The Weakest Linc Survives

McElroy is right: This campaign was among the nastiest Rhode Islanders could recall. The chief mud machine was the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which spent $1.2 million trying to derail Laffey. In a series of TV ads it ripped the mayor on everything from taxes to security to immigration. A few days prior to the September 12 primary, the NRSC announced that, should Laffey win, it would pull out of Rhode Island and concede the general election. “That’s ridiculous,” says McElroy.

By that point, however, Laffey claimed he didn’t want any NRSC aid. When I spoke to him on Monday night, just hours before the polls opened, he had one message for the committee: “Stay the heck out of Rhode Island.” He sounded upbeat about his prospects but bitter about the way he’d been treated. “They have absolutely disgraced themselves,” he said of the NRSC. “These are mean, vicious people.” He also rebuked the White House. “The last thing that Karl Rove and his buddies want in Washington is a real reformer like myself.”

This race needed no extra hype. After Lamont-Lieberman, Laffey-Chafee was already the second biggest Senate primary of 2006. Some observers portrayed it as a battle for the soul of the Republican party, though that was too sweeping. Others claimed Chafee was the canary in the coal mine: His fate would be an early warning for other GOP moderates in the Northeast. Would he survive?

Yes, and by a comfortable 8-point margin. Voter turnout, at over 62,000, made history for a GOP primary in Rhode Island, topping the previous record (of around 45,000) set in a 1994 gubernatorial race. Boosting turnout was Chafee’s strategy: He encouraged Democrats to register as “independents” so they could back him against Laffey. (Rhode Island lets independents vote in party primaries.) He wound up winning by 54 percent to 46 percent.

The outcome sends a warning for both parties. On the one hand, Chafee emerges from a bruising primary and must now face a strong Democratic opponent, former state attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse. Polls show the two running about even. Rhode Island remains one of the most heavily Democratic and anti-Bush states in the country. The fact that the White House, the NRSC, the Republican National Committee, and leading GOP senators went all-out for Chafee may not help him in November. It will now be easier for Democrats to paint him as a facilitator of the “radical” Bush agenda.

On the other hand, the manner in which Chafee cut down Laffey reflects a well-oiled GOP turnout machine. As the Washington Post noted last Thursday, “Chafee’s performance–combined with reports of late-starting organization and internal bickering on the Democratic side–suggest that the Republican advantage on turnout may remain intact even as many other trends are favoring the opposition.” The RNC pumped over $400,000 into voter-mobilization drives, which, along with the NRSC-funded TV blitz, helped drive up Laffey’s negatives and may have been the deciding factor.

Still, Rhode Island Republicans are not an especially conservative bunch, and Laffey managed to reach 46 percent despite the scorched-earth tactics of national GOP officials. Media coverage invariably dubbed him the “conservative” challenger, but the mayor eschewed that label, preferring “reformer.” It might be most accurate to call him a center-right populist.

Always full of bluster, Laffey vowed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, wean America off foreign oil, fortify the Mexican border, and rein in spending. He favored the invasion of Iraq but also suggested that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resign to ensure “accountability” for the war’s mishaps. And he was pro-life, which is not an automatic disqualifier in Rhode Island, as witness the success and popularity of Republican governor Donald Carcieri (who supported Chafee in the primary).

The mayor frequently zinged Chafee as indecisive and “irrelevant,” while peddling his renovation of Cranston, a city long plagued by budget woes and corruption. Laffey even compared himself to Rudy Giuliani. Many conservatives viewed him as the 2006 version of Pat Toomey, the Pennsylvania congressman who tried to wrest a GOP Senate nomination from incumbent Arlen Specter in 2004. (Toomey lost by only two points.) Laffey won endorsements from both the Club for Growth PAC and National Review. Steve Forbes held a fundraiser for him in Manhattan. The mayor says he also received personal checks from Arthur Laffer and William F. Buckley.

This meant little to the NRSC, which savaged Laffey as a dishonest tax hiker. “The character assassination plan that they executed was really unprecedented,” says Toomey, now president of the Club for Growth. He cannot think of another primary where a Republican faced such an onslaught from the national GOP. Toomey disputes the NRSC charge that Laffey was “unelectable,” though he admits Chafee is more likely to defeat Sheldon Whitehouse.

He also makes an interesting point: What if the NRSC and the RNC had spent their money attacking Whitehouse instead of Chafee? Would Laffey have won? If so, argues Toomey, Whitehouse would have been weakened and Laffey might have had real momentum. As it was, the anti-Laffey TV barrage ballooned his negatives. The Club for Growth PAC did its best to buoy the challenger, spending over $500,000 on anti-Chafee ads and contributing another $730,000 directly to Laffey’s campaign.

NRSC spokesman Brian Nick respects Toomey’s gripes, but insists that Laffey simply had no chance in November. (One poll released in late August found Laffey trailing Whitehouse by more than 30 points.) “I can guarantee conservatives will like a Senator Chafee more than a Senator Whitehouse,” says Nick. He is hard pressed to name issues where Chafee has supported Bush and Senate Republicans, citing the John Roberts nomination and the CAFTA vote plus a few others. But Democrats were clearly rooting for a Laffey victory, stresses Nick, even running attack ads against Chafee during the primary.

In a year when control of the Senate hangs in the balance, and when Republicans expect to lose a few seats, the NRSC’s robust defense of Chafee makes sense. But many of its ads were risible. Perhaps the most disingenuous carped about Laffey’s tax increases in Cranston. As the mayor credibly points out, the city was on the verge of bankruptcy when he took over. Raising taxes was a virtual necessity. Toomey agrees, which is why the zealously anti-tax Club for Growth PAC endorsed Laffey anyway.

Contrast that with Chafee, who not only voted against the two big Bush tax cuts but also jacked up taxes while he was mayor of Warwick. There was no fiscal crisis in Warwick, as there was in Cranston. Moreover, Laffey signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, while Chafee refused.

Chafee also refused to support Justice Samuel Alito. But at least he didn’t vote to filibuster, says the NRSC’s Brian Nick. And Chafee will help Senate Republicans stay in the majority. “When our judges are going through next cycle,” says Nick, “conservatives will be happy about that.” Maybe. But if Chafee votes against another Bush Supreme Court pick, conservatives will howl even louder.

Duncan Currie is a reporter for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.