On The Chafee Switch: It's Just A Rumor, And A Poorly Sourced One At That

I put that item up just to prepare people for possible bad news -- that is, if Chafee wins and we need his vote to retain the Senate (i.e., we've lost five other Senate seats), it's not in the bag he'll stay on the team.

But I want to point out how awful the sourcing is for this rumor. I'm not sure I would have put it on my own blog had someone tipped me to this -- and I'd have bias to post it just because it was my tip.

I got it from NR's "The Sixers" blog. But they got it from the very liberal TNR -- and not actually even from TNR, but from TNR's blog.

Go read the Plank if you want the tenor of their reportage.

Furthermore, the blogger didn't even hear this himself. He says it was his friend who was told this.

The friend is obviously a strong Democratic partisan, based on the account of the supposed bombshell revelation.

And let's be serious: would he tell such a thing to a single person? Why? So he could cause all of his Republican support to desert him and gain no Democratic votes at all? This is the sort of thing one tends to say to all (vote for me, I'll caucus with Democrats) or not at all.

So, big, big grain of salt.

I shouldn't have even posted it. I have higher standards than TNR.

And... In all likelihood, Chafee's not going to win anyway. Apparently Whitehouse is a fairly strong candidate, and he's actually a declared Democrat in the most Democratic state in the union.

Chafee's strength is mainly that his dad was a smart and likable guy, and that the people of Rhode Island "know Chafee."

I don't think that's enough to overcome a partisan desire to have a Senator reflecting your ideology.

Especially now. Also mentioned on FoxNews last night-- I think it was either Barone or Caddell who noted that never before have so many people been voting a party rather than a candidate. Or, more likely, never before have so many people been willing to admit they're voting for a party, not a particular candidate.

Which makes sense to me, really. This "vote the man, not the party" stuff is silly. If there's a candidate who opposes almost every policy I support, and he's likable, smart, articulate, passionate, and has a squeaky-clean and moving personal backstory, shit, that's even more of a reason to vote against him, isn't it?

Do I really want such an effective advocate in office using his considerable political talents to defeat every policy I support?

posted by Ace at 03:29 PM

| Access Comments