A Lesson In Pragmatism
James Joyner comments about the situation in Rhode Island with the national Republican party supporting a Senator who is arguably the least reliable Republican in Congress, Lincoln Chaffey. Joyner notes the extraordinary announcement by the national party that they would concede Rhode Island rather than back Chaffey's challenger, Stephen Laffey.
This is quite bizarre to those who think politics is mostly about ideological purity but perfectly reasonable to those who understand that pragmatism often reigns supreme.
Laffey would, without question, be preferable to Chafee in every way except one: He can’t win.
As noted here before, Chafee, annoying though he may be, is the most conservative Republican the party can possibly get in Rhode Island and still have a chance to win the seat. While Chafey votes like a Democrat most of the time, he at least can be counted on to vote for a Republican as Majority Leader and thus make it more likely that the party can retain its majority, including the chairmanships of the committees.
This is one of the things that the left does not seem to understand. They are playing enforcer and demanding ideological purity. They set Connecticut into play for no other reason and have made an enormous distraction in this election cycle as a result. The Republicans are better at pragmatism overall.
By Martin Morgan, Monday, 11 September , 2006 @ 1:17 pm
How are the real life Republicans who are voting for Laffey being pragmatic if the RNC will abandon the race if Laffey wins?
A vote is a Laffey is therefore vote for a Democratic senator, according to the very RNC logic you praise.
So this Laffey race is the exact equivalent of the Lamont campaign, except Dems have vowed to, and are, supporting the winner of their primary.
The Dems are better at loyalty overall.
By Martin Morgan, Monday, 11 September , 2006 @ 1:33 pm
I meant a vote for Laffey is a vote for a Democratic senator per the RNC.
By Gaius, Monday, 11 September , 2006 @ 1:56 pm
If Laffey is too conservative to be elected in RI, that is a correct statement. It is also insane for the RNC to spend money in that race for that reason, as well.
I’d say the claim to better loyalty is pretty slim give the enormously venomous rhetoric directed at Lieberman.