January 17, 2006

RI Republicans: Don't Take the Confirmation of Samuel Alito for Granted

Carroll Andrew Morse

Despite the climate of optimism surrounding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Rhode Island Republican party is encouraging its members not to take anything for granted. In this month’s edition of the RI Republican Newsletter, editor Dave Talan encourages Rhode Island Republicans to “speak out on the Alito nomination” and make their position known to Senator Lincoln Chafee…

Very soon, the U.S. Senate will vote on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court. We need to continue lobbying Senator Chafee to vote the right way on this (i.e. to confirm Judge Alito; to insist on a vote by the full Senate; and to prevent a Democratic filibuster by any means necessary). Call Sen. Chafee's local office at 453-5294. Or you can send him an E-mail by going thru his web site chafee.senate.gov.
Also, the Rhode Island Republican Assembly (RIRA), Rhode Island’s largest conservative Republican organization, has sent a letter to Senator Chafee urging him to vote in favor of Judge Alito…
President George W. Bush has nominated a brilliant jurist and scholar with a proven fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. Judge Samuel Alito has an impeccable resume, bona fide professional credentials, and has demonstrated that he has a clear understanding of the role of the judiciary in American life.

The Constitution gives the United States Senate the power of “advice and consent”. We are confident that Judge Alito’s exceptional legal expertise and fair-minded temperament will not be found wanting. Hence, the Senate has an obligation to give Judge Alito a fair hearing and an up or down vote.

Judge Alito is an objective, brilliant and honorable individual. We request that you join fellow Senators in allowing for a fair up or down vote, which we are confident will lead to his confirmation. Additionally, we hope that you will not participate in any Democrat led filibuster, which is in direct opposition to the express language of the US Constitution, which requires only a simple majority vote by the Senate to confirm judges. Furthermore, we ask that you vote in the affirmative during his confirmation vote.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

If Lincoln Chafee were a man of principle, we would know how he planned to vote and Republicans would not have to send letters to a person of their own party on this subject. But Chafee does not lead, he is led by special interests. His inability to take a stand just shows how little regard he has for his party or his constituents. He has no guts. He's fraidy scared.

We need somebody with guts in the United States Senate. Steve Laffey has guts, the others in the race do not.

Posted by: roadrunner at January 17, 2006 1:01 PM

Wow, the RIRA actually took a stand on an issue of importance to Republicans. It'd be real nice if the RI Republican Party would follow our example. Maybe they'll even get an actual platform before the year's over, too! As a RIRA member, seriously though, how can we expect people to vote for Republican candidates when too many of us are still deathly afraid to even tell people what we believe?

The old argument, of course, is that by standing up for "something," you will offend people who disagree with you -- people who literally stand for nothing. It's like being asked the question "why should I vote for you" and responding "I don't know." I've always been of the opinion that you offend far more people by refusing to have convictions, principles, and beliefs, than you do by having them. I'd rather know where someone stands and disagree with them, than to not have a clue where they stand and be asked to vote for them anyway (definitely reminds me of Laffey v. Chafee).

Posted by: Will at January 17, 2006 2:11 PM

Lincoln Chafee led by special interests. What about Laffey and Nestor???
What special interests caused Chafee to vote against ANWAR???
What special interests drove him to vote against the war in Iraq???
What special interests compelled him to vote against the tax cuts, so he could hold the line on deficit spending???
I don't think you know what special interests mean Will. Stop talking out of Senor "nutcase" Laffey's play book and start calling a spade a spade. You don't like Chafee because he's his own man and votes his conscience, not because he is beholden to special interests like the club for growth.

Posted by: James at January 17, 2006 4:18 PM

You're right James, perhaps your man Chafee's decisions are not all driven by special interests, some are because he's just plain dumb.

To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan (Whose father did Linc vote for in '80 and '84 by the way?): The government doesn't run deficits because it's taxed too little, it runs deficits because it spends too much... and your guy doesn't understand economics and lives for PORK, PORK, PORK. He didn't vote for the war because he likes anti-american dictators and thugs like Chavez, Assad and Hussein. He doesn't understand the threat to the country, so he sides with the blame-america democrats. Face it, he's not qualified for the job. Case in point - what is his rationale for voting against the war: "uhh....ahhh...ummm...ahhh", said Chafee

Posted by: warbucks at January 17, 2006 4:49 PM

Did I say anything about "special interests"? No. However, it's a subjective, overly generic term, depending greatly on one's point of view. However, since you brought up the topic ...

Chafee voted against ANWAR because of pressure from out of state environmental groups who regularly give him loads of campaign cash (as I recall, he didn't want to do anything to hurt his 100% rating). He voted against the war in Iraq, because he didn't and still doesn't understand that the then status quo (leaving Saddam in power) was worse than what we have there now, a fledgling democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I suspect a person like him would have voted against WW2 after Pearl Harbor, too. He's also supported by pro-Palestianian groups who don't simply want "coexistence" and peace -- they want Israel destroyed. He voted against tax cuts, because like a typical limousine liberal, he doesn't understand that deficits are caused by out of control spending, not by tax cuts, which help stimulate our economy to grow and create jobs, by putting more money back into the private sector to be spent by people and not by government. He doesn't seem to have a problem with soliciting and accepting federal pork, which is driving up the deficit, does he?

Let me make this clear, I like Chafee personally. I don't like Chafee's policies because he's indecisive and incoherent, among many other things. His record in office is not one to be proud of. This is not personal for me, though it apparently is for you. More often than not, when he actually does "take a stand" on something -- which is usually as a result of a long, drawn out, excruciating and unnecessary process -- he ends up being dead wrong.

Posted by: Will at January 17, 2006 5:07 PM

Emphasis on "fledgling" or "nascent." Will your grasp on foreign policy is as shaky as your rhetoric. Comparing Chavez to Hussein is morally irresponsible and shows an inherent misunderstanding of global politics.

The only thing I take personally are blatantly disrespectful comments about our sitting U.S. Senator. I love this party and I don't want to see us lose this seat.

Posted by: James at January 17, 2006 5:59 PM


If you loved the party wouldn't you want someone in the US Senate that is from the Party? Unless you love the Democratic Party? Chafee needs to take some kind of a stand on something that has to do with the Republican Party. Maybe after he gets beat in the Primary he can still run for Senate as an independent then I would understand a few more of his indecisions.

Posted by: Fred on the Blog at January 17, 2006 6:55 PM

Your specious claim of such love for the Republican party is not in synch with your support of the RINO Chafee.

And, let's be candid, your lame cry of "not wanting to lose this seat" to the Democrats is utter nonsense. As long as Chafee has that seat, we true Republicans have lost it.

The only candidate in this US Senate race who can hold this seat for the Republicans Party is Laffey.

One last thing, James, and I hate to break it to you, but when Chafee loses the primary to Laffey, it is already too late to run as an independent as Fred on the Blog has suggested.

Posted by: Jim at January 17, 2006 7:54 PM

Well you please stop wasting blog space pretending to care about the Republican Party. You try to pretend to be a Republican or a conservative, and say all you want is to hold the Senate seat for the Republicans. All you really want to do is to hold the seat for Chafee whether he is RINO, an independent or a whatever party he really belongs to.

A real Republican would not say, as you have on this blog that:
1, you would vote for liberal Democrat Whitehouse over Laffey,
2, applaud Chafee's anti-Iraq war comments on the Yorke show.

Republicans disagree about alot of things, but they overwhelmingly supported removing Saddam and don't like Sheldon Whitehouse.

Look I know you have to go on here and praise Chafee and bash Laffey, along with all the college interns, but why don't, you use other another name like justin, samuel or henry. Your credibility as a Republican was lost a long time ago here...don't tell me Chafee can't find anyone better than you to come on this blog and support him. The college interns can do a better job than you. Back to TV Land for me.

Posted by: Fred Sanford at January 17, 2006 9:08 PM

I agree with Fred and Jim! :)

As for my understanding of global politics, I'm quite sure I'm right when I say, I have a far better grasp of it that does Senator Chafee!

Although, in this post I did not directly compare Chavez to Hussein, I do believe it is a valid comparison, in so much as each ruler of their respective countries has used their power over their oil supplies to shore up their power and intimidate their neighbors. Admittedly, Hussein has killed many more people. Just to irk you, I'll even one up you on the analogy. Chavez reminds me of another leader, too: Adolf Hitler, 1933.

As for "loving this party" -- Kind of reminds me of Ike Turner saying "I love you" to Tina after whacking her across the face (admittedly dated analogy). If you love it so much, you shouldn't be so offended by those that want it to stand for something. As for respect, I respect the office, not the occupant. It is earned -- and it hasn't been.

Posted by: Will at January 17, 2006 9:08 PM

Fred Sanford, etc

Please don't confuse myself with this James (different email). I will always stay consistent with my email, and I have simply become too busy to post anything as of late.

I admit that it is unfortunate that James seems to be a common name for Chafee supporters (maybe there's a conspiracy here) but I assure you that I do not use a fake pen name such as the many laffey supporters and staffers that appear regularly on this and other blogs.

Nevertheless, I still am strongly supportive of the Senator, and am becoming more confident that he will emerge victorious in November as the GOP candidate (unless of course he makes the mistake of voting against Alito)

Posted by: james at January 17, 2006 11:14 PM

For the record, Will is my real name, with my real e-mail address. As for use of fake pen names, the senators college kids seem to have taken it to a whole new level (I'm including the RI Future posts, too).

Chafee voting against Alito would only be the latest in a seemingly endless string of slaps at the Bush administration and of nearly all the stated principles and values of the Republican Party (I'm at a loss right now trying to think of a belief or value of the GOP that the current senator actually backs). Still thinking...

Would it really surprise you if Chafee voted against Alito? It'd downright stun me if he voted for him!

Posted by: Will at January 18, 2006 1:15 AM

I am do not intern with Senator Chafee. In fact, I have never met the man. I went to college though Will. Where I learned a few things about politics and global policy and statistical mechanics (...which is how I make my living). I suggest you go back and learn something about history, because to compare Chavez to Hitler circa the Beerhall Putsch is boneheaded. Get your analogies in order.
And Will (Fred Sanford) attacking Senator Chafee for having college students who support him is also a tad weak.
On to real issues. I think Senator Chafee has delivered federal funding that our state needs, I respect him for saving BRAC jobs, and I am a true, New England Republican in the mold of John and Lincoln Chafee. That means I think govt. stays out of the bedroom and works in a limited capacity. We should shun foreign entanglements - was agst. going into Kosovo - and promote american business. Clearly Lincoln Chafee has or he wouldnt have voted for CAFTA.

Posted by: James at January 18, 2006 9:28 AM

Warbucks, I think it is you who do not have a grasp of economics. Deficits and debt are not bad things in of themselves. Investors look at current debt and such when determining whether to invest. A company that has no debt is usually going to go belly up soon. Having debt (in this case national debt) means that this nation is investing in the future and that higher future incomes will be able to pay for the investments (infrastructure, regime change, etc) done today. However when deficits reach the level they currently have in our country, then they are bad. As a nation we do need to reign in uncontrolled spending but we cant just stop spending as you seem to believe. I admit that there exist items in the federal budget that should be cut. However, more investment will allow for higher real incomes which means more money in the federal coffers. Therefore if the govt does not increase spending, we will get on the right track.

Secondly, this state benefits from Chafee's "pork". We have recieved $2 for every $1 federal tax dollar paid. This "pork" pays for investmests that otherwise would have come out your local tax dollar and items like the Jamestown Bridge, NK/ Pawtucket water towers and others would have caused your property tax to be raised.

(This is in response to your post on the 17th at 4:49)

Posted by: Kevin at January 18, 2006 10:14 AM

Kevin, the guy who thinks wearnig jeans disqualifies you from being a senator, obviously you are the one who doesn't understand economics. I may run a junk business but at least understand basic stuff. Companies go bankrupt because they can't afford to pay the debt they owe that is why bankrupt companies have creditors. Having debt is not terrible, but too much debt is. Go look at Laffey's slides and see how Spain, Britian went down the tubes because of too much debt.

What would you suggest cutting in the budget...why not start with pork? Can you honestly justify the bridge to nowhere which Chafee voted for?

Furthermroe, this pork deal stinks for RI. We get $150 million and pay $24 billion for the rest of the country. Alaska gets the most pork in return by far. I admit, RI is slightly above average, but if these pork projects weren't paid for with federal dollars, it doesn't mean it comes form property taxes. The state would pay for these projects you mentiond if the legislature didn't waste the money. Do you honestly think that there is not a few million dollards in the state budget that could be cut to pay for the demolition of a bridge and a few water towers. Please spare everybody here your economics lesson, just stick to your talking points that Laffey wears jeans and Chafee is a nice guy.

Posted by: Fred Sanford at January 18, 2006 11:22 PM


Quit trying to confuse people on this blog. More than that, quit trying to make people think you and I are even close to the same person.

You stated "I will always stay consistent with my email" But, YOUR email address IS NOT jim@1234.com.

However, MY email address IS jim@4321.com.

Knock off your silly games.

Posted by: Jim at January 19, 2006 11:15 AM