Let's see if we can start a conversation...
I've become fascinated with reading about the upcoming US Senate primary in neighboring Rhode Island - what would appear to be a mirror image of the primary we just had here in Connecticut earlier this month. Republican incumbent Lincoln Chaffee is in the battle of his political life with Cranston Mayor Steve Laffy. Somewhat amusingly, it sounds at times as if Laffy is trying to define Chaffee as a "Ned Lamont" type of Republican.
Chaffee, like Lieberman, is a moderate. They are both members of the so-called Gang of 14, moderate members of the US Senate - Republican and Democrats. And both under fire by the more hardline members of their respective parties.
So what it is?
Is this "just" a movement by the hardline factions within each party to erase the moderates in effort to have a tighter grip on their respective parties? And is that a good idea? Why is it that neither political party seems to have any room within it for moderate voices?
Or is this more of an anti-incumbent movement by rank and file voters? As we saw here in Connecticut, more than just the hardline factions came out to vote. (By the way, in RI, independents are permitted to vote in party primaries - so it will be interesting as well to see what kind of turnout they have over there.)
Or...a third possibility, a combination of the two?
What do you think?
Chaffee, like Lieberman, is a moderate. They are both members of the so-called Gang of 14, moderate members of the US Senate - Republican and Democrats. And both under fire by the more hardline members of their respective parties.
So what it is?
Is this "just" a movement by the hardline factions within each party to erase the moderates in effort to have a tighter grip on their respective parties? And is that a good idea? Why is it that neither political party seems to have any room within it for moderate voices?
Or is this more of an anti-incumbent movement by rank and file voters? As we saw here in Connecticut, more than just the hardline factions came out to vote. (By the way, in RI, independents are permitted to vote in party primaries - so it will be interesting as well to see what kind of turnout they have over there.)
Or...a third possibility, a combination of the two?
What do you think?
posted by Ray Hackett at 9:33 AM
4 Comments:
I'm not...as you put it trueblue...seeing everything as left or right. I'm asking the question because earlier this year - even before Ned Lamont entered the race - I began to see signs that maybe an anti-incumbent mood was developing. People were - still are - angry about high engergy prices, the economy, Katrina, the war, etc. But the primaries, ours here in CT and the one in RI, took on this appearance of internal party posturing - and that became the focus of much of the discussions.
And it's become personal - anti-Lieberman here and anti-Chaffee in RI.
But I find it hard to believe that everyone casting ballots is looking at it in that sense. I think there is an anti-incumbent mood developing (already developed) - and the purpose of my question was to hear what others thought.
Why is it when someone wants to discuss something, the defenses go up and the responses come back as attacks and accusations of some sinister motive?
A few thoughts on this thread.
First, trueblue...although you and I approach some of these issues from a different perspective, I do find your thoughts and opinions worthwhile. I appreciate your comments and I do plan on exploring this issue of a groundswell of anti-incumbent feeling more thoroughly because it does seem to be a underlying feeling I'm getting as I talk with voters during my travels around eastern Connecticut. And I might agree with you that maybe this perception of a 'purge' might be incorrect, and may only be limited to those who are taking the hardline approach. I don't think expecting some sense of loyalty to the party as necessarily hardline - but maybe you might agree with me that the dominance of those who might be considered hardliners have certainly contributed to that perception.
Second...snorwich, I agree with Patricia when it comes to her complaint about the way you choose to express your views. On one hand you defend those who choose to do what they do as "their constitutional right," and then you attack anyone who would dare disagree with you or, heaven forbid, hold a different opinion. Quite frankly, you are entitled to your opinions - you've made your position quite clear, but in my opinion, you haven't brought very much to the conversation in your posts on this Web page.
And finally, Patricia...I would disagree with, with all due respect, about sitting out the election. In my 30-plus years of covering politics, I have met very few politicians or candidates that I agree with 100 percent. But I've also met even fewer candidates who had nothing to offer. It would be nice to go to the polls and cast a ballot for someone who absolutely reflects how I feel. It hasn't happened yet, so I choose the one who comes closest because not voting doesn't do anything for me.
But as far as that small minority of suppoters who choose to behave in the manner that you find objectionable - on that point, we are in full agreement.
What do I think? I think you got some splainin to do Ray. Your bias is showing.
Just what Ray, is so “moderate” about Lincoln Chaffee? Why don’t you guys in the press NEVER EVER use the word liberal to describe a liberal? Is that against Gannett policy? Is Ted Kennedy a “moderate”?
Is there simply no such thing as a liberal Republican or a liberal Democrat in your view Ray? Are the words “liberal” and “moderate” synonyms?
Chaffe is a liberal, not a moderate. It is no more complicated than that. Why do journalists protect liberals from the label of liberal?
I have lots and lots of proof that Chaffee is in fact a liberal and yes, I have been following that race.
Chaffee said on TV that he wasn’t going to vote for George Bush in 2004. He thought that was a fine feather in his cap.
Chaffee bragged he might switch to the Democrat party and he basks in the national lime light that gets him. He loves the speculation he will jump to the other side in Jim Jeffords-like fashion.
Chaffee thinks that Mayor Steven Laffy’s Christmas tree (or should I say holiday tree?) on the public green was an infringement the division between church and state. Are Christmas Trees really that threatening to Republicans even in Rhode Island?
In the last debate with Mayor Laffy (whose bumper sticker is on proud display on the bumper of my cute 2005 little red Aveo) your so called “moderate” said he opposes the death penalty even for war criminals like Osama bin Laden. Chaffee frets that OBL might not be guilty of Crimes Against Humanity. Did you see the last debate? He actually said that. Chaffe is running in the wrong primary.
Chaffee flippantly characterized the 9-11 terrorist attack as “mayhem”. Let’s give Steven Laffy credit for not punching Chaffee in the mouth when he said that. A food-fight between rival kindergarten classes in the cafeteria is mayhem. 9-11 was an full frontal attack on the United States of America for who and what we stand for.
Nor is Laffy all that conservative. If Chaffee loses --as I think he will --it will not because the Republican Party is purging its “moderates”, it will be because we are purging liberal Democrats pretending to be Republicans. The only reason why Chaffee is a registered Republican is because his daddy was.
Sorry. Fair hit.
RI Republicans running Chaffee for Senate makes about as much sense as walking into Burger King and demanding a Big Mac. It’s just like Ann Coulter says, the only reason why liberals like Chaffee are in the Republican Party is because they are loathed to be in the same party as their maid.
Chaffee is absolutely Brook Johnson’s (whoops! wrong millionare attempting to buy a senate seat) uh I mean Ned Lamont’s type of Republican. Give me one difference between these two Cut-N-Run types. One!
Snorwich: Actually Liberal Joe voted AGAINST the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (something this conservative will never forgive him for). I can see how you could have made that mistake however because at the time he was teasing the Republicans by semi-defending the Hon. Thomas in classic Lieberman style. Lieberman at the height of his popularity could speak to the same group and say the same thing and leave them ALL thinking he was on their side. He was one of those rare politicians who could fool all of the people all of the time – well at least for a while anyway.
Liberal Joe apparently didn’t get the price for his vote he was fishing for because after all his swaying back and forth like the weather vane he is, Liberal Joe voted with Dodd against Thomas. Lieberman also voted against John Tower for Secretary of Defense.
PatriciaTaylor:
Small correction. Unaffilated voters in CT are not a majority, they are a pularity with 44.9% using your numbers.
But I hear you gurl! “Given the lack of a real choice, as in the Lamont/Lieberman primary, I will hold my vote, or vote for another candidate, rather than do what I did for 29 years as a Democrat - that is, vote the lesser of two evils”
I am a Republian—your sworn enemy -- in good standing but I like you am no longer going blindly into the voting booth and vote a strict party line. The national party is fine but the CT party is infested with RINOs (Lenny Winkler, Cathy Cook and all these Lieberman supporters) and I am also not willing to vote for them. In fact I am going one step further and I am actually voting for the opposition in certain cases. I am going to vote FOR John DeStefano because I am not happy with Jodi Rell. Rell, nice lady that she is, has done nothing to earn my vote and I am not going to vote for her just because on some thin level she might be slightly better than the Democrat.
I am thinking these days the big picture is more important than the little picture. Losing elections is more preferable than to selling out our core beliefs which Rell has done in embarrassing abundance on issues from jacking up taxes to her incumbent protection plan she and Cook laughingly pass off as “reform”.
We may disagree on the issues but not in our contention that issues matter most.
First...Welcome Larry...I hope you find reason here to remain active and contribute to the conversation.
Second...mccommas...Conservative, Liberal, Moderate have become titles that are harder and harder to define. What one might consider moderate, another might consider liberal - or conservative leaning. I guess it is a perception based on one's own beliefs.
I'm not disagreeing with you, although I don't - me, personally - see Chaffee as that much of a liberal as I do a moderate member of the so-called Gang of 14. But that's me...
As always, I appreciate your input.
Post a Comment
<< Home