Centerfield

I'm surprised he's calling Kyl safe. SurveyUSA's poll summaries have him in Burns territory. Not saying he'll lose. But safe he's not.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 14, 2006 04:52 PM

Thats a very odd site - for Rhode Island he states "Chafee holding a 44-42 lead over Sheldon Whitehouse."
The race is already Laffey vs Chaffee

whitehouse hasnt been in the mix for months. Chaffee has already started a smear campaign against Laffey which is full of half-truths and misleading propoganda. To his credit, Laffey is focusing only on what he brings to the table. I have always voted for a Chaffee, either John or Linc, but Linc has really spoiled John's Chaffee legacy and become quite the partisan. The reason Chaffee's numbers inside his own party are bad is because he is a Kennedy style politician, all partisanship and bashing the other guy and not enough action on his part. In my humble estimation, he has done zilch for the state or the country since he was given, yes, GIVEN the seat when John Chaffee died and Linc was mayor of the town I live in, Warwick. I am voting for Laffey regardless of the fact that I would rather see a Republican controlled Senate than a Dem controlled on. I like Laffey personally as well as professionally and think (and hope) he would be his own man in the senate. He fought the unions as mayor of Cranston and won, he raised taxes in a bankrupt town and righted the ship. He made the unpopular, but correct, decisions even when it made him look bad, and to me, that makes him look good.

Posted by: Dan at June 14, 2006 11:34 PM

Chaffee's numbers inside his own party are bad is because he is a Kennedy style politician, all partisanship and bashing the other guy and not enough action on his part.

Lincoln Chafee - arguably the most liberal Republican in the Senate today - is "quite the partisan"? I would think that the reason he is unpopular in the GOP ranks has far more to do with the gap between Chafee's views and those of the arverage Republican across the broad ambit of public policy. Honestly, I'd have been less surprised if he'd bolted than had Jeffords. Posted by: Simon at June 15, 2006 08:42 AM

I listen to Providence news radio in the AM, and one of the prominent talk guys on that station completely has it in for Laffey and regularly savages him. My vague impression of Laffey is that when he became Cranston's mayor he did many good, sensible, and unpopular but necessary things, which is absolutely to his credit. Time has shown him to be a pretty awful politican, which is also, to some extent, to his credit.

But it has also shown him to be a little bit of a loose cannon, above and beyond having a plain-spoken, blue-collar, local color kind of feel. I doubt he has much of a shot to be elected to a federal slot as a senator, at least in part because Rhode Island's small-state chip on the shoulder makes them leery of appearing provincial. But mostly because a liberal republican is a good match for the state's electorate.

Posted by: bk at June 15, 2006 08:55 AM

I also think Lieberman is quite safe for that same reason. It's the people of Connecticut who will be voting for Lieberman. Now if Lieberman were running for relection in the state of DailyKos, he'd have a problem.

A conservative Democrat is a better fit for the Connecticut electorate than either a liberal democrat or a conservative republican.

Oh and funny story. On myway home from work, I sometimes listen to the afternoon Providence talk radio for my 10 minute ride form the train station if it doesn't get too provincial or too angry. I have heard people calling in to complain about Chaffee several times. Here's the thing...they are always Republicans that are complaining. Learn the lesson folks.

Posted by: bk at June 15, 2006 09:01 AM

Partisanship is not limited to a party line. Chaffee will buck the leadership, but ultimately votes party lines most ofn the time. However, he also bends over backwards to screw his opponents, rather than better himself or take an actual view. I live in RI and honestly, I absolutely hate his commercials on TV, I find them 100% insulting. Laffey made the hard decisions while mayor of Cranston and most of the state recognizes that. He did not, essentially, choose to run for Senate, but was BEGGED to run against the old guard. I have a call in to his campaign and am waiting for a call back (he is notorious for actually connecting with the people) - I have a few questions for him before I throw my support his way. But the questions have nothing to do with his views. Actually, in this election, I could care less about his views on any particular issue. I want to know if he is for real. I want to know that he will work for the betterment of not just Rhode Island, but the USA and follow his heart, not his party, or his pocket, on issues. I truly believe that the issues dont really matter any more and wont matter until we can find a way to vote in people who will actually do the RIGHT thing, as they see it. People who wont kowtow to special interests and party politics. I hope Laffey is the first of the new generation.

Posted by: Dan at June 15, 2006 09:14 AM

A Democrat is unelectable in Connecticut? Didn't Gore and Kerry win in Connecticut? Aren't both of there current Senator's Democrats? I am not sure about your logic on that one.

Posted by: Mathew at June 15, 2006 01:15 PM

Not what I said Matt. The point is that in a Connecticut general election in which all the people are eligible to vote, a moderate is most likely going to easily defeat an extremist, because he or she better represents the views of the state's electorate.

Gore and Kerry won in Connecticut because of the nature of their opponent.

If your point is that in a Connecticut contest between a very conservative republican and a very liberal democrat, Connecticut Yankees will usually choose the democrat, then I agree.

Posted by: bk at June 15, 2006 01:20 PM

Brian,

Did I say that you said it?

Simon said:

they will do so at the cost of putting a Democrat on the ticket who may be unelectable in Connecticut.

I do comment on others writings besides yours... :)

Posted by: Mathew at June 15, 2006 05:04 PM

Mathew - my logic's basically what Brian said. Yes, both of Connecticut's Senators are Democrats, but are you really suggesting that Chris Dodd and Joe Liebermann are representative of the kossack wing of the Democratic party? As Brian said, in CT, I would think that "a moderate is most likely going to easily defeat an extremist, because he or she better represents the views of the state's electorate." There are democrats and there are democrats; Barbara Boxer couldn't get elected Senator in Connecticut, I rather fancy, and while I'm not suggesting that Connecticut would vote for Rick Santorum over Ned Lamont, I am suggesting they might vote for Alan Schlesinger over Lamont, and I would be far from surprised if they wouldn't vote for an independent Joe over either of them.

Posted by: Simon at June 17, 2006 02:57 PM