Noticed some folks discussin' this in a Café thread here, but 'twas obvious they were so clueless on the subject they couldn't even spell his name right, eh? That was notwithstandin' they had news articles right in front of them showin' how it's spelled.
Methinks that and other poorly thought out statements there were no surprise, after all 'twas a Café thread. You'da thunk, if they wanted to have a real discussion 'bout it they'da put it in a real forum where real people participate, eh?
This same subject has popped up all over the place, especially in progressive blogs. At this point 'twould seem there's a whole lot of wishful thinkin' based on little concrete evidence. Methinks that seems to be the rule on political blogs of all types.
I know the quote that the press and lotsa liberals jumped at, eh? Methinks it comes from a story 'bout his opposition to the Senate confirmin' Bolton for the UN post.
The pertinent points are here:
At that point, he said he will oppose the president's stalled nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"On Tuesday, the American people sent a clear message of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy approach of the Bush Administration. To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for, Chafee said in a statement yesterday.
"I have long believed that the go-it-alone philosophy that has driven this administration's approach to international relations has damaged our leadership position in the world. Mr. Bolton does not demonstrate the kind of collaborative approach that I believe will be called for if we are to restore the United States' position as the strongest country in a peaceful world.
Will he remain a Republican? "I am going to look at where I am and my plans for the future." Question: So, "you are saying you are looking where you belong and it may not be the Republican Party?" His initial answer: "That's fair."
Then comes the part most of the media and most who only wanna hear what they wanna believe kinda sorta forgot to include:
But he also described himself as a "loyal Republican" who, like his father -- the late Gov. and U.S. Sen. John H. Chafee -- spent years trying to build "a two-party system" in Rhode Island, so "I don't want to communicate that I am all of a sudden flying the coop."
You can read the whole thing at a better written story here, eh?
In a local Providence radio interview Thursday mornin' he indicated there was also more what he said was left out. As he's always done in the past, he stated that even though there are times belongin' to the GOP infuriates him, he is and always will be a Republican. His discouragement with the party he says is more from what folks tryin' to take it farther to the right and away from its roots do and say. That sometimes gives him some hesitancy to say he'll always be a Republican, which the press always leaps on, but then he thinks 'bout the party itself and what iit stands for (things like smaller, but more responsive government, the responsibility of the individual to better themselves, equal protection of the rights of individuals, protection of a system where anyone who applies themselves and's willin' to work hard can get ahead, and some other stuff I can't recall.
We see this a couple times a year, so methinks most Rhode Islanders tend not to get all excited 'bout it. Wish the rest of you'd just not try to read more into it than there really is, and that the press would be a little more responsible 'bout what and how they report stuff. IMHO the "journalists" are supposed to report the news, not manufacture it through sloppy reportin', eh? And now that we've got ideological bloggers blowin' everything outa proportion it gets even worse!
If y'all want we can have a real discussion on it here. Please, if that's the case, spell his name right, eh?
Full Version: Will Lincoln Chafee leave the GOP?
QUOTE(flydangler @ Nov 12 2006, 11:41 AM)
Noticed some folks discussin' this in a Café thread here, but 'twas obvious they were so clueless on the subject they couldn't even spell his name right, eh? That was notwithstandin' they had news articles right in front of them showin' how it's spelled.
Methinks that and other poorly thought out statements there were no surprise, after all 'twas a Café thread. You'da thunk, if they wanted to have a real discussion 'bout it they'da put it in a real forum where real people participate, eh?
This same subject has popped up all over the place, especially in progressive blogs. At this point 'twould seem there's a whole lot of wishful thinkin' based on little concrete evidence. Methinks that seems to be the rule on political blogs of all types.
I know the quote that the press and lotsa liberals jumped at, eh? Methinks it comes from a story 'bout his opposition to the Senate confirmin' Bolton for the UN post.
The pertinent points are here:
At that point, he said he will oppose the president's stalled nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"On Tuesday, the American people sent a clear message of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy approach of the Bush Administration. To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for, Chafee said in a statement yesterday.
"I have long believed that the go-it-alone philosophy that has driven this administration's approach to international relations has damaged our leadership position in the world. Mr. Bolton does not demonstrate the kind of collaborative approach that I believe will be called for if we are to restore the United States' position as the strongest country in a peaceful world.
Will he remain a Republican? "I am going to look at where I am and my plans for the future." Question: So, "you are saying you are looking where you belong and it may not be the Republican Party?" His initial answer: "That's fair."
Then comes the part most of the media and most who only wanna hear what they wanna believe kinda sorta forgot to include:
But he also described himself as a "loyal Republican" who, like his father -- the late Gov. and U.S. Sen. John H. Chafee -- spent years trying to build "a two-party system" in Rhode Island, so "I don't want to communicate that I am all of a sudden flying the coop."
You can read the whole thing at a better written story here, eh?
In a local Providence radio interview Thursday mornin' he indicated there was also more what he said was left out. As he's always done in the past, he stated that even though there are times belongin' to the GOP infuriates him, he is and always will be a Republican. His discouragement with the party he says is more from what folks tryin' to take it farther to the right and away from its roots do and say. That sometimes gives him some hesitancy to say he'll always be a Republican, which the press always leaps on, but then he thinks 'bout the party itself and what iit stands for (things like smaller, but more responsive government, the responsibility of the individual to better themselves, equal protection of the rights of individuals, protection of a system where anyone who applies themselves and's willin' to work hard can get ahead, and some other stuff I can't recall.
We see this a couple times a year, so methinks most Rhode Islanders tend not to get all excited 'bout it. Wish the rest of you'd just not try to read more into it than there really is, and that the press would be a little more responsible 'bout what and how they report stuff. IMHO the "journalists" are supposed to report the news, not manufacture it through sloppy reportin', eh? And now that we've got ideological bloggers blowin' everything outa proportion it gets even worse!
If y'all want we can have a real discussion on it here. Please, if that's the case, spell his name right, eh?
Methinks that and other poorly thought out statements there were no surprise, after all 'twas a Café thread. You'da thunk, if they wanted to have a real discussion 'bout it they'da put it in a real forum where real people participate, eh?
This same subject has popped up all over the place, especially in progressive blogs. At this point 'twould seem there's a whole lot of wishful thinkin' based on little concrete evidence. Methinks that seems to be the rule on political blogs of all types.
I know the quote that the press and lotsa liberals jumped at, eh? Methinks it comes from a story 'bout his opposition to the Senate confirmin' Bolton for the UN post.
The pertinent points are here:
At that point, he said he will oppose the president's stalled nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"On Tuesday, the American people sent a clear message of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy approach of the Bush Administration. To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for, Chafee said in a statement yesterday.
"I have long believed that the go-it-alone philosophy that has driven this administration's approach to international relations has damaged our leadership position in the world. Mr. Bolton does not demonstrate the kind of collaborative approach that I believe will be called for if we are to restore the United States' position as the strongest country in a peaceful world.
Will he remain a Republican? "I am going to look at where I am and my plans for the future." Question: So, "you are saying you are looking where you belong and it may not be the Republican Party?" His initial answer: "That's fair."
Then comes the part most of the media and most who only wanna hear what they wanna believe kinda sorta forgot to include:
But he also described himself as a "loyal Republican" who, like his father -- the late Gov. and U.S. Sen. John H. Chafee -- spent years trying to build "a two-party system" in Rhode Island, so "I don't want to communicate that I am all of a sudden flying the coop."
You can read the whole thing at a better written story here, eh?
In a local Providence radio interview Thursday mornin' he indicated there was also more what he said was left out. As he's always done in the past, he stated that even though there are times belongin' to the GOP infuriates him, he is and always will be a Republican. His discouragement with the party he says is more from what folks tryin' to take it farther to the right and away from its roots do and say. That sometimes gives him some hesitancy to say he'll always be a Republican, which the press always leaps on, but then he thinks 'bout the party itself and what iit stands for (things like smaller, but more responsive government, the responsibility of the individual to better themselves, equal protection of the rights of individuals, protection of a system where anyone who applies themselves and's willin' to work hard can get ahead, and some other stuff I can't recall.
We see this a couple times a year, so methinks most Rhode Islanders tend not to get all excited 'bout it. Wish the rest of you'd just not try to read more into it than there really is, and that the press would be a little more responsible 'bout what and how they report stuff. IMHO the "journalists" are supposed to report the news, not manufacture it through sloppy reportin', eh? And now that we've got ideological bloggers blowin' everything outa proportion it gets even worse!
If y'all want we can have a real discussion on it here. Please, if that's the case, spell his name right, eh?
It really is a shame that Chafee will not be there in some capacity but I understand why RI voters sent him packing. Lincoln Chafee's Republican party no longer exists at the national level, and he must follow the leadership. Contrast that with neighboring Connecticut's "Democrat" Senators views from an October 7 article...
http://www.nydailynews.com/10-17-2006/news...6p-389064c.html
QUOTE
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman yesterday endorsed controversial Bush appointee John Bolton for a permanent slot at the United Nations - putting him at odds once again with Democrats, including his Senate colleague Chris Dodd.
You may be right Flydangler. Personally I don't care what Chafee does. I appreciate his stance on Bolton. It's certainly preferable to Lieberman's stance. But I take issue with Chafee's, or your characterisation of what the Republican Party stands for. "More responsive government?" When did the Republican Party stand for that? Smaller almost non existant government yes. They have stood for that for a long time until they came into power. Then they showed what they stood for. Bloated Budgets, Corruption, Greed, and War.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Nov 12 2006, 11:41 AM)
Noticed some folks discussin' this in a Café thread here, but 'twas obvious they were so clueless on the subject they couldn't even spell his name right, eh? That was notwithstandin' they had news articles right in front of them showin' how it's spelled.
Don't be such a butt, flydangler. Nobody spells right all the time.
QUOTE(dggfwtx @ Nov 12 2006, 12:43 PM)
Don't be such a butt, flydangler. Nobody spells right all the time.
QUOTE(real_democrat @ Nov 12 2006, 12:22 PM)
It really is a shame that Chafee will not be there in some capacity but I understand why RI voters sent him packing
Think so? Methinks there looks to be far more leadin' to his defeat than is apparent right now. The whole story ain't even begun to come out yet, and methinks I'm somewhat hesitant to believe the gutless local RI journalists'll ever do what's right, but folks here know what really helped defeat him and you might read 'bout calls for a federal investigation in the future.QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 12 2006, 12:36 PM)
But I take issue with Chafee's, or your characterisation of what the Republican Party stands for.
Might I respectfully ask you for an honest answer? Where've you seen my characterisation of what the Republican Party stands for, eh? Methinks all I did was relate what Chafee said in an interview I heard a few days ago as best as I could recall.Do parties stand for those things them in high places within them practice? Methinks if that were the case then, due to Senator Byrd's past, you'd have to consider the Democrats to be the party of the Klan, eh? I don't believe that for a second, but I also don't let ideological blinders cause me to disregard them I might not agree or refer to them usin' such a broad brush.
QUOTE(dggfwtx @ Nov 12 2006, 01:43 PM)
Don't be such a butt, flydangler. Nobody spells right all the time.
No, but once in a while'd be nice, eh? Especially if one starts a thread, and has it in front of them in the article they're postin', unless of course they really don't care so much 'bout it.IMHO your first sentence was entirely uncalled for. This ain't the Café, and hopefully folks postin' here'd remember the forum's prime directive.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.