Skip to comments.Former GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee to attend Dem Convention
Posted on 08/17/2012 3:31:35 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee will attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in September, WPRI reports.
Chafee is now the independent governor of liberal Rhode Island, and has been drifting away from the Republican Party since at least 2006, when he lost his re-election bid for the Senate. (In 2004, he withdrew his support for President George W. Bush's re-election.) Chafee backed President Barack Obama's 2008 run, and is a co-chair for his campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wrong state referenced in keywords - Rhode Island not Connecticut
No surprise here, surprise will be if some other alleged GOP’ers don’t join him in Charlotte.
Chafee = Romney
Two peas in a pod.
Plenty like him still running the Republican Party.
I’d have been surprised if he didn’t. Chafee wasn’t a Republican even when he was.
They can have that senile immoral, probably GAY old geezer......GOOD RIDDANCE.
For the name shock, I expect appearances by Ron Reagan (Junior) and his sister Patti Davis. Their seduction by the “dark side” is a matter of long standing, but the MSM will enjoy a few headlines.
Yep. the merging of the parties is nearly complete.
I'm trying to "get real".
I say vote for "NEITHER".
ThX! oops. correction on the way.
They'll need to recruit a whole whorde of RINOs like Chaffee and Huntsman to make up for the mass defection of card carrying lemmings, I mean card carrying 'Rats.
A POS then; A POS now!
>> I say vote for “NEITHER”.
A vote for neither is a vote for Obama.
Here’s a little exercise for ya. Google “romney stericycle”, and look at the list of purveyors of this trash:
*** Democratic Underground
*** Mother Jones
*** Huffington Post
... and those are just in the FIRST PAGE of links.
Seriously now, Mr. Purebred Conservative Stud, how does it feel to be getting your “conservative” talking points from the likes of THOSE garbage scows? Pretty good?
WHAT A TRUE STATEMENT....The big tenter’s and their wish to screw the real taxpayers into the wall.... For example, Rove Crystal and the like...
Is the Romney Stericycle story true or not?
There is no way Lincoln Chafee would’ve nominated Paul Ryan to do anything. To Chafee ... Ryan is the villain.
"Wrong! But thanks for playing! Johnny, tell him what his take-home gifts are!"
>> Is the Romney Stericycle story true or not?
NOT TRUE — at least not the way you, DU, HuffingtonPost, Mother Jones, and Salon peddle it.
...and he hates puppies! (/s)
Yeah, I’m sure it’s wrong in the fever swamps of your tiny RDS mind.
In the REAL world where I live, though — here among people who can observe, think, and count — it’s not only right, but obvious.
No problem - we can smell the stench across the border from RI...
This is why we should purge all the rinos from the republican party. John Chafee was a rino. Jodi Rell was a rino. When John Chafee died, Rell appointed his son to the seat. He’s now speaking at the democrat convention. Because all moderate republicans are democrats.
Lancelot Linc makes Biden look like a Rhodes Scholar.
A really well done HTML post, properly set off in paragraphs, showing that you know how to use italic and bold tags. And even a PICTURE! (Irrelevant though it is.) I’d give you a B+ for technical skills and appearance.
Contentwise, it’s a little lacking.
We can strip off the unnecessary crap and (besides the ad hominem) we’re left with really only a short sentence that means anything at all:
“That...proposition of yours has been refuted so often here on FreeRepublic...”
Well, no, actually it hasn’t. Not for those of us who don’t live in your fevered mind, anyhoo.
While we’re on the subject of handing out assignments and educating ourselves, here’s one for you, sport. Read the following link on “Logical Fallacies”, and report back which fallacy your statement represents, m’kay?
Hint: it’s not “Argumentum Ad Hominem”, although all the REST of your drivel is certainly that.
Good luck, Nervous Tick! May you find whatever it is you are seeking!
OK, so I go into the voting booth and don't vote for Romney, so Obama gets 1 vote.
The guy behind me, who hasn't bathed for a couple of weeks, obviously a Liberal, is next. He doesn't vote for Romney either, so that's ANOTHER vote for Obama.
Now Obama has a total of 2 votes.
THEN, he actually votes for Obama!
Now Obama has a total of 3 votes?
Now I'm beginning to understand how Obama got 54% of the votes in 08.
>> Now I’m beginning to understand how Obama got 54% of the votes in 08.
After reading your loopy explanation, so am I.
Rinos shed their skin just like any other cold-blooded reptile.
>> Good luck, Nervous Tick! May you find whatever it is you are seeking!
Thanks for the well wishes! I’m seeking an end to a four-year nightmare named Obama. I am confident that I’ll find it in November, helped along by lots and lots of folks who love America and gather together behind the (R) candidate and vote the blue-lipped Kenyan bastard out.
I wish you’d join us but it looks like you have other plans that day.
‘A vote for neither is a vote for Obama’ by Nervous tick.
Since you don’t like the logical extension of that statement, offer your own.
Link the dink defines RINO’S.
There are definite similarities. Chafee and Romney both come from establishment Republican dynasties whose constituents have been disappearing. They both had to find a way to adapt if they wanted to keep their family political businesses alive.
Romney tried to pull the “I can be as liberal as any Democrat” routine a few years before Chafee did, and he found out it was not a winning strategy, losing office just like Chafee would later. Romney didn’t go independent, or toy around with switching parties like Chafee though. Instead, he decided to try to jump to the national level of Republican politics, where he didn’t need to worry about a shrinking pool of Republican voters.
Romney has arguably picked the more successful strategy, but I don’t doubt that he would be right there beside Chafee at the Democrat convention, if he had thought that was the more politically expedient move.
Wonder when the “Maine wonder twins” (Snowe and Collins) will be joining?
If he’s prominent for anything, it’s because he’s well known for being universally hated by most people in the Republican party. It’s about as sensible as calling Martin Luther a prominent Catholic clergyman.
It’s about time the deceiptful Democrat joined his party and stopped his corrupting and scaming the political process.
It’s not a semantic game; it presumes an audience composed of rational conservatives who dislike the current president and deeply desire to replace him.
There are three components of that presumption:
** hate Obama.
With the RDS crowd here on FR, one, two, or all three of those presumptions may not apply.
OK, so how does all that turn someone who doesn’t go into the voting booth voting for Obmama?
And does that vote for Obama just include people who normally vote, or does that include everyone of voting age who doesn’t vote in November?
You mean, a rational conservative who hates Obama and ordinarily would vote against him because it’s in his best interest to get rid of him? That’s what I said my premise is. I don’t give a rats ass about losers or pets or what have you. Just rational conservatives who hate Obama. Like I thought inhabited this forum.
If that guy doesn’t vote, or votes for a sure loser as a “protest” vote, then the serious challenger to Obama — the one that might actually remove him — gets one less vote.
One LESS vote for candidate A in a two-candidate race is mathematically exactly the same as one MORE vote for candidate B.
And don’t kid yourself — this IS a two candidate race.
I don’t even know why I’m bothering to explain this — you and the others going down this “logical” rathole already know the answwer, you are just engaging in sophism.
If you don’t know what sophism is, look it up.
Does that 'one less vote' include all eligble voters?
The answer can be short, using only two, or maybe three letters of the alphabet.
Not much surprise here. Benedict Arnold relocated to England after the hostilities, if I recall correctly. What’s the diff?
Oh, wait! I can answer my own question. Benedict Arnold at first served his country well and was a military leader at the Battle of Saratoga. At least he was good for something at one time.
Lincoln Chafee has always been good for nothing.
Maybe Chaffee can do a musical number with Jim Jeffords.
Read for meaning, Eagle. I have posted enough that if you do so, you’ll know clearly where I am coming from.
You’re not an idiot, far from it. I know that for a fact; I’ve had pleasant and stimulating discussions with you here, although it’s been a while. As I recall, you’re not only thoughtful, but you’ve also been around the block a time or two. And I have learned from you, and I appreciate that.
If memory serves, you’re a farmer or rancher by trade — correct?
Please read — at your leisure — the following.
If you’re still interested in exploring this rathole after that, by all means let me know, and we’ll do so. If I’m correct in my guesses, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by joining the RDS brigade.
This has nothing to do with RDS, it has to do with the idea that simply not voting for someone (candidate A) is the same as casting a vote for candidate B.
That is simply false, as I demonstrated in my first post to you.
Not voting for candidate A is just that, he gets zero votes. So does candidate B.
To be redundant; If the guy behind me, in my example, goes into the booth and doesn’t vote for candidate A, candidate B doesn’t automatically get a vote in his column.
I further demonstrated the false emotional argument you presented by saying that my imaginary voter later did, in fact, cast a vote for candidate B.
When he leaves the booth, candidate Bs count goes up by 1 vote, not 2, and candidate As count remains unchanged.
Naturally, if that happens enough, the election will go in Bs favor, but not because the voters all voted for B, but rather because A did not get enough votes.