McCain launches "Service to America Tour" in Mississippi (full text)

Thank you. It's good to be back in Meridian. As you might know, I was once a flight instructor here at the air field named for my grandfather during my long past and misspent youth. And it's always good to be in Mississippi, which you could call my ancestral home. Generations of McCains were born and raised in Carroll County, on land that had been in our family since 1848. The last McCain to live on the property, which the family called Teoc, was my grandfather's brother, Joe McCain. I spent a couple summers here as a young boy, and enjoyed it immensely. I had never had a permanent address because my father's naval career required us to move frequently. But here, in the care of my very likeable Uncle Joe, I could imagine, with a little envy, what it must have been like for the McCains who came before me to be so connected to one place; to be part of a community and a landscape as well as a family.

By all accounts, the McCains of Carroll County were devoted to one another and their traditions; a lively, proud and happy family on the Mississippi Delta. Yet, many McCains left here as young men to pursue careers in what has long been our family's chosen profession - the United States Armed Forces. My great-grandfather was the sheriff and never left. But his brother, Henry Pinkney McCain, was a major general in the Army, and organized the draft in World War One. Camp McCain in Grenada, Mississippi is named for him. My great uncle, William McCain, was known as "Wild Bill" for his "dynamic" personality - he was reputed to have ridden his horse onto his future father-in-law's porch to ask him for his daughter's hand. He chased Pancho Villa with General Pershing, was an artillery officer in World War One, and retired a Brigadier General. Both men are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, as are my father and grandfather. We trace my family's martial heritage back to the Revolution. A distant ancestor served on General Washington's staff, and it seems my ancestors fought in most wars in our nation's history. All were soldiers - both Henry and Bill McCain were West Pointers - until my grandfather broke family tradition and entered the Naval Academy in 1902. He was succeeded there by my father, then me, and then my son.

As I noted, the naval air field here is named for my grandfather, who had an illustrious career in the Navy, and who remained proud of his Mississippi roots until the end of his life. I have only very early memories of him. I was just nine when he died. But he was an unforgettable man, a lively, colorful, though infrequent, presence in our lives. To spend time in his company was as much fun as a young boy could imagine. He loved his family, and we were spellbound by him. He was a slight man and gaunt, but he filled any room with his deep voice and high spirits. He was devoted to the Navy, but in personal comportment, he was anything but regulation. He was a rumpled, informal man, who wore a crushed cap with the crown removed that the wife of one of his aviators had given him; kept his shoes off when he worked in an office; tobacco leavings were always scattered about him, as he rolled his own with one hand; possessed a mischievous sense of humor, and was unusually close to sailors and junior officers who served under him, and revered him. They called him, "Popeye;" his family called him, "Sid;" and his fellow officers, "Slew," for reasons I never learned

After graduating from the Naval Academy, he sailed around the Philippine Islands on a gunboat captured from the Spanish, the executive officer to the great Chester Nimitz. He returned to the United States on the U.S.S. Connecticut, the flagship of Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet. He served on an armored cruiser in the First World War, escorting wartime convoys across the U-boat infested Atlantic. In 1935, after the Navy ordered that all aircraft carrier skippers must themselves have earned their wings, he trained as a pilot. He was 52 years old at the time, and a Navy Captain. By his own admission, he never learned to fly well. A subordinate recalled later, "the base prayed for his safe return each time he flew." But he managed to earn his wings, and left Pensacola to command the naval air station in the Panama Canal Zone, where I was born.

My father, Jack McCain, was an officer at a submarine base there, one of the few occasions in his adult life when he lived in close proximity to the man he admired above all others. Though they lived far apart for decades, no father and son could have been closer. My father described his father as "a very great leader and people loved him. . . the blood of life flowed through his veins . . . a man of great moral and physical courage." He had learned everything about leadership from his father, he said. Both were highly individualistic men with outsize personalities, but were completely dedicated to the United States Navy. Neither ever wanted any other life, and while both were guilty of more than a few regulation infractions, and shared a few vices, they adhered strictly to the code father had taught son: never lie, steal or cheat. Both took a great interest in the views and well-being of the men who served under them. They believed military leaders learned as much from the people they commanded as they taught them. They were demanding, but fair and compassionate commanders. "We are responsible for our men," my father once said, "not the other way around. That's what forges trust and loyalty." They shirked no duty, braved extraordinary dangers, and were exceptional leaders. They were the first father and son to become four star admirals.

My grandfather commanded the fast carrier task force in the Pacific under Admiral Halsey, and devised many of the tactics that were employed by carriers for many years after. He was instrumental in Japan's defeat, and was given a privileged place on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri to witness the signing of the unconditional surrender that ended the war. My father commanded a submarine in the Pacific during the war, survived several harrowing experiences, and had brought a Japanese submarine into Tokyo Harbor at the time of the surrender ceremony. Both were exhausted at war's end, but happy to have the opportunity for a brief reunion. They met onboard a submarine tender, and spent a couple of hours together. My grandfather was worn out and obviously ill. Years later, my father recalled the last words my grandfather had ever spoken to him. "Son, there is no greater thing than to die . . . for the country and principles that you believe in." After father and son parted that afternoon, my grandfather began the long trip home to Coronado. Not long after he arrived, at a homecoming party, he turned to my grandmother, and announced he did not feel well. He died a moment later of a heart attack. He had fought his war and died in service to the country he believed in.

My father could not return to the States in time for the funeral. My mother found him waiting for her to return to California from the funeral in Washington, weeping on the airport tarmac. In time, my father, the son of a legendary naval leader, would rise to an even greater command than his father had. During the Vietnam War, he commanded all U.S. forces in the Pacific, at the top of a chain of command that included, near the bottom, his son, a naval aviator on Yankee Station in the Tonkin Gulf, and later a prisoner of war in Hanoi. My father seldom spoke of my captivity to anyone outside the family, and never in public. He prayed on his knees every night for my safe return. He would spend holidays with the troops in Vietnam, near the DMZ. At the end of his visit, he would walk alone to the base perimeter, and look north toward the city where I was held. Yet, when duty required it, he gave the order for B-52s to bomb Hanoi, in close proximity to my prison.

I have lived a blessed life, and the first of my blessings was the family I was born into. I had not only the example of my distinguished male relations, and their long tradition of military service. I was fortunate to grow up under the influence of strong, capable, accomplished women; first among them, my mother, the formidable Roberta McCain; her identical twin, Rowena; my strict and imposing paternal grandmother, Catherine; and equally impressive maternal grandmother, Myrtle. For much of my childhood, my mother was the parent who raised me, my sister and brother. My father was often at sea, and she bore all the responsibilities of both parents. She moved us from base to base, often driving us across country on her own; managed our household; paid the bills; saw to our education and religious upbringing; and made of our itinerant childhood, an interesting, exciting time, rich with fascinating experiences. She was and is a resilient woman, extroverted, uncomplaining, forthright and determined, who greets every challenge as an opportunity to measure one's strength of character and learn about the wider world beyond our immediate environment.

The family I was born to, and the family I am blessed with now, made me the man I am, and instilled in me a deep and abiding respect for the social institution that wields the greatest influence in the formation of our individual character and the character of our society. I may have been raised in a time when government did not dare to assume the responsibilities of parents. But I am a father in a time when parents worry that threats to their children's well-being are proliferating and undermining the values they have worked to impart to them. That is not to say that government should dictate to parents how to raise their children or assume from parents any part of that most personal and important responsibility. No government is capable of caring for children as attentively and wisely as the mother and father who love them. But government must be attentive to the impact of its policies on families so that it does not through inattention or arrogance make it harder for parents to have the resources to succeed in the greatest work of their lives - raising their children. And where government has a role to play, in education, in combating the threats to the security and happiness of children from online predators, in helping to make health care affordable and accessible to the least fortunate among us, it must do so urgently, effectively and wisely.

Tax policy must not rob parents of the means to care for their children and provide them the opportunities their parents provided them. Government spending must not be squandered on things we do not need and can't afford, and which don't address a single American's concern for their family's security. Government can't just throw money at public education while reinforcing the failures of many of our schools, but should, through choice and competition, by rewarding good teachers and holding bad teachers accountable, help parents prepare their children for the challenges and opportunities of the global economy. Government must be attentive to the impact on families of parents who have lost jobs in our changing economy that won't come back. Our programs for displaced workers are antiquated, repetitive and ineffective. Many were designed for a time when unemployment was seasonal or a temporary consequence of an economic downturn, not for a time when systemic changes wrought by the growing global economy have, while promising undreamt of opportunities for ourselves and many historically poor societies, have cost too many parents the jobs they had assumed would be theirs for life.

With the loss of work and the resources it provides families, come just as injurious losses to the emotional health of families. Work provides more than an income. It is a source of self-worth, pride and sense of purpose. Children learn as much from observation as instruction. The mother or father who has lost hope along with their job can unintentionally impart that hopelessness to their children. A welfare check can't give a parent a sense of purpose. And among the most important things children can inherit from their parents is a sense of purpose, and an aspiration to be part of something bigger than themselves.

My parents taught me that, and I will always be indebted to them. But like many young people, I didn't understand the lesson very well until later in life when I needed it most. As a boy, my family legacy, as fascinating as it was to me, often felt like an imposition. I knew from a very early age that I was destined for Annapolis and a career in the Navy. In reaction, I often rebelled in small and petty ways to what I perceived as an encroachment on my free will.

I concede that I remember with affection the unruly passions of youth, and how they governed my immature sense of honor and self-respect. As I grew older, and the challenges to my self-respect grew more varied and serious, I was surprised to discover that while my sense of honor had matured, its defense mattered even more to me than it did when it was such a vulnerable thing that any empty challenge threatened it.

Like most people, when I reflect on the adventures and joys of youth, I feel a longing for what is lost and cannot be restored. But though the happy pursuits of the young prove ephemeral, something better can endure, and endure until our last moment of life. And that is the honor we earn and the love we give when we work and sacrifice with others for a cause greater than our self-interest. For me that cause has long been our country. I am a lucky, lucky man to have found it, and am forever grateful to those who showed me the way. What they gave me was much more valuable and lasting than the tribute I once paid to vanity.

I am the son and grandson of admirals. My grandfather was an aviator; my father a submariner. They were my first heroes, and their respect for me has been one of the most lasting ambitions of my life. They gave their lives to their country, and taught me lessons about honor, courage, duty, perseverance and leadership that I didn't fully grasp until later in life, but remembered when I needed them most. I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I am their son, and they showed me how to love my country, and that has made all the difference for me, my friends, all the difference in the world.

I can find dozens of freepers who are motivated by idealogical purity.

Either this was a spectacularly clumsy (not to mention staggeringly ineffectual) attempt at moving the goalposts, or else you're simply twelve. I'm going to extend you the (possibly unwarranted) courtesy of assuming the former -- unless/until further evidence is provided demonstrating otherwise -- and point out, with gentle patience, that the actual, stated request was for the linking to (or cutting-and-pasting of) any FReeper stating, baldly, their insistence upon "ideological purity." Period, end of sentence, full stop.

Doubtless it's devilishly annoying for you, our steadfast refusal to accept the [*kaff*kaff*] "fact" that Team Juan's tireless phalanx of shills, apologists and intellectually harelipped online cheerleaders in general can, in fact, flawlessly read minds from afar. Such rash impertinence on our parts, however, is something you're either going to have to collectively acclimatize yourselves to, or else simply continue sulking about it, while everyone else around you points and giggles.

A great many principled, conservative FReepers has decided, upon due and deliberate consideration, that Vicente Fox's willing and eager love slave is unworthy of their support; their cash donations; their ballots; or any and all thereof. I have no reason not to take any of them at their respective words... nor do you, really, other than plain, unvarnished @sshattery. Accurately pick next week's Powerball numbers, and I'll readily cede your monstrous telepathic prowess. Otherwise: I can readily avail myself of something just as valuable and worthwhile as your unsalted opinion, simply by giving my dog a high colonic.

"Believe" that.

*snort*.

>> A great many principled, conservative FReepers has decided, upon due and deliberate consideration, that Vicente Fox's willing and eager love slave is unworthy of their support; their cash donations; their ballots; or any and all thereof. I have no reason not to take any of them at their respective words... nor do you, really, other than plain, unvarnished @sshattery. <<

Apparently you did not bother to read my entire original post, or you would have realized that I did indeed that there are plenty of McCain bashers who refuse to support him for a great mulititude of reasons, and after due and deliberate consideration. I also stated there are McCain bashers who refuse to support him because he voted against one piece of legislation who happened to be their little pet issue, and they could care less about researching any further into the matter, or even if the bill in question turned out to be not that bad in hindsight. Facts and logic are of little use to them.

Both species of McCain bashers exist on FR.

Your use of flowery language doesn't impress me, as you've proven you don't ever debate the point of the original post but rather make assumptions based on how you perceive who disagree with you.

Until you do so, it's pointless to play your little game, as I had a similar loudmouth freeper who said "dared" me to find any post from a freeper who stated George Allen was a shoe-in for re-election and they were more focused on getting him elected President. He even said he would "pay $50 to anyone who can do so" When I found over half a dozen posts stating those exact sentiments, this freeper's responce was to cover his ears and run off to another thread. Ever since that time I don't respond to anyone's "challenge" unless they indicate a willingness to consider opinions other than their own. Your posts clearly indicate you will not accept any posts about "idealogical purity", even if those exact words are used, unless it matches your own delusional thesis that everyone who dares disagree with you is a McCain lover.

You also assume I am a McCain supporter, when in fact I've made no guarantee of supporting him in the general election and am awaiting to see what kind of running mate he selects.

>> Some issues should carry more weight than others. Benedict Arnold was an outstanding soldier and patriot before he changed sides. I believe that last year’s amnesty bill would have led to the loss of everything we believe in, after 10-30 new Dem (or worse) voters. Total leftist control of all 3 branches for decades, if not forever. <<

I would agree with on that point. For example, this forum was choke-full of people back in 1999 up-in-arms over the Clinton aquittal by the U.S. Senate. Would that issue carry more weight than say, a wrong vote on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Yes. It was a very powerful issue dealing with the principles of our commander-in-chief and virtually every Senator or Congressman who voted to save Clinton's butt was a proven RINO. Although it was a good indicator of a person's principles, it was not the end all, be all. As Fred Thompson voted to acquit Clinton and he was later hailed as the second coming of Reagan on FR. However, I continued to weight the impeachment vote as a important judge of characther. So while I wouldn't charactherize Fred as an evil RINO, I do think his vote showed him to be much more a status-quo Washingtonite than his supporters portrayed him as, regardless of his "conservative record" on other 90% of the issues.

Now as to the amnesty bill... here's the problem: there were just as many bad amnesty proposals in the past and freepers seem to have amnesia about them. I would argue that the 2006 amnesty bill that the Senate voted on was even worse (Senator Byrd killed it), but a bunch of Senators who supported it were hailed as "true conservatives" at the time. Bush supported amnesty in 2004 and many freepers loyally backed him for re-election. And ironically, many of the Senators who were tarred as "tratiors" for supporting this amnesty bill had clearly voiced support for amnesty earlier on and the "conservative base" here seemed to be asleep at the wheel. For instance, Senator John Sununu, in this 2002 Senate race, boldly said during a primary debate that we should consider the "path to citizenship" proposed by the White House because "the President supports it". Utterly unacceptable. It was in 2002, and it was in 2007. The fact freepers didn't decide this was THE most important issue on the planet and seemed to be asleep at the wheel until 2007 is not my problem. By singling out people for voting on the 2007 amnesty when you allowed them to vote for other, even worse amnesites in the past, makes one an idealogical purist who wants to lynch a person over a single bill. I can honesty say that I OPPOSED Mel Martinez and John Sununu for election before this bill ever came up, because I weigh "illegal immigration" as a whole and not on someone's vote on a single bill.

>> So I disagree that amnesty is a “single issue.” And in McCain’s case, it looks to me like he does not want to keep his “secure the borders first” promise in any meaningful way, although he will grudgingly go through the motions. I hope McCain proves me wrong about that. <<

I would argue that before the phone lines melted down in Washington, McCain would have happily signed the bill as POTUS, but after seeing the backlash against it, he probably won't do it (or he'll find a way to sneak it into an unrelated "good" bill that everyone loves. He will avoid signing a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill as-is, simply because he realizes it would have the effect of Ford's Nixon-pardon and make him a one-term President. I would argue the same on Mike Huckabee, because he was also villified relentlessly in the grassroots. I hink Fred Thompson would have gotten away with signing the same bill, because either his supporters here are asleep at the switch or refuse to accept Fred was McCain-lite on alot of issues and would find a spin it on FR had Fred enacted an amnesty bill, as they did when Fred voted in favor of the "treasonous" McCain-Feingold.

>> And just about every time anyone criticizes McCain here, there are plenty of McCain trolls who post like 5th graders, calling them “immature,” “whiners,” “DU,” “ideological purists,” etc. <<

I've been on FR almost a decade and McCain is about as popular here as moldy spam that's been left out for 3 days. Most of the people here who are willing to back McCain will simply do so because he's not as bad as Hillary or Obama. There might be a small group of McCain worshippers here who try to spin everything he does and paint him in the best light (Norman Bates is proof of that), but they are but a tiny minority on FR and always have been. At least freepers are consistant in their hatred of McCain, unlike Mike Huckabee who was hailed on this forum for years as a conservative's conservative, until he got in the way of Fred Thompson's path to the nomination and suddenly had freepers turn on him and try to rewrite history to make him out to be an eeeeeeeevil Jimmy Carter type "socialist" If you want to see a group of spindoctors who populated this forum and screamed their heads off with phrase like “immature,” “whiners,” “DU,” “ideological purists,” if anyone dared critize any aspect of their hero's "record" in office, look no further than the Fredheads. I think you can find any GOP candidate who ran President and had a fantatical group of worshippers and you can find any GOP candidate who ran President and had a fantatical group of single-issue attack dogs out to lynch him over a single bill. Even Duncan Hunter had some single-issue haters going after him on this board. But as it stands in raw numbers, it's pretty clear McCain beat even the far-more liberal Giuliani in the number of haters here. Granted, alot of this is McCain's own fault for being such an obnoxious backstabbing media whore, but if you look at who's sided with the Dems on major legislation over the years, I would argue Giulaini is worse -- he just managed to come across better in public.

Now, I can clearly see you are no McCain supporter but you responded to the actual content of my post with a reasonable, thought-out argument. I certainly wouldn't paint as an irriational "automatically hate everything McCain does" basher. KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle, on the other hand...

>> Can you please tell me what FreeperX's single "little pet issue" might have been that "turned out to be not that bad in hindsight"? <<

One prime example I always see is how many freepers seem to foam at the mouth every time they bring up the "Gang of 14" compromise on judges and they say everyone who supported it must be tarred and feathered and driven out of office on a rail. Now, I was pretty angry too at the time the compromise was enacted (it calls for no Dem filibusters unless there are "extraordinary y circumstances" with the nomination, but to the Democrats, anyone with a "R" next to his name is "extremist" and a "extraordinary case outside the mainstream")

But in hindsight, now that two years or so have passed, our side got some pretty good things accomplished from that deal. A few excellent judges were confirmed outright after months of Dem obstruction, like Janice Rogers Brown (former California SC justice), and the Dem opposition to Alito and Roberts wasn't organized and went nowhere. And now that the Dems have a Senate majority and the possibility that Obama could be elected President, if the GOP went thur with the "nuclear option", the Dems would have been able to use it to have free reign to appoint thousands of wack job communists in every office in government with the GOP minority being powerless to stop them.

So while I still disagree with that "compromise", our side really didn't suffer that much because of it and all the judges nominated since then have fared pretty well.

IMO, there are far worse "single issues" where so-and-so "true conservative" has sold out and it caused far more damage -- but he got a free pass on this forum.

The prime example I use here on this forum is when Senator Daschle's replacement in South Dakota, John Thune, announced he was going to use John Bolton as a human shield and oppose his nomination until he got pork for SD. Now, this was a time when Thune was constantly under fire from the Dems and he needed help the most from his "base". Thune was all for Bolton until the federal government threatened to cut funding from his precious widdle airforce base in SD. The fact Bush had to bride Thune to get him back on board forced him to recess appoint Bolton and that severely weakened his standing at the UN. Later, another "Republican" Senator (Chafee) bolted on Bolton, thus forcing Bolton to resign. And today we continue to let the UN corruption rum rampant because no one is there to call them to task.

So you tell which is worse, "RINO traitor" Mike DeWine agreeing to a judicial compromise that got us some damn good judges for our nation, or "true conservative" John Thune putting a knife in Bolton's back so his state gets an airforce base?

BTW, Thune is often hailed on FR as a great conservative prospect for Vice President.

You probably read more posts than I do, but I don’t remember EVER seeing someone wanting to remove someone from office solely on the Gang-of-14 debacle. In most cases, the gang had a number of marks against them—perhaps, that was just the final straw? Based on FR polls, it appears there are about 3,000 active freepers here. What percent of those posters would you say took this position? Pretty small would be my guess—which just makes it all the more insulting when people try to use those rare anomalies to paint all the others as “purists” to prop up their candidates.

Let’s take a look at the gang(R):
• John McCain, Arizona
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• John Warner, Virginia
• Olympia Snowe, Maine
• Susan Collins, Maine
• Mike DeWine, Ohio (lost re-election in 2006)
• Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island (lost re-election in 2006)

I can think of plenty of reasons to look for better candidates than those listed above. What makes you think people opposed them on this “single” issue? You mentioned DeWine, specifically, in your prior post. Wasn’t he opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and drilling in ANWR and a proponent of gun control and minimum wage hikes? Perhaps people had good reason for opposing him, other than the gang-of-14.

As to Thune, I’ve seen a handful of people show support for him, but in no way a large number of freepers. Personally, I’ve never trusted the guy after looking at his donor list when he first got elected. He had lots of the wrong kind of supporters (California “new majority” types.)

>> You probably read more posts than I do, but I don’t remember EVER seeing someone wanting to remove someone from office solely on the Gang-of-14 debacle. In most cases, the gang had a number of marks against them—perhaps, that was just the final straw? <<

On the contrary, if you look at the threads here posted about Lindsey Graham, you'll find he was beloved on this forum and hailed a great conservative leader for his leadership during the Clinton impeachment. There was no reason of him being a "maverick RINO" PRIOR to the Gang of 14. It was THIS specific piece of legislation that caused freepers to call his removal from office and ever since then, they've been going over his record with a fine tooth comb to "prove" what a RINO he is. "Gang of 14" was t They were overjoyed when he voted with McCain on the amnesty bill because they had unsucessfully tried for monthes after Gang of 14 to "prove" Graham was a McCain clone, only to see Graham vote AGAINST McCain on key conservative issues -- McCain opposed drilling ANWR, Graham favored it. McCain opposed tax cuts, Graham favored them. McCain opposed the federal marriage amendment, Graham backed it, etc.

As it is, Graham has a 91% lifetime conservative rating, which is pretty darn conservative for a 'RINO traitor". Clearly he was wrong for getting aboard McCain's bandwagon on amnesty, but that no more makes him a RINO than Tom McClintock is a RINO for kissing Arnie's butt in 2006. We're definitely talking about freepers going on a fishing expidition here because they're mad about a single bill.

>> Based on FR polls, it appears there are about 3,000 active freepers here. What percent of those posters would you say took this position? <<

Based on the number of freepers who posted on the Gang of 14 threads? I'd say about 60-70% called for his head on a platter at the time, based on that single piece of legislation. Now as to what percentage of freepers actually posted on those threads, maybe 20% of this forum, but certainly many others who didn't post on those threads expressed the same lynch mob sentiments. Again, this was BEFORE the amnesty thing and otherwise they had NO complaints about his record. Rather than admit that Gang of 14 turned out to be not too bad, they've been on a quest ever since then to loudly post every single instance where Graham is "wrong" to prove he's a RINO. I could just as easily "prove" Ronald Reagan is a RINO if I cherry picked his record and loudly attacked the 10% of the times he was wrong as being representative of his career.

>> Let’s take a look at the gang(R):
• John McCain, Arizona
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• John Warner, Virginia
• Olympia Snowe, Maine
• Susan Collins, Maine
• Mike DeWine, Ohio (lost re-election in 2006)
• Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island (lost re-election in 2006) << <

Yes, most of those are RINOs. All the more reason why the three in the gang who I would argue are not RINOs (McCain, Graham, and DeWine) get tarred by freepers as RINOs even though they agree with conservatives on all major issues besides a tiny handful of positions where they took the wrong side. Let's take a look at the (R) Senators who acquitted Slick Willie of perjury (when anyone with half a brain knows Clinton lied under oath):

Chafee, Rhode Island
Susan Collins, Maine
Slade Gorton, Washington
Jim Jeffords, Vermont
Richard Shelby, Alabama
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Ted Stevens, Alaska
Fred Thompson, Tennessee
John Warner, Virginia

Now, most of the people on that list are indeed RINOs. But just because Fred Thompson, Richard Shelby, and Slade Gordon were on the wrong side of a major issue, it doesn't make them RINOs, except to the single issue purists. Now I could just as easily do a characther assisination of Fred Thompson as they did to Lindsey Graham, by cherry picking every time Fred was "wrong" since the Gang of 14 vote to "prove" what an awful RINO he was. After all, didn't Fred support McCain-Feingold? Didn't he vote for free trade with Red China? Didn't he vote to lift higher fines on illegal aliens? Didn't he oppose the federal marriage amendment? Didn't he say the human life amendment was a bad idea?

It would be easy to tar someone as a RINO because you're mad at them over one vote, but to call Fred a "RINO" in the mold of Arnold or Rudy is wrong. There are people on that list who have a lifetime voting record like Arnold or Rudy (Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords being prime examples), but to call someone who agrees with you 90% of the time a RINO because you're angry about that piece of legislation is wrong.

>> What makes you think people opposed them on this “single” issue? You mentioned DeWine, specifically, in your prior post. Wasn’t he opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and drilling in ANWR and a proponent of gun control and minimum wage hikes? Perhaps people had good reason for opposing him, other than the gang-of-14. <<

Because, if you revisit the threads about DeWine, they didn't attack him for anything related to guns, minimum wage, etc., etc., they mentioned the "gang of 14" thing over and over again as if that little judicial compromise was the most important issue on the planet. Which would seem to imply to me they decided to remove him from office based on THAT vote alone, rather than conclude he was unacceptable after he voted for a bunch of other stuff first. Compare that to an Arnold thread where his backers endlessly accuse anti-Arnold people of being pro-life purists, but you see dozens of issues that Arnie gets attacked for.

As for DeWine's voting record, he was 100% pro-life and actually was co-sponcered the federal marriage amendment. He opposed the state marriage amendment because he actually thought it was too liberal for his tastes and imposed undue government powers to restriction traditional heterosexual marriage. He likewise had a conservative voting record of at least 80% Again, if people were upset about his other votes, they would have posted a thread about it. Clearly the most important issue for them was DeWine denying the Senate the nuclear option. My former Senator also had impeccible pro-life and pro-family credentials, and a 90% conservative voting record, but he simularly ALSO had a weak record on guns, opposed ANWR drilling, supported the minimum wage, and supported McCain-Feingold. Why wasn't there a "throw treasous Senator Fitzgerald out of office" thread vanities like there were with Graham and DeWine? Oh yeah, Fitzgerald wasn't part of the Gang of 14. Hmmm.

>> As to Thune, I’ve seen a handful of people show support for him, but in no way a large number of freepers. Personally, I’ve never trusted the guy after looking at his donor list when he first got elected. He had lots of the wrong kind of supporters (California “new majority” types) <<

I can't say I've seen a huge outpouring of love for him on FR either, but whenever his name is posted on FR as "potential running mates" for McCain, he gets nice praise about what a handsome, likeable, conservative Senator he is and would make a fine Vice President. No one ever seems to call him to task for lynching Bolton, which is my opinion is far worse than the Gang of 14 thing they've been screaming about incessantly for two years.

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.