[BillyBoy]

Well I agree on fieldmarshaldj on Karen Floyd. Normally when you have a state like South Carolina, asking who is "electable" in the primary is a non-issue because just about anyone with an "R" next to their name will win in the fall. Putting Floyd in the primary makes it an issue though, as Lindsey Graham can honestly claim that if she's nominated, the seat might go to a RAT in the fall. There's really no execuse for losing statewide in Sotuh Carolina during an election year where the rest of the statewide GOP slate won handily -- it's kind of like a Massachuttes Dem being so awful they lose to the GOP. Personally I think Floyd lost not because she was perserved as "anti-education", but because her outspoken young earth creationist rhetoric (a.k.a. I'm absolutely sure the world was created in exactly 4004 B.C.) is too much for even the evagelical crowd there, but who knows? You guys want to run Floyd against Lindsey, go right ahead.

Finding a primary challenger for a maverick Republican is so much easier when you're not from the "anyone who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time should be drawn and quartered" kool-aid drinking school of thought. For example: In Rhode Island I rallied around Stephen Laffey to take on Linc Chafee. Is Stephen Laffey a true blue, 100% conservative? No, he's not. In fact, he's much more liberal than Graham. Laffey even distanced himself from conservativism. However, there was little doubt Laffey was a step up from Chaffee. Laffey agrees with me 60-70%, Chafee probably 10-20% of the time. Of course if I was going to scream treason and demand Laffey be lynched the moment he voted the "wrong" way on a judicial plan, or immigration bill, or torture compromise, I'd STILL be searching for a Chafee challenger today, because there just aren't alot of super pure 100% solid conservatives running around Rhode Island.

And unfortunately for you guys, you're going to find that out the hard way in South Carolina. It's more conservative than Rhode Island, yes, but as much as you guys want a prominent elected official who will do your bidding on every issue, their just aren't many running around. You guys were a lot more likeable on this forum when you understood who the REAL RINOs are -- the abortion-loving, gun-grabbing, gay-rights, tax-and-spend surrender monkey's in the GOP like Specter and Chafee. Now you've drank the Buchanan bridgage kool-aide where anyone who disagrees with you on a certain issue is a homosexual marxist globalist traitor. Dick Cheney was too liberal for the Buchanan brigagers, and now you guys are even going after Jon Kyl, who admit agrees with you 99% of the time but didn't do your bidding on one single bill. Hey fieldmarshaldj, so much for "this is not about a single-issue", eh?

You know the funny thing is, I know deep down inside you realize this "80% of Republican Senators are treasonous slimebags who must be purged, even if they agree with me the other 99% of the time" tilting-at-windmills stuff is a folly, which is why you make exceptions to your own rule of what kind of votes consitute a "RINO traitor". Otherwise your hometown boy Fred Thompson would be on the list, and we can't have that.

My advice to you is that you might want to learn from this Tom Ravenel (who you guys were begging to reconsider challenging "RINO traitor" Graham as recently as 48 hours ago), and do a little background check on these guys before you worship any prominent conservative official in the state as your savior to dethrone the "RINOs". I doubt you'll learn from this one though. Be prepared to end up with a lot more Ravenels in the future, as long as you insist on a stalin-like loyality where candidates MUST agree with you on EVERY issue or be "taken out" in the primary.

[HiTech RedNeck]

the loyalty demands drove him to drugs?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Billy, you usually make rational assessments, but it stops at the doorstep of Graham. I have rarely seen any supposedly Conservative Republican PERSONALLY go out of his way to stick a finger in the eye of the Conservative movement as this guy has.

Y’know what, even if he voted 90% the right way, all of it is moot the second he can justify and CHAMPION a full-scale invasion force of the United States. Sorry, pal, but you don’t defend MY homeland and our rights to do so, and you can hit the bricks. That, btw, also goes for the President, too.

[BillyBoy]

BTW, you guys are late to this thread, freepers have been having a field day knocking Republicans who tied themselves to Ravenel.

The irony seems lost on you guys (but based on the responces here, apperent to everyone on this thread), that you were ready to ditch a guy for casting his lot with McCain, but replace him with a guy who cast his lot with JulieAnnie. Everyone but you "anyone but Graham" types seem to realize replacing a McCain yes-man with a Giuliani yes-man is even more of a step down.(sort of like replacing the ol' reliable yugo with a horse-and-buggy) Oh well.

I'm very glad Lindsey didn't go the route the "True conservative" cokehead and start touting an abortion-loving drag queen for President. If he had, then you could rightly say "he's gone maverick" .

Hey, maybe even the cokehead realized the awkward situation you guys would have put him in. Kinda hard to simtaneouly tell South Carolinians to vote for a guy who agrees with them 10% of the time, and then argue that another guy who agrees with them 90% of the time is "too liberal" for South Carolina.

And you gotta love the fact the unofficial www.thomasravenel.com fan page is still up, reminding everyone that the cokehead Giuliani butt kisser was proclaimed the conservative hero to replace Lindsey.

[JohnnyZ]

My advice to you is that you might want to learn from this Tom Ravenel ...and do a little background check on these guys

As far as I know, there were not even whispers of anything untoward regarding Ravenel.

Anyone could have some sort of dirty laundry hidden away, but until and if it comes out, it's not possible to know about it.

That's why you never 'marry' a polician, because you'll never really know.