Your favorite Republicans

If we could have 95 democratic senators, which five republican senators would you spare? Right now my list includes.

1. McCain
   
2. Chafee
   
3. Specter
   
4. Snowe
   
5. Hagel

I know most of those people make you cringe, and they make me cringe on numerous occasions, but they seem to represent the old republican mantra of honest small government, and not the radical right religious extremism propagated by so many republicans today.  If only there were more of them, imagine how much more fun the debate would be...

P.S.  I've started a PAC focusing on billboards and low cost advertising to use against Republicans.  Please go to www.BillboardsforAmerica.com (sorry I forgot how to do those fancy orange links) and check us out.  All donations are welcome  ;-)

•  The One Just beaten by a Democrat in an Election

  by bonddad on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:58:41 AM PDT

•  Lieberman.

  Hes a Republican, right?

  by weathercoins on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:01:35 AM PDT

•  Sorry

  I will neither by word or deed, silence or inaction, aid the GOP in any way.

  Not even in providing them with a "least bad" list.

  by cskendrick on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:01:51 AM PDT

  •  Nor will I....

    They are all enablers and collaborators.  Years ago, I would occasionally vote for a Republican (well, once anyway!), but now I wouldn't turn a hose on them if they were on fire.
    

    by Radiowalla on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:24:57 AM PDT

    •  "Enablers and collaborators"

      extends to any member of the Republican Party, in my opinion.

      by drangel on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:36:45 AM PDT

•  Only ones

  I would ONLY ever like a Repub who publically repudiates Bush's agenda. I don't see ANY of them doing that. So the entire party is corrupt and un-American in my view.

  by mole333 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:04:33 AM PDT

  •  Or at the very least cowards?

    by CalDoc on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:15:27 AM PDT

    •  Nevertheless

      Aiding and abetting the corruption and violations of Constitutional rights that Bush is doing makes them guilty as well, even if it is cowardice rather than greed motivating them.

      by mole333 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:30:55 PM PDT

•  Theodore Roosevelt n/t

  by high uintas on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:07:13 AM PDT

  •  Yeah.

    If he and Abraham Lincoln came back to life and cloned themselves two and a half times, they would be my five picks.

    by ThomasGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

•  P.S. (The fancy orange links)

  To create a fancy orange link:  Place the url of the site (including the http:// part) and a short description in square brackets.  

  For example:  

  [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia, the open-source encyclopedia]

  produces

  Wikipedia, the open-source encyclopedia  

  As for "least bad" Republicans?  I understand cskendrick's objection, but it falls uncomfortably close to elevating the party above the candidate for me.  I'd like to think I'm fair enough to cross over in a race if the merits and qualifications of the actual candidates gave me a compelling reason to do so.  (Not that I've ever seen it happen!)

  by osterizer on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:08:24 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the info

    here, take a four.

    by jkfp2004 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:11:23 AM PDT

•  Lowell Weicker, George Aiken, Warren Rudman ...

  ... Howard Baker.

  Where are you?

  by bumblebums on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:13:38 AM PDT

  •  Mark Hatfield

    Hatfield, too.

    by Carl Nyberg on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:55:18 AM PDT

    •  You beat me to it!

      I have also pondered where Tom McCall would have come down on this administration.

      I have sorely missed Sen. Hatfield in this whole "adventure".

      by capelza on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:43:24 PM PDT

•  Jim Jeffords. He had the wisdom and

  courage to leave the party.

  But if forced to choose from among those who retain the party affiliation, I would accept your list, substituting only Susan Collins for Hagel.

  by another American on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:20:00 AM PDT

•  none of the above

  At one time I liked McCain but his face has turned brown from constantly kissing King George's butt, especially after the last two elections.  It made me wonder if GW had something on McCain but more than likely I never saw what a suck up he was.

  by sweettp2063 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:30:28 AM PDT

  •  John McCain is no suck-up...

    ...if he was, he never would have pursued the 2000 primary which had been "reserved" for "W." by the powers that be in the GOP.

    McCain has to support this president or he'll be run out on rail by the party, who always questioned McCain's "loyalty" for not falling all over himself in support of BushCo.

    And if that happened, where would this pro-life, small government, pro-gun Senator go?  The Democrats?  Make me laugh...

    by Thinking Republican on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:51:59 AM PDT

    •  Self-confliction

      Your title says that McCain is not a suck up.

      The remainder of your post, however, explains why McCain is forced to be a suck up.

      by asdfasdf on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:35:17 AM PDT

      •  Uh-huh...

        He's a suck up, sure.   That's why he castrated Bill Frist's nuclear option in the crib, like a mohel with Parkinson's disease.  And why he's been at the forefront criticizing the Iraq warplan, saying that we failed to deploy enough troops.  And why he's the Repubican Rush Limbaugh loves to hate.

        by Thinking Republican on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:49:12 PM PDT

        •  Sorry buddy

          But I'm not the one who said things like "McCain has to support this president".  And "where would he go" if he didn't.

          Your post boiled down to "He's not a suck-up - and here's why he's forced to be a suck-up!" Oh, poor, poor John McCain.

          by asdfasdf on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 06:14:35 AM PDT

    •  he could

      find a home in the Dems, but probably not as comfortably as he could in say the old reform party.  But he could do just fine in the dems.

      Because other then my being pro-choice and he being pro-life (which may be playing politics with the GOP as much as anything), I have found a mostly comfortable home here.
      

      by skippythebox on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:09:22 PM PDT

•  5 Republicans, puls 1

  Which five republicans I will keep:

  1.  Lott
     
  2.  Cornyn
     
  3.  Chambliss
     
  4.  Coburn
     
  5.  Coleman

  plus Santorum

  I would keep those six around to show Ameirca why there is 94 Democrats in the Senate.  

  by Eloy on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:35:10 AM PDT

  •  Dont' forget Demented from SC.

    Jim Dement-SC. This guy was the one saying that teachers that are pregnant and not married should not be teaching and removed from their jobs. A loose cannon (and twin of Tom Coburn of Okla). What an ahole!!!

    That pile you listed includes some of the meanest, hateful and nastiest guys since Jessie Helms. Chickenhawk Chamblis should be the top of the list after what he did to Max Cleland in Ga. I hate these guys because they hate America!!

    by alnc on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:11:32 AM PDT

  •  Don't forget Inhofe

    "dumbest man in Congress" from Oklahoma.

    by drangel on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:31:23 AM PDT

  •  Keep them in the Zoo not the Senate

    You can exhibit them somewhere other than the Capitol Building.

    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:10:23 PM PDT

•  As A Republican....

  I'd substitute quite a few of the Senators, of both parties, to bring about fair and honest government -- and to avoid indigestion watching the evening news.

  First to go on my side would be Mitch "The Bagman" McConnell of KY, followed by Trent "Ya Like My Phony Hair?" Lott of MS.  

  First to go on yours would be Hillary "Iowa or Ithaca?" Clinton followed in close order by Barbara "BugEyes" Boxer.

  The truly sad part is that, at one time, there were giants in the Senate ... people like Jacob Javits of New York; Everett Dirksen of Illinois; Bob Taft of Ohio; and Barry Goldwater of Arizona on my side and Hubert Humphrey, Birch Bayh, and Ed Muskie on yours.

  How things have sadly changed.

  Nobody -- of either party -- ever challenged the wisdom or the rectitude of these men; they never gave them reason.  They may have disagreed, but there was no question as to motivation.  They did their jobs, very well, and the nation owes them a tremendous debt of thanks.

  Now, it's all about campaign contributors and appearance...how do they look on camera?  (Imagine Everett Dirksen, Ed Muskie, or Jake Jacits being elected in today's political climate?)  And when it's not about that, it's all about jockeying for position, either in the Senate leadership or for the presidency.  (Hillary Clinton has used her Senate seat for little else than a springboard for her national ambitions.)

  There was a time when the Senate did what the founders intended; it was the "cooling saucer" for the hot brew of the House.  But those days are, sadly, long gone.

  by Thinking Republican on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:45:54 AM PDT

  •  Whats changed?

    You seem to be talking about how the Senate did its job, in the 1960's or thereabouts?

    Refresh my memory, bud, who was in charge of the Senate back then? :)

    by ThomasGuy on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

  •  well spoken

    by skippythebox on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:14:27 PM PDT

•  Spector only.

  Spector was key in the Clinton Impeachment fiasco. He stated that as a former prosecutor, that what was presented was BS. He was extremely fair during that mess. Although, he loses points on the Clarnace Thomas SC justice hearings.

  Arlen is not one of the total wingnuts and they hate him, so I like him. The rest of the other 4 are still kool aid rethugs....."dont' believe the hype".

  by alnc on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:52:13 AM PDT

•  Arlen will

  get my respect, if he does a good job as chair of the Judiciary committee, when it comes time to determine our next Supreme Court justice.

  by Peter Ianakiev on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:17:56 AM PDT

•  Not McCain, please

  All y'all from outside AZ seem to think he is OK, I guess because he dared challenge Bush in the primary 4 years ago, because he tried to address money in politics, because he likes the media to call him a maverick. My local newspaper prints, every Sunday, the votes of all the Senators and Reps for the past week. Look at his voting record not his sound bites. He is not a moderate. He needs to go.

  by Phalanges on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:27:09 AM PDT

•  who are principled?

  1. Voinovich
     
  2. Lindsey Graham
     
  3. Grassley
     
  4. Collins
     
  5. Warner

  alternate: Murkowski
  second alt: Smith

  by Carl Nyberg on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:54:37 AM PDT

•  Of your list...

  I would take:

  Snowe
  Spector

  by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:10:32 PM PDT