The Rhode Island Republican primary is turning into a dogfight along the same lines as Lieberman/Lamont in Connecticut. In one corner you have Lincoln Chafee, the most liberal of all Republican senators, and in the other a challenger from the right, Stephen Laffey, employing a grassroots strategy of canvassing the entire state. There are similarities between the two races but one fundamental difference as well - one that poses an interesting question for Democrats.
As many might know, Chafee is seen as a Democrat by most conservatives and is more outspoken against his party and the President than Lieberman is. He not only announced that he didn't vote for President Bush in 2004, but openly admitted that he was considering
switching parties if Bush were re-elected.
No one on either side of the isle has done more to undermine their respective party than Chafee has. So, those of us that support Lamont can obviously respect the challenge to Chafee on the right. The hypocritical part is that the rightwing talking-heads aren't jumping up and down about the "angry far right" that want to oust such a bipartisan senator. Surely there's room for dissent within the party right?
A MAJOR difference between the Lieberman/Lamont and Chafee/Laffeey races is how the DSCC and the NRSC are handling them. Although the DSCC has backed Lieberman, I wouldn't say that they have attacked Lamont in any significant way. Not so with the NRSC (headed by Elizabeth Dole). According to this week's issue of National Review, they responded to Laffey's television ads by running a series of negative ads costing over $150,000. The only place they've spent more money is in Montana defending Sen. Burns against a strong Democrat challenger in Jon Tester. They also filed a complaint with the FEC (the first time EVER a party has targeted one of its own members) charging Laffey with distributing campaign material at city taxpayer's expense.
So why all the fuss from the NRSC? Why wouldn't they just sit this one out or pledge their support to Chafee while stating that they will support the winner no matter what? The answer to that is found in the most recent Rasmussen poll where Chafee only trails the Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse by 5 points, but Laffey trails Whitehouse by 28 points. To compound the NRSC's problems, Laffey is actually leading Chafee in the primary polling 46-44.
This leads to quite a conundrum for conservative voters - much worse than the democrats face in the Lieberman/Lamont race. In the Connecticut race, either candidate would most likely win the general election in November, but in Rhode Island the choice comes down to electing an undermining, moderate Republican or losing a seat while sending a message to other moderate congressmen.
As democrats we should all clearly be rooting for Laffey in this one. But I wonder, if the shoe were on the other foot and Lamont had NO chance of winning in the general election, would he still receive the same support he does now?