Ann Coulter Needs to Retake Politics 101

Steven Taylor explains to Ann Coulter why President Bush would support the re-election of a Republican candidate who votes with him 75% of the time rather than handing the seat to a Democrat who would vote against him 95% of the time.

Perhaps Connecticut Democrats should audit the course, too.

FILED UNDER: Uncategorized, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Anderson says:

    But it’s all about treason! and godlessness!

  2. If Chaffee was senator from Texas, I would gladly support a primary challenge against him. Heck in Texas, a democratic senator would likely be more conservative than Chaffee.

    In fantasy world, sure, I would love to see a more conservative senator the Chaffee. Depending on which measure you are looking at, Chaffee comes in at about 30 to 40% conservative on his voting. Based on my political philosophy, I wouldn’t mind seeing that number a bit higher.

    But the reality is that Rhode Island is not Texas. The reasons why a democratic senator from Texas would likely be more conservative than Chaffee do not apply in Rhode Island. Lafferty just doesn’t appear to have it in him to win in Rhode Island. You can make a good argument that no one to the right of Chaffee is likely to win in Rhode Island. Rhode Island was 15 points lower than the national average in the 2004 presidential election. In the last 40 years, Rhode Island has twice gone for the republican presidential candidate. Both of those were in years that the republican won every state but one (1962 and 1984). And those two times, they went for the GOP by single digits (3.65% in 1984 and 6.19% in 1972). Starting with JFK, they have gone for the democrat bu double digits in every other year. They sure like them liberal democrats in Rhode Island and that’s their right. They can cast their four electoral votes for the liberals until the cows come home.

    But a realistic republican has to recognize that a state that goes for Al Gore by 29% is just not likely to be looking for a “main stream” republican. Accept what is possible which is someone who will listen and agree with you some of the time. And pick you battles where you are likely to win no matter what (which is where the left would be in CT if they could just manage to control their BDS long enough from calling for a Lieberman lynching).

  3. Michael says:

    And pick you battles where you are likely to win no matter what (which is where the left would be in CT if they could just manage to control their BDS long enough from calling for a Lieberman lynching).

    You are assuming that the Left would consider Lieberman a win. Obviously the primary results show that a majority of democratic voters did not consider Lieberman a win for their party, but rather Lamont. So now the left is in the position where best-case scenario they get Lamont, worse case scenario they get Lieberman. I don’t see how they lose on this one.

  4. Adam Graham says:

    You would have a point IF Senator Chafee voted with the President 75% of the time. His ACU rating for his too long career is a mere 37%, including 12% in 2005. 75% of the Time would be Senator Gordon Smith and you would have a good point. However, 37

  5. Linda says:

    I can’t quite wrap my arms around this one. He votes with us one time a session on one issue and we suppose to spend time and money on the guy??? What in the world? He has voted against Republicans on every other Major Issue (Tax cuts, War in Iraq, partial birth abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.) That’s it! We have to accept him because he votes with the caucus for organizing the Senate. What makes you think he would not do a “Jefords”? I think if he were the only way we could have Republicans in control of the Senate he more than likely would become a Dem.

  6. James Joyner says:

    Linda: He didn’t “do a Jeffords” 2001 when it was a 50-50 Senate. Why would he do it now?

  7. Michael says:

    If he looses, he can always run for office on the “Rhode Island for Chafee” ticket. After all, this is just a purge of the impure by the radical right, who can’t stand anyone who dares contradict Bush on Iraq.

    James, I hope all the sarcasm and irony of this post doesn’t clog the tubes on your internets.

  8. Anderson says:

    Linda: He didn’t “do a Jeffords” 2001 when it was a 50-50 Senate. Why would he do it now?

    Been just a little water under the Euphrates since then, eh?

  9. Dave Schuler says:

    And, of course, the situation in Connecticut is different: whether Lamont or Lieberman is elected, the victor will undoubtedly caucus with the Democrats.

  10. Adam Graham says:

    There have been rumors of it for some time. When Jeffords jumped ship, it ceased to matter if he did or not, so he wouldn’t get much for making the change. Then, it was 52-48 Senate and his change wouldn’t make a difference, then a 55-45 split and his change again wouldn’t make a difference. In another 50-50 senate, who knows.

  11. Wayne says:

    What I have taken from Anns comments is that Chaffee liabilities outweighs his benefits. How often has the MSM use Chaffee by name or otherwise as “even some Republicans disagree with Bush” propaganda?

    The problem with people who have only taken “101 courses” is they think they know it all. Once one masters a subject, one will find the information in “101 courses” is very simplistic and there is a great deal more complexity to the subject. The basic concepts generally only hold up in ideal circumstances.

  12. clearwaterconservative says:

    The class on the CT senate race is an easy one,

    After winning in November Lieberman is planning to resign to take the position of Secretary of Defense. Afterwards the republican Connecticut governor would appoint a republican to replace Lieberman in the senate.

    Lieberman is now calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation and campaigning with republican candidates.

  13. Mike says:

    Chafee had already considered pulling a Jeffords and didn’t, out of respect to 1)his father and 2)the shrinking number of moderate Republicans in politics today. Furthermore, he voted against the war because he wasn’t convinced that Hussein was an imminent threat. He felt that the WMD evidence that the WH presented was less than compelling (… and he was right). As far as the President’s tax cuts, Chafee voted against those for a simple reason – he felt that we couldn’t afford them. Once again, it seems Chafee may have been correct.

    Whoever one supports in this primary, it is clear that both parties are forcing voices of moderation out. Whether the Club for Growth on the right (now run by Pat Toomey, the disgruntled loser in a PA GOP Senate Primary in ’04) or the Kos-MoveOn types on the left, this phenomenon is dangerously prevalent.

  14. Linda in California says:

    I still cannot see what is wrong with trying to defeat Chafee. That is how you change your party. I think the Dems were perfectly correct to try to take out Lieberman. If he wins, then that’s whom the people of CT want. Voting for someone just because he can win is stupid. Ask those of us stuck with AHNOLD.