Secretary of State Rice Says U.S. Must Not Relent in Fighting Terrorism in Iraq and Elsewhere...

Bleep them.

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 n...

If winning isn't about noble purpose it has no value!

Compromise is the selling of truth and that which is good for victory -what a hollow victory that is.

I assume that this pragmatism makes it okay to cheat on a test to get a good grade or sneak over someone's border and steal an ID to get better work or even to lie about your intentions when you enroll in a Florida flight school as loing as you win?

COmpromize and you have adopted the values of the enemy! You have moved from being Jekyll(good) to Hyde (bad) without taking the serum.

I'm sure that's right. And there's something to be said for preferring a Lieberman-type Democrat to a Chafee-type Republican. The problem, though, is that if the Democrat votes against you in the most crucial vote of the session--that of determining the leadership structure of the body--all the other votes may not matter.

Now, if the Republicans are going to be in the minority--or a solid majority--regardless of the outcome of that race, then the considerations might be reversed. But with every race potentially decisive, the GOP can't afford to give away a chance at winning RI.

Party leaders want power, and as long as Chaffee (or Lieberman on the other side) will vote with the party on organizing the chamber, that's what matters most to them.

But for party activists, it often is about ideology.

Among the activists, I suspect there are many Republicans whose ranking would be something like:

1. Republican who votes like Republican
2. Non-Republican who votes like non-Republican
3. Republican who votes like non-Republican

Among the leadership, clearly those last two are reversed.

And I suspect that there are many Democrats with a similar ranking who would have taken the Lamont leap regardless of whether they thought it would lead to the other party capturing the seat.

It’s about party identity and discipline. And I see nothing at all surprising or inherently bad about that, except that our system restricts us to only two such parties.

I still prefer choices to echoes. I just want more choices.

I doubt the GOP as a party is going to spend much in the Texas senate race. Not because they don't want the seat, but because the seat is not in danger. Likewise, I suspect the GOP as a party won't spend much in the California senate race. Not because they think Feinstein is a great senator, but simple reality of winning.

I suspect that most in the GOP would be happy to trade Chaffee for Laffey, but that just doesn't exist as a legitimate offer.

Ironically, the GOP decision is likely to help Laffey. If he has any chance it would be to run as an outsider and you can't get to be much more of an outsider than the party disowning you.