Posted on 08/15/2006 2:35:56 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
GRINNELL, Iowa - Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Tuesday there is "lingering resentment" among some Republicans because of his primary fight in 2000 with George W. Bush.
Those feelings may complicate his decision whether to seek the presidential nomination for 2008, said McCain, R-Ariz.
"If I run, and we'll decide that early next year, there's a lot of work to do," McCain said as he began a two-day visit to Iowa, which traditionally holds leadoff caucuses in January of presidential election years.
"Here in Iowa there are parts of the party where there's still lingering resentment over the bitterness of the 2000 race," he said.
In 2000, McCain skipped the Iowa caucuses and opened his campaign with the New Hampshire primary. He beat Bush there, but the Texas governor overtook him in later primaries.
As he considers a possible bid for the GOP nomination in 2008, McCain has visited Iowa often. Most polls show him better known that other possible Republican candidates.
"Since we haven't decided whether or not to run, we haven't decided whether to compete here, but I think you could make the argument that it's very different than 2000," he said. "In 2000, I was the outsider and, you know, we could afford to pass up on Iowa."
This time, he said, "I think the nomination would be up for grabs, I really do."
McCain has worked to deflect criticism of his opposition to subsidies for ethanol, an important issue in corn-growing Iowa.
"My position on ethanol is support for ethanol when oil went over $40 a barrel," he said. He said soaring gasoline prices make ethanol competitive in the marketplace.
"I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects," he said.
McCain's visit included a stop Tuesday in Grinnell, where he campaigned for state Rep. Danny Carroll.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) speaks to reporters in Washington April 4, 2006. In a month when most voters would rather hit the swimming pool than debate tax cuts, potential 2008 White House candidates are swarming Iowa to win new friends, visit the state fair and maybe eat a pork chop on a stick. REUTERS/Jim Young
He needs to grow up and get over it.
I hate the jerk.
The "lingering resentment" isn't in "some Republicans" -- it's in McCain.
There is no resentment John, we simply learned what you stand for and have listen to what you say today and simply do not agree with you on many issues.
We also thing you and the rest of the Keating 5 should have been removed from office.
We just don't trust you John.
because of his primary fight in 2000 with George W. Bush.
Unbelievable how stupid these reporters are.
As for me, my resentment of John McCain has much more to do with his disloyalty to conservatism. It has to do with the astonishingly brazen attack on the Constitution that is the McCain-Feingold legislation. It has to do with the fact that he will say and/or do anything, any time, to anyone in order to get more face time with the media.
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., questions Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 3, 2006. Committee Chairman Sen. John Warner, R-Va., is at left. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
I don't have any resentment.
I simply think he's a flake.
"I'm just like Luke Skywalker, trying to get out of the Death Star. I'm telling you, they're shooting at me from everywhere. Everybody's against me. Governor Engler, Governor Bush, all the governors, all the senators. But we're gonna kill 'em, right? We're going to get 'em. I'm getting out of the Death Star, and we're gonna win the election!"
- John McCain (to a group of Saginaw High Shoolers)
THe lingering resentment has little to do with McCain's entry into the 2000 primary. Some of us actually backed him as an alternative to the party boss's choice of GWB. However, we begin to ask questions when the media got on his bandwagon. After his shameful pimping of campaign finance reform, many of his former backers (including this one) wouldn't vote for him as dogcatcher if he was the only candidate on the ballot.
LOL!!!!
The only lingering resentment from any Republican over 2000 is from his corner.
At least the fool is finally admitting he isn't as beloved as the media always tell the jerk.
Now there IS strong resentment of McCain...in my case I'd term it hate. But the source isn't 2000. The source is McCain's hatred for me, conservatives, Christians, his goal to destroy the conservative movement from within and constrict our rights..to side with Liberals, world opinion, protect terrorists, protect out of control judges...
Get ready to go down maverick. Few things about politicains animate me these days. Defeating you is one of them.
Image courtesy of Registered Media
I won't say McPain is the last Republican I would vote for president but he is towards the bottom of the list. There are a couple of other Rhinos I would put below him.
No Johnny Boy. The resentment comes from all the crap you've pulled SINCE then.
He's also upset because some of the men took his strawberries.
Look at the bright side - McCain is clearly looking for a face-saving way to bow out of the 2008 Republican primaries, which he already knows he does not have a chance of winning. Not because of long-simmering resentment among Republican voters at his unsuccessful 2000 run, but rather due to well-reasoned disdain for past legislative atrocities bearing his name or fingerprints (such as McCain-Feingold). This is a trial balloon to see whether he can get away with jumping out of the race via this red-herring before he gets his rear end demolished in an actual vote.
Speaking of which, seema good opening to post this again...rooting for Ravenal...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669283/posts
For several decades, being a United States Senator from South Carolina meant long-term job security. The late Strom Thurmond (Democrat/Dixicrat/Republican) served South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1955 to 2003. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (Democrat) served it there from 1966 to 2005.
Senator Thurmond's successor, Senator Lindsey Graham, is on track to begin a new tradition for South Carolina's United States Senators -- one term and out.
Manuel Miranda, Chairman of the Third Branch Conference, an organization dedicated to realizing the dream of a judiciary that interprets the law, instead of making or even revising it under the guise of interpreting it, is circulating a letter to South Carolina conservative Tom Ravenel requesting him "to run as a Republican candidate for The United States Senate from South Carolina in 2008."
The full text of the letter to Mr. Ravenel:
"We the undersigned hereby request your commitment to run as a Republican candidate for The United States Senate from South Carolina in 2008. Your reluctance to make a decision now is understandable; even admirable. 2008 is three years away [Note: now, actually TWO]. But recent events add urgency to this decision.
By helping Democrats abort the fight to end judicial filibusters, Senator Graham has revealed how much he cherishes the supposed 'traditions of the U.S. Senate'. We, his constituents, do not share his reverence for tradition or his preference for comity over victory. We are appalled that our country, founded by men so courageous they put their very lives at risk, is being held hostage by a minority of men and women so tentative and so timid, they equate a mere Senate rule change with violence.
Senator Graham said it would 'blow up the Senate' and that by averting a rule change, the Senate is 'back in business'. To this we add: Yes, business as usual. When the time arrived to confront Democrat obstructionists, he shrank from conflict and chose compromise over victory. After Senator Graham participated in the backroom deal, he made several bewildering statements. Among them was this one: 'I will not use this job to hate people. There are some people on the right and the left, who expect you not only to vote with them, but to hate the people they hate. Count me out.' We do not equate political opposition with hatred. We did not ask him to hate, and we will not respond to the heated rhetoric he directed at us by returning a similar outburst toward him.
"Lindsey Graham is a fine man and no doubt made his decision in good conscience. He chose to make a deal with Senator John McCain and the rest of 'The Gang of 14', in the belief that compromise was preferable to victory. In the past, he said he believes judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. But belief is not the same as commitment. It is his prerogative to change his mind and follow Senator McCain instead of his party's majority leader and his president.
However, it is likewise our prerogative to change our minds. We would now prefer that you be our Senator instead of Lindsey Graham. You conducted yourself honorably in your 2004 campaign for Senate; a campaign won by Jim DeMint. You fought hard, and conceded gracefully in a close primary. In the general election campaign, you supported Mr. DeMint much more than the minimal amount that sportsmanship and party loyalty require. You supported his candidacy warmly, enthusiastically and even financially. He won by a wide margin. It was his time then. It is your time now. We trust you will answer the call and commit soon, if not immediately. We wish to send you to join Mr. Jim DeMint to represent the great state of South Carolina in Washington as a member of the United States Senate."
Senator Graham, it's a shame, but you have yourself to blame.
And you WERE cautioned in advance.
Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network -- "an organization of citizens joined together to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States...to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair, and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote" -- foresaw that you would join what became the Gang of Fourteen and posted this plea to you on National Review Online's Benchmemos on May 20, 2005, more than a year ago:
"Breaking News: Lindsey Graham Going Wobbly?
"Breaking news: Word is that Lindsey Graham may be a lynchpin in a bad deal being cooked up on judges. Lindsey, can you hear us? We will not be able to hold back a primary challenge if there is some backroom deal with your name on it backstabbing the president's judicial nominees. Politics and principle happily converge here: Every judge, and the American people, deserves an up-or-down vote. Those wishing to fortify Senator Graham can contact his offices...."
That was more than fair warning, Senator.
Still, you abandoned the principle that "...[e]very judge, and the American people, deserves an up-or-down vote." "It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder," said the Marquis de Talleyrand, referring to Napoleon executing the Duc d'Enghien?
It was a betrayal of the people who elected you, AND a blunder, Senator Graham.
Michael J. Gaynor is an independent columnist
Gee, John, ya think...???
Look what his support in Michigan for Joe Schwarz got him -- Schwarz was UNELECTED in the primary, soundly spanked by a true conservative, Tim Walberg.
Take a clue, Mr. McCainiac...conservatives REMEMBER and WILL NOT vote for you!
If you think someone who votes your way 90% of the time is the enemy, then most of the GOP is your enemy.
"lingering resentment?" Where? I haven't come across any of it anywhere from anyone. In fact, everybody that I've heard from on the subject of McCain is agreed that they simply don't want a president who was held as a prisoner of war by one of our enemies. Period!
I'll be blunt. I won't vote democratic, not ever, they tried to disenfranchise me in 2000. That's a stain that just won't wash.
If the Republicans run a McCain or Giulaini, they had better be ready to give up the White House. I'm not the only one that won't vote for either of these two either way.
I like Giuliani, so long as he is a mayor of a city I am far away from and have no reason to ever visit.
One question.
When have I called Lindsey "evil" or a "Marxist"?
Oh, right, I didn't. You did.
Anyway, I thought I said this to you before, or maybe it was to someone like you? I've heard the propaganda from the SOROS Mainstreet side of the wing already. Already responded to it. It's not worth it to do it again. You guys are as illogical in your insults as you are in your ideology. Which, in this case, is liberalism.
I know it still hurts you LOST one of your "own" incumbents the other week, but really..very few Americans give a damn. Which makes it hurt more I realize. You evidently think America is craving "moderate (Liberal) leadership from you. Guess not.
The reality is that you guys declared political war on conservatives, now that the fight isn't going the way you anticipated you cry foul. Don't start a political war you can't win. You should have learned that after the dismissal of the Rockefeller's with Reagan's win.
Funny thing is, you know the saying it'll come back to haunt you and that's exactly what will happen to McWhiner if he ever get the nob. That little piece of crappy legilation will....DONE HIM IN! Soros and the rest of the looney left will have a field day!
McCain is a mentally-ill nutcase, overburdened with his POW baggage from Nam (I served '69-71), carrying his guilt and shame like stripes on his dirty, liberal sleeve. He needs psychiatric help, in mega-doses, and is unfit for any elected office. I thank him for his military service, but I spit on him for his treason to America.
In other words, John McCain is an opportunist -- an unprincipaled opportunist.
And he is impulsive.
A potentially deadly combination...
He needs to remember that a whole lot of us HATE him for McCain/Fiengold, the cretinous GANG OF 14 garbages, and a whole LOT of other things besides what happened in 2000.
I recall seeing a TV clip of McCain sceaming at Maria Shiver as she politely attempted to ask him a question backstage at one of his political rallies in 2000
Senator John McCain is a mean - nasty - arrogant bum when he does not think the cameras are rolling on him
I'd simplify that
McCain is insane
I do hope you are correct.
I've read that in articles too. They said he acts crazy off camera!
Look at the pic. The guy's old and haggard. Reminds me of FDR at Yalta.
His obsession with our guys torturing terrorists was the final straw --- and weird.
Lots of alleged "conservatives" have called Lindsey evil, marxist, etc. Bill Clinton agrees and thanks them in his efforts to purge the house managers.
>> I've heard the propaganda from the SOROS Mainstreet side of the wing already. <<
What the hell does Soros have to do with this? Are you saying Soros backs Lindsey Graham's election?
>> You guys are as illogical in your insults as you are in your ideology. Which, in this case, is liberalism. <<
Ah, backing pro-life, pro-gun, pro-tax cut Republicans who lead the fight to impeach Clinton makes me a liberal. You're just proven by point, that you're as deranged as the Lamont types who think Gore's running mate is working for Bush.
>> You evidently think America is craving "moderate (Liberal) leadership from you. Guess not. <<
Whatever you're smoking it must be damn good. Here's your idea of "moderate (liberal) leadership"
Senator Graham supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 96 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 90 percent in Fall 2004.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 100 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 80 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 80 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Issues on economic issues 80 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001-2005 Senator Graham supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001-2005 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Graham a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Graham a grade of B- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 0 percent in 1999-2000.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 88 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 88 percent in 2003-2004.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 94 percent in 1999-2000.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 100 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 88 percent in 2004.
Senator Graham supported the position of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent of the time in 2004-2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the League of United Latin American Citizens 0 percent in 2004 Senator Graham supported the interests of the National Education Association 0 percent in 2005.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.
Senator Graham supported the interests of the Council for a Livable World 0 percent in 2001-2004.
In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Senator Graham a rating of D.
In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Senator Graham a rating of F.
If you can find any rank and file "moderate/liberal" voters who whole-heartily embrace such positions, let me know. Last time I checked, all those "moderate/liberal" Senators like Olmypia Snowe wouldn't be caught dead voting like that.
>> The reality is that you guys declared political war on conservatives <<
The reality is that Lindsey Graham is a solid conservative and I have a long time record of OPPOSING moderate/liberal RINOs like Arlen Specter who regularly support the Dems.
Unforutnately for you, reality is that you're a nutcase who thinks anyone who "only" votes your way 90% of the time instead of 100% of the time is a "liberal" and the enemy, which means you're the idelogical heir of Ned Lamont and his gang of lunatic purists. The Lamont gang thinks anyone who voted for the Iraq War is a Bush clone and must be purged (that's about 3/4th of the elected Dem officials) Likewise, since roughly 3/4th of the GOP doesn't fit your own ultra-purist standard, perhaps you'd be happier starting your own party where everyone has to do your bidding 100% of the time.
>> You should have learned that after the dismissal of the Rockefeller's with Reagan's win. <<
The Rockefeller wing of the party dismissed anyone with Lindsey Graham's "record" as an unelectable right-wing idealogue. Linc Chafee and his ill never vote with Graham. Only a fool could believe Lindsey Graham's 90% conservative rating makes him the same ideology as a typical big-government, pro-abortion, gun grabbing RINOs from New York with a 30% conservative rating.
The Lamontites in the Dem party want to purge people who agree with them 90% of the time and the Lamonites in the GOP want to do likewise. We Republicans love watching the Lamonties in the RAT party self-destruct and eat their own and the Dems likewise (especially Slick Willie I'm sure) are breaking out the popcorn hoping you "purge" of their longtime enemy Lindsey Graham. You are your own worst enemy.
We conservatives will support people who vote our way 90% of the time. You Lamontites should start your own party where everyone has to vote your way 100% on every issue or be run out of town on a rail. Heil Soul Seeker!
Oh, and Lindsey Graham supported Reagan for President, not the "Rockefeller Republicans". Graham has always said his political heros were Reagan and Winston Churchill. Graham was supporting conservative Republicans in the early 80s when alot of "true conservatives" in South Carolina were still voting for communist RATs.
Don't let facts get in the way of your rant about Graham being a "Rockefeller Republican" though. I'm sure in your fantasyland he was endorsed by Jim Jeffords.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.