>>7728077 pb

Another guy threw his hat in the ring for the Presidential race, this time as a Libertarian. At least so far he has not identified as a Socialist! I don't think he'll be a threat to POTUS, but middle-of-the-road Dems might think that Chafee is a better alternative than the progressives' nominees.

"Chafee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against authorization of the use of force in Iraq in the lead-up to the Iraq War." [Wikipedia]

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20200105/ex-gov-chafee-files-to-run-for-president-as-libertarian

Former Rhode Island senator and governor Lincoln Chafee has formed a campaign to run for president as a Libertarian.

Posted Jan 5, 2020 at 10:34 PM

Updated Jan 5, 2020 at 11:32 PM

"Chafee, who moved to the state of Wyoming after an unsuccessful run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination," … will "make his formal announcement at an event planned at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C."

———————-

Bio at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee

"Political party:

Republican (before 2007)

Independent (2007–2013)

Democratic (2013–2019)

Libertarian (2019–present)"

"While serving in the United States Senate, Chafee was one of 23 senators, and the only Republican, to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which provided the legal mechanism for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.[88] When asked, in 2015, how the U.S. could most effectively deal with ISIS, Chafee said the U.S. should pursue a policy of containment through alliance-building with regional powers.[109] Chafee has said the U.S. "must make international decisions with brains and not biceps",[79] and at the first 2016 Democratic primary debate, stated that the U.S. must end its use of "perpetual wars",[110] referring in part to the War on Terror. In his speech declaring his withdrawal from the 2016 Presidential race at the annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington, DC, Chafee again made the case for peace, attacking the field of Republican candidates for demonstrating a lack of desire "to understand anything about the Middle East and North Africa" and instead espousing "more bellicosity, more saber rattling, and more blind macho posturing." He ended the speech by reminding the audience that the United States was one of the strongest countries in history, economically, militarily, and culturally and so not only could afford to take risks for peace, but "must take risks for peace." Arguing for a new paradigm, he concluded by asking the audience whether they wanted to be remembered as bombers of weddings and hospitals, or as peace makers.[111]"