Replies

People seem to forget that Texans are not the ones who chose the Senators in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island is a liberal state and as much as conservatives do not like it, Lincoln Chafee is the most conservative person Rhode Island is willing to send to the Senate at this point in time.

Chafee voted with President Bush 70% of the time. How often do you think Whitehouse will vote with him or the Republicans in the Senate?

I really dislike Chafee and wish things were different in Rhode Island but not enough to let the Dems have control of the Congress.

3 posted on 09/13/2006 10:51:52 PM PDT by msnimje (What part of-- "DEATH TO AMERICA" --do the Democrats not understand?)

46% of R.I Republicans felt supporting a LIBERAL was not good enough for the party. If we're afraid to articulate our principles in Blue States and stand up for them, we won't get respect. People in those liberal strongholds will continue to vote for the real liberals, the Democrats. And they would be right since a RINO GOP is no improvement on the status quo.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

6 posted on 09/13/2006 10:56:03 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

Politics is about winning elections, not pouting and trying to get democrats elected if someone doesn't toe a rigid ideologue line.

7 posted on 09/13/2006 10:56:22 PM PDT by tkathy (Einstein: Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.)

I really dislike Chafee and wish things were different in Rhode Island but not enough to let the Dems have control of the Congress.

Correct. The Chafee debate is a nonstarter. The seat has been in the Chafee name for 30 years but there's no guarantee Lincoln Chafee will win in November.

21 posted on 09/13/2006 11:21:28 PM PDT by onyx (1 Billion Muslims -- IF only 10% are radical, that's still 100 Million who want to kill us.)

If Chafee voted for Bush 70% of the time, I'd be doing cartwheels that he's in the Senate.

Unfortunately, he votes with Bush closer to 30% of the time, and about 0% of the time on major issues. He's not even a sure vote for majority leader.

However, having the RI primary as 'proof' that Republicans stand for nothing, deserve to lose, etc. is complete nonsense that'll appeal the mastubatory 'pure' crowd, but won't convince any thinking people.

How do you explain that several states that voted for Bush overwhelmingly both times have two Democrat Senators, including ultraleftists? So, you are saying that a moderate Republican can't even get elected in a purple or blue state, yet a leftwinger can get elected in a very Republican state? Or is that that how the media tells you it's supposed to be?