Sen. Chafee Is the Next Endangered Incumbent

Conservative challenge puts Sen. Chafee's future in doubt in the Sept. 12 Rhode Island primary.

She ran to the left of Sen. Alan Dixon when she beat him in the 1992 Illinois primary.

While the Democrats continue to toss barbs at one another over the propriety of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman seeking another term as an independent, Republicans are facing their own circular firing squad in Rhode Island, where Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) is seeking re-election.

Chafee is clearly the most liberal Republican in the Senate. He made a point of announcing in 2004 that he would not vote for President Bush (and would instead write in the name of Bush's father, the 41st president). In 2002 he was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against giving Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq. He was also the only Republican to vote against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. And he regularly votes against the Bush administration on issues such as tax cuts (he's against them) and the environment (he says the White House has fallen down on the job). Conservatives would love nothing better to unseat him in the Sept. 12 primary, where he faces a strong challenge from Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston, who is backed by the conservative anti-tax Club for Growth organization.

Here's the rub: With Rhode Island being one of the bluest of blue states, the feeling is that only a Republican like Chafee can keep the seat in GOP hands; in every poll, Laffey easily loses a hypothetical matchup with the likely Democratic nominee, state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. And that's why the White House and the party's campaign committee in Washington have made it clear from the outset that Chafee is their choice, ideological soul-mate or not.

Some conservatives buy this argument and are sticking with the incumbent. Others say hogwash, that it really doesn't matter if Chafee wins, given his opposition to much of the administration's agenda. But that's what makes Chafee-Laffey far different from the Democratic debacle in neighboring Connecticut. Whoever wins there -- Lieberman or Lamont -- the seat is still going to remain in Democratic hands. In Rhode Island, if Chafee is the nominee, then the GOP has a fighting chance. If it's Laffey, they can kiss the seat goodbye.

That was essentially the argument the GOP establishment tried to make in New Jersey in 1978 on behalf of Sen. Clifford Case. A liberal, Case was always disliked by Republican conservatives, but no one on the right with any clout sought to take him on -- until '78. Jeffrey Bell, a former aide to Ronald Reagan, jumped in the race, saying that Case was an embarrassment and should be replaced by someone more acceptable to the party rank and file. The expectation at the time was that Bell would get a healthy percentage against Case, but no more. Teach him a lesson, and maybe bloody him up a bit, but that's it. Nobody expected Bell to win, but he did. And the GOP hasn't won a Senate race in New Jersey since.

More on the Sept. 12 primaries next week. Now, time for questions:

Q: Is it possible for Sen. Joe Lieberman to become the most powerful man in the country if he is re-elected in November? Let's say the Democrats wind up with 50 seats in the 110th Congress, and the Republicans hold 49. If Lieberman votes to caucus with the Republicans, they will control the Senate with Vice President Cheney the tiebreaker. If he votes to caucus with the Democrats, the Dems control the Senate. Is that a possibility? -- Jim Wininger, Danvers, Mass.

A: It's a delicious supposition, but it's not going to happen. Though he is running as an independent, and though he is embroiled in an angry spat with many of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, he promises he will caucus with the Democrats should he win a fourth term. I can't envision any scenario in which the GOP entices him to switch parties with an offer that he can't refuse. But, at the same time, given what's at stake, I also can't fathom the idea that the Democrats would jeopardize Lieberman's seniority should he win.

The point about the role played by Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY) after he lost the Republican nomination in 1980 is that by staying in the race on the Liberal Party line [see Aug. 23 column], he sucked votes away from the Democratic candidate and helped elect Al D'Amato, the Republican candidate. Javits staying in the race was to specifically serve as a spoiler to ensure D'Amato's election. -- Eli Rabett, Washington, D.C.

A: There is little doubt in anyone's mind that had Javits accepted the results of the 1980 GOP primary and not run on the Liberal line in November, Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman -- and not Republican Al D'Amato -- would have won. But not everyone is convinced that Javits ran because he wanted to split the liberal vote and elect D'Amato. I'm certainly not. Javits was 76 and in poor health. But after 24 years in the Senate, he was faced with a potential opportunity of serving in the majority for the first time in his career and he thought it was doable. The AFL-CIO, which endorsed him in the primary, stuck with him for the general election. Ditto the teachers union. Always more popular with Democrats and independents than with his fellow Republicans, Javits felt that if he could portray Holtzman as too far to the left and D'Amato too far to the right, he could win one more term by appealing to the great middle. After the way D'Amato savaged his record and, more importantly, his health, during the primary, there was no way Javits' intention was to help D'Amato win in November. But that is indeed what his staying on the ballot accomplished.

Q: Regarding the item in your Aug. 9 column about the last time a sitting Democratic senator lost to a primary challenger who outflanked him from the left: I assume you omitted Carol Moseley Braun beating Alan Dixon in Illinois in 1992 because it was a three-way, rather than a two-way primary? Actually, the third candidate in that race, Al Hofeld, was also to the left of Dixon that year (which wasn't hard to do). -- Steve Cobble, Arlington, Va. (similarly, Jerry Skurnik of New York City and Mark Richard of Columbus, Ohio)

A: Thanks for giving me an alibi. I really do think that the reason I skipped the '92 Illinois primary was because it wasn't a simple one-on-one battle between a liberal and a conservative. But all of you who wrote in are correct in that Hofeld and Moseley Braun were far to the left of Dixon. I think of Dixon more of a status quo establishment figure and less as a conservative – heck, he was heartily endorsed that year by fellow Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, no rightwinger. But it is fair to say that Hofeld went after Dixon because of his corporate campaign contributions, and Moseley Braun went after him for his vote to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court the year before. So while I don't think it's completely fair to label Dixon a conservative, he certainly was beaten in the primary by opponents who outflanked him on the left.

CONN. JOB: Lots of e-mail reaction to Lamont's defeat of Lieberman, as featured in the Aug. 9 column. Sundaresan Balakrishnan writes, "As one who would have voted for Lieberman had I been a resident of Connecticut, I deeply deplore his action in not accepting the verdict of the people."

Gary LaPaille, the former Illinois Democratic Party chair who is currently a consultant in Washington, adds, "I really don't see Joe Lieberman's defeat as a victory for the wacko Democratic left. It's really what the majority of Americans think about the war in Iraq – and it's a good trend of what may happen in November. There were a lot of factors in the Connecticut primary, but for many it came down to a vote on war or no war … and no war won out."

Regarding our note in the Aug. 2 column explaining why the Connecticut Senate race should not be considered "key" – since the Democrats are all but assured of holding the seat either way -- Peg Kennedy of Willseyville, N.Y. writes, "It was key in the sense that it forwarded the very strong anti-war position held by a growing number of Americans today. In fact, it was such an important upset that Vice President Cheney felt it necessary to come out of hiding and shake some scary terrorism–threat skeletons at all us progressive Democrats ‘stupid' enough to call for a withdrawal from Iraq."

As for my comment on a recent Talk of the Nation "Political Junkie" segment, about why there haven't been other serious primary challenges to other Democratic senators who voted for the war, Ralph Wallio of Indianola, Iowa writes, "It occurs to me that primary challengers are not going to get any backing, either financial or organizational, from the party. These challengers have to make a large personal financial commitment as seed money to get their campaigns off the ground. It seems to follow that challengers have to be financially well off, such as Ned Lamont, for them to make such a commitment."

While we'll hold up, for a bit, a list of our predictions for November, Phillip Martin of Boston, Mass. has no such reticence: "I think Lamont is going to pull it off in November in spite of the ‘terrorism' angle being played up by the Lieberman camp. It seems clear to me that every time Vice President Cheney and company speak on behalf of Lieberman it confirms the worst fears many Democratic liberals and moderates have about old Joe."

And finally, how could I resist? The Aug. 9 column that featured the results of the primary showed a Lamont button, known as "The Kiss" – it has President Bush planting an apparent kiss on Lieberman following this year's State of the Union message. That button was followed by a Lieberman button, entitled "The Hug" – it shows Lieberman being hugged by Bill Clinton during a pre-primary campaign visit. My caption at the time said, "As is usually the case, a kiss means more than a hug." Not so, writes Susan Perry of Washington, D.C.: "I agree with everything you wrote about the primary results. But I'm still not so sure that kisses are always better than hugs." Susan may be right.