November 8, 2006

About Last Night...

Marc Comtois

A few thoughts and observations made after a short night of sleep...

Other than margins of victory, tell me exactly how the political landscape in Rhode Island has changed since yesterday? We still have a Republican Governor and Democrats everywhere else.

The two big things I cared about�the Governor�s race and the Casino�went the way I wanted (and I�ll take what I can get). Carcieri won by a smaller margin than predicted and the Casino went down. Sure, I had hopes for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State, but the Democrat turnout was impressive and just too much to overcome.

But the schizophrenic RI electorate did what it always does, essentially voted straight Democrat ticket and passed almost every Bond issue.

So, tell me again, why is this new?

Anyway, I understand the whole �anti-Bush� wave theory flying around, but you can�t tell me that the pro-Casino folks aggressive GOTV effort in Rhode Island�s urban centers didn�t add to the margins of victory for so many Democrats and shrink the losing margin for Fogarty. Heck, I saw it in my local City Council races (Warwick, by the way, now has an all-Democrat City Council and a Republican Mayor�it really is a microcosm of the state). Most of these City Council races were in the 53-47 for the Democrat range. This is closer than normal�probably some Chafee coattails�but not enough to overcome the Democrat turnout.

GOP Chairwoman Patricia Morgan seems like a nice lady, but I don't think she�s got much left in the tank.

Meanwhile, Steve Laffey was on Channel 12 and was talking about reforming the RIGOP. A few other pundits mentioned this and, as has been mentioned around here, it really has to be rebuilt from the ground up. You can�t start by running for House of Representatives, folks. Get some City Council seats and Mayor offices first. Hey Mayor Laffey, you volunteering to lead the effort?

Nationally, the American people have had their historically predictable 6th-year-of-a-Presidency temper tantrum and the Democrats took advantage with a message of �Vote for us, we�re not Republicans.� Now let�s see what they do with the power that they have coveted. It has seemed that they wanted power because they wanted power�now it�s time for some ideas, folks. That means deep-thinking, not soundbites.

I do think a lot of the independents did swing to the Dems in a desire to balance against the President and to punish the GOP.

I also think that the GOP did its level best to screw itself with its own party members. The GOP learned that a party based on�among other things--firm ideals of fiscal conservatism can�t pick power (via pork) over principle and expect to stay in good stead with its base. The GOP lost because it strayed from its core ideals.

The result of the turnover in Congress is gridlock in Washington, and my inner (paleo?) conservative couldn�t be happier. Maybe the President will get out his veto pen more often.

As a conservative, I also find it interesting that a lot of the red seats in the House turned blue because of the resurgence of the Blue-Dog Democrat. Former NFL Quarterback Heath Shuler is exhibit A. Apparently, liberal/progressive ideas still don�t win on the national scale, especially in Red America.

Finally, can members of the RI GOP propose a casino in, say, Warwick or Cranston, then lure in Harrah�s or Trump and get some help with the ground game in 2008?

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.

Draft Laffey to lead the RIGOP!

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2006 9:08 AM

I'd like to congratulate Bobby O on the 6.2% of the vote he got in uber-liberal Newport.

Apparently, they don't like you either...

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2006 9:18 AM

Marc,

On the mark with everything you opined. I like you felt the casino and Governors race were the two races of import for me. Looking at the avalanche of anti bush sentiment throughout the land it's actually quite impressive how a true conservative in Governor Carcieri won re-election here yesterday. Don't care a bit about the margin he should feel emboldened by that result.
Also agree that liberal/progressives and their ideas are unelectable nationally. Democrats won the Congress because they ran moderates/centrists.
Republicans lost the Congress because they accomplished no reforms with the big ticket items, i.e. immigration reform, soc. security etc. The challenge for Democrats now is to start acting like conservative Dems or moderate Reps. If they believe this election was a mandate for their liberal leanings they'll get thrown out just as fast as they came in.

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2006 9:18 AM

Greg,

Just a guess but 6.2% of the vote is not good for someone who's a legend in his own mind is it?? lol Couldn't happen to a nicer hack. Guess not even "Mr. Montanaro" could help.

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2006 9:31 AM

6.2% of the vote means that your family voted for you.

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2006 9:44 AM

How about Rhode Island's Mayor, becoming Rhode Island's next Governor? We need you, Mr. Laffey!

Posted by: ed at November 8, 2006 10:04 AM

A few thoughts-

1. Congratulations to those folks who wanted to dump Chafee and either voted for Whitehouse or didn't vote in the Senate race. You got want you wanted.

We lost the Senate by one seat as I predicted would happen if Chafee went down. We'll see if the House and Senate going Democrat is a "positive" thing for conservatives or, as I suspect, a very bad thing. If you've listened to FOX News in the past 12 hours, you've no doubt heard the 'experts' talk about how Republicans like Bloomberg and Arnold were successful because they moved to the left while conservative stalwarts like Rick Santorum, George Allen, JD Hayworth and Richard Pombo were sent packing.

Most of the 'RINOs' who lost were Republicans runnning in heavy Democrat areas such as the northeast. Some, like Chris Shays of Connecticut survived, others such as Nancy Johnson did not.

I think this election will force incumbent Republicans to move left, just as the Democrats were forced to put up more conservative candidates after years of unsuccessful attempts to elect left-wingers.

The days of using moderates to gain the majority and conservative to drive the agenda are over. We'll now need moderates just to stay competitive.

2. John Conyors will be the new chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jane Harman will take over House Intelligence, Charlie Rangel will take over Ways and Means and Nancy Pelosi is the new speaker. And I thought Halloween was in October.

3. Carcieri escaped by the skin of his teeth. This is a good thing for the state, but it is the furthest thing from a mandate. As a lame-duck governor who barely won re-election, you have to wonder how much power he will wield.

4. What happened to Reggie's campaign? Before he even entered the race, he was running ahead of Roberts and then he ends up getting blown out. This was the most poorly run campaign of any credible statewide GOP candidate, plain and simple.

5. Sue Stenhouse's loss was disappointing. In any other year, she probably would have won. Instead, we have an elected official who openly cavorts with mobsters. Great.

6. Memo to Bill Harsch: We love you, but I think it's time to get new blood next election. Everyone else: Four more years of politically driven legal decisions from the AG's office! What a state.

7. Steve Laffey for chair of the GOP?!?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Steve Laffey couldn't even win his own precinct in a Republican primary, divided the state party, was probably the single person most responsible for Chafee losing a Republican Senate seat (and hence the Senate), showed that he had no lasting coattails in Cranston and didn't lift a finger to support Carcieri, who was the only candidate who showed that he could win statewide. Two years ago, I would have agreed that Laffey would have made a great state party chair, but today the thought is just laughable.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 10:15 AM

Wow, Anthony. All those words and I can boil your whole post down to one word:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Let the Dems have Congress back. The republicans we sent there just behaved like Dems anyways and made things worse. 2 years under Dem control and the people will be clamoring to put Reps back in power in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2006 10:21 AM

Greg,
I don't know how old you are, but history shows that if you think the GOP is going to win back the House in two years, you are sorely mistaken. The Democrats controlled the House from 1955-1993. The Republican Revolution of '94 was a historic event.

But this is wanted you wanted, so congratulations on getting what you wanted. Maybe I should just sent you my tax bill (if you're old enough to pay taxes, that is).

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 10:59 AM

Anthony,

The GOP needs to have the conversation you are starting, but also needs to hear the other side. So-called GOP moderates need to accept the lions share of the blame for their own marginalization. They have utterly failed at providing any compelling vision that excites voters and at building any organization for sustaining and propagating themselves.

Connecticut is the clearest example of this. They have a moderate Republican governor. They had 3 moderate Republican Congressman out of 5 districts. Yet when the time came to produce a Republican Senate candidate, in what would be a competitive 3-way race, they couldnt produce someone capable of getting more than 10% of the vote. If moderate bastion Connecticut couldnt produce a fresh-faced moderate standard bearer, its not reasonable to expect that any moderate dominated Republican organization can.

The whole Republican moderate philosophy of you have to vote for me because I am the only person who can hold this seat, and once its lost, its lost forever is self-defeating, an admission that the long term plan of Republican moderates consists mainly of running out the clock until they hand their seat over to a liberal. Until moderates come up with a more compelling plan for the long term and show some interest in building a party up around them, rather than parasitically drawing off of their party, they deserve the marginalization they are experiencing.

Posted by: Andrew at November 8, 2006 11:06 AM

One can make a reasonable argument that Club for Growth cost the GOP the Senate - they fanned the Laffey flames and left Chafee too badly burned. If not for the ugly primary, no way does Whitehouse beat Chafee.
As for Carcieri, his personal popularity allowed him to survive. I figured the only chance Fogarty had to win was if a big pro-casino vote turned out, and still it went past midnight.
We're stuck with the legbreaker for secretary of state because the Senate race and casino issues sucked so much air out of the political atmosphere.
As for the Dem Senate majority...the bidding for Joe Lieberman begins. How much you wanna bet Bush offers him secretary of defense to keep GOP control of the Senate?
Finally, who would've thought ARIZONA, a red flyover state, would end the long anti-gay marriage winning streak? That isn't Massachusetts or California, folks. I wonder if conservatives will take it out on McCain.

Posted by: Rhody at November 8, 2006 11:15 AM

Anthony,

That's a lot of words to say nothing. It's about time that you faced some simple facts; the Republicans like Chafee that lost DESERVED to lose. For one reason or another they betrayed the conservative ideals that true Republicans hoped they would support, which is why they voted for them in the first place. That is why they lost a lot of Republican support. I am the classic example.

Your worthless arguement for supporting Chafee only to keep control of the Senate is analogous to a guy cheating on his wife and then telling her she shouldn't divorce him because it would break up the family.

Well I have a different view, and that is why I voted for Whitehouse. If I were the woman who acquiesced to keep the family together, only later to have HIM request the divorce, I would be absolutely infuriated.

And that is just what we'd have gotten from Chafee in a 50-50 Senate when the first important vote came along that would have been the only reason to vote for him - he would have stuck it to us and I would have been absolutely fuious for having voted for him. Sorry Anthony, I was born at night, but not last night. I am not even going to give him the chance. Heck, there is a good chance he would have switched parties anyway, and I'll have no part of that. At least I know what I got with Whitehouse.

Chafee lost a lot of Republican support because he is a Republican fraud.

Posted by: Jim at November 8, 2006 11:59 AM

I think we lost the Sect of State race because Sue did not go negative. Informed voters knew what Mollis was all about, but unfortunatley, most voters are not informed. Im not saying they are not intelligent, they just get their info from soundbites and Sue dropped the ball on this one.

Posted by: WJF at November 8, 2006 11:59 AM

I read an analysis of which House and Senate seats are likely to be in play nationally in '08, '10 and beyond.

Excuse me while I crawl over there and chew open a vein.

Posted by: S. Weasel at November 8, 2006 12:15 PM

Andrew,
The moderate members of the GOP were not self-marginalized, they were marginalized by the GOP leadership. Why? They tend to represent areas normally held by Democrats and comprised a small handful of the 30+ seat advantage that the House Republican held before last night.

GOP moderates didn't hold any powerful positions--Senate Majority Leader, House Speaker, House Majority Leader, Whips, Appropriations Chairs, Ways & Means Chairs, I could go on. The GOP moderates weren't driving any of the decision-making.

Yet for some people, purging the moderates that provide the numbers for the majority became a bigger priority than beating Democrats.

The GOP lost big this cycle because substantively it produced very little in the past two years. This had nothing to do with the moderates. It had to do with the party leadership that actually made the decisions.

I'm a conservative, but a pragmatic conservative. I believe that there is a need for both moderates and conservatives. The moderates do their part by giving the GOP the numbers to get the majority and they help hammer out compromises. The conservatives do their part by setting the party's agenda and providing vision and ideas. Both sides need each other.

In this election, I think the conservatives blew it. The 'conservative' GOP Congressional leadership took on the same attributes as the Democrats--overspending and a bureaucratic approach to governing. At the same time, conservatives attacked GOP moderates instead of Democrats submarining them in vulnerable districts.

While GOP moderates were attacked from within, the Democrats were recruiting moderate Democrats to run and win districts that had been drawn by Republicans during redistricting to lean Repbulican.

Conservatives should have been focusing in on bringing "conservative" leaders back into line, not helping to elect Democrats.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 12:18 PM

WJF,
Stenhouse COULDN'T go negative because she didn't have the money to go negative. So let me ask you, how much did you contribute to her campaign?

Stenhouse didn't drop the ball. Republicans who didn't contribute to her dropped the ball.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 12:27 PM

No sense congratulating the Governor, he is surrounded by Democrats and an overwhelming General Assembly that can override a veto at any time they choose. He is powerless once again.

Posted by: Andy at November 8, 2006 12:29 PM

>>The GOP moderates weren't driving any of the decision-making.

Au contraire. On the Senate side the gyrations made to bring the "moderates" on board (i.e., Chafee, Snow, Collins, Specter)ended up giving the Democrats de facto control of the Senate, if not numerical control.

In the end, the debate MUST boil down to ideals and principles.

For Republicans that means government consistent with the U.S. Constitution - of limited size, funded by limited taxation, with a "default" position toward individual liberty (which in turn requires independence, including independence from dependence on government handouts), and a strong national defense.

Republicans must first BELIEVE in those ideals and principles (the "moderates" do not).

The Republicans must also have the faith in those ideals and principles - and they should because history inarguably shows that they are the superior ones.

Armed with that faith, the Republicans should then be prepared to make the case for those ideals and principles to the American public, also having faith that the public will embrace them (as demonstrated by Ronald Reagan's advocacy).

The current leadership and officeholders of the Republican Party - both on the national and state levels - have shown only a "lip service" adherence to those ideals and principles.

And in many respects - spending in particular - betrayed them.

In other words, the Republicans in Congress "went native" in Washington, D.C., in many respects becoming de facto Democrats.

As such, they deserved to lose. And until the get back to their roots, will continue to lose.

As of this writing majority control of the Senate is still in play. On the one hand, I hope that it stays Republican, simply because of Supreme Court nominations.

But if it goes Democratic, and Chafee's defeat contributed to that, I am remain very comfortable with my decision to write-in "George W. Bush."

While Democratic control of the Senate will be extremely painful in the short run, purging the Republican Party of the cancerous influence of people like Chafee is necessary for its long-term health and eventual renewal.

Posted by: Tom W at November 8, 2006 12:36 PM

Jim,
See my previous post. I congratulated those of you who wanted a Democrat majority. You got what you wanted.

You're right, you know that Whitehouse stands in lockstap with Howard Dean and the Democrat majority. He won't be a so-called 'traitor' or vote against GOP policies half the time. He's a loyal Democrat and will vote against GOP policies ALL the time.

If you've seen any of the recent news coverage, the "lessons learned" from this election is that the GOP should be become more moderate and deal more closely with Democrats. Conservatives will have to follow the Democrat agenda, because they've got the majority.

So pat yourself on the back for having sent your message...

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 12:36 PM

Anthony,

Agree completely with your Laffey assessment. A rogue like Laffey is incapable if building anything because it's all about him. By the way how's this for a rumor, Chafee running for governor in 2010. That's a job Chafee could definitely win. Knowing how Laffey did nothing to help Chafee or Carcieri in any way during this election season I'm more convinced than ever Steve Laffey could not/will not win statewide if he runs for anything in 2010. Too many people from the Carcieri camp, the Chafee camp and the unions don't like him.

Andy,

Our powerless governor had special interests foaming at the mouth to get rid of him yesterday. Why if he's so powerless?

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2006 12:51 PM

Dear Greg,

The story of two BobbyO's:

1. I'm not a native, not an incumbent, was against the sewer bond. The city of Newport made it clear it wasn't a good fit. However, it's still 6.2% more votes than you got. Appearently, wherever you live, they don't even like you enough to go get 50 signatures.

2. The Partisan Democrat BobbyO who went 14 for 15 last night. The Partisan Democrat BobbyO who was part of wins from Rhode Island to Miami to New Mexico. The Partisan Democrat BobbyO who predicted a huge night and the Carcieri would be all alone.

The only reason you have anything to say at all is I had the guts to run. I won't make that mistake again.

Therefore, the message is clear: Stop messing around with being a candidate and stay the behind the scenes guy with the great winning percentage. I'm good at following directions.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at November 8, 2006 1:39 PM

Dear Greg,

One further note, I don't have any family here. (A good number of them already went to the Winter homes so they're not even in the area) I've only lived here for 5 years. Again, no matter how you attempt to insult me after a great night, it is now and will forever be 6.2% more than you got.

When you decide to have the guts to submit your name on a ballot anywhere, then you can talk. Until then, your just a little boy whom the whole country walked away from last night. Have the seen the Senate seats up in 2008? It's not going to get a lot better for you.

I almost forgot: 2008 is Don Carcieri's 6 year itch election. This could be ugly.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at November 8, 2006 1:44 PM

That's okay Bobby. You can take your misplaced anger over being roundly rejected by the voters and pile it on me. I don't mind.

Truth be told, the only reason I don't run in this state is that I'm a military vet and Dave Rogers taught me that you LOSE points in this piss-ant state for military service.

So, while you were man enough to go out and get signatures and run for a nice cushy state job, I was man enough to go out and risk my ass every day for my country. I have NOTHING to apologize for and certainly don't have to whip out my manhood and compare it to yours.

Go climb back in your hole with your scum friends and await the federal indictments.

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2006 1:54 PM

Dear Greg,

Ft Jackson 1992-1993
Legal Specialist School 1992
3RD JAG 1993-1994
1st of the 103rd 1994-1996


Perhaps you have stumbled on my problem. Not only did I risk my butt defending my country, I like being on ballots.

As usual, you come across as bitter and not salient with the facts.

Lastly, when I see sometime this week, which I will, I'll ask him if he feels that way.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at November 8, 2006 2:05 PM

Dear Greg,

Ft Jackson 1992-1993
Legal Specialist School 1992
3RD JAG 1993-1994
1st of the 103rd 1994-1996


Perhaps you have stumbled on my problem. Not only did I risk my butt defending my country, I like being on ballots.

As usual, you come across as bitter and not salient with the facts.

Lastly, when I see sometime this week, which I will, I'll ask him if he feels that way.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at November 8, 2006 2:05 PM

Tim,
I agree that Chafee would walk into the governor's office if he decided to run. I also think he would have won the Senate seat had he not spent alot of money in the primary and had to deal with Bush's negatives, which means he could be a comeback candidate in six years. The question is what Chafee wants to do. Rhode Islander like the guy, but much like some of the commenters on this blog, they wanted to send a message.

The message that conservative commenters were trying to send was "break from the conservative line and face a tough primary". The message that general electorate voters were trying to send was "vote for conservative GOP Senate leadership and we'll send you packing." Not an enviable position.

The critics of the former position seem to hold a very intense personal dislike for Chafee, but the critics holding the latter position would probably vote for Chafee if given the opportunity again and Bush was not a factor.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 2:06 PM

Good for you. But does dodging papercuts in the JAGs office really count as risking your butt?

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2006 2:06 PM

As for military service, it's a positive, not a negative. Jack Reed and John Chafee gained wide respect for their military service. However, military service can not compensate if a candidate's positions do not represent the electorate's views.

And RI is a blue state.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 2:09 PM

How about the old saying, "don't cry over spilled milk"? We lost what we lost, because we deserved it -- that's what democracy is about. I'm counting my blessings: Gov. Carcieri's win, and the casino going down in flames. It's not much, but considering day we had yesterday, it's just enough to have some hope. Now it's time to focus on rebuilding the RI Republican Party into something that is viable, not placing our focus on the Chafee family's future employment prospects. I feel bad for the senator, as he is a good man, but our party needs to be more than just about Chafee, if it is ever to mean anything in this state.

Posted by: Will at November 8, 2006 2:21 PM

Since I pride myself on the accuracy of the numbers-related information that is presented on this site, youve forced me to come to BobbyOs defense. His 6.2% isnt really 6.2%.

Bobby ran in a vote-for-four election, and even in vote-for-x-where-x-is-greater-than-1 elections, the Board of Elections reports percentages as a total of all votes cast. This is obfuscating. It means that even if you get a vote from everyone who voted, you still might be reported as receiving only 25% of the vote, if everyone who voted voted for their full allotment of four candidates.

Bobbys total was actually closer to 20% of ballots cast.

Posted by: Andrew at November 8, 2006 2:21 PM

Anthony,

You asked

The moderate members of the GOP were not self-marginalized, they were marginalized by the GOP leadership. Why?
Ill answer.

To the degree theyve been marginalized by forces outside of themselves, its because they bring no potential for growth to the table. They have no coattails. This is not a matter of ideological purity, its a matter of moderates continually showing that theyre either not interested in or dont know how to build an organization.

Elect a moderate in some constituency somewhere, and what do you get ten years later? If youre lucky, you get that same moderate representing that same constituency, and nothing else.

If moderates ever want to have a lasting influence, they need to come up with something more than a reason of you have to vote for me because I am the only person who can hold this seat, and once its lost, its lost forever to justify voting them. Why should any partys leadership care about placating a minority that admits that its stagnant and dying? Its a much more rational decision to focus resources on areas that have some potential for growth.

In the final analysis, the moderates have marginalized themselves.

Posted by: Andrew at November 8, 2006 2:26 PM

Dear Greg,

If not for "Hostage School" (a very odd experience) and serving with an Artillery unit, I'd agree with you.

Andrew,

thanks for the clarification but a butt-kicking is a butt-kicking. You throw your name out, sometimes it's like 2 years ago (only here 3 years and a 200 vote loss - where did 2800 of those folks go?) or it's like this.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at November 8, 2006 2:50 PM

How is Charlie's political viability? Is he the leading Dem nominee for 2010 at this point?

Posted by: SusanD at November 8, 2006 3:00 PM

Anthony,
Republicans that masquerade as Democrats will always lose to real Democrats in Rhode Island.
The only way that Republicans are going to win in Rhode Island is to present a clear stark choice from what the Democrats are offering.
Yours is the losing strategy. Then again, yours is typical of those running the Rhode Island Republican party with all the predictably pathetic results.
It is time to change course. That starts with new blood.

Posted by: Jim at November 8, 2006 4:02 PM

Yes, Jim. Steve Laffey showed how right you are. Oh wait, he lost his own neighborhood voting precinct in a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY and polls showed that he would have lost by 30-40 points in the general election. At least Dave Rogers did better. Yes Jim, you've shown us all the path to electoral success.

This election has only pushed the RI conservative movement into further irrelevancy, something that I thought was impossible. Thanks alot.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 5:41 PM

>>Yes, Jim. Steve Laffey showed how right you are. Oh wait, he lost his own neighborhood voting precinct in a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY and polls showed that he would have lost by 30-40 points in the general election. At least Dave Rogers did better. Yes Jim, you've shown us all the path to electoral success. This election has only pushed the RI conservative movement into further irrelevancy, something that I thought was impossible. Thanks alot.

Anthony,

There WASN'T a Republican primary. There was a Chafee - RNC "get out the Democrat vote to save Chafee's bacon" primary.

Early polls showing a 30-40 point loss to Whitehouse are a red herring. Laffey and Whitehouse weren't even engaging each other at that point.

In a debate Laffey would have cleaned Whitehouse's clock, for Whitehouse was / is a "one trick pony" repeating "vote for me to send a message to George Bush."

Chafee couldn't engage on those terms, because Chafee too was / is a liberal. Whitehouses' handlers boxed Chafee, would didn't have any serious policy disagreements with Whitehouse, and couldn't escape his "non-message to Bush" status if reelected.

Laffey would have engaged Whitehouse on substantive issues, and Whitehouse isn't impressive as to intellect, policies or delivery.

Posted by: Tom W at November 8, 2006 5:57 PM

Hi!
It is no secret I want Patricia Morgan out as Rhode Island GOP State Chair!Darrell West gave reasons for her lack of ability last night on TV.She needs to go and I understand she will.
It is vitally important to have credibility with the grass roots of the Rhode Island GOP now lacks.It is time to MOVE NOW to DEMAND Patricia Morgan's removal now to signal to the Republicans of Rhode Island and not wait to March.Since this January will be Republican party committee reorganizations,the message needs to be made NOW from the Governor that he takes the conduct and lack of leadership of Patricia Morgan seriously.Ask him to consider Mayor Laffey as a possibility.We need a no nonsense and COMPETENT RI GOP State Chair.I will e-mail the Governor tonight at carcieri@carcieriforgovernor.com will you?I will also ask Mayor Laffey tonight at slaffey21@yahoo.com to consider entering the Rhode Island State Chair's race,will you?
DO YOU CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THE RHODE ISLAND REPUBLICAN PARTY TO MOVE NOW?
While I am not a member of the Rhode Island NFRA I hope when they meet tomorrow night they consider the Governor to replace Mrs.Morgan and ask the Governor to consider Mayor Laffey as her successor!
Regards,
Scott

Posted by: Scott Bill Hirst at November 8, 2006 6:18 PM

Hi!
It is no secret I want Patricia Morgan out as Rhode Island GOP State Chair!Darrell West gave reasons for her lack of ability last night on TV.She needs to go and I understand she will.
It is vitally important to have credibility with the grass roots of the Rhode Island GOP now lacks.It is time to MOVE NOW to DEMAND Patricia Morgan's removal now to signal to the Republicans of Rhode Island and not wait to March.Since this January will be Republican party committee reorganizations,the message needs to be made NOW from the Governor that he takes the conduct and lack of leadership of Patricia Morgan seriously.Ask him to consider Mayor Laffey as a possibility.We need a no nonsense and COMPETENT RI GOP State Chair.I will e-mail the Governor tonight at carcieri@carcieriforgovernor.com will you?I will also ask Mayor Laffey tonight at slaffey21@yahoo.com to consider entering the Rhode Island State Chair's race,will you?Please don't "spam" the Mayor!
DO YOU CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THE RHODE ISLAND REPUBLICAN PARTY TO MOVE NOW?
While I am not a member of the Rhode Island NFRA I hope when they meet tomorrow night they consider asking the Governor to replace Mrs.Morgan and also ask the Governor to consider Mayor Laffey as her successor!
Regards,
Scott

Posted by: Scott Bill Hirst at November 8, 2006 6:20 PM

Scott,

Was even one Laffey muscle moved over the past month to assist Gov. Carcieri and/or Lincoln Chafee in their re-election bids? No need to answer strictly a rhetorical question since we all realize team player Laffey did absolutely nothing to aid the cause.
Big mistake to name a party chair who has very big personal political ambitions and an even larger ego.

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2006 7:21 PM

"Instead, we have an elected official who openly cavorts with mobsters."


Ralph Mollis, Paul Moura, Patrick Lynch.

Yup, it was a good night for thug sympathizers.

Posted by: SusanD at November 8, 2006 7:27 PM

Anthony,
Here are some facts. Carcieri has no coattails; Laffey did not lose to Republicans in a primary, he lost to Democrats in a Republican primary; your vision (or whatever you want to call it) for Republicans is to act like Democrats so we can win. Sorry pal, not for me. Is it any wonder why the people running the RI Republican party can't get decent candidates?

Posted by: Jim at November 8, 2006 7:36 PM

>>Was even one Laffey muscle moved over the past month to assist Gov. Carcieri and/or Lincoln Chafee in their re-election bids? No need to answer strictly a rhetorical question since we all realize team player Laffey did absolutely nothing to aid the cause.

Let's see. But for Chafee / RNC / RIGOP soliciting DEMOCRATS to HIJACK the Republican Primary, Laffey would have won. And they ran vicious attack ads against Laffey commensurate with those that would be run by Democrats.

And Laffey so is the one who is not a "team player?"

That he thereafter "stayed out" is about as much as could reasonably be expected, and was arguably above and beyond the call.

>>Big mistake to name a party chair who has very big personal political ambitions and an even larger ego.

If that "ego" recognizes that by building the Party s/he also realizes that they build the foundation that can / will help their aspirations, then this is a good thing.

Certainly better than the present RIGOP "leadership" that suffers the electoral equivalent of the battered spouse syndrome - they've been in the (irrelevant) minority for so long that they believe that is the natural order of things, and can't conceive of things being any other way.

Posted by: Tom W at November 8, 2006 9:10 PM

I love this. Laffey didn't lose the Republican primary. Those darn independent voters (who comprise the vast majority of RI voters) lost it for him.

Umm...what voters do you think need to be attracted to expand the party?

HE LOST HIS OWN PRECINCT!

Before the primary, the talking points were "Laffey is great at winning over Democrats and Independents". Afterwards, it became "Too many Democrats and Independents voted".

Enough about Mr. Irrelevant.

As for all the political experts, come back and talk to me after you elect one, just one, conservative candidate to a statewide or federal office.

Then you talk all you want about how much you know and I might listen. Otherwise, it has as much credibilty as me critiquing Tom Brady's passing game.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 10:18 PM

I love this. Laffey didn't lose the Republican primary. Those darn independent voters (who comprise the vast majority of RI voters) lost it for him.

Umm...what voters do you think need to be attracted to expand the party?

HE LOST HIS OWN PRECINCT!

Before the primary, the talking points were "Laffey is great at winning over Democrats and Independents". Afterwards, it became "Too many Democrats and Independents voted".

Enough about Mr. Irrelevant.

As for all the political experts, come back and talk to me after you elect one, just one, conservative candidate to a statewide or federal office.

Then you talk all you want about how much you know and I might listen. Otherwise, it has as much credibilty as me critiquing Tom Brady's passing game.

Posted by: Anthony at November 8, 2006 10:19 PM

"Is it any wonder why the people running the RI Republican party can't get decent candidates?"

It might have something to do with the way Andrew Lyon was encouraged to run for treasurer, then abandoned because Carcieri and Caprio are tight.
Also, The Don talks a good game about wanting change in the General Assembly, but he doesn't lift a finger to help anybody interested in challenging Montalbano or the West Warwick wrecking crew (or is it because those Democrats he won't take on are social conservatives he wants in his pocket when Sue tells him to take on abortion and gay marriage)? There are a number of Democrats I want the hell out of Smith Hill, but Carcieri doesn't give a damn about taking those people on.

Posted by: Rhody at November 9, 2006 12:01 AM

Andrew Lyon was very well aware of what he was up against. However, because of the direct request of the governor, the senator, the state party chair and others, he decided to run for General Treasurer, knowing that short of an Act of God, that he would not win a race more predictable than a Politburo election. In order to be abandoned, you have to have received some kind of support first. As far as I know, he never received a dime or any tangible assistance from the state party, nor was he really expecting any. He's been around long enough to know that the RIGOP is long on talk, but almost always short following through (which I'm absolutely suggesting needs to change). Despite that, he actually handled himself very well, especially in his radio debate.

While we're on the general subject, does anyone find it just a little odd that Caprio is still running commercials "thanking us" for his win? It just creeps me out! Did we just elect the world's biggest egomanic, or does he just like wasting money? I'd prefer a little more frugality.

Posted by: Will at November 9, 2006 12:54 AM

rhody,

There are certainly enough House members with union ties to couple up with the dissidents and oust Bill Murphy as Speaker. Why doesn't that happen? Has the union influence in that building waned that much?

Anthony,

Hear Dan Yorke yesterday? He was discussing the Chafee for Governor in 2010 story. Being the Laffey sycophant he is and stating that Laffey is definitely running for governor in 2010 Yorke is already spinning how Chafee should run for the House and not governor. lol
Since John Chafee was governor perhaps Lincoln wants to follow in his dad's footsteps. That would be a nightmare scenario for Laffey. What goes around comes around!

TomW,

Laffey didn't move a muscle to help either Chafee or Carcieri. Big problem for Laffey is he needs votes from both camps to win statewide.
He'll NEVER get them.
What goes around comes around!

Posted by: Tim at November 9, 2006 7:26 AM

Anthony,
As for all the political experts, come back and talk to me after you elect one, just one, conservative candidate to a statewide or federal office.

What do you consider Governor Carcieri to be? I'd call him a conservative.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at November 9, 2006 6:37 PM

Anthony,
I've been listening to Dan Yorke, and the clips he's been playing of Chafee saying he is glad the Congress switched parties; and that he is considering leaving the Republican party.
Um, I think you owe us all an apology; we've been vindicated for not voting for him. He is a phony.

Posted by: Jim at November 9, 2006 6:49 PM

Dear Marc,

But he's not elected for his conservatism. He's only elected since he won't play our reindeer games.

For the record, a conservative running a smart campaign could get elected here but not by the RIGOP since they are incapable of running smart campaigns.

Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at November 9, 2006 8:17 PM

Bobby,
Thanks, and it actually helps me make a point. The Governor is conservative, but that didn't mean he was unelectable, as some have kinda/sorta intimated. Whether or not voters agree with his social positions, his economic conservatism and willingness to "not play reindeer games" made him attractive enough to be reelected.

For the record, I think he has governed as a fiscal conservative, but the fact of the matter is, so far, a lot of things in the social conservative sphere haven't been germane to most of the RI electorate wrt electing people for statewide offices. For instance, the governor is anti-abortion, but there isn't much that the he can do about it at the state level. On the other hand, gay marriage hasn't been an issue yet, but it's looming.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if social issues were really focused upon. Don't forget, though definitely liberal, RI is also the most Catholic state in the country. I know that many don't want to "impose their morality", but gay marriage and abortion are gut issues to many who wouldn't call themselves conservative.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at November 9, 2006 9:50 PM