Lincoln Chafee has formed an exploratory committee to seek the Democratic nomination, which can be found at www.chafee2016.com
Lincoln Chafee served as a Republican U.S. Senator from Rhode Island from 1999 to 2007. After he was defeated for re-election, he left the GOP and became an independent.
In 2010, he ran for Governor of Rhode Island as an independent. He was elected with 36.1% of the vote against a Republican nominee (33.6%), a Democratic nominee (23%) Moderate Party founder Ken Block (6.5%) and three other minor independent candidates (<1%). He was the first independent to be elected Governor of Rhode Island in over 150 years. Chafee did not seek re-election in 2014.
In 2013 Chafee officially joined the Democratic Party, after having prominently supported Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. His pre-campaign is focusing on promoting the fact that while in the Senate he was the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War authorization, which Hillary Clinton voted for.
“You want employees to be strong-armed into making political contributions they don’t agree with, in addition to being strong-armed into being part of a union they may not even want to belong to if they want to work in certain professions, so the money can be used to fight a political battle to make forced monopoly government ever bigger and more expensive as we become ever more bankrupt? Wow.”
Paulie,
Under existing federal law, unions can’t use any dues from individual members who object to having their dues used for political purposes, i.e., contributing to congressional or presidential campaigns. Those funds can only be raised through a political action committee funded through separate, voluntary contributions by individual union members. It’s similar at the state level. Moreover, unions are also currently prohibited from using union dues to fund general political activities, such as lobbying, issue advocacy, ballot initiative campaigns and so forth if the individual union member doesn’t share the union’s priorities. That includes independent union advocacy in support of particular candidates.
Paycheck protection severely limits a union’s ability to collect not only regular union dues, but also voluntary contributions from members who are in agreement and have voluntarily allocated a portion of their paychecks to go to his or her union’s political action committee(s). These, of course, are usually very small amounts and would be extremely difficult for the unions to collect otherwise.
That’s why Republicans in the Pennsylvania State Senate recently stripped out the language dealing with regular union dues. Their real target is eliminating a public-sector union’s ability to collect the portion of said dues pertaining to individual union members’ contributions to their political action committees. It would apply to all state, county and local unions. That’s why Pennsylvania’s panicked Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate — where they only need a simple majority in a body they currently control by the slimmest of margins (25 to 24) — are working so feverishly to get their labor-thwarting legislation passed before a special election is held to fill Democratic Lt. Gov. Mike Stack’s former Senate seat in Northeast Philadelphia. That’s an election, incidentally, that will take place on May 19th — and it’s a race the Democrats are expected to win.
The Koch, Scaife and Coors-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) knows exactly what it’s doing — and has been systemically doing since 1998. It’s all about weakening pubic sector unions in the political marketplace, all under the phony pretext of “protecting” employees.
Red,
Well, Bernie Sanders, who said earlier that he would decide by the end of March, now says he’ll make a decision by April 30th. Not that he’s an ideal candidate, but I think he’ll probably have the strongest populist economic message of any of the possible Democratic challengers already in the mix. It’s pretty clear Elizabeth Warren won’t be running. Insofar as O’Malley is concerned, I completely agree with you that he’s pretty much an Establishment figure. He also strikes me as woefully ill-prepared as a possible antiwar candidate, as evidenced by the following exchange with Salon last month:
Salon: So would you question the decision to intervene in Libya, or get more involved in Syria?
O’Malley: I don’t know. I wasn’t there at the time, and I didn’t really bone up on the nuances of that to be able to discuss it with you today. No doubt we will in the fullness of time, if I decide to do this. Let me say that over the course of the next couple of months we’ll be laying out a number of policy speeches, almost certainly on national security and foreign policy. The first role of our president is to make sure the U.S. is safe and secure in this world. But doing that involves the deployment of our full array of powers. It involves the consistent engagement of like-minded people around the world. I don’t think we should take on the unilateral responsibility of declaring when political leaders do or do not have to go in other countries. Yes, we have to stand up to evil and atrocities but we are at our best when we do that in coordination with allies in the region. And I think that’s what President Obama and John Kerry are attempting to do with ISIS. We should be there in coalition, but it would be counterproductive to make this only our fight.
The Kochs broke with the LP in 1983 and have not been associated with us at an time since. Today the are the biggest contributors to the Republican Party…the same Republican Party fighting tooth and nail to keep Libertarians off the ballot because they believe in the face of all actual evidence that our votes belong to them.
Darcy, any rumors on potential Democrat primary opponents to Hilliary other than O’Malley, who strikes me as about equally Establishment, and the buffoonish Chafee? I believe there is a lot of space for an anti-war, economic populist to challenge her in the Democrat primary.
You want employees to be strong-armed into making political contributions they don’t agree with, in addition to being strong-armed into being part of a union they may not even want to belong to if they want to work in certain professions, so the money can be used to fight a political battle to make forced monopoly government ever bigger and more expensive as we become ever more bankrupt? Wow.
Yes, and it’s happening now. State “socialism” is horrible is well – it’s basically forced monopoly corporatism under the fake guise of a workers’ state. A “mixed” economy is just the conflation of the two.
Exactly!
I agree.
However, government employees unions are a whole different animal altogether.
Absolutely!
And it will take an end to state “management” of union/employer relations.
Big government is rapidly making us into serfs. Libertarians are seeking to break those chains.
Nope.
Koch money and influence has served over time to blur the line between libertarianism, corporatism and conservatism. Although they don’t get along with the “Kochtopus”, the paleoconservative/libertarian group also blurs the line, especially on social issues. Both serve to push libertarian political activism towards the Republican party. I think by far the best opportunities for expanding libertarianism are on our left flank, and that fusionism with the right hurts us far more than it helps us, by discouraging bridge-building with the left.
http://exiledonline.com/a-people-history-of-koch-industries-part-ii-libertarian-billionaires-charles-and-david-koch-are-closetcase-subsidy-kings-who-milk-big-government-tyranny-but-want-to-slash-spending-on-anyone-else/?hc_location=ufi 7 Ways the Koch Bros. Benefit from Corporate Welfare
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/03/01/146847/charles-koch-welfare/?hc_location=ufi REPORT: How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And…
http://c4ss.org/content/34943?hc_location=ufi With Libertarians Like the Koch Brothers, Who Needs the State?
“But if you do come back to PA please let me know. I would love to get together and have a beer or two (and talk about the Prohibition Party, of course!)”
New Federalist,
I always wondered what part of Pennsylvania you were from. In any case, I’m planning to visit PA in October for a week or so to assist my brother-in-law, who’s running for a council seat in Quakertown Borough. Perhaps we could get together then. In the meantime, shoot me an email at [email protected] with your mailing address. I have a couple of books that will be published later this month that I’d like to send along (both contain some pretty interesting Prohibition stuff, including a couple of chapters on Claude Watson’s 1944 campaign.)
With best wishes.
LOL. Good one, langa.
So now we know why Darcy likes Abe Lincoln so much — because he was skinny!
I’m no fan of the Kochs. But, Darcy, you’re hugely overstating their level of scumbaggery.
Darcy, I live in Hershey, PA and I must say that I doubt Tom Wolf will allow your greatest fear to happen. But if you do come back to PA please let me know. I would love to get together and have a beer or two (and talk about the Prohibition Party, of course!)
The worst event in the Libertarian Party’s rich and colorful history was arguably the moment the party — desperately seeking a sugar daddy — nominated 39-year-old David Koch, the younger of the obscenely wealthy Koch brothers, as Ed Clark’s vice-presidential running mate at the party’s national convention in Los Angeles in 1979.
A more callous and hostile critic of America’s middle-income and working poor never appeared on a party’s national ticket.
The enormous damage done by the cross-eyed Koch brothers over the past several decades in undermining the country’s middle class is simply immeasurable. Truth be told, they’re two of the most mean-spirited men to appear on the American landscape since the old Slave Power of the antebellum South, shamefully delighting in every rollback of gains made by labor since FDR’s presidency.
The LP should be embarrassed.
Sadly, the party will never live that down.
For what it’s worth, I’m currently trying to help defeat the misnamed and reactionary ALEC-inspired “Paycheck Protection” legislation in Pennsylvania — a state with a strong blue-collar, working class history. It nearly passed in the State Senate recently, but if it’s eventually approved and passes in both chambers again during the next session it will be placed on the statewide ballot as a constitutional amendment.
If that happens, the Keystone State will become a critical battleground in the very survival of organized labor in the United States. I currently live in Florida, but if the state legislature approves such a draconian measure I’ll return to my birthplace of Pennsylvania to fight for the unions — the very entities that lifted both of my grandfathers (one a Westinghouse factory worker and the other a lifelong Pennsylvania Railroad employee) into the middle-class.
Nicely said, Green_w_o_Adjectives.
That’s a great song, too. Thanks for sharing it.
“Government employees unions fight dirty to keep and make government bigger. And make no mistake, big government works hand in hand with its partner megacorporations to increase wealth disparity, not curtail it as so many progressives falsely believe.”
To the extent that this is true, it is a result of the regulatory capture that is inevitable under capitalism and the disparities in wealth and property that go with it.. Not to mention the state and affiliated corporations infiltrating unions to make them compliant and make union bosses another managerial class. The answer is not doing away with unions, but building unions that are accountable to their constituencies and that have solidarity with other movements for economic and political justice.
If we want liberty, then we need to associate to achieve and defend it. That will require unions–lots of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRQ00eSVC34
Jill,
Sorry if I offended you — or anyone else, for that matter — with my earlier comments. That wasn’t my intention.
I was merely trying to say that Hillary is a, well, a pig. A bloated pig, at that.
Like Jeb Bush, she can’t seem to pull herself away from the trough.
Are you familiar with the ALEC-inspired prevailing wage issue? Those lower wages resulting from such legislation largely affects non-government employees, driving their incomes below union standards where they otherwise would have received a union-level wage for their labor.
Libertarians won’t be happy until we return to feudalism.
Paulie,
Sorry, but you couldn’t be more mistaken. You’ve been reading too much of that Koch-brother literature.
Absolutely! The only thing you are wrong about is which side government employees unions are on.
Government employees unions fight dirty to keep and make government bigger. And make no mistake, big government works hand in hand with its partner megacorporations to increase wealth disparity, not curtail it as so many progressives falsely believe.
In the end, Jill — and I deeply appreciate your comments — I suppose we all have to bear witness for the times in which we live.
The pain and suffering in which the wealthy on this Earth have caused and are increasingly causing — as though they’re engaged in some sort of fight to finish between the privileged and pampered and everybody else — is entirely unconscionable.
In our own country, just look at how a couple of powerful right-wing zealots have virtually dismantled the entire organized labor movement in the United States. It’s been happening for more than thirty years, but it’s accelerated to an unimaginable pace in recent years.
Now that American manufacturing has been almost completely destroyed, it’s only a few remaining public sector unions — led by AFSCME — providing what is essentially the last line of defense in preserving what is left of a once-proud and thriving middle-class in this country.
Except for a few libertarians — small “L,” of course, and the smartest ones, at that — I don’t expect many Libertarians to understand and appreciate what that really means.
This is a war — a battle between the haves and the have-nots. And it’s as real as it gets.
These are profound times and each and every one of us, in good conscience, must take a stand.
Same here. Weight is the least of the problems with HRC.
Darcy, I’ve observed that she doesn’t look well. However, as someone who has battled a weight problem my whole life–i find your observation to be odd. She’s done so many awful things that I can’t imagine why weight gain that tends to happen as we get older is an issue for you.
To me, it’s kind of like the Kenya thing for Obama, There are so many awful things he’s done as President, we don’t need to get into personal things like that.
Also, I’ll point out that eating for many of us is compulsive behavior. I’ve battled compulsive behavior my whole life, too–many highly productive people have. Compulsive behavior can become alcohol or drug abuse or gambling, all of which I would consider to be much more damaging behavior to a candiate or elected official..
Jill,
I never, ever, copy and paste. Those are my own casual observations.
The fact of the matter is that Hillary gained an enormous amount of weight while serving as Secretary of State — and since — and I’m sorry if people are offended by the fact that I’m pointing that out. But while Hillary and the ruling class that she represented were eating well — enjoying unprecedented prosperity and watching their incomes swell in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial meltdown of their own making — millions of people around the world, including a disproportionate number of children, were starving to death or dying from hunger-related illnesses.
To me, that’s utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, but Hillary is a pig — not unlike her Wall Street supporters.
“I’m not voting for Hillary because I think women deserve a candidate who has more than just ovaries.” -Jill Stein
I’d say that any weight problem of Hillary’s would be about 20 million down on my list of reasons why she shouldn’t be President.
I can’t stand Hillary–she is indeed a proven warmonger. I don’t get the comment from Darcy about her weight, though. Is the weight thing an observation of your own, or are you copying and pasting someone’s article?
NewFederalist,
He’d love it. No presidential responsibilities, lots of posh parties, traveling around to promote his causes, hanging around with first ladies from other countries, etc. The job is practically custom made for him.
You really have to feel sorry for Bill… First Gentleman? Whaaat?? 😉
Of course, almost any of the female trailblazers who preceded or followed the warmongering Hillary — Wall Street’s choice for the White House — would arguably have been better chief executives than what we might expect from Hillary Clinton, the Democratic heavyweight heading into the 2016 presidential sweepstakes.
The fit and trim Victoria — a young woman intellectually superior to both of her aging major-party opponents in the 1872 presidential campaign — was way ahead of her time and Gracie would have been a blast. The feisty Shirley and little-known Linda, moreover, would have kept the parasitical and predatory plutocracy in its place — something Jill Stein will almost certainly do if given the chance.
As a young woman, Hillary was pretty cool and exercised surprisingly decent political judgment in supporting Barry Goldwater and Gene McCarthy in 1964 and 1968, respectively, but has obviously suffered from a severe lapse in political judgment in the years since…
Something must have happened to her when she attended the Republican National Convention in the summer of 1968 after supporting Clean Gene’s insurgent antiwar candidacy in the New Hampshire Democratic primary earlier that winter. Something besides indulging in Miami Beach’s famous culinary delights, a convention where she obviously acquired a taste for ethnic foods — or at least food in general.
It eventually became an all-consuming passion, one in which the increasingly matronly-looking Clinton continued to expand upon — and then some — in her globe-trotting role as Secretary of State. In office, she kept growing in stature — physically, that is. That often happens when one has an insatiable appetite or perhaps an undiagnosed eating disorder. (Never mind that an estimated 2.6 million children across the globe died of starvation or hunger-related causes annually during her tenure.)
Chris Christie, New Jersey’s grossly obese governor and a possible Republican foe next November, can probably tell Hillary a lot about overconsumption. (According to folklore, when his mother told him to eat everything on his plate because children were starving in Africa, the young Christie — being the bully that he is — demanded their meager portions, too. “I’m still hungry. I’m still hungry,” he pouted. “Give me more.”)
Similarly, Jeb Bush, the pudgy ex-governor of Florida who allegedly profited handsomely from the Savings & Loan scandal and surreptitiously stole his home state for his older brother fifteen years ago and hasn’t had a real job since leaving office almost a decade ago — resuming a non-existent career not unlike the one he had before winning the governorship in 1998 — can also tell Hillary a thing or two about putting on extra pounds. A lot of them. As an added bonus, the younger Bush, a kind of chunky (and nutty) candy bar for the old Bush crowd — and as malnourishing for the country’s body politic as his father and brother combined — can probably tell the former First Lady quite a bit, too, about American dynasties…
“Every family should have one,” says Jeb.
Hillary should listen to them. After all, rumor has it that Hillary — a foreign-policy reactionary not entirely unlike either of her prospective Republican opponents, or any of the GOP’s other mean-spirited and unbalanced, if not altogether demented, presidential contenders — was too busy munching on a couple of pastries from the prestigious Coupe du Monde de la Patisserie to check her personal e-mail for news on any developments in the moments leading up to the tragic Benghazi attack in September of 2012.
Forget “Hope and Change” — the slogan used by its foundation-backed presidential candidate eight years ago — the financial oligarchy has a new slogan this time. It’s one that will surely tug at the nation’s heartstrings.
“Fat and Fatter.”
Come to think of it, it sort of captures America’s role in the world — and the one percent who dominate its politics.
LOL! Yet another good “Darcy-ism”! (But… no, BTW.)
You’ve always been my favorite IPR commenter, but you really think Jill Stein will win?
Somehow I don’t see him getting anywhere against the inevitability of our first woman president.