Sen. Chafee: I will probably not vote for Bush

(From the diaries -- kos)

CNN just reported that Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has announced that he will probably not vote for Bush. Since Kerry will comfortably win his state, Chafee says he will probably write in a candidate.

Not much more to report. But I just wonder why Lincoln doesn't just make the jump to the Democratic Party.

C'mon Lincoln. The water's just fine.

Update: Kos here -- looks like Lincoln is keeping his options open regarding his future political affiliation:

The Republican said the party's direction in the future will determine his political career as well. He said he's "not OK" with the conservative platform from the Republican convention, but would not say if he'd consider switching parties in his next election in 2006.

"It wasn't that long ago that moderates had more of a voice," Chafee said. "It's a cycle that I hope will come back."

Hope for our side, indigestion for the other side.

•  The Freepers hate him

  Sooooooo much...

  by alxt on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:26:52 PM PDT

  •  That's why it's time for the three party system

    Liberal Democrats (Green party morph)

    Moderate Democrats (Adoptees from the right such as Chafee and [cough] McCain)

    And the freak-greedy-religious-zealot-cold hearted-miscreant-war-mongering party that can call themselves the "Freeper Party"
    

    by Pescadero Bill on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:08:05 PM PDT

    •  Here's my future political party breakdown

      3 parties:

      Democratic
      Libertarian
      Christian Republican (they will add "Christian" to thier name)

      Within the Democratic party:

      Liberal Democrats
      Libertarian Democrats
      Moderate Democrats

      The three sections of the Democratic party will be formal (people will have LD, LbtD, or MD by thier names), but will otherwise function as a regular party.  It will also be the dominate party in most areas, so frequently the primary is defacto the election.  Many moderate Republicans will crossover to the MD.  Greens will be in LD, as well as current liberal Democrats.  And LbtD, well, that will be people like Jesse Ventura (and myself, actually).  If the Ventura-connected Independence Party of Minnesota was a strong national party, I would probably belong to them over the Democrats.  But they aren't-and thier philosphies (very socially liberal, fiscally conservative in the sense of few senseless restrictions towards business, not in anti-enviromental or anti-taxation in general, and pro-spending on things like health care and public transit) fit within the Democratic party nicely (they endorced John Edwards for president, for example).
      

      by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:36:06 PM PDT

    •  We need to bring back...

      The Whig party! It's perfect, they are so old, no one will have a clue what their platform was. (As far as I can tell from historical readings, they were fiscal conservatives and social liberals- which sounds fine already!)

      We need to have political party names which have no semantic content- makes it more fun. It is too confusing to talk about democracy and Democrats. When you had the Whig party, everyone knows who you mean right away!

      by ChanceTheGardener on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:02:31 AM PDT

  •  Funny, Drudge had made this his main story

    Now it's gone. Probably got a lot of shit from Freepers for pushing this story.

    What story has he replaced this one with?

    FALLOUT: SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS WANT CBSNEWS MODERATOR OFF DEBATE

    Just hours after CBSNEWS admitted it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 MINUTES story about President Bush's National Guard service, top Bush advisers are recommending a CBS reporter be removed as moderator of a planned presidential debate, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

    At question is the approved Oct. 13 debate at Arizona State University in Tempe with Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent for CBSNEWS, moderating.

    "Considering the circumstances, we should definitely ask that Schieffer be replaced," a top Bush adviser told the president on Monday, according to a well-placed source.

    The well-placed source continued: "Who can trust these CBS people to play it straight [during the debate]? I suspect they will be out for revenge."

    by John Campanelli on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:25:34 PM PDT

•  that rocks!

  by maskling11 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:30:41 PM PDT

•  We should be recruiting

  Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee as our Blue Turncoats in answer to Ole Zig-Zag Zell's defection.  It is incoceivable that a new england REP would continue to side with these evildoers.

  by dwalker on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:32:35 PM PDT

  •  Don't expect Olympia Snowe to jump

    Her roots in the Maine GOP are very deep, including being married to a former GOP governor.

    Chaffee has indicated his unease with Bush for sometime. He may be waiting to see how any switch in party might affect control of the Senate (and also who is president) before switching.

    by seanflynn on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:10:30 PM PDT

    •  Probably true

      We'd probably have to sweeten the pot considerably for her, like letting her keep her committee chair.

      Maybe Susan Collins would be a better one to target.  If Kerry wins Maine by a huge margin, there might be a chance...

      by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:17:09 PM PDT

      •  I've said before that

        Collins may be the more poachable senator.

        by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:32:47 PM PDT

    •  60s all over again

      The growing schism in the Republican Party between the moderates and the social conservatives is on a path towards disaster for the Party.  It is largely reminiscent of the rift the Democratic Party once faced with the Dixiecrats.  

      How much longer will Republicans cut from the mold of Snowe and Chaffee last in a Party that adopts a platform in direct opposition with social matters they hold dear?  This is to say nothing of the traditional, fiscal conservatives who are growing increasingly queasy with sky-rocketing deficits and war-time tax cuts.  The break is coming, and it will certainly not be clean.
      PoliStyrene

      by petergm on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:34:05 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        If Bush does get re-elected (fairly or not), this will certainly hasten the GOP's downfall.  In any case, the GOP is not a stable party-it will collapse in one form or another in my lifetime.  Fiscal conservatives may leave for the Libertarians-in fact, a moderate Libertarian party (you know, one that DOESN'T want to shut down the public school system and turn every road into a toll road) might prove to be popular.  Heck, I can see myself voting for them...
        

        by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:02:31 PM PDT

        •  if he really appoints supreme court justices...

          who overturn roe v. wade, the republican party as we know it will be over. single women, who tend to lean democratic, are also among the people least likely to vote. watch how fast that will change.

          by lasercub on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:20:23 PM PDT

      •  Fiscal Conservatism

        I suspect that at lease some fiscal conservatives like Bush's budgets and tax cuts, for eventually services will have to be rolled back (a recession will occur) and they'll get their model laisser faire third-world economy right here in the USA.  These Republicans don't care for Democrats who expand government in perpetuity by correspondingly raising taxes as necessary. However, spending money and lowering taxes serves their ends just fine.

        by aschweig on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:20:54 PM PDT

        •  Clinton was the avatar...

          ...for turning the Democratic Party into that 'moderate libertarian' party. If Kerry gets elected and governs as a fiscally conservative moderate, he will take us one step closer to true political dominance.

          That is, if we don't lose the left flank to the Greens or some similarly pointless left-wing party...

          by Reviser on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:10:35 PM PDT

          •  Exactly

            All the Greens do is cause the Democrats to lose.  They share a lot with Ralph Nader in this regard.
            

            by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:27:13 PM PDT

          •  What exactly is a

            "moderate libertarian."  Sounds like someone who only supports taxes that provide services he uses (public schools but not universal health care?).

            Sounds like someone who only supports subsidies from which he benefits but not others (mortgage deductions, but not welfare?)

            Sounds like someone who believes budget balancing is more important than problem-solving.

            My Democratic party should be one that is aimed at the common good, the public interest.  If the Democrats become a libertarian party, moderate or otherwise, the Greens will become the second major party.

            by plunkitt on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:45:01 PM PDT

            •  Not exactly what he meant...

              ...but I consider myself a "Democratic Libertarian"-almost a "Socialist Libertarian".  I'm trying to make as big a contradiction as possible here at first glance...:-p

              Basically, I think the government should encourage and discourage things, and provide lots of stuff for the general welfare of the nation (schools, roads, police, firefighters, public transit, a safety net for the poor, and socialized medicine).  I think the government charge taxes to pay for all of the above, and pass laws to prevent people from hurting each other and punishing those who do (indirect means count; IE, antipolution laws, laws that require companies to build safe products).  But beyond that, the government should get out of the way.  Things like recreational pharmeceuticals, gamblign, prostitution should be legalized, although moderately high taxes on them are fine.  Regulations and laws shouldn't be passed for thier own sake, but for a specific purpose.  I think the military is too big, and there are a lot of laws on the books that need to be removed.  I hate censorship of any kind.
              

              by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:58:53 PM PDT

              •  I'm a libertarian communist

                I like to call myself a libertarian communist - it freaks out libertarians no end! In reality I'm not a libertarian for pretty much the identical reason I'm not a communist: both rely on way too narrow and dogmatic an ideological framework, and neither system fails "gracefully" when confronted with real world complexity.

                by danny on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:33:10 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      I don't know Maine politics, and didn't realize Snowe was such a staunch REP; Jeffords would appear to be the most obvious candidate, since he caucuses with the DEMs anyway, but Collins should be recruitied also.  Judging by the beating that BushCo policies are taking by Nebraska congressmen, I wonder if KE04 can bring Nebraska or other parts of the great plains in play in the coming weeks.

      by dwalker on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 08:51:43 AM PDT

  •  any chance...

    ... we complete the Jim Jeffords conversion?

    by Muboshgu on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:26:16 PM PDT

    •  I don't know that it matters

      unless I'm overlooking something - just caucasing with the Dems has the same effect for leadership / head count as being a Dem.

      That said - there's some benefit to having an Independent and former Republican caucus with us rather than completely switching.  It means every vote tally has him mentioned - and increases, I think, the mindshare that "Independents" and "Democrats" tend to agree and makes all the "straight party line vote" stories a little harder to write.  I'm for anything that makes the press and public have to think and deal with nuance.

      that said - if he wanted to put a D by his name, I sure won't try to stop him :-)
      

      by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:34:42 PM PDT

    •  Rather we didn't

      Jeffords retains more credibility as an independant, and it will increase the possibility of more centrists defecting and creating a real independant voting block.  If Jeffords can stand as an example for Snowe and Chaffee and all the others so much the better.

      by Luam on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:58:53 AM PDT

  •  Chaffee....

    used to be a democrat, not so long ago.  

    by Yankee in exile on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:47:44 PM PDT

    •  no

      Uhh, nope. Linc Chafee is the latest in a long line from one of RI's Republican elite familes.

      by Bil on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:00:10 PM PDT

•  Pat Buchanon Write-In Campaign

  I really think we need to start one.  Give all those repubs who are losing faith in Bush and who wouldn't dare vote Kerry, something to vote for.

  by dc 20005 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:19 PM PDT

  •  That's how we lost Florida in 2000

    (or something like that.)

    by DCDemocrat on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:41:34 PM PDT

    •  Florida

      We WON Florida--the Supreme Court took it away. T.J.

      by pempel on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:20:24 PM PDT

      •  I consider Florida a tie, or nearly so

        I consider the election overall a near tie, too.

        The Electoral College does not handle very close elections well.
        

        by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:37:43 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          Nor does the EC handle widespread systematic supression of black voters very well.

          by TealVeal on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:42:01 PM PDT

•  In '02

  In '02 it was thought that if the Dems lost the house by a single seat, he would have switched to switch control a la Jeffords.  

  I expect that if the Dems regain control, or if his vote would allow them to regain control of the Senate, he will take the plunge.  I doubt that the voters of Rhode Island would be too upset.

  by Jugwine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:43 PM PDT

•  Hey

  These days, Lincoln would be a Democrat. Abe, that is...

  Come to the light, Senator Chafee....

  by Dmitri in San Diego on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:44 PM PDT

•  Maybe

  He promised his dad he would never become a Democrat. A longshot, I know. Just a thought. (And I am aware that his father is dead, no disrespect meant)

  by jonmat on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:50 PM PDT

  •  Then, he should become an

    indy!  

    Join the Jeffords club.

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:36:54 PM PDT

  •  When did he promise his dad that?

    And why?

    by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:49:38 PM PDT

  •  John

    If John Chafee were alive and still in the Senate, he would have jumped to I or D long ago.  He was a great senator, and a man of principle.  He would not have supported this administration with his good name.
    

    by tg in ny on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:29:33 PM PDT

    •  Yup

      But Linc may be the last one in the state to realize this.

      In a perverse way, it's fun having him stay republican--you should see the letters to the editor he provokes when he pisses off the local wingnuts, which is pretty regularly.

      by RIposte on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:01:08 PM PDT

    •  Do you really think

      that he would have jumped? If he made his son promise that he would never switch, why would he himself switch?

      by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:44:06 PM PDT

  •  Chaffe will leave the party.

    If he is still holding office after then nest election he will not be a Republican.. His move is very clear by coming out against Bush he has doomed himself to a primary opponett.  

    The Chaffe name in Rhode Island is problably as big as the Broyhill name is with North Carolina, but Chaffe has cut the cord and he can not turn back.

    by THE MODERATE on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:54:19 PM PDT

    •  Shouldn't Hurt Him Actually...

      Speaking as a Rhode Islander, I don't think Chafee coming out against Bush will hurt him at all in the '06 primary. I'm not sure anyone would actually challenge him in the primary. The RI Republicans know that they'd never retain the seat without Chafee. I'm an "unaffiliated" voter, though I'm to the left of Bernie Sanders, and I'd cross over to a GOP primary specifically to vote for Chafee.

      You can't imagine the dislike of Bush here in Rhode Island. There's an outside chance that Bush might get less than 20%. Seriously. Of the approximately 500 friends and family and co-workers, etc., that I know (spread evenly across the state), I'd say I know of only 6 that are definite Bush voters. The others are disgusted by the lies and the GI deaths. We all think Bush is an absolutely awful, horrible person.

      Many of us are also very familiar with Kerry next door, of course, and have always admired him and respected him.  For most of us here in RI, we're completely astounded that Bush could be even considered to win this election. The fact that Ohio is still on the fence about Bush-Kerry is jaw-dropping.

      How much does a President have to screw up to lose a person's vote in Ohio (or anywhere). I've got to imagine that they'll see the light in the next 6 weeks.

      -N.B.

      by npb7768 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 06:22:29 AM PDT

•  Chafee

  I wish he would get rid of the probably and just make a statement that he will not be voting for Bu$h. Or was it Judy woodruff (ho) who put in the "probably".

  by nob on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:34:03 PM PDT

  •  Chaffee

    has always been a cautious man.  Not a person to rush into anything.  The only Republican to vote against the Iraq war, so hes unlikely to make a direct statement as inflammatory as I will not vote for Bush without a reason.  That being said... His caution implies that in the end he will make the decision not to vote for Bush.

    Caution isnt welcome in the GOP anymore

    by math geek on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:42:13 PM PDT

  •  Im not trying to sound angry

    But if Chafee doesnt switch to I and D, you think we can just oust him in 06.

    by BC3 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:40:57 PM PDT

  •  quote

        "I said I would vote Republican. Write-in counts. I'm voting for my party, not necessarily for Bush," Chafee said. (via AP)
    

    by JoeIncognito on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:31:52 PM PDT

•  Yes!!!

  I posted a comment awhile back wondering when Chaffee was going to make the leap. It may be a bit more of a stretch to hope for Snowe since she is in a more polarized state, but Bush is polling below 30% in RI.

  Come on over Lincoln, the water's fine!

  by 54cermak on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:35:44 PM PDT

•  He could just pull a Jeffords

  and go independent if he can't deal with the "D" after his name.

  by soultaco on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:36:31 PM PDT

•  start a new party

  comon, Linc. Jeffords, yourself, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chris Shays, hell even Lieberman could join you, you'd have the basis for a very successful regional centrist new england party.

  by thirdparty on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:36:40 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman?

    I agree 100 percent with the third-party business. Get William Weld to join, too.

    Lieberman belongs on the other side, on the John Breaux/Zell Miller Asshole Democrat Coalition.

    by BaltimoreDem on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:08:06 PM PDT

    •  Come on

      This may be a first for me, but I'm going to defend Joe Lieberman here.  I certainly don't agree with his hawkishness, and a couple of his comments about Abu Ghraib were really, really offensive, but he's not really comparable to Zell.  Zell is opposed to the Democrats on basically everything, and keeps proposing his own crazy-ass shit, like getting rid of judicial review and direct election of Senators.  The annoying thing about Lieberman (and Diane Feinstein, for that matter) is that they are moderate/conservative Dems from states where you could easily have outspoken liberals.  Also, they waste a lot of time and energy talking about violence on TV or some nonsense.  Still, my bold praise of Joe Lieberman is that it's a lot better to waste some time on stupidity and be really wrong about a couple of important things than to be really wrong about everything and go apeshit calling people traitors.  Joementum.  Catch it !

      As for Snowe and Collins, they talk a good game about being mad about various GOP positions, but they almost always cave in the end and vote how they're told.  The hell with them.

      by MattT on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:50 PM PDT

      •  Lieberman is just Zell...

        ...with party loyalty.

        I have so many problems with Lieberman I can't list them all.  My main problem is with his censor happy ways.  It's why I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 (I live in California, it didn't matter-I certainly would have held my nose if it would have mattered).
        

        by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:08:25 PM PDT

  •  Mid 90s

    In the mid-90s there was some sort of bi-partisan group of senators who tried to form some sort of Centrist Coalition.  I seem to remember Bill Cohen, Alan Simpson, Nancy Kassebaum, Bill Bradley all being a part of it...

    by DaveOinSF on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:42:22 PM PDT

  •  If Chafee...

    starts a party all by himself he could be called the party of Lincoln...

    by clone12 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:21:38 PM PDT

    •  you laugh...

      ...but imagine the great lines if Chafee switched to (D)...

      Terry McAuliffe: "Today, the Democratic party is proud to be the true party of Lincoln..."

      by thirdparty on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:29:16 PM PDT

      •  Ha

        First, it was Ronald Reagan to address the Democractic National Convention. Now, we could be the party of lincoln. I love it!

        by BC3 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:43:07 PM PDT

    •  Go Figure

      He's the only White Man I ever heard of with a first name of Lincoln.

      I remember last winter I think it was on CSPAN they had  
      Wolfowitz in front of a commitee (intellegence or armed forces?) & you could tell Lincoln had recently read that damned "Rebuilding Americas' Defenses" from the Project for the New American Century.  He was quoting from it &  getting pretty emotional.  I was going, "Yes!  He's read it!  Now they're all going to read it.  They're going to figure this out & stop it."  

      At least he had the appropriate allergic reaction.  Speaks well of him.

      by jbilger on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:03:18 PM PDT

      •  The previous governor

        of Rhode Island was also a white guy named Lincoln. Lincoln Almond. And you know what's really funny, or scary, he drove a Lincoln (navigator, I think) and since RI has no governor's mansion he lived in his own home....in Lincoln. Lincoln, RI.

        by ImeldaBlahnik on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:15:24 PM PDT

    •  Hahah

      He could always join Rhode Island's own Cool Moose Party.  (This guy ran for Lt Governor on a platform of doing absolutely nothing and taking no salary, as he claims the office is useless and a drain on taxpayers.)

      by daria g on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:49:32 AM PDT

•  Time for Lugar and/or Hagel

  to do the same

  by Upper West on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:37:07 PM PDT

  •  Lugar

    seems truly concerned about Iraq.  I have a lot of respect for Lugar even though he's in the devil's den.  Back before the Iraq war, he did this speech in Indy and he seemd genuinely conlficted about the whole thing.  I would like to see Chaffee, Snowe, Lugar, and the bunch jump ship even if it was just for this election cycle.    

    by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:02:12 PM PDT

    •  Jumping ship

      I think they'd jump ship over different issues (and therefore would be an awkward swing coalition if they did jump).

      But yeah, as Iraq becomes a looming threat to our economy and security, I wonder whether Lugar and Hagel won't get even more strident (if that's possible) with their criticism of Bush's bungling. It's tough for Hagel, because he wants to run for President, but I do believe he places country over party (and we're getting to that point in Iraq).

      by emptywheel on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:26:50 PM PDT

      •  Hagel may want to run for Prez...

        but the right-wingers don't like him, so he might as well do the right thing and speak out.

        by alxt on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:57:15 PM PDT

    •  Lugar

      should be even more pissed about under funding of his Nunn-Lugar nuclear proliferation program.

      by Upper West on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:59:20 PM PDT

•  Timing

  There is some cost to switching parties.  Right now, the Dems have little motivation to run somebody strong against him and not much chance of winning.  If he switched, the Republicans would put a premium on taking him down, at least for one cycle.  

  So why risk it?  He, like Jeffords, would be looking at rewards.  There were rewards when Jeffords switched.  Now, there's nothing the Dems can offer him, until they're in or close to the majority.  If that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if he did switch.

  I also think that some of the moderate New England Republicans--like conservative southern Democrats of 30 years ago--have strong emotional ties to a party their family has supported for more than a century, a hope that moderates can maintain a place in it, and a relucantce to give up on the party, in case it somehow switches back.  But in the end the southern conservative Dems either switched over or retired, and the same will happen up there, too.

  by GregD on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:38:54 PM PDT

  •  There's a cost to not switching, too

    If Chafee doesn't switch before 2006, he may have to stave off a fight from Patrick Kennedy.  Chafee is probably still popular enough with Rhode Islanders that he could make a race of it, but the Kennedy poltical machine is not something to be taken lightly.

    by Jugwine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:43:34 PM PDT

    •  The Kennedy political machine not a threat

      The Kennedy political machine is no longer the threat it once was otherwise Kathleen Kennedy Townsend would be Governor of Maryland and Mark Shriver would be a Congressman from MD.

      by Mcguffin on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:26:54 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        Even the Kennedys couldn't get a turd into office.

        by TealVeal on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:28:42 PM PDT

        •  Which one is the turd? n/t

          by Iowan on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

          •  It's KKT, no doubt

            A chimp could have won that election (actually, being a chimp seems to be a path to political success these days). Maryland Democrats are not supposed to lose to a dickwad with a bad haircut.

            by BaltimoreDem on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:38:03 PM PDT

            •  but hes a

              pseudo-moderate Gingrich Republican with a bad hair-cut

              which really makes him so much worse.

              ABE in 2006

              by math geek on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:35:35 PM PDT

              •  that he is

                M O'M in 06

                by BaltimoreDem on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:24:55 PM PDT

                •  im actually hoping

                  it'll be someone other than O'Malley... I think it would be smarter to run O'Malley for senate (assuming Sarbanes retires) and someone else for governor (Ben Cardin would be a dream come true).  Thats cause O'Malley is going to have to show results for Baltimore, which is going to be difficult.

                  by math geek on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:10:46 PM PDT

                  •  I like Cardin too

                    He's my Congressman, a real people's man, and a very pleasant guy. But he his name recognition is pretty small, I would assume, and O'Malley is the only one with real star power.

                    Hey, what if Schaefer decided to claim his old chair from underneath Ehrlich? That would be something to see.

                    I wish either Sarbanes or Mikulski would retire, because there are lots of great MD dems itching for those seats: Cardin, Ruppersberger, Van Hollen, maybe even Hoyer (although he seems pretty secure in his House leadership post).

                    by BaltimoreDem on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:23:25 AM PDT

                    •  Cardin

                      Cardin used to be speaker of the MD house of delegates... Hes really starting a political family, with his son recently being elected to that body.  Certainly he doesnt have Martin O'Malley's star power, but a Democrat doesnt need star power to get elected in MD, merely a good record, which Cardin certainly has.

                      I think Sarbanes and Mikulski do a good job for the state, but it will be fun to see who runs for Senate in their place.  It might have to be someone good, cause Senate would be a great place for Morella to make a political come-back, and shed be tough to beat overall in MD.

                      by math geek on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:39:52 AM PDT

                      •  Morella is a RINO

                        A very respectable politician, probably a threat in the general election, but two things:

                        She would probably lose in the Republican primary to a more wingnut candidate.

                        No matter how moderate, Baltimore will never back a Republican for the Senate.

                        by BaltimoreDem on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:45 AM PDT

                        •  Morella

                          If she chose to run, the field would be cleared for her, by Ehrlich and the national GOP.

                          And Baltimore hasnt voted for a Republican for anything in a long time, but theres a lot of places in Maryland that will.  The MD swing voters are liberals, but they will swing.

                          by math geek on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 06:16:12 PM PDT

        •  what about the gropinator?

          he got into office and is pretty turdlike.

          by sgere on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:17:10 PM PDT

      •  Taking on the Kennedys

        Tell that to Kevin Vigilante.

        by Jugwine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:41:26 PM PDT

    •  LOL

      Patrick v. Linc could conceivably paralzye the electorate here.  The hard repubs would hate voting for Linc, the dems would hate voting for Patrick, and no one would feel very happy about  crossing over and giving up the seat.

      by RIposte on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:19:05 PM PDT

  •  The difference is that

    we seen to accept moderate to conservative Democrats in our party, while moderate and liberal Republicans are reluctantly accepted by the GOP.

    by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:50:58 PM PDT

•  This is BIG

  
  What this does mean is that- we may have a 1 seat margin to work with- it is his indication that if Bush wins and the Dems fall a seat short he can be bought.

  If Bush loses and the Dems need him he can be bought.

  Wow- this gives us some hope to retain the Senate.
  

  by jgkojak on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:42:13 PM PDT

  •  His phone is ringing.

    A lot of his close Dem Senate friends will be calling soon. Among them, John Kerry?

    -fink

    by fink on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:27:53 PM PDT

•  the anti-zell

  linc link:

  GOP Sen. Won't Commit to Voting for Bush

  PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said Monday he plans to support his party in November but may write in a candidate instead of voting for President Bush.

  The Rhode Island lawmaker, known for moderate views that often run counter to the Bush administration, said he was going to vote for a member of his party even though he disagrees with the president on many issues.

  ``I'm a Republican,'' said Chafee, who was appointed to the Senate in November 1999 to fill the seat when his father, John, died.

  Chafee also said that Democratic Sen. John Kerry's lead in Rhode Island is so commanding, according to polls, that his vote won't affect the outcome.

  ``Practically, I come from Rhode Island. I hear Kerry's got 70 percent or so,'' he said. Asked if that meant he thought his vote didn't count, Chafee replied, ``Yes.''...

  The Republican said the party's direction in the future will determine his political career as well. He said he's ``not OK'' with the conservative platform from the Republican convention, but would not say if he'd consider switching parties in his next election in 2006.

  by thirdparty on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:42:17 PM PDT

  •  This

    The Republican said the party's direction in the future will determine his political career as well. He said he's ``not OK'' with the conservative platform from the Republican convention, but would not say if he'd consider switching parties in his next election in 2006.

    Is even bigger than his anti-Bush vote.

    by emptywheel on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:29:56 PM PDT

  •  Will Chaffee

    face problems based on this comment?
    The GOP seems to be an enforcer party.  He could find himself facing a challenger in a primary in 2006.

    by Unstable Isotope on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:28:41 PM PDT

    •  Possibly

      They certainly can't hate him more than they already do; he's been tolerated only because a repub in this region is a gift.  

      Their problem is that they can't go much further right and still hope for a win in the general election.  Right now, Carcieri (gov) and Laffey (self-aggrandizing, union-abusing mayor of Cranston) are two names that come to mind right away, and Carcieri made a point of being on board w/shrub at the convention.  However, I don't think either would pull much in the way of crossover votes against any vaguely viable democratic candidate, essential for repubs in statewide elections.

      by RIposte on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:50:30 PM PDT

    •  Either way

      He would be facing a primary challenge even if he kept his mouth shut.  He really had nothing to lose in that regard.  Plus, iirc the primaries in RI are open, so he could still win if the Independents turn out for him.

      by Jugwine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:55:21 PM PDT

    •  alallallala

      He's almost guaranteed to face a challenger in '06. There's a lot of talk about Cranston's (RI's 3rd largest city)[very conservative union basher]  Mayor Steve Laffey running against him. Might be interesting, as Laffey recently won an important primary election by a landslide, which has carried him to statewide prominence.

      by Bil on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:01:56 PM PDT

      •  Do you think the Club for Growth

        will stick its nose in here and support the challenger in the name of ideological purity?  I recall someone telling me last year that either way the national GOP is dumping a ton of $$ into RI to keep the seat for 2006.

        Who are the Dems running, Whitehouse?

        by daria g on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:52:28 AM PDT

•  K & E should court these people

  This is why I think Kerry and Edwards should talk to moderate Republicans. Bush is not a moderate, is not a Republican. There is good ground here to get new people on board, or at least depress turnout on the right.

  by thinkdouble on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:48:57 PM PDT

  •  Well,

    Teresa's former husband was a moderate Republican. She doesnt have to mention her former husband, but she can be used in two powerful ways; women and moderate GOP.

    by BC3 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:46:56 PM PDT

    •  Her too

      She was a moderate republican until very recently I believe.

      by Mila on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:58:06 PM PDT

      •  She was a

        registered Republican until recently, but if you look at her donations at opensecrets.org or whatever other site over the last few years, they have gone almost entirely to Democrats.

        by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:35:44 PM PDT

•  I wonder who he'll write in...

  That's D-E-A-N

  by ultrageek on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:51:59 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't be surprised if

    Dean gets a lot of write-ins in Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island. How great would it be if Dean beat out Bush for second place in VT?

    by BaltimoreDem on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:11:58 PM PDT

    •  That makes my day

      :)

      by ultrageek on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:29:54 PM PDT

    •  HOw horrifying would it be...

      To wake up on November 3rd and realize that the people in the so-called "safe states" had let up on their vigilance -- and the number of Nader vbotes and write-ins for Dean had given Bush the edge in a blue state?

      There is no such thing as a safe state this year.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:30:28 PM PDT

      •  Breathe! Breathe!

        A valid warning for places like NY and NJ, but the three referenced states haven't gone for the GOP since Reagan's landslide in 1984.
        
        Besides, I LIKE the vision of Bush getting outpolled by a write in.

        by Hoya90 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:57:50 PM PDT

        •  Don't play with fire!

          VT typically breaks about 55-45.  If enough Democrats write in Dean, Bush wins.

          Vermonters got a chance to show their love for Dean by giving him a Dem. primary victory after he'd officially ended his active campaign.  But to play chicken with the potential a wingnut supreme court, more stupid wars, trillions more in debt, and an adminstration that doesn't believe in reality in order to score cuteness points is...bizarre.

          by Go Vegetarian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:17:14 PM PDT

          •  Agreed

            I hope there isn't anything like an organized movement to write in Dean there.  That's worse than Nader.
            

            by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:21:39 PM PDT

          •  It's fantasy, chill.

            Organized write in campaigns rarely succeed enough to defeat nominated on-the-ballot candidates. The thought that uncoordinated write-ins by overconfident Dems could tip VT for Bush is just silly.
            
            Even with the party split you mention (also replicated in CT), remember that many of those GOPers are just like Chafee and Jeffords - they HATE Bush and what he's doing to the country. Stop worrying so much over an offhand comment and let's go back to worrying about OH, PA, and FL.

            by Hoya90 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:23:43 PM PDT

            •  Well, there was one...

              Good ol Strom Thurmond... the highest ranking win for a write-in ballot... he went to the Senate on it.

              by ultrageek on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 09:06:23 AM PDT

          •  Don't worry

            The People's Republic of Cambridge, MA will take care of Bush not coming in first or second somewhere in the country. He finished third behind Gore and Nader in 2000, and might well finish behind Nader (or Dean!) in 2004, too.

            by lone1c on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:43:40 PM PDT

        •  VT went for Bush I in 1988

          by aw on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:20:52 PM PDT

          •  Touche

            I'd forgotten how much Dukakis had alienated his neighbors.

            by Hoya90 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:24:19 PM PDT

          •  Before Clinton

            Vermont voted for every Republican candidate but Goldwater.

            by Twin Earth on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:37:42 PM PDT

  •  He said he'd write in a member of his party.

    That eliminates Dean.

    But rah rah for Lincoln.

    Hearing that he wouldnt vote Bush on CNN was just him putting his signature on a stance I knew he had already written. Not a surprise at all, but really fun to hear.

    I have loved him long time, have often said I would take him over Hillary and Chuck in a New York minute. And I dont believe in giving Republicans a vote, even seemingly nice ones, because they end up campaigning for really bad ones and voting with the herd on really nasty shit. But Lincoln, I trust, I trust him big time, just like Ive loved him long time.

    He is a progressive at the core. He doesnt go with the herd on Israel/Palestine, he didnt vote for the Bush tax cut and he stood alone in the GOP senate in voting against the Iraq War Res. He actually cautioned the country, saying we had taken on a belligerant tone after 911 and needed to take a deep breath and a step back. I'm paraphrasing, he said it very gently, but he said it and he said "belligerant".

    Hell, he is more progressive than many Dems on certain issues, such as Diane Feinstein. He aint perfect, of course, but he is a dandy.

    by NYCee on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:07:13 PM PDT

•  Kerry's coalition in the Senate

  If Kerry wins but the Rethugs hold the Senate, I believe you will see a voting block consisting of Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Hagel, and McCain, who will hold the balance of power and who will ally with Democrats to pass legislation favored by Kerry (in the drafting of which these Senators will have a great deal of say).  

  While I would still want the Democrats to retake the Senate in order to get control of the committees (and start some real Congressional investigations into Bushco's crimes), I think Kerry will be able to pass legislation even in a nominally "Republican" Senate  because of these moderates (who will have a lot more input under Kerry -- even within a Democratic Senate -- than they do now, and they know it!).

  The House, of course, is a different story....

  by Jim in Chicago on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:33:46 PM PDT

  •  still has to come up for a vote

    Even if these people are willing to support Kerry supported legislation, the vote still has to be brought up and I suspect the Republican Leadership will try and stop it.

    Is Hagel really that moderate?  He seems pretty conservative to me, but just not a neo-con.  Most of the Repubs in the Senate don't seem like neo-cons, Hagel just seems unwilling to completely roll-over for them.  If Kerry wins and the neo-cons are out I don't know if he will disagree with the Republican Senate leadership as much as he has recently.

    I certainly could be wrong about him (and I hope I am), but being independent and moderate are not necessarily the same thing.  And without this administration I don't think being a Republican will be the same as being a neo-con.

    by aw on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:51:00 PM PDT

  •  Why don't

    moderate Republicans hold more power?  They should, considering the closely divided nature of the Senate.  However, they cave and give Bush everything he wants.  I don't have any respect for most of these so-called moderates.  They're just Republicans with nicer rhetoric.

    by Unstable Isotope on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:31:29 PM PDT

    •  I think you nailed it...

      ...if they actually cared, they would have left the Republican party years ago.  They are like the Log Cabin Republicans in this regard.
      

      by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:38:16 PM PDT

    •  If Bush is ousted

      I think it will have an effect on these middle of the road Republican Senators much like the melting of the Wicked Witch of the West had on her henchmen.  

      It's good to see a few of them starting to show early signs of liberation.  The cognitive dissonance they experience while supporting Bush's policies must be excruciating.

      by Jim in Chicago on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:20:47 PM PDT

•  No Switchie Yet

  The story is 1000 times better if LC stays a Republican but doesn't vote for Bush.  Think of it:  Chaffee's message to Republicans is not to be a "turncoat" but that they shouldn't deem their own President worthy of their vote.

  IMHO, this speaks 1000 times louder than "I have had enough, Im going democrat."  Here's a guy who is sticking it out, not voting Kerry, but also rejecting his own party's candidate, who is the sitting President.

  That's an extraordinary repudiation!

  by MRL on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:41:34 PM PDT

  •  But will the media hype this like they did Zell?

    You hear all about these competitive Democratic Senate candidates who are keeping their distance from Kerry -- Carson, Knowles, Tannenbaum, etc. And of course you have the story of that turncoat Zell. But will this get any play in the media?

    The fact that moderate Republicans feel uncomfortable with this President is a HUGE deal.

    by John Campanelli on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:00:48 PM PDT

    •  Other than the lunatic Zell...

      ...have any of these other candidates actively disavowed Kerry or said they weren't going to vote for him?  

      It's common for someone running in a red state to tell the national leadership to keep his distance, but it's another thing to actively be against the national leadership.

      by Go Vegetarian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:19:35 PM PDT

      •  Not many...

        ...here's the best (um..."best" is a bad word...most complete?) list I've found:

        http://democrats4bush.com/

        Stephanie Herseth (candidate SD-al) on campaigning with Kerry: "I just don't see that there would be any interest from my campaign or the national party." (Bob Mercer, "Herseth sprints to early lead,: Aberdeen American News, 3/6/04)
        Rep. Rodney Alexander: "They've all endorsed John Kerry, and I'm not going to do that." ("Rep. Alexander may switch to Republican Party," The Advocate, 3/10/04)
        "Several lawmakers, including Reps. Rodney Alexander (D-La.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) have told The Hill they do not currently plan to endorse Kerry." (Hans Nichols, "Some Dems to run away from Kerry," The Hill, 3/17/04)

        I don't know if any of the above have formally stated they are not endorcing Kerry.

        Former NY mayor Ed Koch and St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly have gone further and endorced Bush.
        

        by Geotpf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:43:52 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          There is endorsing and voting.  I think all those D (except turncoat Alexander) will be voting for Kerry.

          by TealVeal on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:54:21 PM PDT

        •  That website made my entire day.

          Three "maybes" dating back to March 2004 and one dingaling dating all the way back to October 2003. I'd be willing to bet you'd find more genuine excitement at chickens4colonelsanders.com.

          by gp39m on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:09:01 PM PDT

        •  DM

          Yeah, but Dennis Moore HAS to keep his distance from the Kerry campaign as his district is pretty Republican. He always wins by razor thin margins, and to even mention Kerry would give Kris Kobach, his anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-immigrant opponent, ammo.

          by crimps4 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:04:56 PM PDT

    •  That's up to us.

      Email this article to every new service you can. If we get the word out on the internet and generate buzz...

      -fink

      by fink on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:31:06 PM PDT

•  he's a better weapon as a repub

  Chaffee, Snow, and Collins are all better to us as repubs who constantly go against the grain than if they switched parties, imo. Plus they can irritate the shit out of the freepers.

  That can only be a plus.

  by zoey on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:58:17 PM PDT

  •  Chafing the right

    His name says it all: Rub them wingers the wrong way.  Good stuff.  Chafee knows what he is doing, and I am convinced he won't switch parties.

    by Gearhead on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:05:47 PM PDT

•  INRI

  That happened in Rhode Island [In RI] - something that we irreverently commented on as kids in a northern RI Catholic school.  (I once was a boy from Pawtucket...).

  The right will crucify Chafee, which he clearly is aware of.  This was a bold thing for him to do.  Good on him.

  by Gearhead on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:02:55 PM PDT

•  I guess this means

  that Buddy Cianci will get a vote

  by RBH on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:09:14 PM PDT

  •  Ha!

    Wouldn't be the first one he's gotten while in prison, either.

    by Jugwine on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:10:38 PM PDT

    •  Republicans for Cianci!

      Buddy cared so much about protecting his marriage that he assaulted a man that he suspected of having an affair with his wife.

      Buddy will protect marriages!

      and Buddy will send some people to teach the terrorists a lesson. If you know what I mean.

      Buddy will loan out the White House to friends, or disadvantaged people, due to his current state of imprisonment!

      Cianci! Because you know he's a crook, and you don't care!

      by RBH on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:27:59 PM PDT

      •  Um...

        Good points all, but I don't think Buddy will be back from his federally-paid, uh, "vacation" in Jersey by primary time.

        But are you interested in purchasing any of his pasta sauce?...

        by RIposte on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:56:00 PM PDT

        •  He'd have to have surrogates

          since he's still in federal prison and all..

          I nominate Edwin Edwards to run as his Vice President

          by RBH on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:07:25 PM PDT

      •  No doubt

        I thought all the talk about crooked RI politics was hyperbole, but noooo..  

        Also.. Buddy, the musical!
        http://www.buddyciancithemusical.com/

        by daria g on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:55:17 AM PDT

•  If Dems win 49-50 seats, would he switch?

  Do any RIers know what he would do if the Dems gained the majority again?

  by republicansforkerry on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:16:33 PM PDT

  •  Not clear

    I think he's actually less likely to switch if Dems regain the majority without him. He had said in the wake of Jeffords that he'd consider switching if Trent Lott were to re-emerge as Majority Leader or something to that effect (not sure if he named Lott specifically or just said the GOP). The impression I had was that he'd think about it if it made the difference between one party or the other having a majority.

    Chafee is in a unique position. He's popular statewide due to his maverick reputation and his family history, and he's much better positioned to win that seat than any other Republican would be. (And I think he'd beat Patrick Kennedy fairly easily, in fact -- Kennedy is not terribly well-liked, and wins basically by virtue of simply being a Democrat in RI as far as I can tell.) On the other hand, the small percentage of conservative Republicans in RI don't like him much, and he may have finally burned his bridges with them entirely after these latest comments (though the state GOP establishment will probably stick with him). There has been talk of a primary challenge in '06, possibly from GOP Mayor Steve Laffey of Cranston, who has made an issue of Chafee's lukewarm positions towards the Bush administration. I haven't been in RI long enough to know whether or not Laffey (or any other challenger from the right) would have much of a chance. The current GOP governor, Don Carcieri, had to beat a more moderate establishment candidate in his primary, so I suppose it could happen.

    The other thing about Chafee, however, is that he strikes me as both genuinely principled and a little bit flaky. So while realpolitik might move another politician to jump ship to the Dems or run as an independent if it looked like he was toast in the primary, Chafee might not. He also wouldn't necessarily face an uncontested primary as a Democrat -- State Secretary Matt Brown, for one, is widely expected to run for either Senate or Governor in 2006. I wouldn't be surprised if Chafee had a tougher race in the primary as a Republican or as a Democrat than he would in the general election, where he'd probably win in a walk either way.

    Any other RI residents should feel free to correct me on any of this, of course.

    by KevinP43 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:51:17 PM PDT

    •  elections

      from a life-long RI'er, right on. I think Kennedy/Chafee would be close, though. And Linc would take out Laffey in '06.

      by Bil on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:01:29 PM PDT

    •  Excellent analysis

      From a re-election point of view, Linc's chances are best right where he is.  As I noted above,  Carcieri and Laffey seem to be the two most likely primary challengers, but party backing would likely be ambivalent because neither would pull a fraction of the crossover vote in the general election that Linc gets (and relies on for election).  

      More importantly, though, is that he gives "marches to a different drummer" a whole new meaning.  He seems to have a zen-like attitude toward the machinations of politics both national and local; he is a committed public service whose ego will be utterly untouched if he gets laughed at, shouted down or voted out because he voted on his principles.

      My own utterly uninformed guess:  he goes independent, not dem, if (1) Bush wins, (2) both houses are controlled by Republicans and (3) his defection keeps the majority leader's seat and committee chairs out of Frist's paws.  Otherwise, he stays put.

      by RIposte on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:10:26 PM PDT

      •  Carcieri

        Has there actually been talk about Carcieri challenging him in 2006? I had just assumed that he'd want to run for re-election as Governor. I'm guessing he might have a bit more crossover appeal than Laffey, if nothing else because he's already done it once. Granted, the Dems won't be running Myrth York for Senate in 2006. At least I hope not.

        I do wonder how many Dems would cross over to support Linc in a contested primary. Seems like it might be a smart thing to do, especially if the Dems have settled on a candidate themselves ahead of time. BTW, is it normal for the RI Dems to beat the living hell out of each other in statewide primaries? I haven't been here long, but it seems like that's what happened for Senate in '00 and for Governor in '02, and I'm guessing that's at least part of the reason why they lost both of those races.

        -Kevin

        by KevinP43 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:43:52 PM PDT

    •  Good Analysis on Chafee.

      I agree that Chafee would beat Kennedy in '06. Kennedy wins now because he's a Democrat AND out of respect for his two uncles. Other than that, he's not held in particularly high regard [Iraq vote, Cuba policy, etc., acts like a brat].

      I don't know anything about Laffey, so name recognition would be a problem for him. Also, if Laffey is going to run as a proponent of Bush's policies, then he'd never win in a million years.

      If Chafee gets a primary challenge from a Republican, then I'll probably slide over to their primary and vote for Chafee.

      Incidentally, my father met Chafee pumping gas over the summer-- Chafee said [paraphrasing here] that he thought "Fahrenheit 9-11" was a great movie, and that what Bush did (and is doing) in Iraq is horrible.

      -N.B.

      by npb7768 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 07:31:31 AM PDT

•  A Democratic Senate

  The Dems might not win the Senate outright in 2004, but they'll likely have a slim majority within the next couple of years, thanks to a handful of moderate Republican defections.

  by loudGizmo on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:22:13 PM PDT

•  That's why I respect the man.

  Whether he switches or not won't change my opinion of him.

  by Jim Riggs on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:24:07 PM PDT

•  He'll switch

  if Bush wins.  At least, that's the way I took his statement.  If Bush wins re-election, I think he'll give up on the idea that the GOP could grow some moderate voices.

  If Bush loses, he'll probably stay in to try to grow moderate voices.

  Shaffe voted against the war.  I think we too often forget he and the 22 Democrats who were smart enough to vote against it.  I understand a lot of this is because we have to rationalize Kerry's vote, but let's not do so at the expense of giving credit to smart people like Bob Graham, who figured out what was going on very early.

  by BigNTasty on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:31:16 PM PDT

•  Moderate Republicans

  I feel strongly that the Democratic party needs a vision of the fuutre that includes a platform of strong economic growth based upon technology, innovation, efficiency, and joint partnership between fair-trade oriented business leaders, and skilled wage earners.  We needc to crank the message out that we are not a bunch of slackers, that we are firm in our goals of health, economic prosperity, and sustainable action.

  As Tony Blair Heralded in a New Labor party in England, it is time for post-industrial change in America.  As factories run, not walk out of our country, we need new sectors, new opportunities, and economic stimulus.

  Skilled workers, educated innovators, and localized efforts to bring appropriate jobs to communities, such as micro-loans, community initiatives, and small business loans.  

  A focus on energy efficiency, lowering industrial energy costs could offset raises, wages, and benefits.

  Tax incentives for businesses that pay fair, and play fair.

   

  by lilorphant on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:33:23 PM PDT

•  Primary challenge

  Someone here said that the RI GOP, which is becoming more and more bigoted and is now run by someone who wants to stock up a bunch of anti-gay loyalists like himself, may run a nasty primary challenge on Chaffee 2 years from now.

  I wonder if it's definite now, and if he knows it.

  RI's Thug governor is a bigot (99% of Republicans these days are bigots), so no wonder Chaffee wants to leave.

  by JamesB3 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:43:38 PM PDT

  •  James, do you know

    who's now in charge of the RI GOP? Last I heard it was still Patricia Morgan, a moderate.

    by KevinP43 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:54:47 PM PDT

    •  laffey taffey

      I think there's going to be a battle in the next few years for the soul of the RIGOP. The Laffey GOP has already upended the Cranston party, and he certainly has nasty things to say about the statewide party.

      As for RIGOP being full of bigots, I disagree. Social wedges don't play well in RI. Gov. Carcieri and Laffey are huge Bush supporters, but they're not Texas Republicans by any means.

      by Bil on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:00:45 PM PDT

      •  I mentioned above

        That I don't see Laffey as being viable for a statewide