April 10, 2006

Steve Laffey's Campaign Contributions in Tennessee

Carroll Andrew Morse

According to a Projo article by Scott MacKay, former Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, guest-of-honor at a fundraiser for Senator Lincoln Chafee, had this to say about Steve Laffey…

Thompson also had a needle for [Steve] Laffey, who once worked for a Tennessee investment company. Thompson said Laffey in 1994 contributed campaign money to the Democratic candidate who ran against him and the Democrat who ran against GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
Anchor Rising commenter Anthony points out that campaign finance records from that period are available via the opensecrets.org website. Here are the total amounts donated by Mayor Laffey while he was in Tennessee, including the donations that former Senator Thompson was referring to...
Lamar Alexander (R) $1,500 1999,1995
Jonathan Newman (R) $1,000 1997
Jesse Jackson Jr. (D) $200 1995
Jim Cooper (D) $250 1994
Jim Sasser (D) $1,000 1993
Lamar Alexander was (at the time) the former governor of Tennessee who ran for President in 1996 and 2000. Jonathan Newman ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in Pennsylvania in 1998. Jesse Jackson Jr. is a Congressman from Illinois. Jim Cooper was a Tennessee Congressman who lost to Fred Dalton Thompson in the campaign for the Senate seat vacated by Al Gore when he became Vice-President. Jim Sasser was the incumbent Democrat beaten by Bill Frist in 1994.

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.

You forgot one, according to opensecrets.org Laffey also gave $$ to Chafee, so now we have confirmation that he has indeed given money to Liberal Democrats!

Posted by: Carl Elliott at April 10, 2006 9:40 AM

This whole thing is just white noise. Do any regular voters actually care about this stuff?? It's likely that Mayor Laffey gave money to a Dem as a favor to a friend, neighbor or boss. That's often how things are conducted in the working world. Of course, Senator Chafee wouldn't know that since he's never had a real job. And no, shoeing horses for 7 years doesn't count.

Posted by: Leon Berg at April 10, 2006 9:44 AM

What is very telling is that, with plenty of time to talk and the floor to himself and a supportive audience, this is all Fred Thompson could dredge up in a lame attempt to skewer Laffey. He chose to isolate a couple of campaign contibutions made over ten years ago when Laffey was a 30ish trader on Wall Street. This was around the time Linc was getting arrested for illegally shoeing horses in Canada.

The larger issue here is that these figures shilling for Chafee apparently have no recent material - nor any substantive material. Thompson was just rehashing the NRSC ads from last fall anyway. What's next? The revelation that Laffey owned an oil stock or two during his ten years on Wall Street.

Posted by: bountyhunter at April 10, 2006 10:06 AM

I think the message here is that Laffey's Republican bona fides lack integrity. As a former Republican staffer, I could count on one finger the number of Republicans I met that had given money to a Dem, personal friends, neighbors or bosses be darned. There's something we in New England refer to as quote-unquote party loyalty. Laffey clearly doesn't have much. First he's running as a Regan Republican, than he's running as a Republican populist. How many times will Laffey revise his image for political expediency? The answer is blowing in the wind. The Idiot Wind.

Posted by: Laura Dunn at April 10, 2006 1:06 PM

Carl, to be consistent we only considered campaign contributions BEFORE Laffey entered politics and Chafee became a senator. Hence, Laffey's support of Chafee was not included in those years. Although that only supports my point.

To me, the thing that Laffey's contribution records shows is that he puts his personal advancement above his principles. He contributed to Tennessee Democrats when it helped him there and to Rhode Island Republicans when it helped him here.

His support for Chafee reinforces that in my mind. Chafee wasn't a conservative when Laffey gave him money. But Laffey was running from public office and wanted Chafee's support, so he gave him money.

Where was he when Kevin Vigilante was running against Patrick Kennedy? Up until Laffey decided to become a Rhode Island politician, he didn't give Rhode Island Republicans a dime. While he was living out-of-state, he could have cared less about the people of Rhode Island. He somehow justified giving money to Democrats in Illinois and Tennessee, but never gave a dime to a single Rhode Island Republican candidate until he could receive a direct benefit.

Leon, even accepting that Laffey might have given for "personal or business" reasons, that might explain Sasser and Cooper in Tennessee. But Jesse Jackson, Jr. in Illinois!?!? If Laffey gave to Jesse, Jr. because of a personal or business relationship, I'd be interested to know about the nature of that personal/business relationship.

A couple of other things:
An online search reveals that Chafee worked for General Dynamics as a planner, so you may want to fact-check your postings about his employment record.

Will, you said that Laffey's contributions are no different to Democrats than Alan Gelfuso contributing to John Kerry. I fully agree. I would put Steve Laffey and Alan Gelfuso in the same category.

Posted by: Anthony at April 10, 2006 1:59 PM

I would like to introduce another relevant figure who seemingly had a bad habit of campaigning as a "Reagan Republican" despite some historical ties to democrats. This figure is none other than Reagan himself.

The Gipper was a card-carrying member of the democratic party until 1962 - when he was 51 years old.

Thus, using their own arguments, Anthony and James would have favored noted conservatives and GOP stalwarts Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale in their races against Ronald Reagan.

Boys, it is not too late to re-align with your soul-mate Jimmy Carter. Just toe the line on your hero Chafee's pro-palestinian terrorist positions and you will be getting attaboys from the peanut farmer in no time.

Posted by: bountyhunter at April 10, 2006 3:29 PM

bountyhunter, you're missing a pretty big distinction. Before 1962, the Democratic Party was not what it is today. MANY Republicans were Democrats back then. Heck, newly-elected President John F. Kennedy cut taxes! The South was all Democrat and it was far from liberal. My point: Reagan didn't change, the Democratic Party did.

It became the Democratic Party of today that supports tax increases and unrestricted abortion-on-demand. When Laffey contributed his money to Sasser, Cooper and Jesse Jackson, Jr. that is the agenda he was helping to promote--not the Democratic Party of the 1940's and 50's, when the words "Democrat" and "conservative" weren't mutually exclusive.

You can look past the contributions to Sasser and Cooper as being business related, but he gave money to perhaps THE most liberal congressman in the US House. Kennedy looks like a right-winger next to Jesse Jackson, Jr. Now how do you explain giving money to someone whose views are diametrically opposed to your own? That's not principle, it's opportunism

Look, I don't think Laffey is a liberal and I not doubt he believed in the people he was supporting. That just makes him a self-promoting opportunist lacking character and honesty. I agree with his philosophies espoused recently but I agree with Duke Cunningham philosophically, and I still think he is a criminal who deserves to be in jail.

I felt obligated to chime in when Fred Thompson was critcized for supporting Chafee and it was suggested that he was not a conservative. I understand that many of the bloggers here are tied to the Laffey campaign, so I'm not trying to "convince" people to vote for Chafee. I just felt the need to inject some truth into the dialogue. In my eyes the only genuine conservative in RI right now is Don Carcieri. And by genuine, I mean personally and philosophically.

Funny, in a strange way, Laffey is consistent. He gave money to Jim Sasser to keep the Senate in Democrat hands. Now it seems he wants to help elect a Rhode Island Democrat to the Senate to accomplish the same goal.

Posted by: Anthony at April 10, 2006 4:03 PM

And Leon, to answer your question, no "regular" voters don't care about stuff like this or much of anything on political blogs.

Posted by: Anthony at April 10, 2006 4:05 PM

No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to put switching parties at age 51 in the same realm as a $200 donation made when Laffey was a 30ish stock trader.

Reagan was considered to be among the least opportunistic and most principled of all politicians - and look what he did!

Also, when Reagan "opportunistically" took on Ford in the '76 primary naysayers like you and James were trotting out the same argument that he is hurting the party because his brand of conservatism would render him unable to win the general election.

In short, all politicians (and all people)are opportunistic to some degree. In the overall scheme of politics, these contributions of Laffey's don't even register.

Posted by: bountyhunter at April 10, 2006 4:28 PM

Just to clarify: when you say "I understand that many of the bloggers here are tied to the Laffey campaign" I want to be sure that I think you mean "commenters" not bloggers. The guys who put up the posts on Anchor Rising (Andrew, Me, Justin, Mac, the Don's) are technically "the bloggers" while the people who leave comments (you all) are the...commenters. That being said, to my knowledge, no AR blogger has "ties" to the Laffey campaign other than the various degrees of support for his candidacy that we've made.

Finally, I don't think anyone can really question the conservative bona fides of Fred Thompson. One can be a conservative and a party loyalist at the same time. Thompson is simply one of many national GOP members who believe in the Conventional Wisdom that only a liberal Repub can win in RI and thus safeguard the majority, which matches his concern with national party power.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at April 10, 2006 4:59 PM

For the record-

1. I supported Reagan in '76.

2. You are correct that most people are self-interested to some degree. I get concerned when the degree of self-interest rises to such a level where a public servant becomes more concerned about themselves than the people they are supposed to be serving.

Posted by: Anthony at April 10, 2006 5:19 PM

Really quite foolish to spend all this time on this stuff. Only the hunter of the bounty seems to get it.

Actually I just reread Laffey's plans on his web site. Pretty good stuff and lengthy. Well thought out documents. Wonder how much money Anthony and James have made in their lives? Jealousy really makes you guys look bad. What are your plans and what have you done with your lives.

If you had any gut you would simply get laffey on the phone and ask him about his contributions. But oh no, that would expose you.

I am sure Laffey is working on his next policy brief.

no one outworks the guy and have you noticed he just announce a tax decrease in cranston, that workers are going from 0% copays to 20% and Health saving accounts are in Cranston!

He is the man.

Posted by: Ron Milton at April 10, 2006 6:47 PM

The Chafee fools are back from their two month hibernation with Toby the Bear. James, the breakdown guy, is still calling Laffey a liberal and Anthony is still making character attacks...so boring, so irrelevant just like the Senator they support.

I guess you guys were too embarassed to discuss Chafee's Alito vote and the censure waffle, but here you are with the latest misquito bite from the Chafee campaign.

Ok let's see how many Republicans who are running for statewide office in RI who have given to a Democrats. Governor Carcieri gave $500 to Weyagnd in 1999 when he was running against the Linc Chafee for Senate. Kerry King has given money to St. Senator Revens. Harsch, a former Democrat, has given money to St. Rep. Kenny Carter. (Check out the FEC and board of elections which has info back to 2002). Wow, 3 of the 4 current GOP candidates for general statewide office.

OK, Chafee fools now go back to Chafee HQ and come up with more press releases about your make-believe energized grass roots campaign suppporting the make-believe Republican Linc Chafee.

Oh, please spend your time coming up with more of these misquito bite attacks. The average voter doesn't care about it and it is funny that you guys in Chafee camp waste your time with it. You guys have nothing else I guess. A Republican primary voter would rather vote for a Republican who gave about $1500 of his money to Democrats over 10 years ago but supports the Bush Tax cuts than a phony Republican who votes with the Democrats against the Bush tax cuts so he can take thousands of your money every year to give it to the government.

You guys are wasting your time here...go to rifuture.org, and plead with the liberal independents to vote for a liberal Republican (Chafee) rather than liberal Democrats (from the top of the ticket to the bottom) on primary day. That would be more useful.

Too funny.

Posted by: Fred Sanford at April 10, 2006 8:22 PM


Have you ever heard the term, “grasping at straws?” A drowning man will grab at anything to save himself from sure doom. This attempt to defame Steve Laffey is just such an effort. And it will backfire.

The facts are on the table but most of your analysis on “self interest” is just plain wrong.

How do you measure the weight of self-interest? Is there a secret scale known only to you with actuarial tables created by psychics? Is there some hidden standard that you alone are privileged to employ as you decide that one person’s self interest is allowable and another’s isn’t? Who designated you as judge, jury and executioner?

This is the same kind of nonsense former market leaders use when they lose marketshare. They blame their plight on their competitor instead of looking in the mirror.

Commit this next sentence to memory: Chafee is losing this race because Laffey actually does more for his constituents and they know it. The fact that you would measure Laffey’s consistency on obscure events from ten years ago rather than the well documented events of the past three years is inexcusable, i.e., you are grasping at straws.

If this is all they can come up with then I can understand why Chafee won’t debate Laffey face to face on the issues.


Posted by: Sol Venturi at April 10, 2006 10:59 PM

Just a comment or two-

1. Character and honesty counts.

2. Carcieri, who is pro-life, gave money to Weygand, who is pro-life. I don't see a philosophical lapse there. Certainly, not the same as a self-proclaimed conservative giving to Jesse Jackson, Jr.

3. I hardly call a discussion about campaign finance records that are mandated by law to be publicly disclosed a "personal" attack.

4. You have no legitimate responses in defense of Laffey's contributions, because there are no legitimate defenses. It was pure self-interest and everyone knows it. You can dismiss it because you like the guy, but that is a judgment every individual voter must make. I'll try to look beyond the talking points that inevitably get put out by every campaign and make up my own mind, thank you very much.

Posted by: Anthony at April 11, 2006 9:35 AM

And Sol, just what poll shows Chafee LOSING? The only polls that I have seen show Chafee winning and Laffey losing in BOTH the primary and the general. Kind of reminds me of Maxwell Smart when he used to say "I've got them right where I want them, Chief."

Posted by: Anthony at April 11, 2006 9:39 AM

Hey Anthony, i'm fairly certain the poll you cite is Darrell West's. As was recently reported in Hot Line (National Journal's online newsletter), West's polls are questionable and his October poll on the RI Republican primary is way off due to poor methodology.

And here is another strong indicator that Chafee is losing this race: After he spoke to the Scituate GOP town committee last night, the attendees were so moved by Chafee's address that they decided to endorse Laffey!

Posted by: Colin Pachios at April 11, 2006 10:53 AM

I'm a big fan of Anthony. Used to listen intently to him on John DiPetro's radio talk show. I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh now. Though I'm a fan, I am trending towards the comments of Sol and Colin (above). We cannot look at this race statically, and Colin's right about West. He's a headline grabber, not a legit polster. Once Laffey beats the "giant" Chafee because real Republicans, regardless of their past support for pro-life anti-tax Democrats will elect Laffey in the Republican primary, the general electorate will have to look at him hard, and when compared with Brown (yuk!) or Whitehouse (egads!) I mean the outcome will be obvious in November.

Posted by: The Senescent Man at April 11, 2006 12:53 PM

Actually young souls I would just ask Laffey Why he gave to who he did. Seems rather simple.

On another note, it is good to see young james feeling better. Please take care young man. Get some sleep and eat healthy. I have used those attributes to be around a long long time.

And I have never seen a leader like laffey. Never....Never. I am just amazed by his strength of ideas.

Keeping his family together on the campaign with the new winebago is brilliant.

Posted by: Ivan the Elder at April 11, 2006 2:20 PM

Was it a good idea to give to Jesse Jackson Jr.? His platform is pro-choice, pro-taxes, pro-huge government growth, anti-homeland security. The only good idea Laffey ever had was to stay out of politics. He blew that one though.

Posted by: Ivan the Terrible at April 11, 2006 5:46 PM

Chafee is pro-choice, pro-taxes, pro-huge government growth and anti-homeland security. I think it was a good idea Carcieri contributed to Weygand in 1999. Only good idea Chafee had was to shoe horses ..except illegally in Canada.

Posted by: The Czar at April 11, 2006 6:41 PM

Yes, Chafee probably should have stayed out of politics, too, but now he's a US Senator who may keep the GOP in control. And I do believe that he's a decent and honest person. Those two traits get him my vote, although perhaps not with the greatest enthusiasm.

Posted by: Anthony at April 11, 2006 8:38 PM

Yes, I was referring to "commenters", not "bloggers".

Thanks for providing me with my chuckle for the day. Are you actually suggesting that the endorsement of the Scituate Republican Town Committee is proof that Laffey is winning a statewide primary?!?! That's like predicting a presidential race on the basis of how Idaho is leaning. What was Scituate's final vote? 3-0, with 5 cows and 2 chickens abstaining?

Posted by: Anthony at April 11, 2006 8:53 PM

Colin, I was referring both to the West polls and to the indpendent Rasmussen poll.

Posted by: Anthony at April 11, 2006 9:02 PM

Anthony, could you please post one pro-Chafee comment per hour....otherwise you look like your obsessing.

By the way, to help with your obsession over Laffey and these $1450 in contributions over 10 years ago, instead of making personal attacks why don't you wake up early some morning and ask him about it when when he is out waving signs (it probably had to do with his boss and a friend).

Kudos, however, for admitting that Chafee should never had gotten into politics, I think Chafee says that too himself everyday since Laffey got into the race, and will say it always after Laffey beats him.

Now please go work on your next press release about the make-believe energized grass roots campaign for the make-believe Republican Chafee...or come up with another misquito bite attack, ouch.

Posted by: Fred Sanford at April 11, 2006 9:45 PM

Posted by Anthony at April 11, 2006 09:39 AM
And Sol, just what poll shows Chafee LOSING?

The one on 9.12 (if Chafee even remains a rep. to run in the primary).

Why do you think the NRSC is running scared? They can read the tea leaves.

Chafee is going down and he's going down hard. I know it hurts. But you'll get used to the pain.


Posted by: Sol Venturi at April 11, 2006 10:31 PM

All polls show Laffey gets decimated in a general election. Sorry Sol, but that is a fact. If you want to go with a "real conservative" be aware that you lose this Senate seat. Laffey cannot keep it - he loses by twenty points to Brown and Whitehouse. He even loses to carl sheeler.

Sadly, these donations show that Laffey isn't even a real conservative. He's just an opportunist. He'll donate to dems when its convenient or he'll suddenly develop a fondness for RI after getting fired and run out of Tennnesssee. You have to hand it to the guy. He's a chameleon, and you just got fooled again.

Oh, and bounty hunter, I pity the the fool who has any expectations for Steve Laffey!

Posted by: Smith at April 12, 2006 7:57 AM

As an economist I generally disdain the efforts of politicians to influence an economy. If history is a guide, it shows that if we try to control certain economic variables or indices to a certain end factors unaccounted for in planning stages actually end up influencing the final outcome more than the variable we targeted--sometimes to an appositive end.

Part of the reason I am a member of the Republican party is because, in general (though certainly not without exception), they do not meddle as much. For that reason, I support Lincoln Chafee. The Czar notes that Chafee is pro-taxes and pro-government growth. It troubled me to read that statement, because Chafee has been officially endorsed by his peers as the most fiscally conservative member of the Senate.

Not I'm not a fan as the name of the name of Chafee's economic plan (PAYGO sounds like a tollbooth brand) but I am a strong proponent of its principles, from an economic standpoint.

Also, in America we have the privilige of a free exchange of ideas. I'd ask the commenters on this blog to bear in mind that with privilige comes responsibility, as well.

Posted by: David Smith at April 12, 2006 9:50 AM


As we’ve discussed here in some detail, wanting to cut the deficit is not the same as being fiscally conservative. You can easily be anti-deficit, while being for high taxes and massive government spending. You simply need to favor raising taxes high enough to cover both the deficit and the spending.

This is exactly what PAYGO does. It basically mandates automatic yearly tax increases to pay for the growth of entitlement spending. Making yearly tax increases automatic is most definitely not fiscally conservative.

Finally, the Concord Coalition is not an organization of fiscal conservatives. They’re big-government liberals who would also like to reduce the deficit (mostly by raising taxes). The Concord Coalition rated Senator Jack Reed as one of their 20 most favorite members of the Senate, while most other interest groups that that factor taxes and spending into their ratings rate Senator Reed near the bottom. Do you also consider Senator Reed to be a “fiscal conservative”?

Posted by: Andrew at April 12, 2006 12:21 PM

David Smith (Smith too?):

Like "self interest," opportunism is another word that describes something we all do. Everyone wants to buy low and sell high, and everyone wants to get the biggest bang for their buck. Every time a candidate presents a flaw in his opponent’s platform it is opportunistic, and every candidate in this race is doing it. In fact every candidate in every race is an opportunist. Your label is therefore either a non issue or Chafee is guilty/innocent too. Your choice. Whatever.

What is truly telling about your argument is it acquiesces to the fact that Chafee loses the primary. Thank you for that admission. Bring on the Dems.

Finally, your spiteful and untrue remark does not go unnoticed. The fact remains that Morgan Keegan had to hire four executives to replace Mr. Laffey when he left as documented in the Memphis papers, and they still retain the press release regarding his presidency as listed on the Laffey website. A very poor but telling decision on your part. The ad hominem always smacks of desperation. Which is what you are, desperate.

If you are what Chafee is all about then I can see why he won’t meet Laffey in a face to face debate.

J Mahn

Posted by: Joe Mahn at April 12, 2006 1:09 PM

I love laffey. he's independent! but all the action is at rifuture.org where they just announced that laffey raised the most net $ this quarter!!! I guess that's not important to the guys who run this joint or the fact that he cut taxes this year.. let's go to rifuture.org!!!

Posted by: slimjim at April 12, 2006 2:14 PM

Joe Mahn, that was the dumbest post I've ever seen. Ever heard of making sense? try it sometime MORON

Posted by: Joe Horn at April 12, 2006 2:55 PM

I have to agree with Slim Jim on this one. While I appreciate Anchor Rising's almost singular focus on serious and issue-oriented posts recently (the recent post on Sudan was particularly strong), to completely ignore both Laffey's proposed tax cut in Cranston as well as his strong fundraising quarter is wrong. Particulary in light of the negative post about the campaign contributions in TN and IL. Of course this site shouldn't just be about "the horse race," but posts about the state of the election don't preclude issue-oriented discussion. Give the people what they want!!

Posted by: Leon Berg at April 12, 2006 2:55 PM

How did we get so far off topic? Let's get back to those contributions that Steve Laffey made to the Democrats in the mid-90s.

1994 wasn't just any election year -- that was the year that the Republicans finally took back control of the House and Senate. How does a so-called GOP purist explain being on the wrong side of history in two key Senate races? The contribution to Jim Sasser is an especially tough one to swallow -- Sasser was a fiercely partisan Democrat, and as the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, one of the architects of the Clinton tax increases. Steve Laffey wanted another 6 years of Jim Sasser?

A year later, in the middle of the Gingrich revolution, Laffey was putting money in Jesse Jackson, Jr's pocket. Apparently, he wanted to put the Democrats back in charge of the House? It doesn't make any sense!

Steve Laffey can shrug it off, but these contributions are just another indication that he's only in it for himself. He doesn't know anything about principled leadership.

Posted by: Brian Taft at April 12, 2006 9:06 PM

Could not agree more Brian. Laffey is willing to say all things to all people. I think you all on the blog/ Laffey fan site let him get away with way, way, way too much. So you keep saying, just ask Steve Laffey. Well, from what I've seen he doesn't answer questions, he just shouts down the questioner. I'd like him to answer this, and most of you work in his headquarters anyways, so ask him for me. Why on earth did this so called Reagan Republican donate to Jesse Jackson Jr.? You can't say that the boss, Mr. Keegan, made him donate to an out of state Dem.

On another note, it is not groundless slander to say Laffey got fired from Morgan Keegan. Go to those news releases from the Memphis paper. Read them, as I have, and tell me the man didn't get fired. Let me tell you something "Will" when a paper writes of a palace coup, something ain't kosher in Denmark.

My last point, before the Laffeyites come out of the wood work to talk about how he's the second coming, please explain to me how Laffey beats the Democrats. Seriously. I am curious. What polls or data show he has a chance? I've seen the ones proving Chafee can keep the seat and the only ones I've seen show Laffey getting the smackdown. Simply saying Laffey is the man is not a concrete argument, incidently.

Posted by: Smith at April 12, 2006 9:30 PM

Hello Chafee clowns, the contributions have already been discussed in this post, and electability has been addressed a couple of months ago on this blog.

Where were you guys to talk about the Chafee waffle on censure, maybe we can talk about how Chafee votes with the Democrats on the big issues like tax cuts, or all the contributions he gets from the liberal special interests.

You guys are bringing this up because you have nothing else..either good to say about Chafee or bad to say about Laffey, and you guys are losing ... so Chafee HQ tells all three of you (using different names) to go on the blogs after 2 months of silence to try and stir it up against Laffey.

What an embarassing campaign for a sitting US Senator.

Your time would be better spent raising more money for Chafee so he can run as independent.

Keep buzzing misquitos....being a junkman I got alot of bug spray.

Posted by: Fred Sanford at April 12, 2006 10:00 PM

Joe Horn:

Snappy little response. Post your home address and I will send you a big book called a dictionary. You can look up all the words you don't understand and then my post will make more sense.

J Mahn

Posted by: Joe Mahn at April 12, 2006 10:26 PM

... please explain to me how Laffey beats the Democrats. Seriously. I am curious. What polls or data show he has a chance?

That's the wrong question Smith. The fact that you asked it says a lot. What it tells me is you believe your man Chafee will lose to Laffey, but Laffey can't beat the dem so vote for a loser who can beat the dem. McFly... you have to win the primary to stay in the game, and everybody knows Laffey wins the primary. You are consciously believing a lie. This is a sign of psychosis. Call your physician.

Anyway, here’s your answer boy. Against all odds Laffey beat two democrat challengers in his last two races. In the first race he was an unknown who ran against a local brand name career politician. In the second he won a primary (65/35) and then the general in another landslide. Sounds just like what will happen this time.

If he is not a serious and formidable candidate how could he raise more money than Chafee in the last Q. If he has no chance in the primary why would the NRSC spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attack him? Read the NRSC blog. Of the hundreds of posts on the Laffey/Chafee race 99% are pro Laffey. He is a true republican where Chafee is not. Are you starting to feel lonely.

The average taxpayers of RI will begin to tune into this race mid to late summer and they will see a candidate in Steve Laffey who will fight for them against the special interests (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Government-Lobbyists in general). That’s the promise kept in Cranston and that’s the message that will win in November. Good government is coming whether you like it or not.


Posted by: Sol Venturi at April 12, 2006 11:17 PM

But there's no getting away from the fact that Steve Laffey made campaign contributions that were aimed at keeping the Democrats in control of Congress. Election night in 1994 was a watershed moment for the Republican party. While the Chafee family was celebrating a Republican majority, Laffey had put his money on the other team. We shouldn't forget that.

Posted by: Brian Taft at April 12, 2006 11:44 PM

If you can erase the last four years and everything Laffey has promised and done in Cranston to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he is a smart, frugal, honest, hard working, fiscally conservative, good government, fearless, focused, Reagan republican, then don't forget.

If you can't erase it then you have to forget about it.

Chafee will lose the primary because Laffey is just plain better for RI no matter what party you say you are in. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Today Laffey is the solution and Chafee is part of the problem. And that's that.


Posted by: Sol Venturi at April 13, 2006 12:11 AM

Fred Sanford,
Once again. You do not debate, you slander, calling anyone who disagrees with your mesiah a moron or worse.
What liberal special interests groups contribute to Chafee? The US Chamber of Commerce? The NRSC? I support our President. He supports Chafee. Good enough for me. Laffey has been here for three years. All he has done is sell the public on some lie that he's a financial genius, because he figured out that when your city is broke, it might be time to raise taxes.
Phrases like "Boy" and in fact Sol Venturi's entire writing style seem more apporpriate for the heavy in a prison film. I keep expecting him to say he dropped the soap.

Posted by: dontgetyourskivviesinaknot at April 13, 2006 8:05 AM

dontgetyourskiviesinaknot (Smith, David Smith, Joe Horn?):

If this is the best you can do then I can understand why you hide behind so many different names. When faced with losing the argument you and your friends always degenerate into diversionary tactics and personal attacks.

We all know that weak minds with weak positions leave the issues behind and start attacking their opponent. They also have spelling and grammar issues.

For once in your life take a look in the mirror. If you don't you will probably just keep making a fool of yourself, which is fine with me.


Posted by: Sol Venturi at April 13, 2006 10:06 AM

I don't understand you Laffey folks.

The Senator drops a meatball in your lap and you argue about it.

Let the Senator repeat this story as often as he likes wherever he can. In the meantime, play a round of golf, have a drink, play with the dog. When you get done, just reap the benefits of his self-injury.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at April 15, 2006 10:51 PM