Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lincoln Chaffee (? Rhode Island)...the newest DINO. (Original Post) Atman May 2013 OP
I welcome any and all to make the 80-20 a reality. I am extending my hand to all... graham4anything May 2013 #1
Rhode Island Democrats need to say "no" to Chaffee. Scuba May 2013 #2
Did you like his vote against the IWR? How about all his votes for choice? cali May 2013 #3
Yes, I remember him as pretty darn liberal and always wondered why he didn't switch jwirr May 2013 #9
Privatization of Social Security zipplewrath May 2013 #12
name a so-called moderate republican in elected office cali May 2013 #19
They've all joined the democratic party zipplewrath May 2013 #24
How dare you introduce facts... SidDithers May 2013 #16
He's always been more liberal than a lot of Democrats. nt geek tragedy May 2013 #4
The head count is important. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2013 #5
Numbers matter in 2014. Ideologies can be dealt with better as a majority SoCalDem May 2013 #6
I thought he was running for re-election as Governor hfojvt May 2013 #14
oopsie.. I thought he was running for a senate seat.. SoCalDem May 2013 #17
He's running for reelection as governor of RI...2nd term. nt MADem May 2013 #32
It's New England. Jennicut May 2013 #7
+1 Blue_Tires May 2013 #8
Not much of a ringing endorsement zipplewrath May 2013 #13
He is quite liberal as gov in RI. Jennicut May 2013 #20
Yet perfectly comfortable int he GOP for years zipplewrath May 2013 #26
You should really research the guy before you make smug remarks like that. MADem May 2013 #33
Post WWII zipplewrath May 2013 #38
It doesn't matter when the GOP started getting weird. The liberal branch in the northeast didn't MADem May 2013 #43
'90s zipplewrath May 2013 #47
Who? I'll take some names, please. MADem May 2013 #52
Southern Democrats zipplewrath May 2013 #58
People who left the party in the 90s were not Dixiecrats. They were corporatists MADem May 2013 #63
You're making my case zipplewrath May 2013 #64
No I am not. Parties only move in order to gain in numbers. MADem May 2013 #69
You have no idea what liberal is zipplewrath May 2013 #73
Look who's talking! MADem May 2013 #74
You mean he wasn't in the GOP for 8 years zipplewrath May 2013 #75
He was placed in that seat as a GOP replacement for a dead Republican. MADem May 2013 #81
Alot of reprublicans did zipplewrath May 2013 #86
Ed Brooke also called the modern GOP out on its bedsheet racism KamaAina May 2013 #40
social liberal-fiscal conservative hfojvt May 2013 #22
Used to call them zipplewrath May 2013 #31
Jacob Javits was hardly a "Rockefeller." He was a liberal, though. MADem May 2013 #44
Well, that's the larger point zipplewrath May 2013 #46
Yes, they were small d democratic 'liberals.' What more do you want? MADem May 2013 #49
Not all of them were zipplewrath May 2013 #54
What you are claiming is just not true. MADem May 2013 #61
The party for liberals zipplewrath May 2013 #62
You are not entitled to your own facts. MADem May 2013 #67
You seem to miss the point entirely zipplewrath May 2013 #68
It IS a purity test. MADem May 2013 #70
You're making things up zipplewrath May 2013 #77
I am not the one who married Chafee to Newt and put him in Congress in the eighties, MADem May 2013 #80
Fiscal Conservatism is not entirely a bad thing. Ikonoklast May 2013 #41
Howard Dean has some of that fiscal conservatism working...and he's a liberal. MADem May 2013 #55
Howard is suprisingly moderate on many issues. Ikonoklast May 2013 #57
Precious few at all zipplewrath May 2013 #59
Gore is a moderate too, but his big 'liberal' cause was the environment. MADem May 2013 #71
Many people don't get that New England once had very moderate Repubs that would be considered Dems Jennicut May 2013 #15
I'd still rather elect a Dem hfojvt May 2013 #21
I would say Chaffee is pretty much to the left on taxes Jennicut May 2013 #23
but other than the restaurant tax hfojvt May 2013 #28
Most of the things that are objectionable about him are irrelevant in the Governor's mansion. stevenleser May 2013 #10
Chafee's a good guy. He's more liberal than a lot of Democrats. Arkana May 2013 #11
He was a co-chair of Obama's re-election campaign...so POTUS liked him OK. MADem May 2013 #34
I've always like Chaffee Marrah_G May 2013 #18
If you can't spell his name correctly, I assume you don't know anything about him CreekDog May 2013 #25
All this does is pull Democrats more to the right. AndyA May 2013 #27
Do you actually know anything about Chafee or are you just knee-jerking? Arkana May 2013 #35
Blue blood raised in a gilded world of privilege AndyA May 2013 #39
You aren't thrilled because you don't know anything about the guy. nt MADem May 2013 #29
He supported gay marriage as a republican in 2004. I always liked him. hrmjustin May 2013 #30
I don't know much about the guy. HappyMe May 2013 #36
This or the Ford emblem thread.... whistler162 May 2013 #37
He was a liberal Republican, and once upon a time there were a lot more of them. struggle4progress May 2013 #42
Particularly since he endorsed Obama's 2008 run and was co-chair of his reelection campaign!! MADem May 2013 #45
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #48
Welcome to DU... SidDithers May 2013 #51
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #53
Lincoln Chaffee voted against the Iraq invasion when many Democrats voted for it. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #50
Well done. He knows the coat tails he needs to cling to. Fearless May 2013 #56
And you know this how? They voted for Whitehouse who is probably one of the most Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #65
Because when choosing between a DINO and a Democrat Fearless May 2013 #66
consequence of the republican move to the right booley May 2013 #60
Exactly zipplewrath May 2013 #79
He wants to privatize Social Security. FUCK HIM. He is NO Democrat no forestpath May 2013 #72
Good point, did not realize that still_one May 2013 #78
Something he will not be involved in either way in the Governors mansion of a state. nt stevenleser May 2013 #82
Oh, that makes it all better. forestpath May 2013 #83
It does, actually. nt stevenleser May 2013 #85
Actual he is better than some blue dog democrats still_one May 2013 #76
The few remaining New England R's are as liberal as the median D Recursion May 2013 #84
I welcome him with open arms. WI_DEM May 2013 #87
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
2. Rhode Island Democrats need to say "no" to Chaffee.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:41 AM
May 2013

The number of potential new Democratic voters on the left far exceeds the number on the right.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
3. Did you like his vote against the IWR? How about all his votes for choice?
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:44 AM
May 2013

His long support of LGBT rights including marriage equality? His opposing ending the estate tax? His opposition to charter schools? His support for raising taxes on th wealthy?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
12. Privatization of Social Security
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:31 AM
May 2013

You left that one off.

He's a moderate republican. The GOP just doesn't allow those anymore, so he's joining the democrats to give him cover on his left. Being an independent left him exposed on both sides.

It just shows how far right the Democrats have moved that he can slip into the party easily.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. name a so-called moderate republican in elected office
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:48 AM
May 2013

with a record like Chafee's

Hint: there's nary a one

Not even close.


zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
24. They've all joined the democratic party
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:03 PM
May 2013

That's sort of the point. As the GOP has flown right, the Democrats have followed right along, bringing in more and more of the "Rockefeller Republicans" into the party. It's gotten so bad that a democratic president admits that he would be considered a moderate republican not long ago. We have a party, and an administration that is somewhere to the right of Eisenhower.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,267 posts)
5. The head count is important.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:45 AM
May 2013

More Ds = more power. You might not consider some of the Ds to be sufficiently liberal, but how many count themselves as Ds is crucial. For that reason I welcome him.

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
6. Numbers matter in 2014. Ideologies can be dealt with better as a majority
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:46 AM
May 2013

Whichever dem can win the senate seat, is the best one for the job.. A republican senator for 6 years is not a good thing...

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
14. I thought he was running for re-election as Governor
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:39 AM
May 2013

plus, a real Dem can win in Rhode Island, someone to the left of Chafee.

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
17. oopsie.. I thought he was running for a senate seat..
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:43 AM
May 2013

If he's running as governor, the "Rhodies" can decide for themselves how they want their government to run. I don't see it mattering all that much since the Democratic party leadership has enough crucial senate seats to guard/finance..they probably are happy to have him and whomever wins it..

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
7. It's New England.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:47 AM
May 2013

Chaffee is more liberal then many Dems. He is about as liberal as Gov. Malloy in my state of Connecticut. RI is a neighboring state and pretty similar. There did used to be liberal Repubs in New England back in the day...they all became Dems or quit politics.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
8. +1
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:58 AM
May 2013

Chafee (who I've met professionally a few times and can attest he's a good guy) is from the old extinct line of "social liberal+fiscal conservative" New England republicans...The GOP purged them all for good during the Bush years (who Chafee did not like), so he was already persona non grata..

Even as a repub, he was politically to the left of quite a few big-name Senate Dems (especially on environmental issues)...Of course I always got flamed mercilessly when I tried pointing that out...

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
13. Not much of a ringing endorsement
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:33 AM
May 2013

So he is more liberal than the most conservative democrats. Not exactly something to get excited about, especially if this prevents a more liberal democrat from holding the office.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
20. He is quite liberal as gov in RI.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:52 AM
May 2013

Like I said, I see few differences between him and my liberal gov in CT. He is against the death penalty, very pro choice, signed gay marriage into law, is against charter schools, is wary of the war on drugs, proposed taxes to balance the budget in RI. Both Gov Dan Malloy and Chaffee have paid a price on the taxes issue in approval ratings.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
26. Yet perfectly comfortable int he GOP for years
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:06 PM
May 2013

There is no doubt the GOP has moved WAY right, and left guys like him behind. It's just that the democrats have followed along, such that now, moderate republicans are considered "liberal" democrats.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
33. You should really research the guy before you make smug remarks like that.
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:26 PM
May 2013

Once upon a time, Republicans were the guys who were against slavery, who were the "liberals" in the political equation. Chafee has family roots in the GOP that go way, way back. He comes from a family of liberal "New England Republican" public servants. His branch of the GOP were the ones who voted for voting rights when the southern Democrats were going the other way.

His father was John Chafee, who was a US Senator, cabinet member, and governor of RI. His great-grandfather was a RI governor, too. His grand uncle was a governor, and a Senator as well--in sum, he is steeped in that "rock rib" GOP tradition that has absolutely NOTHING in common with the nutjobs who are running the GOP today.

For years, "New England Republicans" were different from other Republicans--it's why the GOP hosted Massachusetts' first black Senator back in the disco days. Ed Brooke was a "liberal" Republican, too.

With family tradition in the GOP going back to the Civil War, it was a tremendously difficult decision for the guy to move from the GOP to (I) back in 2007. This move simply completes his transition.

I understand family tradition, and I always knew that Linc Chafee was a liberal. How could someone who spent seven years shoeing horses be anything else?

Also, if this guy is such a "DINO" why did Barack Obama choose him as a co-chair of his re-election campaign?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
38. Post WWII
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:51 PM
May 2013

The modern republican party really only dates to about 1950 or so. The conservatives took over control in the 1960's when they got Goldwater nominated. Of course there was a huge shift that took place in the mid '90s when the GOP took over the House and we saw the souther conservative democrats join the republican party. So many democrats over that period moved to the GOP, but it was "hard" for Chafee to move to the democrats decades after Goldwater? Do you even understand how "hard" it was for southern democrats to become republicans?

And Obama basically is a "Dino" in the sense that he self describes as a moderate and expresses that not long ago his positions would be consider similar to a moderate republican.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
43. It doesn't matter when the GOP started getting weird. The liberal branch in the northeast didn't
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:37 PM
May 2013

play along with that bullshit...which is why they fielded and funded a black guy married to an Italian woman for the Senate in MA in the sixties and seventies. Chafee came from a long line of rock ribbed, liberal Republicans. It wasn't just "daddy"--his family's participation in the party went back to the Civil War. It's not the sort of thing one abandons lightly--the impulse is to try to fix the problem, not walk away from it. He tried. He really tried, but there weren't enough like him to provide a counterweight to the tea-craziness, and so he finally, after a process that started six years ago with a move to (I), shifted over.

Susan Collins and her former counterpart, Olympia Snowe (who recently retired), come from the same tradition, though without the long historical pedigrees. John Volpe, Frank Sargent, and William Weld were others. So's Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. Howard Dean was raised in that tradition; it's just not the same thing as the GOP outside the northeast.

This article sums up the NE vibe, that many from outside the region just do not understand at all (and this is very apparent reading some of the uninformed comments I've read about Chafee here over the past two days) : http://www.sunjournal.com/news/columns-analysis/2012/10/21/brand-r-trouble-new-england/1264365

It was far less "hard" for southern Democrats--they had one single, overriding issue that used to "grind their gears" and it had to do with denial of rights for a substantial portion of the population. Segregation was their banner, and they were gonna wave it, and there was no negotiation or consideration of other issues. It was a bright line for them--no quarter. Once "Dixiecrat" Strom hopped over the fence, it was "game on" and even young Dems like Trent Lott eagerly followed along. There was no waffling, no going back. You were either for segregation or you were against it.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
47. '90s
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:03 PM
May 2013

It took until the '90s for the last of the dixiecrats to leave the party. It was plenty hard.

The point is that Chafee is no liberal, which is why he could last so long in the GOP. The fact that he will find it so comfortable in the democratic party is an indication of just how far right the democratic party has shifted.

I get that New England Republicans are more liberal than Florida Republicans. That doesn't make them liberals.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
52. Who? I'll take some names, please.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:36 PM
May 2013

We had defectors who hated Bill Clinton, and who liked Reagan's tax cuts, but they weren't "Dixiecrats."

The "Dixiecrat" election, where Strom took four states or so, happened in 1948. That started the disaffection. Civil rights and the segregation issue really blew up in the sixties, formalized by Nixon's southern strategy--which was all about disenfranchisement, since the segregation horse had long left the barn.

You aren't seriously suggesting that it took people between twenty and forty years to realize they needed to jump the fence over segregation and enfranchisement issues?

I think you aren't speaking from a place of facts--the "Chafee is no liberal, which is why he could last so long in the GOP" comment kind of lets me know I'm wasting my time here. You are drawing lines that don't match the political reality. POTUS also took issue with your assessment when he accepted Chafee's endorsement in 08 and made him a campaign co-chair for his reelection campaign.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
58. Southern Democrats
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:58 PM
May 2013

would you prefer that expression?

There were southern democrats who continued to stay in the party despite not supporting most of the democratic platform. They stayed in the party because the "solid south" still tended to elect democrats. By '94 they saw a chance to switch and they did, not all survived.

And continually suggesting that Obama's endorsement is any sort of indication of Chafee's liberal creditials is absurd, considering that Obama doesn't consider himself a liberal, suggests that not long ago his positions would be considered those of a moderate republican, and has staked out positions that put him some where to the RIGHT of Eisenhower.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
63. People who left the party in the 90s were not Dixiecrats. They were corporatists
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:48 PM
May 2013

who wanted fewer taxes and reductions in government spending. And the solid south elected racists who hated taxes. There's a substantial difference in the term "southern Democrat." It's wrong to convolute it with the Dixiecrats--it's an abrogation of the history of that region.

Who are these liberal Dems you keep going on about? Bill Clinton? Everyone yells at him for being a Third Wayer. Jimmy Carter? That poor guy couldn't get re-elected. How about in Congress? Ted Kennedy? He's dead, and he compromised with Bush more than once. Elizabeth Warren? She's a fiscal moderate, at best. Dennis Kucinich? He's out on his ass, getting a fat paycheck from Fox Snooze; so much for his principles!

These "liberals" everyone is touting aren't always as liberal as people seem to think--they say one "liberal" thing, or are liberal on a cherry-picked issue, and they get slotted into a category they haven't earned.

And while the Dems aren't moving any more leftward, the GOP continues to march to the right. There's no need to go out on limbs or draw greater contrast on the part of the Dems--the GOP, with their rightward lurch, are doing all of the "compare and contrast" work that is needed.

Chafee (pro-equality, pro-union, anti-war...but none of that is "liberal" enough, apparently) hasn't been with the GOP since 2007, and the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't belong with them.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
64. You're making my case
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:59 PM
May 2013

There aren't that many liberals in national government anymore. You're right, the democratic party ISN'T moving leftward. It's moving to the right. It's gotten so bad that Chafee can be considered a liberal, despite voting for the increasingly conservative leadership of the GOP. Heck, one CAN'T draw comparisons because anyone who isn't stupid can now be considered a democrat.

And let's be honest. He left the GOP when he lost an election. Heck, he basically lost the GOP primary, except that it was an open primary and he got alot of non-GOP votes. If he had won, he'd probably STILL be a republican. And I strongly suspect he is going to run as a democrat to give himself cover on his left to head off any attempt by a more liberal democrat to defeat him.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
69. No I am not. Parties only move in order to gain in numbers.
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:41 PM
May 2013

A move to the left would alienate the center. And there's no need for it.

I guess a guy who is pro-union, pro-equality and anti-war is not a liberal in your book. In mine, he is. Your notion of "liberal," then, must be way off on the fringe. That, to me, is the trifecta, and I've been at this for many decades now.

Chafee has been with us for two presidential elections, now, and I think he's proven himself to be a good Dem. I think the tent is more than big enough to welcome him, and anyone looking to boot people out because they aren't "pure" enough are perhaps the ones who need to be shown the tent flap, because they plainly aren't interested in growing the party and winning elections--which is the only way anything gets done. If you want useless philosophy and ineffectual tilting at windmills, join the Greens.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
73. You have no idea what liberal is
Thu May 30, 2013, 05:24 PM
May 2013

That's how far right the party has gone. It's not about "booting him out". It's about that the party has drifted so far to the right that he fits underneath a banner labeled "liberal". It has become a party in which advocating for Single Payer is "tilting at wind mills". Where "liberal" democrats can advocate for more war, more detentions without trials, and "austerity" and anyone opposing that is "tilting at windmills and should join the Greens".

You prove my point with your condemnations.

What you can't see is it isn't about him, it is about us and how far we have drifted.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
74. Look who's talking!
Thu May 30, 2013, 05:28 PM
May 2013

You have no idea of Linc Chafee's record, and you're enthusiastically trying to shove the guy under the bus.

You don't have a right to your own facts--and you've invented plenty in this thread.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
75. You mean he wasn't in the GOP for 8 years
Thu May 30, 2013, 08:18 PM
May 2013

You mean he wasn't in the GOP from 99 to 07, his entire Senate career? You mean he did avoid joining the democratic party for his entire political career until just now? (That's about 14 years don't ya know). You mean he didn't vote for the GOP leadership every two years his entire Senatorial life, and only left the GOP once he lost an election? If he was still in the Senate, he'd still be in the GOP.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
81. He was placed in that seat as a GOP replacement for a dead Republican.
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:25 PM
May 2013

Is that STILL whooshing over your head? Or do you come from a world where appointees are routinely selected from the OPPOSITE party? His people, the people of Rhode Island, knew what his label was, and they voted for him anyway because they--unlike you, it is becoming very plain--knew what they were getting.

You're really showing it all, now, with your "if" this, and "if" that....you still haven't explained why this guy supported Barack Obama's candidacy "if" he was such a diehard Republican. Why wouldn't he have been banging the drum for McCain-Palin? And why was he a co-chairman for Obama the 2nd time around if he was so gung-ho for the GOP?

Sorry--your schtick isn't selling.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
86. Alot of reprublicans did
Fri May 31, 2013, 02:23 PM
May 2013

There are alot of moderate republicans that endorsed Barack Obama. Should I now consider Colin Powell a liberal democrat? Heck, Obama IS a moderate republican, he practically said so himself.

The point remains that people like Chafee are proof how far right the party has drifted. The fact that he fits under the tent and can consider to be "liberal" at all shows how far right we have drifted.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
31. Used to call them
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:10 PM
May 2013

We used to call these guys "Rockefeller Republicans". Now apparently they're "liberal democrats".

MADem

(135,425 posts)
44. Jacob Javits was hardly a "Rockefeller." He was a liberal, though.
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:47 PM
May 2013

The whole "Rockefeller" term was used by sneering Republicans to describe the liberal wing of the GOP, it was an effort to denigrate them that came from within their OWN party.

Democrats called those guys "allies" on a number of issues--but that was back in the day when people could work across the aisle in an honorable way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_K._Javits

During his first two terms in the House, Javits often sided with the Harry Truman administration. For example, in 1947 he supported Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Bill, which he declared was antiunion. A strong opponent of discrimination, Javits also endorsed anti-poll tax legislation in 1947 and 1949, and in 1954 he unsuccessfully sought to have enacted a bill banning segregation in federally funded housing projects. Unhappy with the witch hunt atmosphere in Washington during the Cold War, he publicly opposed continuing appropriations for the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1948. Always a staunch supporter of Israel, Javits served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee during all four of his terms and supported congressional funding for the Marshall Plan and all components of the Truman Doctrine.

In 1954 Javits ran for New York State Attorney General against a well-known and well-funded opponent, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. Javits's vote-getting abilities carried the day, and he was the only Republican to win a statewide office that year. As attorney general, Javits continued to promote his liberal agenda, supporting such measures as antibias employment legislation and a health insurance program for state employees.

...Upon taking office, Javits resumed his role as the most outspoken Republican liberal in Congress. For the next twenty-four years the Senate was Javits's home. His wife had no interest in living in Washington, D.C., a town she considered a boring backwater, so for over two decades Javits commuted between New York and Washington nearly every week to visit his "other" family and conduct local political business. During his first term he supported the limited 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was bitterly opposed by many of his southern colleagues. In foreign affairs he backed the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East and also pressed for more foreign military and economic assistance.

Re-elected in 1962 and 1968, he supported Lyndon Johnson's civil rights measures and generally endorsed the Great Society programs. To promote his views on social legislation, he served on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee for twenty years, most of that time as the second-ranking minority member. Javits initially backed Johnson during the early years of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, supporting, for example, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. By the end of 1967, however, he was becoming disenchanted with the war's progress[3] and joined twenty-two other senators in calling for a peaceful solution to the conflict. By 1970 his rising opposition to the war led him to support the Cooper-Church Amendment, which barred funds for U.S. troops in Cambodia, and he also voted to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Increasingly concerned about the erosion of congressional authority in foreign affairs, Javits sponsored the 1973 War Powers Act, which limited to sixty days a president's ability to send American armed forces into combat without congressional approval. Despite his unhappiness with President Richard Nixon over the Vietnam War, Javits was slow to join the anti-Nixon forces during the Watergate scandal of 1973-1974. Until almost the very end of the affair, Javits's position reflected his legal training: Nixon was innocent until proven guilty, and the best way to determine guilt or innocence was by legal due process. Javits's position was not popular among his constituency, and his re-election in 1974 over Ramsey Clark was by fewer than 400,000 votes, a third of his 1968 margin of victory. During his last term Javits shifted his interests more and more to world affairs, especially the crises in the Middle East. Working with President Jimmy Carter, he journeyed to Israel and Egypt to facilitate discussions that led to the 1978 Camp David Accords.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
46. Well, that's the larger point
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:53 PM
May 2013

The former "Rockefeller republicans" who were "liberal" by GOP standards, that is a GOP that was being taken over by the conservatives, was hardly a democratic "liberal". But the current democratic party has shifted so far right, that they are now considered liberal WITHIN the democratic party.

We don't need these people joining the Democratic party. We need them to bring sanity and reason to the GOP so that the two parties can once again actually work together to govern this country. We need them in the GOP so that we can have real, sane debates on the issues. Debates by the way that liberals traditionally ended up winning.

This isn't something to celebrate. We don't want these republicans in the democratic party. We want a truly liberal party. Because the liberals tend to be the ones who get things right in the end.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
49. Yes, they were small d democratic 'liberals.' What more do you want?
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:15 PM
May 2013
Anti war, pro-union, anti-segregation...?

Javits--who is a shining example of the genre (you didn't even read what I provided, never mind go to the link) was entirely liberal, and that's my point.

You are falsely, wrongly, and with enthusiastic revisionism, equating Democrats with liberalism (and not all of them were, or are) and Republicans with conservatism (and not all of them were, or are).


It's just a wrong way to look at political affiliations in that "larger" scheme you tout. The GOP does not WANT to be a "balanced" party with a liberal wing. They WANT to be a lockstep group of angry, greedy, corporatists. They've consolidated their efforts and that's what has come of it. They aren't going back.


The reason we have to be locksteppers today is BECAUSE there is no conversation across the aisle, there hasn't been for years, and there likely won't be much unless and until the GOP deconstructs completely--not because there is any historic propensity for one group to be "all liberal" or "all conservative."

In fact, if you look at the way parties have shaken out in this 21st century, one might as well discard those old Democratic Party/Republican Party labels, because they have no utility anymore. If you have to divide people, it's hateful greedy warmongers vs. negotiating societally-benefitting peacemakers, pretty much.

But back in the day, you could find those types of people in BOTH parties. Linc Chafee was one of the last of the Mohicans, pretty much. There are a few others still with the GOP, tied to them by campaign contributions, age, exhaustion, and a lack of enthusiasm or vision, but they are falling away like a dried up scab. And Linc, since you're not clear, left the party in 2007, endorsing Obama a year later, and serving as his co-chair in his reelection campaign. So, ya know...I think I'll take Obama's judgment about how "good" a Dem Linc will be, rather than the opining of someone behind a keyboard on DU. I know what Linc has done in his career--the fact that you choose to disregard his record and whine that he belonged to the wrong club and should stick with it, even if it doesn't represent his views, just isn't meaningful to me. I think we DO need "these people" in the party--and you'll have to prove to me that you've done more and been more effective than Linc in advancing causes near and dear to our party platform has before I am inclined to feel differently.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
54. Not all of them were
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:48 PM
May 2013

It is always true that not all members of the part will be conformists. But it has been true for roughly 50+ years that the democratic party has been the liberal party, and the GOP the conservative party. And since the mid '90s it has been an EXTREMELY conservative party. The democrats on the other hand have become a moderate party.

Chafee stayed in that party well after it had begun to shift. He hung in all through the '90s and truthfully only left the party when he lost an election. Then he became independent. He was the "last of the Mohicans" long after the tribe was dead.

It's only because the democratic party has shifted so far to the right that someone like him can be considered "liberal" at all. By this standard, Eisenhower was a liberal.

As you suggest, the old labels really don't apply per se because you have the stupid party, and you have the reasonable people. The reasonable people used to be in both parties. I WANT reasonable people in both parties. And I want the democratic party to go BACK to being the liberal party, so we can have a reasonable debate with other reasonable people about how to govern this country. Right now the reasonable people have to spend all their time arguing with the stupid people.

And Chafee spent way to long voting with the stupid people for leadership.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
61. What you are claiming is just not true.
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:08 PM
May 2013

The Democratic Party hasn't always been the "liberal" party. We've been a mixed bag. A Democratic President (LBJ) expanded our role in Vietnam (not very liberal, that). A Democrat (Bill Clinton) signed DADT and DOMA. A Republican President started the EPA and signed the Earth Day Proclamation (Nixon's the one). Another Republican reduced the nuclear inventory with START1 (Reagan).

"Liberal" Howard Dean--surely he's not one of the "unclean" ones, is he?-- is a fiscal conservative.

When Chafee voted against the war, was he being "too conservative" to suit you?

And Eisenhower was ALWAYS a liberal--in fact, when he came back from WW2, he was avidly courted as a candidate by both parties--why? Because it wasn't at all obvious which 'tribe' suited him.

Back in the old days, the main difference between D's and R's had to do with the role of the federal government--the D's liked more federal programs, the R's thought most efforts should come out of the states. It had nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative"--it had more to do with how we governed ourselves.

I think you need to research Linc Chafee's record. You aren't speaking from a place of knowledge about his background at all.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
62. The party for liberals
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:20 PM
May 2013

Yes, it's never been a "pure" party. But it has been the party of liberals for better than 50 years. It threw out LBJ because of his war. It probably peaked around the time of Carter. Around the time of Clinton, the party started a definite, intentional march to the right. It has continued that march which is how people like Chafee can now feel so comfortable in the party. It is how someone like Obama can be considered a "left wing liberal".

Your definition of the "old days" hasn't been around since probably the '60s, maybe into the '70s. Reagan killed all that. That was the old "Goldwater conservatives". The crazies started taking over in the '80s. These were the guys that didn't want Bush I to have a second term. By the '90s it was firmly in the hands of the Newt's and his band of nuts. By the time of Bush II, the nuts were in complete control. THIS was the party that Chafee decided suited him best, not that of Eisenhower.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
67. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:33 PM
May 2013

This is pointless--you don't know your history.

No one "threw" LBJ out. His announcement was a shock but it was his to make. No one pushed him. The party was fractured into a number of factions and none of them liked the other, which provided a brilliant opportunity for the GOP to swoop in and present a unified front. He was sick, his heart was troubling him and he Sherman-statement-ed his way out of re-election. If he wanted to run it would have been brutal but he probably could have pulled it off if he could have mustered the stamina to leave DC and go on the campaign trail (which was doubtful, he looked very unwell). He died in 73, resting/relaxing on his ranch; another term, had he been able to run, would have killed him probably midstream and put HHH in the job.

Again, you plainly are unfamiliar with Chafee's record, otherwise you wouldn't continue on with this fiction about his views and motivations. If Chafee was such a pro-GOP turd who doesn't "deserve" to be a Dem because he stayed too long at the Republican fair, well, you're going to have to prop Elizabeth Warren right up beside him, because she was a Republican back when Reagan was having his way, too, and didn't switch parties until Clinton was in the WH and Newt was pitching his little shitfits. So, why is the GOP not the party that suited Elizabeth Warren best? Or is that...different somehow?

Your purity test makes no damn sense. We wouldn't have the Senate if we followed your hardline, negative 'rules.' I welcomed and still welcome anyone who wanted to join us or caucus with us down the years, from Jim Webb to Jumpin' Jim Jeffords to Bernie Sanders to Angus King .... and I'll take any Governor, too, like new Democrat Chafee to give us a little representation at the National Governor's Association.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
68. You seem to miss the point entirely
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:41 PM
May 2013

We can quible about the exact nature of LBJ's departure, but Bobby wasn't running because LBJ was so darn popular. Yes, it would have been brutal as you suggest, and yes, it is very likely he wouldn't have survived the term, or would have had to quit.

And exactly how many years did Warren spend voting for the GOP leadership in the Senate? And SHE did switch in the Newt days. What did Chafee do over that same time period again? Remember it was NEWT'S party that served Chafee best.

Talk about having your own facts.

It isn't a "purity test". It is the plain observation that the democratic party, as you acknowledged, has moved so far to the right, that even Chafee can now easily fit under the tent, and in fact be considered quite "liberal". We shouldn't be cheering these people joining us, we should be lamenting that they don't fit in the party where they should belong. This is after all a progressive/liberal site.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
70. It IS a purity test.
Thu May 30, 2013, 05:03 PM
May 2013

You still can't explain how "pro-equality, pro-union, and anti-war" is "far to the right" and are views that can just barely squeeze under our tent. People with those views get a nice comfy seat with a great view in the Democratic tent I'm familiar with.

You just aren't entitled to your own facts, here. You've managed to come up with plenty, though.

Elizabeth Warren wasn't in elective office, so your little question about how she voted is just flat-out silly.

And Chafee and Newt weren't even on the Hill at the same time (never mind in the same chamber). When Newt was raising hell with Clinton, Chafee was in local politics in RI, as a city councilman and a mayor of a small city. Chafee only went to the Senate in 1999--the same year Newt resigned in disgrace from the House (two different bodies, there, ya know). Chafee was appointed to the seat when his Dad--the sitting Senator, former Governor, and yet another rock rib liberal (pro-choice, conservationist, environmentalist, anti-big oil, pro-gays-in-military, anti-death penalty, anti-school prayer, etc.), died. He then ran for the seat and served in it for a single six year term.

So I don't know where you're getting all this bullshit that he voted with Newt. The two have absolutely NOTHING in common--not the chamber in which they served, or even their time on Capitol Hill.

We have long term Dems who aren't as solid on those three key, liberal-fundamental issues as Chafee is--funny how you aren't screaming for them to leave the purity tent. If you did, there'd be enough room in that tent to play hockey.

You just don't have your facts in order.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
77. You're making things up
Thu May 30, 2013, 08:22 PM
May 2013

I'm not calling for anyone to leave the party, or be kicked out. That's your schtick not mine. My point is the fact that this guy can so easily slip between the two parties and be considered a "liberal" shows just how far right the democratic party has moved. This guy was perfectly comfortable in the GOP for his entire Senate career, during some wing nuttiest years, when the GOP was spending like drunken monkeys and handing over huge loads of cash to the richest, and he never left the GOP and he voted to support the leadership.

And that's the definition of a liberal in the modern democratic party.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
80. I am not the one who married Chafee to Newt and put him in Congress in the eighties,
Thu May 30, 2013, 10:18 PM
May 2013

you did.

Admit it--you don't even know who the guy is, never mind his record. That became increasingly clear the more you rambled on about what a horrible fellow you thought he was. "Entire Senate career?" Come off the hyperbolic silliness--he did ONE term immediately following the death of his father. Don't let that rather crucial fact get your knickers in a twist, though. And he did a great job as he "voted to support the leadership" by voting against the leadership's little war, now, didn't he?

Sorry, you're just becoming absurd, now. You're railing against his old label, the one he shook off six years ago.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
41. Fiscal Conservatism is not entirely a bad thing.
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:23 PM
May 2013

That it usually translates into cutting social programs and expanding whatever Republicans can make money off of that gave it a bad connotation.

I am a fiscal conservative when it comes to military spending for expensive junk that only makes defense contractors even more profits, all at the expense of not for taking care of the human needs of the troops.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
55. Howard Dean has some of that fiscal conservatism working...and he's a liberal.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:50 PM
May 2013

Pay your damn bills...it's a New England thing.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
57. Howard is suprisingly moderate on many issues.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:56 PM
May 2013

The people that get me are the ones that think Al Gore is some kind of massive Liberal.

I've never seen it.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
59. Precious few at all
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:00 PM
May 2013

It's hard to think of very many liberals on the national stage. Even in the governorships you won't find alot of them. It's why a guy like Chafee can be considered "liberal".

MADem

(135,425 posts)
71. Gore is a moderate too, but his big 'liberal' cause was the environment.
Thu May 30, 2013, 05:06 PM
May 2013

In that regard, he was a LOT like Lincoln Chafee's father, John, who was an ARDENT environmentalist, and was in favor of gays serving in the military, pro-choice, anti-big-oil...and very, very 'liberal.' Like his son.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
15. Many people don't get that New England once had very moderate Repubs that would be considered Dems
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:42 AM
May 2013

in other states. Even now, I would not say the majority of Repubs here in CT, RI or Mass are tea party nut balls. It doesn't go over to well to be too extreme around this area of the country.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
21. I'd still rather elect a Dem
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:53 AM
May 2013

who is NOT a "fiscal conservative".

It's those kinds of Democrats who give us things like the permanent Bush tax cuts and the sequestration.

Not to mentioned the chained CPI.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
23. I would say Chaffee is pretty much to the left on taxes
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:00 PM
May 2013

and paying for services. We have budget issues in CT and RI does too. There have cuts proposed. But many taxes and fees have been proposed as well, some voted into law in both states. It's not popular but both governors are trying to do what the Repub governors before them did not dare take on.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
28. but other than the restaurant tax
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:09 PM
May 2013

his proposals seem to be pretty regressive. A $10 increase in the driver's license fee hits a poor person much harder than a rich person. Some people work over an hour to make $10. Others make $10 every five minutes.

How much money could be raised by a temporary tax of 0.5% on incomes over $150,000? Why isn't THAT on the table?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
10. Most of the things that are objectionable about him are irrelevant in the Governor's mansion.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:00 AM
May 2013

The free trade stuff and the like are Federal Government issues that a Governor does not deal with at all.

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
11. Chafee's a good guy. He's more liberal than a lot of Democrats.
Thu May 30, 2013, 11:13 AM
May 2013

Hell, he was the only Republican to break ranks on the Iraq war resolution.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
34. He was a co-chair of Obama's re-election campaign...so POTUS liked him OK.
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:28 PM
May 2013

Of course, that's never enough for the professional keyboard scolds...

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
25. If you can't spell his name correctly, I assume you don't know anything about him
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:04 PM
May 2013

heck you can't even spell his name correctly after editing your post!

AndyA

(16,993 posts)
27. All this does is pull Democrats more to the right.
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:09 PM
May 2013

We need some progressives who pull more to the left. Watering down the party isn't going to help.

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
35. Do you actually know anything about Chafee or are you just knee-jerking?
Thu May 30, 2013, 12:42 PM
May 2013

As has been said SEVERAL times in this thread, Lincoln Chafee is more of a Democrat than probably 50% of Democrats. He's pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, anti-Iraq War (he was the only Republican to break ranks on the Iraq war resolution in the Senate), and anti-estate tax repeal.

If anything, the Democrats need MORE like Chafee to join their ranks.

AndyA

(16,993 posts)
39. Blue blood raised in a gilded world of privilege
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:06 PM
May 2013

Wants to tax items that will hurt working families the most: food, medicine, clothing.

Supported the Republican Party for a long time, lost to Whitehouse, became an Independent, has low job approval ratings and is facing a difficult election next year, so he's now a Democrat, which he hopes will improve his chances.

He didn't really fit in with the GOP. We'll see how he does as a Democrat.

struggle4progress

(118,032 posts)
42. He was a liberal Republican, and once upon a time there were a lot more of them.
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:33 PM
May 2013

He finally lost his Senate seat because Republicans in the GWB years nationally moved so far into Wackoville that voters in his state couldn't stand pulling the lever for a Republican

I'm not gonna get all bent outta shape that he's joined our team

MADem

(135,425 posts)
45. Particularly since he endorsed Obama's 2008 run and was co-chair of his reelection campaign!!
Thu May 30, 2013, 01:51 PM
May 2013

He's been with us, in one way or another, for some time, now. This is simply a formality.

Response to Atman (Original post)

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
50. Lincoln Chaffee voted against the Iraq invasion when many Democrats voted for it.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:16 PM
May 2013

He is not ashamed to be for marriage equality and reproductive choice.

He is likely MORE liberal than many Democrats.

I welcome the news!

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
56. Well done. He knows the coat tails he needs to cling to.
Thu May 30, 2013, 02:51 PM
May 2013

Not to worry though. Rhode Island voters will shake him off like a bad case of fleas.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
65. And you know this how? They voted for Whitehouse who is probably one of the most
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:07 PM
May 2013

liberal senators we have.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
66. Because when choosing between a DINO and a Democrat
Thu May 30, 2013, 04:13 PM
May 2013

Voters will pick the real thing. I'll predict he will be elected once as a Democrat because he will ride the momentum of of the announcement. And when he, as a DINO kinda supports democratic policies and kinda doesn't, he will be seen as a weak democrat and primaried or worse lose to an actual Republican while the Democratic base is demotivated to go to the polls because of the lesser-of-two-evils choice they'd have to make in a general election.

booley

(3,855 posts)
60. consequence of the republican move to the right
Thu May 30, 2013, 03:02 PM
May 2013

As the GOP becomes ever more extreme, the rest of their party gets squeezed out. We can count moderate republicans and still have fingers. Meanwhile Liberal republicans are like thylacines. History records they once existed but few can recall ever having seen one.

Well, where do you think those guys go when they get pushed out of their party?

While the GOP has become more ideologically narrow, the Democrats have become even more broad. The Demcrats have conservatives and moderates and a stable group of liberals.

That's both good and bad.

Sure the Democrats get more votes. But public political discourse covers the entire spectrum of right to far right with a little center left thrown in for flavor.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
79. Exactly
Thu May 30, 2013, 08:27 PM
May 2013

It's hard to have a "debate with yourself" when one party covers the entire range of political ideas. Everyone must be accommodated and so everything gets watered down. You don't get an "either or" it is constantly and "average of good and bad".

 

forestpath

(3,102 posts)
72. He wants to privatize Social Security. FUCK HIM. He is NO Democrat no
Thu May 30, 2013, 05:14 PM
May 2013

matter what he calls himself.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
84. The few remaining New England R's are as liberal as the median D
Fri May 31, 2013, 07:10 AM
May 2013

We should welcome party switches like this.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Lincoln Chaffee (? Rhode ...