See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain
Source:
thehill.com
URL Source: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news ... nt-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html
Published: Jun 12, 2008
Author: By Kristen Coulter and Bob Cusack
Post Date: 2008-06-12 12:58:25 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: McCain, Idiot, Juan McAmnesty
Views: 440
Comments: 11
New Gang of 14 won’t back McCain By Kristen Coulter and Bob Cusack Posted: 06/11/08 07:48 PM [ET] At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator. Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war. A handful of other Republicans on Capitol Hill made the distinction between “endorsing” and “supporting,” adding that while they have not endorsed, they do support McCain. In recent weeks, much of the discussion and debate about party unity has been on the Democrats’ side, amid their protracted presidential primary. Yet achieving harmony is a concern on both sides of the aisle this year. It is not unusual for certain factions of the Democratic and Republican parties not to embrace their respective candidates for president. McCain’s campaign seized on some Democrats’ reticence about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), issuing a release on Tuesday that highlighted that Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) is not endorsing the presumptive nominee. While some conservative Democrats have yet to endorse Obama and didn’t back Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004, there are both centrist and conservative Republicans representing various parts of the country who are not embracing McCain. Republican members who have not endorsed or publicly backed McCain include Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Jones, Peterson, John Doolittle (Calif.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Frank Wolf (Va.). [Wolf contacted The Hill following publication of the article to correct his staff’s error. His staff had said he has “yet to endorse McCain” and did not return follow-up phone calls this week]. Throughout his career in the House and Senate, McCain has been at odds with his party on a range of issues, including campaign finance reform, earmarks, immigration, healthcare, taxes and energy. Some Senate Republicans were especially irked with McCain’s role in the “Gang of 14” deal on judicial nominations. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who has been sharply critical of McCain on immigration, told The Hill in February, “I don’t like McCain. I don’t like him at all.” Tancredo spokesman Mac Zimmerman said Tancredo won’t endorse McCain because he fears the senator would repudiate it like he did with the formal backing of controversial pastor John Hagee. However, Tancredo told ABC News this week he will reluctantly vote for McCain. Gilchrest and Hagel, who disagree with McCain’s views on Iraq, have been mum on their endorsements. Kathy Hicks, spokeswoman for Gilchrest, said, “Since he was not reelected to public office, he’s keeping his thoughts private.” Gilchrest lost in a Republican primary earlier this year. Jones, who has voted repeatedly with Democrats on Iraq, said he can’t back McCain until he gets “a better explanation of the plans for Iraq and more discussion on the economy.” Jones added that no one from McCain’s campaign has reached out to him. Peterson wants answers on energy from McCain’s campaign. In a recent interview, Peterson noted McCain’s stance on climate change, saying, “If global warming is our top energy priority, this country has no economic future.” Peterson, who didn’t endorse any candidate in the GOP primary, said, “None of them made energy their top issue.” McCain senior campaign aide Douglas Holtz-Eakin is scheduled to meet with Peterson on June 24. Peterson spokesman Patrick Creighton made it clear that his boss will not be pulling the lever for Obama: “I can guarantee that John Peterson is not going to publicly support or vote for Obama.” Paul, meanwhile, is still campaigning in the presidential race, and his campaign boasts on its website that he received more than 45,000 votes on June 3 in the final three Republican primaries. After clinching the nomination in early March, McCain attracted less-than-expected support in the later primary states — drawing less than 80 percent of the vote in Indiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In some ways, the lukewarm backing of some lawmakers could be a blessing, because congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. And McCain himself has touted his independence, proudly pointing out that he has at times upset some of his Republican colleagues in Washington. McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said, “John McCain has strong support among Republicans and even some others in the Congress for taking principled stands. While his support is rock solid, it also shouldn't be a surprise that Sen. McCain's bold record of independence on the issues isn't appreciated by every single Republican on Capitol Hill.” Though the vast majority of congressional Republicans said they endorse McCain’s presidential bid, many supporters were hesitant to answer the question. Some of the members’ spokesmen either confirmed or denied their boss’s support but declined to speak for attribution about the rationale behind that member’s decision. A few Republicans would not go so far as to say they support McCain, only confirming that they will back the Republican nominee in the general election. “He will support the Republican nominee, who is likely to be John McCain,” said Wayne Hoffman, spokesman for Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho). Doolittle’s and Tiahrt’s offices did not specify their disagreements with McCain, but both lawmakers were ardent opponents of McCain’s push for campaign finance reform six years ago. McCain has consistently mocked the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” the infamous earmark championed by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). Young’s office did not respond to requests for comment. Other members offered support for McCain, but indicated their opposition to a few of his positions. Rep. James Walsh (R-N.Y.), for example, publicly backs McCain, but strongly disagrees with the presumptive nominee on immigration. Raj Bharwani, spokesman for Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), said, “Since he is a Republican, he would support the Republican nominee.” But, to get Sensenbrenner’s endorsement, the congressman would like “to have a meeting to discuss their differences.” Chart: GOP members not publicly backing or endorsing McCain (PDF) Jackie Kucinich contributed to this article.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz (#0)
Welcome aboard, Tom. Too bad you support this damn war....you might have been a contender.
Tancredo spokesman Mac Zimmerman said Tancredo won’t endorse McCain because he fears the senator would repudiate it like he did with the formal backing of controversial pastor John Hagee. However, Tancredo told ABC News this week he will reluctantly vote for McCain. mr immigration capitulates, huh? traitor.
mr immigration capitulates, huh? traitor. This is why I never jumped on the Tancredo bandwagon.
It occurs to me that the destruction of the Republican Party is one of the NeoTrotskyCon's objectives. I think the vote of '92 which brought in a lot of new, read uncontrolled, Congresscritters as a result of a grass roots revolt scared the controllers. The American People were showing some life and a bit of resistance to "business as usual" and the orderly enslavement of the United States. So, the resistance had to be neutralized - thus we get "Bush the Lesser" - the psychotic little pimp hopped up on Psychiatric Drugs and easily controlled by the Psychiatrist behind the curtain. Geeeeeee Duhbya's father is such a vile piece of filth that I often wonder if Duhbya was not run through an MK Ultra type program as part of his "up-bringin"? I don't know, but it would explain much. Now, we get McNuts, run through North Vietnamese/Russian Psyciatric Conditioning, who is an obvious psychotic criminal to drive the final nail into the resistance to tyranny and the final complete takeover, and control, of the Republican Party by morons and criminals. That a few are standing up is a good sign, but we can see that Goldi-Pox's preferred quisling is just that - a quisling. As Bob Grant often said: "It's sick out and getting sicker."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
DO NOT LET OBAMA & MCCAIN TRICK YOU - THINGS WILL NOT CHANGE!
well, that's an interesting hypothesis.
Thank you. At this point it is an unconfirmed hypothesis, but there are few factors that lend support. First the Democrat Party is, at this point, pretty well under control and the far left socialist-fascist programs, such as "National Hellth Care", punitive taxation, and the Nanny State have their home there. The NeoTrotskyCons have been restating the same policies, cloaked in "conservative" verbiage to graft onto the Republican Party, which has its own historic faults i.e., a bias toward the "Country Club" Set. However, the grass roots overthrow of the "ROCKEFELLER" Republicans, in what Dan Blather called a "temper tantrum", had the beginnings of an actual resurgence of actual conservative policies. Since 1992 we have seen a large influx of "ex"-liberals (actually communists - Trotskyites) into the Republican Fold taking over. Most of them are Zionists and are most likely knowing agents of Israel i.e., traitors. Throw in media control of conservatives via controlled false opposition i.e., "Pills" Limbuggerer, Neil BOORtz, et. al., and you have in place a control mechanism to delegitimize actual conservatives and convince the Sheeple that the new Liberal Conservatism is Real Conservatism i.e., a Saul Alinsky maneuver. So my thinking led me conclude that the Party most likely to revolt, and be taken over by resisters, against the Planetary Slave State that the Hyperwealthy, Rot-childs, Rockefellers, et. al, are trying to establish was the Republican Party and the turning point was '92. So, what would a "would-be" Emperor and his wannabe "Noble Elite", who were not ready for public exposure, do? Their usual i.e., subvert, pervert, blackmail, and murder in order to take over the resistance and turn it into a false opposition. I could continue but I want to chew on this some more, but I think I may have hit something with that light bulb coming on.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Chrissie, at the end of the day they will all vote party line. And all 'these' out here in la la land who are pitching fits over 'the manchurian' or 'the black guy' or 'the bitch wuz robbed' are gonna vote the party line. Crawling on ones knees thru broken glass is not only limited to gopers. They'll posture and pose and primp and do a little dance, but will vote party in the end--cause they don't want the other guy. They wouldn't vote for true change if they had a bullring thru their scrotums or their boobs! Party, party, party is the name of the game as the nation goes down the tube. And the feeding frenzy swirling around daily over some damned something or other points out why a 3rd party person wouldn't stand a chance.
Turn your back on the sun and you only see the shadows.
I think you are on to something here.
Unlike OJ's glove it does seem to fit.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#2. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who has been sharply critical of McCain on immigration, told The Hill in February, “I don’t like McCain. I don’t like him at all.”
#3. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who has been sharply critical of McCain on immigration, told The Hill in February, “I don’t like McCain. I don’t like him at all.”
#4. To: christine (#3)
However, Tancredo told ABC News this week he will reluctantly vote for McCain.
#5. To: TwentyTwelve, christine (#1)
#6. To: christine, all (#3)
#7. To: Original_Intent (#5)
It occurs to me that the destruction of the Republican Party is one of the NeoTrotskyCon's objectives. I think the vote of '92 which brought in a lot of new, read uncontrolled, Congresscritters as a result of a grass roots revolt scared the controllers.
#8. To: christine (#7)
(Edited)
well, that's an interesting hypothesis.
#9. To: christine (#3)
#10. To: Original_Intent (#8)
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
James Madison
#11. To: farmfriend (#10)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest