Today on Blogcritics
Home » GOP Leadership Backs Chafee for Victory in Rhode Island Primary

GOP Leadership Backs Chafee for Victory in Rhode Island Primary

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In striking contrast to the Democratic party's abandonment of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman for being too conservative, the Rhode Island primary saw the major campaign institutions of the GOP rally behind maverick Liberal Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee to push him to a strong 54% to 45% victory over conservative challenger Stephen Laffey on Tuesday.

Chafee's moderate-to-liberal positions on issues like abortion and the war in Iraq had alienated a lot of religious and hawkish Republicans who encouraged and supported the pro-life and pro-war Laffey in his primary challenge. Laffey had raised a lot of money and up until the last few weeks most of the polls had shown him neck and neck or even leading Chafee.

Then in the final weeks of the campaign the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee really came through for Chafee with direct donations and ad campaign sponsorships totalling more than $1.2 million, plus additional staff and expertise to turn out independent voters to vote in the Republican primary and give Chafee the win.

Cynics are pointing out that Chafee is the incumbent and they may have only supported him because they thought he would run more effectively against moderate Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, but there may be more significance to this development. It may be a reminder of who really controls the GOP and a sign of things to come.

The Republican National Committee is run by Ken Mehlman who is relatively politically moderate and widely rumored to be gay. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is headed by Elizabeth Dole whose voting record in the Senate is fiscally conservative but socially fairly moderate. Rep. Tom Reynolds, who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee, has a more moderate voting record than either of them.

Obviously none of these party leaders is as liberal as Chafee, but they certainly represent the more traditional establishment of the party. They aren't Neocons or Theocons, they're old-fashioned fiscally conservative and socially moderate Republicans, and it appears that they are eager to support moderates and liberals over extreme conservatives in 2006, and quite possibly in 2008 as well – which argues very hopefully for the aspirations of presidential contenders like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Not surprisingly, the power brokers of the extreme right such as the Club for Growth are grinding their teeth over the choice to back Chafee against Laffey. Club for Growth President Pat Toomey commented "Washington-based Republicans' elevation of incumbency protection over principle is disgusting rank-and-file GOP members." Which begs the question – if it's so disgusting, why did they turn out to vote Chafee an almost 10 point margin of victory over Laffey?

This may not yet be a full-scale split in the GOP, but it's a sign of the growing division between the party establishment and the radicals who want to change the agenda and move the party towards the far right. The Chafee victory is a sign that the radicals aren't having the same kind of success which the Ned Lamont victory in Connecticut suggests that Democrat extremists are having in their party.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Arch Conservative

    What the GOP should have done to Chaffe was handcuff him to Mccain and throw him under a bus.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    In fact, Dave, Zingzing once made a comment that has stuck with me ever since:

    “Bing, you can’t be for real.”

  • http://www.blogger.com Georgio

    umm If Arch is going to handcuff McCain than why would he not include Juliani who is a moderate also ..I being a Liberal would find it hard to dislike this trio…

  • Arch Conservative

    Dave…what kind of Republican takes either Chafee or Mccain seriously?

    And georgio I guess we could handcuff Guiliani too abd throw all three of them under the bus.

    I have made it clear who I’m supporting in 2008.

    Mitt Romney! A real republican.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Chafee’s support by the RNSC and Lieberman’s “lack” of support by the DSCC can be attributed to the fact that the only way the Republicans could hold Chafee’s seat (which is not certain) is with Chafee. Hell, they had already conceeded that had Laffey won the primary, they wouldn’t have given him any money. Lieberman’s seat is a “safe” Democratic seat (no matter if Lieberman or Lamont was the nominee – and now both are nominees) and the DSCC would’ve been nuts to shell out millions when they have so many other targets and chances to actually flip Republican held seats this year. Republicans are actually pretty steamed that the RNSC paid out so much defending Chafee in the primary when their money could’ve gone to defending other seats.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave…what kind of Republican takes either Chafee or Mccain seriously?

    Um, the sane kind?

    Republicans are actually pretty steamed that the RNSC paid out so much defending Chafee in the primary when their money could’ve gone to defending other seats.

    Yes, I mentioned that in the article. The irony is that they’re steamed at the RNSC which did the right thing here rather than at Laffey and his backers who were working against the best interests of both the party and the country.

    And regardless of everything else, this action is an acknowledgement that Chafee in office is still better than the alternative for the GOP. And IMO his presence does a lot to remind the GOP what issues and positions they ought to be considering.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Screw Chafee. I hope the RINO loses to the Democrat Whitehouse.

    The GOP can’t win on the issues in RI, so instead it offered support to a Democrat-in-GOP-clothing in a desperate attempt to “keep” a Senate seat for a guy who votes against the GOP on the big issues like 70% of the time…pathetic…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RJ, have you actually LOOKED at Chafee’s voting record? He’s fiscally conservative and pretty moderate on social issues. Just because he’s not pro war and pro life the extreme right has tried to make him out to be a closet democrat, but they’re just wrong.

    Do you remember Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole? They’d all have been right at home with Chafee just as they were with his father who held the same views and was never called a RINO. Why is it that those views which were okay 20 years ago are now suddenly anathema to the new pro-life, big spending warhawks who claim to be the ‘real’ republicans?

    I’ve got news for them. Chafee is closer to the traditions of the party that freed the slaves, integrated the federal workplace, broke the monopolies and the unions and fought and won the cold war.

    When your party is wrong, voting with them is NOT a virtue.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Amen, Dave. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the parties as they currently stand are SO out of touch with reality and the people that they no longer can validly claim to represent us in any sense. Both parties are also way out of whack with their own political traditions as well, picking and choosing candidates that reflect the priorities of the party leaders, NOT the voters themselves. Talk about special interests. Personally, IMO Chafee & many others (including Lieberman) would do well in the interests of truth in advertising to become Independents, but I suppose that might strip them of whatever party financial support they might be able to get, altho I wonder if they wouldn’t be better off without it. At least we’d have the beginnings of a viable & desperately needed 3rd party!

  • Nancy

    & Al, don’t hold your breath waiting for Romney to get the GOP-RNC nod for Prez; it ain’t gonna happen. His base of appeal is too narrow, & he’s got other PR problems the RNC isn’t going to want to fight to deflate, when they have plenty of other more easily defended candidates out there. Alas, the perception is everything.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Why anyone would hold out fanatically for an unelectable non-entity like Romney when we have so many better potential candidates in the GOP is absolutely mystifying to me.

    Giuliani, Mark Sanford and even McCain make Romney look like a political chump.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    As I said, he’s got too many perception problems and there are too many other GOP candidates who don’t. Like it or not, a LOT of voters are extremely leery of voting for a Mormon (just like they were leery of a Catholic before Kennedy), the more so because the LDS church DOES indeed keep its members on very tight leashes, and the higher they are in public life, the tighter the leash, so a vast majority are reluctant to hand over the ruling of the US to Salt Lake City. Whether this is true or not, that’s the popular perception, like it or not.

    Now, after defying Bush on the CIA torture demand yesterday, I have a suspicion McCain isn’t going to be the RNC candidate of choice, either. Actually, I thought that a long time ago, even when he started sucking up to Bush during the 2004 elections, obviously in the hope he’d get the RNC nod & list of donors. I suspect that was his price for campaigning for Junior in 2004, but if he believed them, the more fool he, ’cause I think they yanked the football on him, and they’ll use this as an excuse. The RNC/GOP doesn’t want anyone who thinks for himself or can’t be controlled, and McCain is not as biddable as they’d like.

    Before he opened his big yap & made the “Macaca” good, I’d have said George Allen had a good shot at it, but that may have dumped him a little lower in the selections, since anyone running opposite can use that as a bias card. Maybe they’ll just wait & hope the MSM & public forget, but I doubt it.

    I don’t know about Giuliani; outside the East coast he’s not that well known – altho that can be amended, of course, with a war chest the size of that the RNC has.

    What are other’s thought on this? Dave? Anybody?

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    If the GOP is interested in keeping the Presidency in their hands they have to nominate either McCain or Giuliani. Allen, Romney, Huckabee and Frist are all pretty much unelectable at this point.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Scott, Frist is actually halfway moderate and semi-sensible. But I agree he’s not a very good candidate. He’s just too stiff and hasn’t been popular enough on the Hill. Plus running from the legislature rarely works.

    IMO the GOP should do everything it can to convince Mark Sandford to run and shake things up with a dark horse candidate, but Giuliani will do in a pinch.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    I think between his business entanglements & putting his foot in his mouth over Schiavo medically, Frist is out of the running. Also, as you pointed out, he’s not very personable in public, and he isn’t well liked by the independent voter contingent because he’s popularly perceived as a WH lapdog. There’s other candidates with less problems. Sandford…I don’t know much about him. What’re his qualifications over, say, Giuliani?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Sandford is younger and healthier than Giuliani and doesn’t have the same controversial personal life. He’s also a governor rather than a mayor, which helps a lot as far as being qualified.

    But more importantly he’s not a vague moderate like Giuliani, but more of a traditional fiscally conservative socially liberal republican, which I think will sell better with the party base.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Mccain is the chump Nalle. Do you actually think the GOP will give him the nod?

    Guiliani seems like a decent fellow and I would even consider voting for him if he weren’t so socially liberal. But that is the reason he won’t be the GOP’s guy in 2008 either.

    George Allen is a real conservative but not bright enough. he’s not ready for primetime.

    I’d vote for Gingrich but I doubt he’d make it.

    You might think Romney is a nobody Dave but the election is 2 years away and living in New England I am probably more familiar with him than most oN BC. I can tel you Romney is a quality guy. He’s a true conservative with a track record of success. The biggest strike againsthim is that he is in fact a mormon and close minded people like Nancy will use that reason alone not to vote for him. But I think he can overcome this and show people he’s a mormon but he’s just a regualar family guy who doesn’t go around injecting his faith into everything.

    Romney 2008!

    Oh and guiliani, mccain, gingrich, romney, huckabee, even george allen would all trounce hillary so I hope you moonbats do run her.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Dave:

    Chafee has voted –

    for Campaign Finance Reform

    against Judge Alito’s confirmation

    against Bush’s tax cuts

    against the flag-burning Amendment

    against a ban of Partial-Birth Abortion

    against a ban on “Gay Marriage”

    for “Hate Crimes” legislation

    for the new Prescription Drugs entitlement

    against the War in Iraq

    for illegal-immigrant amnesty

    against William Pryor for federal judge

    against drilling in ANWR

    ETC.

    He also says he voted for Kerry in 2004.

    So, he’s basically a Democrat in GOP clothing…why should I support him?

    Why do you???

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    By the way, my source for a lot of the above was this

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RJ, I do agree with him on 5 of those items and don’t much care about several of the others. But the POINT is that he keeps the GOP honest and is a reminder that it IS a big tent.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Mark My Words:

    If the GOP “holds” the Senate by a total of 50-50 (with Cheney as the tie-breaking vote), Chafee will “pull a Jeffords” and become a Dem…giving control of the Senate to the Democrats…

    I honestly don’t think it will come to that, because I think the GOP will still have a 52-48 or 53-47 advantage in the Senate after November…but I don’t trust this bastard one bit…

  • MCH

    “Dave:
    Chafee has voted –
    …against the War in Iraq…”
    – RJ Elliott

    So which is worse, RJ:
    voting against the war in Iraq, or blogging macho pro-war rhetoric while sending others to fight your battles for you…?

  • IgnatiusReilly

    “And regardless of everything else, this action is an acknowledgement that Chafee in office is still better than the alternative for the GOP.”

    You didn’t complete the sentence.

    “…to win the seat.”

    It’s all about winning control of the sentence. Liberal Repub is better bet than a Conservative one. Why would the moderates all of a sudden get a voice over just one seat considering all the other candidates they support. You are deluding yourself about the way the party works.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Chafee isn’t going to pull a Jeffords if the party continues to move in the right direction. What you need to realize is that the GOP has been off track and needs to return to where it was before the Clinton administration, when moderates and conservatives could work together and had common interests. Bigotry and extremism should stay in the Democratic party where they belong.

    Dave

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Dave, why so paranoid lately?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Paranoid? Pas moi, mon ami.

    Dave

  • MCH

    Huh? Lately!?!

    Dude, he’s only been living in a fortified compound now for almost 10 years….

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Which is worse, “MCH”:

    Playing softball and billiards in Hawaii while other men your age volunteered to go to Vietnam?

    or

    Posting under an anonymous name while cyber-stalking people who don’t?

  • MCH

    “Which is worse, “MCH”:
    Playing softball and billiards in Hawaii while other men your age volunteered to go to Vietnam?”
    – RJ Elliott

    Yeah, and to think what you’ve done is even less than that…

  • Clavos

    “Softball and billiards in Hawaii.”

    I’ll be damned–and you have the chutzpah to denigrate others for not wearing the uniform?

    Bwahahahahahaha!

  • Nancy

    Arch, you’re deliberately twisting what I’ve been saying. I have not stated my opinion of Romney. I’m just pointing out the obvious problems he’s got should he run, and saying that the GOP is unlikely to nominate him because he DOES have baggage & problems with the general public perception that other candidates don’t. Period. Don’t put words in my mouth about what I think or don’t think about his religion.

  • MCH

    Um, not just “others”…only those who promote sending someone else to fight their battles for them…

    Oh, and I understand your animosity, Clavvy…I’d be angry too if I voted for a Deserter…

  • Nancy

    ROTFLOL, MCH. Spot on!

  • Clavos

    I’m not angry, MCH–I’m laughing at you and your self-righteous pomposity.

    I’ll vote for deserters, even draft dodgers, if I like their politics.

    You see, I don’t regard service in the military as conferring some sort of legitimacy or special quality on a person.

  • Nancy

    Well, in a sense it does, in that someone who has served would understand why adhering to the Geneva conventions helps increase the possibility that our troops will be treated that way, whereas ditching it will almost certainly ensure they won’t. Dubya for some reason is incredibly blind to the consequences of his insistence – something now even Colin Powell has pointed out. Someone who has served would also have a better sense of self-discipline than W, who has absolutely none, and who furthermore is being encouraged by his surrounding flunkies that he is subject to none: neither discipline nor any laws whatsoever. Finally, those who have served do not deliberately hazard the lives & safety of troops in battle for no reason beyond personal gain or ego, nor do they risk other lives while they themselves hide in perfect & utter safety, all the while making macho shithead swaggering pronouncement like “bring ‘em on” – KNOWING neither they nor theirs will ever be at risk. This is the mark, not only of a deserter, but of a rank coward & fool as well.

    You do surprise me, because I’ve come to think better of your judgement than that, & thought you had a better sense of character, Clavos. Bush is NOT a conservative, nor does he represent anyone who is Republican: Bush represents only himself and his fellow plutocrats. Period.

  • Clavos

    Nancy,

    Nobody we’ve ever fought has abided by the Geneva Conventions–ask John McCain.

    those who have served do not deliberately hazard the lives & safety of troops in battle for no reason beyond personal gain or ego, nor do they risk other lives while they themselves hide in perfect & utter safety…

    Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ committed us to Vietnam and escalated our involvement there.

    Bush is NOT a conservative

    Never said he was. Nor am I, except fiscally. I’m for abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc., etc.

    nor does he represent anyone who is Republican

    I’m an independent, so I don’t care whether he represents the Republicans.

    Nancy, I understand what you’re saying–I’ve read your posts on several threads for a long time.

    What started this particular discussion was my criticism of MCH’s constant digging at people who didn’t serve in the military.

    Considering what his service consisted of, his constantly throwing it out to those who were never in the military, for whatever reason, makes a mockery of that long black wall in D.C., as well as any other war memorial (for any war) in the country.

    That’s all I was objecting to, and I stand by it.

  • Nancy

    Eisenhower, Kennedy, & LBJ all served in the military. They did their stints, and put themselves in harms’ way with everybody else. They didn’t join a rich boys’ guard unit guaranteed to keep them safe & at home, & then after one lousy meeting, fail to show up even for that any more, nor did they later try to claim that they DID serve, by attending that one meeting, nor did they make stupid braggart swaggering challenges to the enemy like “bring ‘em on” when they themselves were safe, at the expense of their troops. This is why I hold Dubya in such depths of contempt. He’s a rank coward, a liar, dishonorable in every sense of the word. He certainly isn’t worthy of anybody’s vote, of any party. I’d rather have an effete jerk like Kerry who at least did serve, for however short a period, than a lying, bragging coward & pretender like Bush. I should think any honest & cogent person would.

    How to explain? It isn’t a matter of having served; it’s a matter of being honest about it. At least Clinton made no bones or excuses that he avoided service. He didn’t try to pretend or lie about it, and afterwards as prez he didn’t go around posturing as tho he had, nor did he voluntarily, unnecessarily, or stupidly throw US personnel into harm’s way.

    That our enemies never follow the conventions I agree with; that occurred to me after I closed out the above comment. So I do agree we have little or no obligation to follow it either, but in that case, Bush should come out & say so instead of hiding behind all kinds of other BS justifications, if he had any class, which he does not.

    I don’t know what service, if any, MCH served. I know he does call out those who are ‘chickenhawks’, those armchair warriors so full of verbal bravado yet who could not be bothered to serve when they could have had the chance, out of fear or self-interest, which I consider to be fair & square. Those like Cheney, with FIVE deferments & a lifelong record of personal harm, have no right whatsoever to sneer at those who have been in the services & label them as quitters or ‘cut & run’, as our current administration crew does so easily. The irony is nauseating.

    I could have a speck of respect for Bush if he would stop acting like a bragging, swaggering, ignorant, illiterate fool & coward; if he would start performing his duties as president like ‘a man’ as it were, instead of being perpetually full of self-interest & self-excuse, arrogance, and never doing what he’s being paid to be doing, what he was elected to be doing.

    I forsee that this business of ignoring the law regarding wiretapping, pow trials, and god knows what else he’s doing we don’t know about are just the tip of the iceburg; I forsee that in 2008 he’s going to try to make national security & the war on terror his excuse for trying a coup & refusing to surrender his office, or at the least in aborting an election in order to appoint a hand-picked successor. I would not put it beyond him to do so; he’s already indicated several times in the past that he would prefer to be ‘dictator’ (his word, not mine) as “ruling” (again, his word, not mine) would then be “so much easier”. This guy is seriously dangerous, as bad as Kim, and anybody who doesn’t think so, or think he wasn’t at all serious about those dictator comments, is stupid or foolish or both.

  • Clavos

    Nancy,

    In #36 you said:

    Finally, those who have served do not deliberately hazard the lives & safety of troops in battle for no reason

    Which is exactly what Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ did. I KNOW they served–that’s exactly why I cite them–they sent troops to Vietnam “FOR NO (GOOD) REASON.”

    LBJ sent me to Vietnam–I don’t care one damn bit that he had served–he still sent me (and tens of thousands of others) for no good reason. In that regard, LBJ is no better than Bush in my book.

    I know he does call out those who are ‘chickenhawks’, those armchair warriors so full of verbal bravado yet who could not be bothered to serve when they could have had the chance, out of fear or self-interest, which I consider to be fair & square.

    For reasons stated above, I don’t think it’s fair–the guys who served are just as likely to send other people in harm’s way for no valid reasons as those who didn’t.

    As I mentioned in another thread, since the dawn of history old men have been sending young men (and now, young women) into harm’s way for stupid reasons–it ain’t gonna change.

    I’d rather have an effete jerk like Kerry who at least did serve, for however short a period, than a lying, bragging coward & pretender like Bush.

    You’re absolutely right about Kerry being a jerk–not least because he lied about all the rest of us, to Congress no less(!), when he got safely back.

    And BTW, at least one of his Purple Hearts is not legitimate, according to the prysician who treated him. If that’s true, then he didn’t deserve the early rotation home that he got. He served less than one tour in Vietnam.

    I go back to my original point: Just because someone has served in the military, doesn’t make them better or superior to someone who hasn’t… period.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Why does my perfectly lovely post about the victory of good over evil in the GOP have to be misdirected by yet another discussion of the pure idiocy that originates with MCH?

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Damn. Eleven comments’ worth, too.

    Je m’excuse, M’sieu.

    Clavos

  • Nancy

    Clavos, that was just the Swiftboat/Rove smears, and they were investigated & discredited in public by both the NY Times & the WP, as was/were the group & its members themselves. Unless there’s a conspiracy among personnel to falsify testimony, there’s entirely too much documentation required as far as purple hearts are concerned.

    I’m sorry you had to serve in Vietnam. From what I’ve heard from all who were there, it was a pretty horrific place. Not that anyone in any war has ever had a peachy good time. I wuz lucky & spent most of my time in the CG just going after drug runners. Not nearly as bad.

  • Nancy

    Clavos, that was just the Swiftboat/Rove smears, and they were investigated & discredited in public by both the NY Times & the WP, as was/were the group & its members themselves. Unless there’s a conspiracy among personnel to falsify testimony, there’s entirely too much documentation required as far as purple hearts are concerned.

    I’m sorry you had to serve in Vietnam. From what I’ve heard from all who were there, it was a pretty horrific place. Not that anyone in any war has ever had a peachy good time. I wuz lucky & spent most of my time in the CG just going after drug runners. Not nearly as bad.

  • Clavos

    Actually, Nancy, it’s all from my own independent research, including seeing a transcript of the report on his first “wound” by the Dr. who treated him. And it only takes your superior officer’s recommendation to get a PH–which I know for a fact.

    His Congressional testimony is widely avilable on the ‘net in video form. It’s a pack of scurrilous, defamatory lies which casts a shadow on virtually everyone who was incountry.

  • MCH

    “I don’t know what service, if any, MCH served.”
    – Nancy

    Nancy;

    I enlisted in the navy during time of war after graduation from h.s. Served four years where ordered as a radioman at NavCopmmStaHono, from 70-74. Honorably discharged as an RM3.

    As I’ve said a thousand times…mine was very mediocre, lackluster service. But at least I’ve never had to lie about abandoning my post.

  • MCH

    “And BTW, at least one of his Purple Hearts is not legitimate, according to the prysician who treated him. If that’s true, then he didn’t deserve the early rotation home that he got.”
    – Clavvy

    But had he DESERTED, it would’ve been non sequitur…

  • Nancy

    What disgusted me about Kerry was that immediately after 9/11 he was one of the first congressmaggots to vote to give Bush a free hand w/war. He couldn’t hand over permission fast enough, thereby abrogating HIS responsibility as a congressman to declare war & keep a leash on BushCo, an act of cowardice & irresponsibility that each & every congressperson then incumbent is guilty-Guilty-GUILTY of, to their eternal shame. In any event, tho, he DID serve, even if briefly, didn’t try to avoid service by pulling strings w/his daddy’s buddies like Bush did, hence I consider him far more acceptable than Bush who is fraudulent all the way.

    I was told by a col. who works in the pentagon it takes more than that. It takes only the recommendation to start the process, but they do check out the recommendation, the person making the recommendation, plus a few other things like your personal background check, including medical record reviews by a medical panel, exactly so’s to avoid awarding these things like popcorn to unworthy parties. Also, if you were once awarded one, and you subsequently commit a crime or otherwise disgrace your service record, they can (and have) remove it. I don’t doubt your own research, however. What was the nature of his injury, just to be nosy? How on earth are his med records open to the public? That shouldn’t be, even for a politician who otherwise should be thoroughly examinable.

    But again, my point is, at least he didn’t pull strings, he went; unlike Dubya who was too chickenshit to do that, or even to serve here at home, but has subsequently spent all his time posturing about being the War President, putting on flight suits & staging all these Mission Accomplished, and Bring Em On bullshit stuff he’s not entitled to by the wildest stretch of imagination. I wish someone would shoot Dubya in the ass. It would be an actual wound he could then proudly display to the world, as I have no doubt he would.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dr. Who treated Kerry? That explains a lot!

    As for people who served, I have to point out that LBJ’s service was remarkably similar to Bush’s and also Kerry’s in some ways. He served in a non-combat capacity in the naval reserves, and got a silver star for being on board a plane which was not in combat but was in a war zone, and had engine trouble. His silver star was basically for not freaking out during the flight back to base. Just as Bush got excused from some responsibilities while working on a political campaign, Johnson was honorably discharged from the Naval Reserves after serving only part of his term because he ran for and was elected to Congress – all while still serving.

    Here’s the basic truth. People from a priveleged background – which includes Bush, Kerry, Gore and LBJ – get breaks when they serve in the military. They can either take advantage of them as all four of these guys did or they can go out of their way not to be given special treatment as Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy did. It’s probably not ‘right’ in an objective sense and certainly not fair, but it’s the way things have always worked in the military. Hell, up until relatively recently you could BUY your rank in the British military. And the point is that all of these shirkers and slackers were ultimately honorably discharged and have not been taken to task by the military for any of their shortcomings. That should be the end of the story.

    It’s particularly ironic that MCH whose service has the same character as that of Gore, LBJ, Kerry and Bush – in that he’s rather short on actual combat service – should be so outspoken in taking only ONE of those shirkers to task.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    True; he should be trashing all of them. Well, I didn’t know the details of all that, so thanks for the info, Dave. Awards should NOT be given out to someone who simply manages not to shit their pants while others are under actual fire; and NO ONE should be able to buy their way out of active service. But you’re right, it’s only been fairly recent that in the US the rich could buy a substitute. Now they can just buy their way out.

    Whatever, military service should be enforced across the board, with privileges for none. There’s no excuse any more for this bs preferment of the rich.

    More than this, tho, I do object to rich, overprivileged cowards who never served sitting in congress (or in the WH) and sending troops to their deaths while pretending they did serve. That last item is the insult added to injury. As Clavos says, old men have always sent young men to war, and I doubt that will ever change, more’s the pity. If there were any justice, those in any WH or congress should be required to either have served or have close family members (children, grandchildren) currently serving who run the same risks as other military personnel, so there is an element of hostages, as it were, restraining the frequently irresponsible bloodthirstiness of these armchair tigers.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    True; he should be trashing all of them.

    Wrong answe, Nancy. He shouldn’t be trashing ANY of them. They did what the system permitted. If you don’t like it, go after the system not the individuals.

    NO ONE should be able to buy their way out of active service. But you’re right, it’s only been fairly recent that in the US the rich could buy a substitute. Now they can just buy their way out.

    That’s not what I said. You cannot currently buy your way out of military service. It’s now a volunteer system so it’s not an issue. In recent years when we did have a draft you still couldn’t buy your way out, but political influence could determine where and how you served. This was the case in the interest of keeping the youth of the ruling class alive so that they could take up the reigns of power eventually and perpetuate our institutions and keep businesses running. I know you disagree with the idea of a ruling class, but it’s a fact of life even in our relatively egalitarian society and it DOES serve a valid purpose.

    Historically we were more honest about this in the past. In earlier eras when there was a draft (prior to the 20th century) you could actually pay a fee not to be drafted or hire someone else to serve in your place. You could even send a slave to fight for you.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “It’s particularly ironic that MCH whose service has the same character as that of Gore, LBJ, Kerry and Bush – in that he’s rather short on actual combat service – should be so outspoken in taking only ONE of those shirkers to task.”
    – Dave Nalle

    And likewise particularly ironic how Nalle’s service has the same character as that of Cheney, Clinton, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gingrich, Rove, Limbaugh, Armey, Gramm, Lott, DeLay, Elliott, Bennett, et al: that being…NONE.

  • Clavos

    And likewise particularly ironic how Nalle’s service has the same character as that of Cheney, Clinton, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gingrich, Rove, Limbaugh, Armey, Gramm, Lott, DeLay, Elliott, Bennett, et al: that being…NONE.

    Yaaaawwwwnnnn….

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    One key difference, MCH. When they didn’t serve there was a war AND a draft. I was born too late for that to apply to me. Dumbass.

    DAve

  • MCH

    Please note how Clavvy defends his Deserter in Chief:

    “Dubya for some reason is incredibly blind to the consequences of his insistence – something now even Colin Powell has pointed out.”
    – Nancy

    “Non sequitur.”
    – Clavos

    “Someone who has served would also have a better sense of self-discipline than W, who has absolutely none, and who furthermore is being encouraged by his surrounding flunkies that he is subject to none: neither discipline nor any laws whatsoever.”
    – Nancy

    “Yaaawwwwnn…”
    – Clavos

    “Finally, those who have served do not deliberately hazard the lives & safety of troops in battle for no reason beyond personal gain or ego, nor do they risk other lives while they themselves hide in perfect & utter safety, all the while making macho shithead swaggering pronouncement like “bring ‘em on” – KNOWING neither they nor theirs will ever be at risk. This is the mark, not only of a deserter, but of a rank coward & fool as well.”
    – Nancy

    “Non sequitur.”
    – Clavos

    “They didn’t join a rich boys’ guard unit guaranteed to keep them safe & at home, & then after one lousy meeting, fail to show up even for that any more, nor did they later try to claim that they DID serve, by attending that one meeting, nor did they make stupid braggart swaggering challenges to the enemy like “bring ‘em on” when they themselves were safe, at the expense of their troops.”
    – Nancy

    “Yaaawwwnn…”
    – Clavos

    “This is why I hold Dubya in such depths of contempt. He’s a rank coward, a liar, dishonorable in every sense of the word. He certainly isn’t worthy of anybody’s vote, of any party…than a lying, bragging coward & pretender like Bush. I should think any honest & cogent person would.”
    – Nancy

    “Non sequitur.”
    – Clavos

  • Clavos

    Here’s a new one, MCH:

    Who cares?

  • Clavos

    Oh, and emmy:

    ..-. ..- -.-. -.-

    -.– — ..-

    .-. . — ..-.

    -.-

  • Nancy

    Wrong answer, Clavos. It cheapens you. If you don’t care about holding elected representatives to higher standards, instead of allowing them to slide to the lowest, you should.

  • Clavos

    I was referring to emmy’s comment, Nancy–not its content–or lack thereof, since what he wrote was totally out of context.

    Do you ever recall me replying either of those quotes to one of your posts?

  • Nancy

    No. [abashed] My bad. Sorry. I’m still up in arms over Chris Rose’s comment about me on the other thread. Sorry.

  • Clavos

    No apology necessary, Nancy–I’m following the other thread, too…

    You go, girl!

  • Nancy

    I will say it astonishes me that I have changed my mind on the Geneva Convention issue & a few others you & other bloggers’ve pointed out. But I still loathe Bush. I don’t think anyone will get me to change that. ;)

  • Clavos

    Fair enough. I don’t loathe him, but I’m definitely hugely disappointed in him for a number of reasons.

  • MCH

    “Considering what his service consisted of, his constantly throwing it out to those who were never in the military, for whatever reason, makes a mockery of that long black wall in D.C., as well as any other war memorial (for any war) in the country.”
    – Clavos

    But had I DESERTED, it’d be non sequitur.

  • Lumpy

    Seems like everything you post is a non-sequitur, MCH. How about some thoughts on chafee’s service? He was old enough. How come no Nam?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “What you need to realize is that the GOP has been off track and needs to return to where it was before the Clinton administration…”

    Return to what? Being in the minority in the Congress for 40 years?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    No, return to being the party of individual liberty and small government, RJ. Right now far too many of the GOP’s elected representatives support neither.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    The GOP hasn’t been the GOP for at least the past 6 years, if not longer.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As this article should make clear, the entire GOP has not been on that same track to holy roller hell. There are still plenty of good eggs and everyone still at least pays lipservice to the basic principles of the party.

    Dave

  • MCH

    #53;
    “One key difference, MCH. When they didn’t serve there was a war AND a draft. I was born too late for that to apply to me. Dumbass.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Once again, Nalle, you conveniently ignore Desert Storm. A war which you have used three or four different excuses for avoiding. War-wimp.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Lincoln Chafee – party-switcher!

    I told ya so!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    RJ, all that story says is that someone asked him if he might switch parties.

    Given that Whitehouse is more conservative than Chafee is, that seems like an odd decision for him to make.

    Dave