I appreciate Jim Antle‘s Buchananite-cum-libertarian argument for wanting to see Chafee win the primary and the general election because of his solo opposition to the war on the Republican side in the Senate.  His opposition to the war is appreciated and duly noted, but I would point out that Chafee’s defeat today would contribute towards the larger desirable goals of 1) ousting the GOP majority in Congress (giving us divided government), 2) enforcing some real accountability against the party in the Senate that all but unanimously backed the Iraq war and 3) adding to the anti-incumbent trend that will, if it holds, contribute to the chastening of the GOP (see #1).  The NRSC and RNC have already said that they will give up Rhode Island as lost if Laffey wins the nomination, which makes one of the five competitive states the Democrats must have an automatic win and frees up their resources to put either Ford or Webb over the top in Tennessee and Virginia respectively.  At the same time, conservatives can take some satisfaction that one of Pat Toomey’s Club for Growth guys has ousted an incumbent Senator in some nice payback to the Republican establishment.  This is perhaps a tad too elaborate, but I think it makes a fair amount of sense.  So, if I had to “root” for an outcome in a primary for a party to which I do not belong in a state where I have never set foot, I would “root” for Laffey. 

But it is genuinely difficult to get too worked up about politics in…Rhode Island.  No offense, Rhode Islanders, but I think you would feel a similar lack of excitement if you read about New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a man who gives new meaning to the word boring.