about it?

Oooh, you got to use “whine” again! Way to go!

Hey, stop poking me or I’ll insult rjung again.

The Republicans got lucky on this one, but Chafee still has to win in the general. In CT, we knew that either Lieberman or Lamont could easily beat the challenger from the other party. It’s not quite a slam dunk for Chafee in RI, although Laffee would surely have lost

Anyone wathcing *Brotherhood *on SHOWTIME? The politician there is named Cafee. What a “coincidence”!

As I understand it, this is exactly why the RNC was backing Chaffee - he may vote against the President more often than not, but if he loses the Primary, the RNC believes that in the fall elections, that district will go Democrat. So it’s a matter of keeping the seat in Republican hands.

I’m not enough of a politics wonk to guess if it means anything, but I see that Whitehouse got more votes than Chafee & Laffey combined.

I know that, for this to MEAN anything, we’d have to assume that everyone who voted in the primary comes out and votes again for their party and everyone else stays home but, just off the cuff, it looks as though more people were interested in supporting Whitehouse than either of the Republican candidates last night.

Democrats outnumber Republicans in RI by quite a bit, so if they stuck to their parties in the primary that result shouldn’t be surprising. But a Republican always has to win a lot of Democratic votes in RI for that candidate to win in the general. Chafee was able to do so in the past, but who knows how people feel now. The Chafee name in RI is almost an institution, so he’ll get plenty of Democratic votes in the general-- the big question is whether “plenty” will be enough.

–John Mace; former, but not current, RI resident