Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Chafee Remains in Party of Lincoln

Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee will file today to run for re-election as a Republican, ending speculation that he would leave the party in order to improve his chances at winning a second term this fall.

"Senator Chafee has always been a proud Republican," said campaign manager Ian Lang in a brief telephone interview.

Chafee's decision to remain a Republican comes just 24 hours before the state's official filing deadline for federal office. Filing opened on Monday and most of the candidates for the House and Senate -- including Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, who is challenging Chafee in the Sept. 12 GOP primary -- filed. Chafee's no-show stoked speculation that he might decide to run as an Independent, fearing that he couldn't beat Laffey in the GOP primary.

Lang insisted that Chafee never considered running as an Independent and cited a Brown University poll released today as evidence that only the incumbent can keep the seat in the Republican column this fall.

In the survey, Chafee trailed former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D) 38 percent to 37 percent -- a statistically insignificant margin given the poll's 3.5 percent margin of error. Whitehouse held a commanding 55 percent to 25 percent margin over Laffey.

Brown did not release the results of the primary head-to-head between Chafee and Laffey but sources in both camps agree that the race is extremely close and there remains a very real possibility that Chafee could lose. The largest unanswered question is just how many independent voters decide to pull a lever in the GOP primary. The more the merrier for Chafee who may struggle if the vast majority of the primary electorate are dedicated Republicans. He has angered many in the party's base with his consistent unwillingness to side with the party on issues ranging from the war to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Chafee's decision to run as a Republican raises the specter that two Senate incumbents could lose in party primaries. (Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman is the other as he faces a serious challenge from businessman Ned Lamont, who has made the incumbent's support for the war in Iraq a centerpiece of the campaign.)

The last time two or more Senators lost in primaries was 1980 when four incumbents fell to defeat in the midst of the Reagan revolution. Three of those four were Democrats -- Sens. Don Stewart (Ala.), Mike Gravel (Alaska) and Richard Stone (Florida) -- and each seat was won by a Republican in the fall. The fourth was Sen. Jacob Javits (R-N.Y.) who lost his party primary to Alfonse D'Amato. D'Amato went on to serve until 1998 when he was defeated by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D).

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 27, 2006; 2:45 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Utah an Early Test on Immigration
Next: Parsing the Polls: Time for an Iraq Timeline?

Comments

That's right. All you do is flame. No style no substance. Get a life. Next.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 29, 2006 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Damn, impersonating now. I must really touched the socks heart (or drawer...with a flamethrower....burn, baby, burn).

Crispy critters now! lololol

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 29, 2006 6:04 AM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter, I apologize for my part in this nonsense. But actually, I was thinking abt this "woman" SandyK and the difference between someone like her and a run-of-the-mill partisan political troll like KOZ. While I advocate for ignoring the latter, when it comes to Hitler I cannot help but address that type of inflammatory rhetoric. As I have said, I have a personal connection to the atrocities caused by the Nazis, and while I am never going to have any effect on someone as looped as Mizz K, here, I am more interested in confronting the ideologies of Fascism and absolute power basically for two reasons. 1) It is ingrained in my nature and I have been socially programmed by my elder generations to speak out against such madness so it never happens again ANYWHERE. 2) B/c Fascism and Absolute Power are still alive today even in this amazing country of ours. While I would never impinge on ANYONE's freedom of speech, it is worth putting up with mindless banter from a simpleton like SandyK just to publicly have another opportunity to drive the point home that a Holocaust of any kind cannot happen again. Whether it is the Jewish people, Croats in the Balkans, Kurds in Iraq, people in Sudan, Palestinean peoples in Gaza, etc. It is wrong and we ALL have a moral obligation to do something about such a situation at the first possible moment. Again, when someone preaches advocacy for personified evil, like Hitler, I cannot pass up the opportunity to speak out against fascism or ethnic killings of any kind. Im sorry, im just like that.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 28, 2006 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Is there supposed to be an actual topic today? Or, just a spitting contest?

Chaffee/Lieberman are actually worthwhile topics.

VeniceMenace - Zouk would not be an improvement! Don't open that door.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | June 28, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

1980! 1980! :) Democrats are worse than Hitler but I would vote for them if they were'nt! :) :) Lick my feet! Internet bloggers will sink the Democratic party!! 1980! :) :) Hitler is better than the Democrats! Democrats will have to pander to morons like me if they ever want to win an election again - start licking my feet Dems! :) :) 1980! Ronald Raegan! I got banned from Daily Kos and I am NEVER going to get over it and stop ranting about it!! :) :) 1980! Republicans are great - Democrats are bad! Lick my feet!

YYaaarrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Posted by: SandyK | June 28, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Then what's this:

"Compared to what Dems have to offer right now, the general public may even prefer Hitler (as at least he's predictable, a safer alternative to WWIV, and there's comfort in a lock down than giving away the country to terrorists)."

Posted by: SandyK | June 26, 2006 03:39 PM

Im willing to debate you on substance, SandyK, tho I shouldnt bother. But I dont see how it is even possible since you simply IGNORE UP YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 28, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Fair and Balanced: I never advocated Hitler, period. That's why you need Haldol, since you can't tell the difference.

OG: Nightime is the time to do work for us computer types. It's the time when folks, like you, are going to bed and we fix the mess you've made. And you need a shot of Prolixin, as you're ranting, again. 1980 must be "666" to you and you're getting even more psychotic over it.

Venice: How would I know you're not from OG's sock drawer? No whine can compensate for evidence (especially when you post as badly as him -- Hint: this isn't an IM service for 15 year-olds).

Kaz: I'm not even a Christian, let alone a Republican or any party member. That you must stereotype like the socks above, makes your counterpoint worthless and not worth comment.

Until you guys grow up and can debate without the lowest common denominator tactics (only worthwhile for street punks with zero street cred), you don't warrant a serious reply. What passes as intelletual fodder at Daily Kos doesn't go far outside the insane asylum.

So drink deep from the Kook-Aid well, dears. Hopefully it'll be spiked with Prolixin and Haldol by the gate keepers.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 28, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Sandy,

Don't forget to mention that Reagan sold arms to our enemies (the Iranians) to garner release of the hostages. That helped him in the voting booth, although Americans didn't know he was selling out to the enemy at that time. And, the 12 years of Republican rule (that's what you think you people do - rule as in some kind of monarchy) that you spout wasn't that great of an experience for most Americans. Republicans may understand how to rule but they have no clue how to govern.

As for your being a born again Christian. HA, I say. HA! How can you claim that you're a born again Christian when you support an administration who's every policy is in direct contravention to the teachings of Christ?! Christ taught us to uplift the poor, feed the hungry, care for widows and orphans, eschew wealth and love thy enemy as thyself. Show compassion, love and practice forgiveness. Peace over war. Life over death. In Matthew, he says that that which we do unto the least of his brethen we do also unto him.

The GOP's love of war, torture, death, greed, lies, illegal spying, kidnapping of people and sending them to other countries to be tortured, keeping people imprisoned for years on end with no due process, rigging elections, and their continued destruction of the environment in no way reflects what Christ taught.

You're a born again Christian just like the GOP loves democracy. Yeah, they love democracy so much that they are trying to erase the separation of church and state, set women's rights back to the 18th century, stifle the free press with their ridiculous complaints about the NY Times publishing an article that two other newspaper also published, threaten those who dissent, and shred the Constitution.

I've yet to hear a Rethuglican spout or stand on Bush's record because he's failed at everything he touches. His evil geniuses (Ratman Rove and Dead Eye Dick) are exceptional puppet masters and pull his string very effectively. Because, let's face it, Bush couldn't find his own backside with two hands and a flashlight if his dastardly due weren't there to wipe his butt. Rove's propoganda skills are rivaled only by those of Joseph Goebbels.

Posted by: KAS | June 28, 2006 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Your wish is my command!

In 1973, the Defense Depar....... (blah, blah, blah, blah)

Posted by: Che | June 28, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I'm not a sock puppet. And I will publicly back OG, F&B?, Drindl, etc. etc. on this one.

Sandy, you've lost it. Your mind AND the argument.

It's enough to make me long for a KoZ appearance, an off topic Che posting or more ramblings from that guy who refuses to pick a nickname.

Posted by: Venicemenace | June 28, 2006 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Wow Sandy. Posting on a blog at 12:30 in the morning? You don't have much of a life do you? How many cats do you have? 12?

SandyK's idiotic posts can be summed up like this:

1980! 1980! :) Democrats are worse than Hitler but I would vote for them if they were'nt! :) :) Lick my feet! Internet bloggers will sink the Democratic party!! 1980! :) :) Hitler is better than the Democrats! Democrats will have to pander to morons like me if they ever want to win an election again - start licking my feet Dems! :) :) 1980! Ronald Raegan! I got banned from Daily Kos and I am NEVER going to get over it and stop ranting about it!! :) :) 1980! Republicans are great - Democrats are bad! Lick my feet!

YYaaarrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Sandy, for you to say that the Democrats need the vote of someone as far to the right as yourself to win an election is like saying the republicans need the vote of Al Franken to win an election.

Oh - you can now proceed rant about 1980 and feet and socks some more.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 28, 2006 9:33 AM | Report abuse

>>>Fair and Balanced: I'll answer your question when Haldol is a part of your morning regime.

You advocate for Hitler over fellow Americans, and yet IM the one who should be on Haldol?

I dont think one person on here appreciates your insulting behaviour on this board.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 28, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Same 'o same 'o, and I await for the sockpuppets to talk among themselves next! lololol

Fair and Balanced: I'll answer your question when Haldol is a part of your morning regime.

OG: Long winded, huh? I keep talking about 1980 because I remember that year (and it's landslide election). If you can't, maybe you can relive the experience by going over 12 years of Republican rule (then add Bush's 2 term career, all because the radicals ate their own foot for lunch). If that doesn't make you green, well, maybe because you're already an Area 51 resident. :)

Rob Millette: What's "amjority"? Does it go with sheeple in Townhouses that clap themselves?

[As usual no content among the socks, just more hot air. But that's the new Democrat outlook: back luzers, and their own Abramoffs (which dump their own natives too)]

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 28, 2006 12:22 AM | Report abuse

that applause you hear is the resounding applause of the amjority of the nation OG. Way to go

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 27, 2006 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeh Sandy I forgot - in Minnesota, former republican State Auditor Judi Dutcher who became a democrat 4 or 5 years ago is now the running mate of Dem gubernatorial nominee Mike Hatch. That stampede sound you hear is all the republican moderates running away from their old party that has been taken over by idiots like you who seriously think that Hitler is better thean the Democrats, and that gay marriage, evolution and flag burning are the most pressing issues of our time.

Keep living in 1980 Sandy and keep your fingers plugged into your ears. If you open your eyes to the present you might cry b/c your party is imploding.

Oh, and don't feel obligated to respond to any of these facts Sandy. You can just ignore reality and reply with one of your standard rants about DKos and getting your feet licked you sicko. Leave the serious discussion for the adults.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Way to try to change the subject again, SandyK. You can't argue with what I wrote b/c you are wrong LOL. How about addressing the fact that so many republcians are leaving the party to become democrats? Man it is pathetic that you are so old and you can't even contend with me. Pathetic. Just keep your fingers in your ears and singing 'La La LA La' Sandy.

Sandy, you can keep talking about 1980 b/c you don't want to talk about the present and that's fine b/c people of your stupidity don't matter. I know old people like to pretend that it is still 1980 sometimes, that's really cute I'll let you have your senior moment. You are not a moderate nor an independent - no one is going to pander to an idiot who says that the Democrats are worse than Hitler. You just keep dreaming that you are important Sandy, after all if you tell yourself something enough eventually your brain will believe it's true and you will create you won little fantasy land, if you haven't already.

I say again, Sandy , if you want your feet licked (you seem to be obsessed with having people lick your feet you pervert) you better find a massage parlor with a male employee. And be prepared to pay A LOT extra - I hear they have an "ugly" charge at those places.

Asking the Democratic Party to pander to someone like you for a vote is like asking the republican party to pander to Ted Kennedy for a vote.

"BTW, how does it feel to be taken by an influence peddlar and thrown off the curb like yesterday's trash (since you're not elite enough to join him in his "Townhouse")? I guess you have nothing better to do now but gripe about getting it shoved in both ways)." - SandyK

More insane ranting? Wow Sandy - go see a therapist already. I don't even know what the hell you are talking about in that little rant.


BTW Sandy, I noticed how you have responded to FairandBalanced regarding your bigoted Hitler comment. So on top of being a lunatic you're a coward too? You must fit in just great with today's republican party.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 9:54 PM | Report abuse

SandyK, why wont you address my comments?

Do you still think that America favors Hitler or the Dems?

You obviously know how to read. But that's about all we know. Prove you are as smart as you think you are and answer my question. Thanks.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 27, 2006 9:24 PM | Report abuse

How many socks is it now? 3?

All they can do is whine for cheese, yet they have gained nothing --repeat nothing-- for all that hot air. OG, can't even spin history well (how about digging in the NYT morgue and resurrect what Tip O'Neale did to Carter, let alone his butt buddy Ted Kennedy.

That's history before your time (thus, you can only concentrate on what you've learned since, say, 1985), but the rest of us watched it unfold in person. It's what handed Reagan a landslide victory, and it's all because of the radicals who ate their own foot, and cried with the meal still in their mouths.

No one buys that sob story anymore.

BTW, how does it feel to be taken by an influence peddlar and thrown off the curb like yesterday's trash (since you're not elite enough to join him in his "Townhouse")? I guess you have nothing better to do now but gripe about getting it shoved in both ways).

And you still have to lick the feet of us moderates and independents to get anywhere. Can't wait for the next groveling session.............

:)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"History bites. You guys are repeating it, and it's really sad to watch a reply of 1979 all over again."

"I'm just waiting for the moderates to wait until the radicals implode, and take back the party again." - Sandy K


I disagree Sandy, history was always my favorite subject in school. You should learn from history. And you should read up on current events before you open your big mouth and embarrass yourself:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1805330,00.html

Did you read it? Good.

Hmmmm.....let's see.....former CHAIRMAN of the Kansas Republican party switches to Democrat to run for Lt. Gov witht the Dem governor, war hero and Raegan Navy Secretary Jim Webb has switched back to Democrat to run for the Senate, SC republican prosecutor switches to Democrat, another Kansas republican - Paul Morrisson - has switched to Democrat and is now running for AG in Kansas, the CURRENT Lt. Gov of Kansas is ALSO a former republican, Eric Massa - the Dem candidate in New York's 29th District - is a former republican and 24-year Navy veteran, Wesley Clark used to be a republican, etc. etc. etc.

Get my point Sandy? You probably don't. Here - I'll spell it out for you:


Well Sandy it seems that moderate republicans are LEAVING the republican party in droves to become DEMOCRATS! It kind of dosen't fit in with your whole idiotic little theory that the Democrats are moving to the left and driving AWAY the moderates now does it??

Apparently the former republcians are so upset that their party has turned into a religious cult that care only about gay marriage, evolutiion and flag burning that they are becoming Democrats, b/c the Democrats are focusing on issues that matter such as healthcare, job, education.

I'm sorry, Sandy, how is it that I am repeating history? B/c unlike your idiotic view that that Democrats are losing people like they did with Raegan Democrats, it turns out that the facts are that the Raegan Democrats are actually leaving the extremist theocon republican party of today and coming BACK to the Democratic party!

Sandy, can you tell me of a single Democrat who has left the party and become republican b/c they were disgusted with the party? And I mean in say, the last year or two, b/c I can name a dozen republcians who have become Dems.

Seems like another one of your idiotic theories hase proven wrong when compared to the facts. The truth hurts, dosen't it, Sandy?

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 8:37 PM | Report abuse

And I forgot to add, Chris, the party of Lincoln? Please.

Today? Sorry, no. Let's just be truthful and call it the party of Abramoff.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Jesus Christ, who is this nutbag Sandy? I've seen more sane people handing out scribbled unintelligible 'documents' in Washington Square talking about how their uncles were made into toasters by the government.

'Now the GOP are mostly ex-Democrats and it shows, especially the commie ex-Cracker Neo-Cons.'

I mean, what kind of drugs is this woman on, so I can stay away from them? She's like a virtual fountain of disconnected lunatic rambling.

I repeat, anybody who says they want Hitler as a leader is so far gone into deep tormenting inner spaces you don't even want to go there.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 8:08 PM | Report abuse

SandyK:

Do you still think that America would choose Hitler over the Dems?

My relatives were nearly all EXTERMINATED b/c of Hitler, so Im not going to let this go until you account for the assinine filth that you post. Instead of rolling over for the Nazis like you would do, they took a month-plus trip by steamship overseas to come HERE in hopes of Freedom of Life Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness. They lived in squalor for a generation, then thru grit and hard work, built a foundation of what is now many successful families.

This, SandyK, is the AMERICAN DREAM, something you wouldnt know the first thing about b/c it doesnt come in a Wendy's Combo Meal.

That is why it is so important to re-state SandyK's blind agony of incestuous crap. To remind EVERYONE HERE what that garbage stands for and why it must be confronted.

That is also why, to get back on topic, it is SO important that AMERICA, every single American, and both houses of the Congress reject those who refuse to speak truth to power, like Joe Lieberman (a jew who has sold out to the ultra-rich), and people like Steve Laffey, who in the midst of the most corrupt, incompetent, and wasteful Congress in recent memory will do NOTHING but fall in lock-step with the Bush Administration, the RNC, and the NeoCon Christian Right INSTEAD of representing the people of Rhode Island.

So, SandyK, whose side are you on: Hitler, or the American Dream? Im waiting for your response.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 27, 2006 7:37 PM | Report abuse

See, I'm a moderate Dem, and Lieberman is completely out of step with the party. In a two-way race, I'd vote Chafee over Lieberman.

Oh, and I want to echo that fact that SandyK, you are an ignorant windbag.

Posted by: Adam | June 27, 2006 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Jim wrote:
===========================================
"and calling the Tom DeLay/Karl Rove GOP "the party of Lincoln" is historical blasphemy."
===========================================

Yep. But don't expect a "Townhouse" journalist to know the difference. Every conservative is a Neo-Con to that ilk, and the ideology IQ meter dips below wastewater in the process.

Party of Lincoln still exists in a modern version, and they're the TR conservatives. They're different than Traditionals (especially over religion and obeying authority without question, and much more progressive), and would spit on Neo-Cons as heretics to Edmund Burke. It's the TR wing that had all of the social reform Democrats rejected (the Mudraker laws and the ERA amendment -- yes the Republicans had it as a plank in 1941, long before Dems took up the cause due to the TR types in the party).

The Progressives of the early 20th century were conservative Republicans, ironically.

Now the GOP are mostly ex-Democrats and it shows, especially the commie ex-Cracker Neo-Cons.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 6:43 PM | Report abuse

OG,

History bites. You guys are repeating it, and it's really sad to watch a reply of 1979 all over again.

I'm just waiting for the moderates to wait until the radicals implode, and take back the party again.

Moderate Left and Moderate Right = prescription for true change. :)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Probably because Lieberman is a veteran senator and former vice presidential candidate who reached the Senate at the pinnacle of a long career, while Chafee is an underpowered dilettante who inherited his seat and has done nothing of consequence other than define the liberal end of his party.


Posted by: Brittain33 | June 27, 2006 03:27 PM

What has lieberman done recently. Chafee has at least helped stop republican attacks on the enviroment plus he has a much better position on the war. Plus in CT If lamont wins primary he or lieberman running as an independent will probably win(although lieberman might decide to witch in such a case) while if laffey eats Chafee in the promary dems get an extra seat.

Posted by: rtaycher1987 | June 27, 2006 6:20 PM | Report abuse

When are we going to see David Broder's column on the wild-eyed, irresponsible, clueless, destructive naifs in the Rhode Island GOP who have the audacity to challenge an incumbent?

I won't hold my breath.

and calling the Tom DeLay/Karl Rove GOP "the party of Lincoln" is historical blasphemy.

Posted by: Jim | June 27, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"But thanks for the handy list "

No problem Sandy - anything I can to do to help educate you in the future, you just let me know.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Ah, that's it Sandy, try to change the subject to Jimmy Carter b/c you lost the argument on Lieberman. Pathetic. Completely different situation, Sandy, the Iraq War was not going on in 1980 was it? I didn't think so.

I see that you STILL have not responded to the points made about Lieberman. Cat got your tongue? Did you realize that you were spouting rhetoric about something that you know nothing about?

Is there a conservative on this blog who, unlike Sandy, at least ahs a half a brain and is worth debating? This idiot Sandy is waste of everyone's time.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Sandy-

"The problem with you guys is you'll kill off your own, and whine for over a decade over your own faults blaming everyone else for your mistakes."

What do you think happened to George Bush Sr.? His (heroic) failure to keep his promise not to raise taxes due to WAR alienated the right and ultimately caused many to jump ship and vote for Perot or refuse to vocally support the President.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 27, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

OG,

I didn't expect you to agree (it's like asking Nixon to come clean during Watergate).

But thanks for the handy list ("netroot" folks are such n00bs). :)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

If we can dispense with all the name-calling, I'd like to go back to the issue of the newsworthiness of Lincoln Chafee's primary battle vs. Joe Lieberman's primary battle.

They're both newsworthy in that, as Chris points out, it's rare for more than one senator to lose in a primary. On the other hand, neither one of them passes the dog-bites-man test. Chafee is a moderate Republican in a liberal Democratic state; Lieberman is a moderate Democrat in a liberal Democratic state. Those of you who think Lieberman is a DINO can stop laughing, because my point is this: Chafee is always going to be vulnerable to a challenge to his right, Lieberman is going to be vulnerable to a challenge to his left.

The irony, of course, is that those of us who were in New England when Joe Lieberman got elected remember that he won by running to the right of moderate Republican Lowell Weicker.

The key difference between the two, though, is that the only way Chafee can get elected in RI is as a moderate Republican. That's why Laffey's going to get his butt handed to him in November if he gets the nomination. What's fascinating about the Lieberman situation is whether he is now, in fact, too far to the right to win a primary, let alone a general, in Connecticut.

Posted by: Dave | June 27, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

What you seem to gloss over is these folks also did that BS with Carter. Few folks will claim Pres. Carter was a Lieberman, but in the late 1970's that wing of the Democratic party did, and sh*tcanned their party to give the USA 12 years of Republians.

The problem with you guys is you'll kill off your own, and whine for over a decade over your own faults blaming everyone else for your mistakes.

Did it with Carter, did it with Clinton and now we may have another 12 years of Republicans.

Proud now, partisan (or are you more interested in finding differences like what occurred with Carter, and repeating history)?

Republicans don't need to do a darn thing to sink the Democratic party, it just has to watch it eat it's own (a sad history lesson that's been going on since 1966).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"Ohio Guy,

Is this you?"

No, Sandy, that is not me, sorry to break it to you. I have never seen that website before in my life. Unlike the person who rusn that website:

1 - I have never been to Cuba

2 - I have never run for city council of Kettering, wherever that is.

3 - I'm not a born again Christian. I'm Catholic.

4 - My mother never went to college

5 - My dad is still alive today

6 - that man has one brother and one sister - i have six brothers, two sisters.

7 - I am not married

8 - I do not have two sons

9 - I do not live in Dayton

Sandy, seriously - stop making a fool of yourself. What did you do, google 'Ohio guy'? My God you are unbelievably stupid. Ever occur to you that things that are unrelated to me might come up?

Keep on embarrassing yourself.

It's pretty sad to see that you are so obsessed with me though. ever occurred to your puny brain that maybe, just maybe TWO people somehow picked the same online nickname?

Oh, and good job not responding to any of my points about Lieberman. Just further proves you are nothing more than wingnut screamer who dosen't respond to facts, just spouts rhetoric.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

SandyK -- I gather that you don't like Democrats or their positions, which is fair enough. But I don't quite understand how that gives you any credibility in defining who is or is not a mainstream Democrat.

Take Lieberman as an example. As Ohio Guy notes above, there are a whole host of issues where Lieberman is well to the political right of the ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, including but not limited to the war. As a result, quite a few of us have come to the judgement that the guy is in fact a DINO. What basis do you have for arguing otherwise? Now, I know that the fact that he's conservative probably appeals to YOU, but that doesn't actually make him a mainstream Dem - it makes him a good representatives for other conservatives like you. Just curious.

Posted by: Colin | June 27, 2006 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Actually I wasn't even "googling" (I don't even use google as it sux, especially at spidering sites). I was looking up Hillary Clinton, and BINGO, out pops his website.

So speak what you know, not what you think, partisan (for all I know it's OG as another sockpuppet anyway).

Still waiting, OG, if that website is your own. Would explain the nastiness, as there's no worse a destroyer of the Democratic party as a "former" Dem who jumps ship.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Funny, or sad, that SandyK would rather spend time Googling people's nicks than responding to questions asking whether or not she is a fascist. The image so perfectly aligns with the character (or lack thereof) that she displays in her posts.

I can just picture her now googling "Fair & Balanced" (ooh, but with a question mark or without?).

I mean its bad enough that she would google our nicks, but to actually POST that on the blog? My goodness woman, have you any neurons up there AT ALL? Btw, SandyK, you may make a little more sense if you take your thumb out of your mouth while you type.

I know its not worth my time, but I couldnt resist. Is it Friday yet?

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 27, 2006 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I guess that pet goat isn't for petting, unless it's very heavy petting and beyond. :):):)

But OG has a spare set of nylons he can loan for the goat, ya know. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

>>>Where do you get those dictionaries

Shopping it around to publishing companies. Who did My Pet Goat? :):):)

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 27, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

!!ATTN All Real Dems !!

Ohio Guy,

Is this you?

http://www.ohioguy.com/aboutme.html

===========================================
"Yes I am a conservative. Yes I am now a Republican after spending most of my adult life as a Democrat. Yes I am a Christian. Born Again."
===========================================

As I'm wondering since I know plenty of Dems (and friends of many), and none of them are as ugly as you with your catcalls. Now "born again" Republicans don't like me at all, especially the Neo-Con commie types.

So, please, Ohio Guy, let us know your real political stripe. :)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"Que??? Need to dust off my neoconspew to english dictionary again..."


LOL that's hilarious Fair&Balanced I laughed pretty hard when I read that. Where do you get those dictionaries? I suppose I might need to buy one if Sandy keeps posting on this blog....

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeh, and I forgot to mention all the tech bribes Lieberman took...

Sandy you are such a hypocrite - you pretend to hate politicians who win b/c they take bribes and have more money, and that is exactly the kind of politician Lieberman is. He has sold out to big special interest drug and tech - Lamont has not. Lieberman has a $5 M warchest - Lamont has far less money. This is a primary battle over Democratic ideology, where Lieberman is seriously lacking, so maybe yo should keep your nose out of it as your opinion dosen't matter.

Lamont is exactly where the American people are - he favors a timetable for troop withdrawl - just as a CLEAR MAJORITY of Americans do, although I know the wingnut screamers like yourself advocate us staying and dying there forever.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

>>>Why does the Chafee-Laffey primary not get as much attention from the MSM as the Liberman-Lamont primary does?

Hmmm, could it be the same reason that the MSM paints Lamant as a one-issue candidacy? That reason being, perhaps, that most media conglomerates are owned by GOP contributors?

Anybody have good data on media ownership vs. political contributions? Theres always opensecrets.org... Sorry, but I dont have time to pull this data up.


>>>Don't confuse Neo-Conservatism as the "Party of Lincoln", as anymore representative of the conservative ideology, too.

Que??? Need to dust off my neoconspew to english dictionary again...

Off-topic, but Hey SandyK, how bout just admitting to everyone here that you're a fascist? You should after your post a couple threads back. Do you still think that America would choose Hitler over Democrats? For those who dont know what Im talking abt, check out the Reid thread, Posted by: SandyK | June 26, 2006 03:39 PM. I wonder why you didnt stick around to defend your post. Could it be that you are a bigoted coward?


Btw, Chris, the head, while playing into the same B.S. abt the Republicans being the "party of Lincoln" (gimme a break), I do like kitchy word-play, so you get a pass on this one ;)

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | June 27, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"(they can't tell the difference between being a true Democrat or being what they claim Lieberman is a DINO -- yeah, zero ideology, like Abramoff, the only thing that counts in the color of money and influence)." - SandyK

Poor Sady, again you prove how ignorant you are. Lieberman is a DINO, and everyone who has half a brain knows it, which excludes you, of course. That's right, Sandy, don't ever think for yourself, just keep repeating those republican talking points of yours and keep crying b/c you got banned from Daily Kos b/c you're as hateful as Ann Coulter.

And comparing DKos to Abramoff? Wow, they must have made you cry over there huh? I knew you would top yourself in the stupid department today. I won't even bother asking you for an example as to how DKos is like Abramoff (who bought off legislators with $$ and gifts to perform legislative favors for his clients, something no one at DKos has ever done while Abramoff has been convicted of doing so), b/c I know you are just spouting your usual empty rhetoric.

And since you seem to be one of those people who still labor under the illsuion that the only reason Lieberman is still being challenged is b/c of the Iraq War (I know you nimwits like to believe that), I will again post the same list I made a few days ago on another thread showing that there are many, many reasons Lieberman is being challenged.

Do yourself a favor and read this list Sandy. It's the tip of the iceberg and maybe you won't be so ignorant anymore after you read it (although morons like you are seldom convinced by silly facts):

1) Lieberman voted yes on the enery bill that conatained billions of dollars in subsidies for huge oil companies at times of record profits, and was one of the few Dems to do so.

2) Lieberman sided with the religious wackos in his opinion that private hospitals should not be required to offer contraception to rape victims.

3) Lieberman sided yet again with the fundies in Congress over the Terri Schiavo case and even hinted that those who disagreed with him do not value human life.

4)Liberman regularly goes on Sean hannity's show on Fox News and ridicules other Democrats who disagree with him even as they represent the mainstream Democratic party and he does not.

5) Liberman prevented an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib torture scandal even as the Republicasn who sat on the same panel were ready to authorize an investigation, and he emerged as the premier Democratic apologist on torture.

6) Lieberman voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales, the only Dem from a blue state to do so, and since then we have found out that Gonzales blatantly lied to the Senate during his confirmation about the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Lieberman remains a Gonzales supporter.

7) Lieberman was the absolute last Democrat to get on board in the effort to stop Bush from privatizing Social Security.

8) Lieberman unflinchingly continues the idiotic "stay-the-course" non-strategy in Iraq. His stubborn (some Washington insiders would call it "principle", lol) refusal to see that Iraq needs a new plan not only hurts democrats but leads to the continued deaths of our men and women in uniform. On top of this, he ridicules any Democrat even military veterans such as Murtha and Kerry who put forth a new plan.

9) Lieberman voted Yes on Alito cloture.

10)Lieberman is a pharmacuetical lobby special interest addict. Lieberman took $400,000 in big drug money and then voted against a bipartisan plan to force drug companies to offer drugs (drugs developed with the use of taxpayers' money) at " a fair and reasonable" price.

Hopefully this PARTIAL list of the reasons why Lieberman faces a primary challenger will dispel the myth that Lamont is a single issue candidate. I'm sure it won't convince the wingnut screamers like SandyK though.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"Wiseful thinking. Since there's plenty of Republicans, let alone of conservatives who didn't like Judge Alito. Might as well can that as a sore point with conservatives (even not supporting the war, as Traditionals don't support it, either)."

Let's see how stupid you are today, Sandy. You mispelled "wishful", you say that there are conservatives who don't like Alito(???) - what planet are you living on? I have yet to meet one who dosen't like him. I guess that's why every single republican in the Seante save Chaffee voted for him, huh? Oh, and traditional conservatives don't support the war? Maybe NOW some of them don't, but in the prelude to the Iraq War every single one of them was screaming for us to invade Iraq. Don't try to make stuff up, Sandy, you just come off as a raving lunatic.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Probably because Lieberman is a veteran senator and former vice presidential candidate who reached the Senate at the pinnacle of a long career, while Chafee is an underpowered dilettante who inherited his seat and has done nothing of consequence other than define the liberal end of his party.

Posted by: Brittain33 | June 27, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Wiseful thinking. Since there's plenty of Republicans, let alone of conservatives who didn't like Judge Alito. Might as well can that as a sore point with conservatives (even not supporting the war, as Traditionals don't support it, either).

Don't confuse Neo-Conservatism as the "Party of Lincoln", as anymore representative of the conservative ideology, too. That shows ignorance, as the conservative political spectrum isn't all Neo-Conservative. But I can't blame you in not knowing, since you hobnob with the Kossacks and can't tell the difference (they can't tell the difference between being a true Democrat or being what they claim Lieberman is a DINO -- yeah, zero ideology, like Abramoff, the only thing that counts in the color of money and influence).

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Why does the Chafee-Laffey primary not get as much attention from the MSM as the Liberman-Lamont primary does?

Could it be that the conservative-controlled media is obsessed with playing their favorite cooked-up storyline that the Democrats are about to kick out one of their "moderate" (btw: Lieberman is NOT a moderate - he's a Bush lapdog) Senators in favor of the more liberal Lamont? I'd be willing to bet that is the reason. You constantly hear the usual suspect conservative shills on the radio and TV crowing about how Lieberman is under fire and yet they never mention that the most moderate republican in the Senate - Lincoln Chaffee- is facing a primary challenge from the extreme right-wing of the republcians party. I guess someone like Chaffee who believes in raising the minimum wage, upholding the constitution, protecting civil liberties and favors keeping the nose of government out of the bedroom is unacceptable in today's republican party.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company