Talk:Lincoln Chafee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lincoln Chaffe seems to be a Republican out of family tradition. Certain his father was a moderate Republican at best (the only kind that could realistically be elected in Rhode Island), but Lincoln seems to be a genuine liberal. I can only see two reasons why he might see himself as a Republican – either he wants to stay in the party of his father, or he wants to keep alive the tradition of there being a true spectrum of views in both U.S. parties. This is flying in the face of how things are going; there are now very few conservative Democrats at the national level and even fewer liberal Republicans – in reality, he's about it.
Rlquall 13:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think there's a very pragmatic reason for Chafee to stay in the Republican party: he can best serve his constituents in Rhode Island, especially given perhaps a view that the Republicans are going to be in power in the Senate for a while.
What does the one sentence mean "he cast his ballot for George H. W. Bush over George W. Bush in the 2004 election"? How could he cast a ballot for a former president?
- He wrote-in Papa Bush, citing RI's liberal write-in laws, to protest the neo-con direction the party has taken in recent years. Youngamerican 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph about Chafee's political views seems to be written in a POV style ("he is fairly liberal," "these are liberal characteristics that many Republicans do not possess," etc.). The article should talk about how he is to the left of the national Republican party and about the conjecture that he might switch parties at some point, but it could be done in a NPOV. Anyone disagree? Otherwise I'll take a stab at rewriting it. - Cleared as filed. 03:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Have at it. Youngamerican 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Category:Leaders of cities in Rhode Island
Do we keep former leaders of cities in this category? I could see maybe doing it if they retired as the leader of a city, but it doesn't seem to make sense for Chafee, who is a United States Senator. I think this category should be removed. Any comments? —Cleared as filed. 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Often votes"
A recent edit changed this:
"...which means he often votes with the Democrats in the Senate."
"...which means he has voted more with the Democrats than with the Republicans in the Senate."
I don't think this is accurate to say. Obviously he's liberal Republican, but the second sentence says that he has voted with the Democrats in an absolute majority of cases, as opposed to the first, which merely implies that he votes with Democrats more often than is typical for a Republican senator. Honestly, the phrase "votes with the Democrats" is itself problematic. What does it mean? The vast majority of non-procedural votes in Congress don't break down on party lines -- virtually every vote has some dems and some reps voting both yea and nay. So what constitutes "voting with the Democrats"? Are we talking about Democrat-sponsored bills, or bills where the majority of the Senators voting on his side are Democrats, or...? There's got to be a better way to phrase this. --Jfruh 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed this statement, for the reasons you mention, and reworded the section. Saying Chafee is liberal, and has been accused of being a RINO, is quite adequate, I think (but I added the "on some issues he is mainstream Republican", for the oblivious). John Broughton 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias?
This article glorifies his "achievements" within the senate, and forgets about everything else. Please, before you vote in September/November, learn as much as you can about EVERY candidate in every party, and try to find that represents you the best. Don't listen to this self-glorifying b/s. He says that he "makes his own decisions" when all he does is switch parties on every issue (i.e. playing it safe). Don't believe his photoshopped pictures in his campaign videos either. Learn about every candidate before you vote (and don't use Wikipedia as a factual source for these kinds of things, bias always sneaks in). (Unsigned comment by 70.188.184.129)
- What passages in this article, if any, do you believe to be biased? Just slapping on a NPOV tag doesn't help improve the article. I've read through it, and I don't see any huge bias or nonfactual statements. modargo 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does not include (what I deem to be) negative things achieved during his campaign. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:SPbxfwA3EloJ:www.senatevote.com/Senate/Lincoln_Chafee.htm Although biased itself, this page states where Chafee stands on many very important issues. I feel that wikipedia should be a factual resource that lends no bias at all, including bills/ideas that Chafee supports that may not be the best for Rhode Island and/or the working class. This information should be included in the article. (Unsigned comment by 70.188.184.129)
- First off, you're probably looking for http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Lincoln_Chafee.htm (a much more current version of that site). Second, that site you linked is just a big list of his various votes and positions. Most of the important aspects of that are mentioned in the article; the article states his positions on abortion, gary rights, environmental issues, federal health coverage, affirmitive action, gun control, the estate tax, the income tax, free trade agreements, and tort reform. It further goes on to give details and history about how Chafee is considered a liberal, which is the same conclusion that site reaches (it calls him a "moderate liberal"). Unless you can point at specifically issues that are not covered as a result of bias, I'm inclined to call the NPOV tag unwarranted. If he have specific things to add on the topic of "bills/ideas that Chafee supports that may not be the best for Rhode Island and/or the working class", that could be added in, perhaps to the part where it discusses the issues that he is more in line with Republican and conservative thinking on. modargo 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A politician can say a lot of things about how he/she supports specific causes during their election campaigns, but do they ever actually go through with it? For someone who supposedly values family, education, and values, why would he turn down funding for educational agencies and also turn down funding to help lower sizes of classes in public schools, instead suggesting that children get tutors? This may appeal to rich people living in Each Greenwich, but not to the general public, including people that may have children that could benefit from having smaller class sizes! Basically what I'm getting at is that people look to wikipedia for all of the facts, not just the ones that make the person look good. At least I do. I was looking here to learn all I could about candidates in the upcoming election, only to learn that not all of the facts are present. There are bills that he has passed and voted against that clearly contradict what he proclaims to be his values and beliefs. I'm not saying that he hasn't done things that were ok, but he has done a lot of sleasy things (like refuse to give money to schools, voting to accept gifts from lobbyists, not increasing funding to provide generic prescriptions to medicare and medicade recipients, reauthorizing the patriot act, privatizing social security, and voting against repealing the DEATH TAX!). I just think, and I'm sure that you will agree, that the negative things he has done should also be included with the positive things he has done in order to give a better picture of Lincoln Chafee. I don't want to debate the ineffectiveness of his term as a senator, I just think the truth should be stated.
[edit] Changes 9/21/05
This started as a minor change, because a previous user changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life." I would argue that both terms fail to present a NPOV, so I changed it to "groups that oppose abortion"
I filled in a cite somebody was looking for on Chafee being called a RINO, and changed some of the language as per what the above user said. Unfortunately, this page seems to need some heavy editing and I only scratched the surface. This should be more than a glowing biography that seems to have been written by his staffers glowing about his accomplishments--it should also reflect the reality of his record. Not that Senator Chafee has a particularly bad record, but it isn't right to glow about his "independence" and not mention votes where he's proved crucial to the Republican leadership.
Finally, I took out some misinformation on Steve Laffey. It said he was anti-gay rights, but Laffey supported civil unions and opposed the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He may not have been exactly pro-gay (for more, see his article), but he was by no means Chafee's polar opposite on the issue. Dadip6 05:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was me. Every issue in politics has a PC euphemism. No one is ever "anti-abortion" or against rights in politics. I suggest we use the language of euphemisms the media has adopted on these issues. Also, "the most conversative groups" isn't a term of any meaning.--Loodog 00:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Professional blacksmith
Does anyone know anything more about Chafee's time as a blacksmith? It sounds very interesting. --BDD 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I would love to konw about this. I'm a rabid Demo but totally admire Linc. Luigibob 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I too would like to know more about his time as a blacksmith. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lincoln is my cousin and you don't know him.
My dear cousin is not a "RINO", but a traditional Northeastern Liberal Republican of the Lincolnian GOP. How dare you write so fallaciously of him? Rhode Islander 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I work for Lincoln Chaffee; So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cos some Wikipedeans believe anything they hear.” (sorry, I had to) --Lincoln F. Stern 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infoboxes
It is important to state the current state of events, not what will happen soon. As such, the Senator is still in office, and has not been succeeded yet. Stealthound 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
He said, on Daily Show, that the recent moderate Republicans are: Arlen Specter, Sue Collins, Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords, & Linc. For a while, they would eat together.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Daily Show interview
He was interviewed on the Daily Show somewhat recently. Can someone dig up some info on that so maybe we can include it on the page? At least as a mention in the trivia section. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NARAL
In the sub-section on abortion, I've deleted the sentence "NARAL supports individual candidates based on a litmus test of their political records on abortion and related issues; thus NARAL mainly endorses Democrats or Republicans wishing to keep abortion legal," since the organization's political philosophy and electoral tactics are explained in the main article. Fenwayguy 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)