Citing Policy Differences, Dozens Of Republicans Refuse To Publicly Back McCain
Citing Policy Differences, Dozens Of Republicans Refuse To Publicly Back McCain
The Hill reports this morning that “at least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president,” adding that “more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.” Though some lawmakers “declined to detail” why they wouldn’t support McCain, others cited “major concerns” about McCain’s policies on energy and Iraq.
Here’s The Hill’s list of GOP lawmakers “who have not endorsed or publicly backed 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.).
Additionally, a “handful” of other GOP lawmakers have made a distinction between “endorsing” and “supporting,” saying that while they won’t endorse McCain, they will vote for him in November.
Asked yesterday by Fox News’s Neil Cavuto if he was “willing now to endorse John McCain,” Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) deflected the question, saying “it’s been nice talking to you.” “I’m probably going to vote for John McCain, that’s as far as I’m going to go,” allowed Tancredo. Watch it:
One of the most prominent conservatives withholding support from McCain is Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
In March, Hagel declined endorsing McCain, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he had “John and I have some pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy.” More recently, Hagel criticized McCain’s bellicose rhetoric on engaging in diplomacy with Iran:
“I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way….”
Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. “I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We’ll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential.”
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds dismissed The Hill’s tally, saying that “John McCain has strong support among Republicans and even some others in the Congress for taking principled stands.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oddly, SOMEONE out there wants us to believe this will be a close election, that the candidates are running “neck & neck”.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pmThere is a certain satisfaction when the members of a criminal gang turn on each other. But please folks, do not stick fingers or other appendages in the Halls of Power. This measure is for your own good and to prevent the smell of blood from causing a frenzy.
And Please, please, please! NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pmI’m thinking McCain is a uniter, just like Geoge Bush. He unites all against him.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pmVirgil G oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo de
June 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm“John McCain has strong support among Republicans and even some others in the Congress for FLIP FLOPPING on principled stands.”
June 12th, 2008 at 7:34 pmIt is quite interesting that Hagel, who had one of the top 3 conservative voting records in the Senate, and a fellow Vietnam veteran, won’t endorse him, And I am betting, won’t vote for him, either.
Heh Heh! Gotta smart when you get b!tch-slapped by 14 of your fellow republicans.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:34 pm.
The McCainStreem Media is loosing it’s base…
.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pmWhat “principled stand” would that be?
Torture?
Tax cuts?
Supporting Rummy?
Denouncing right-wing preachers?
Not endorsing someone who smeared you in a campaign?
Refusing disability pay when you’re not disabled?
Not committing adultery?
Standing by your first wife who waited for you while you were
a POW?
“Principled stands”, each and every one.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:41 pmNow that’s downright embarrassing. What will be more embarrassing is if any of them actually endorse Obama!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pm….McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds dismissed The Hill’s tally, saying that “John McCain has strong support among Republicans and even some others in the Congress for taking principled stands.”
Jayzus,
the only ’some others’ I can think of would be his butt-buddy, JoeL. If that is the case, then he should have said ‘one other’.
And I would not count JoeL anyway, as he represents the country of Israel.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:44 pmIt might be fair to note that there are number of Democrats who are not chiming in for Obama — those facing re-election battles in traditionally conservative states, such as Boren of Oklahoma. Most say they will vote for him, but will not give a full-throated endorsement.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pmMugsy Says:
Oddly, SOMEONE out there wants us to believe this will be a close election, that the candidates are running “neck & neck”.
That “someone” would be the MSM. They need to pretend it’s a close race otherwise there will be nothing for them to report. Can you imagine night after night them reporting “Obama is still beating the pants off of McCain”.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pmdebkakes Says:
It might be fair to note that there are number of Democrats who are not chiming in for Obama — those facing re-election battles in traditionally conservative states, such as Boren of Oklahoma. Most say they will vote for him, but will not give a full-throated endorsement.
I agree with that, but so far, only Boren has come out and said anything publicly. Which makes it 1 to 14.
Also, even Boren’s daddy says he endorses Obama.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pmdebkakes Says:
It might be fair to note that there are number of Democrats who are not chiming in for Obama — those facing re-election battles in traditionally conservative states, such as Boren of Oklahoma. Most say they will vote for him, but will not give a full-throated endorsement.
They will get on board when the Obama express picks up steam.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
——————————————————————————–
Mugsy Says:
Oddly, SOMEONE out there wants us to believe this will be a close election, that the candidates are running “neck & neck”.
That “someone” would be the MSM. They need to pretend it’s a close race otherwise there will be nothing for them to report. Can you imagine night after night them reporting “Obama is still beating the pants off of McCain”.
———-
Please. Your last image made me ill.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pmObama isn’t being held back by a few blue-dog dems; those few are being left behind.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm>It might be fair to note that there are number of Democrats >who are not chiming in for Obama
thanks pal but the mainstream media has already done that for us, telling us on their frontpages about all 2 that have pulled this with obama…in fact, this thread is probably in response to such news articles.
are you a concern troll or do you not know the “other side” has already been widely publicizized?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm>rogerse Says
mccain:2, Obama:14
June 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pmRon Paul does probably not endorse McCain because he’s officially still running for the nomination of the Republican party (and he certainly won’t do so afterwards)
June 12th, 2008 at 8:40 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
>rogerse Says
mccain:2, Obama:14
he changed his name. use to be rogers, didn’t it?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:41 pmI resent that any voice of dissent on this site is marked as a troll. I am a firm Obama supporter and a big fan of this site’s reporting. I was making a valid point. Two are naming themselves, but I’m sure there are more red state dems who are being shy about their support of Obama. And it may or may not make a difference. Pointing these things out should not brand one as a troll. Jeez.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:47 pmOnce again rog. You’ve introduced a point, off topic, and fail to see it’s implications.
There are prominant Dems who don’t endorse Obama, but, most of them are motivated by race/electability, race alone, or previous commitment to other factions. He’s not likely, despite Lush’s wet dreams, to split the Democratic party.
McPander Bear, on the other hand, poses some serious problems to large swaths of the Republican party. He is ambivalent on religion which may split the Psycochristians(TM). He has made opposing noises in the Senate (which annoys neocons immensely) in spite of his “lock-step” voting record. And now, due to his shameless whoring to the most extreme elements of Reichwing society, the Hagel camp (formerly the McCain camp) is expressing their doubts as well. Throw in those alarmed by his seeming “confusion” on key issues? You could still see McCain lose the nomination and shatter the party.
I fail to see how this news can possibly be spun in a positive light for the Republicriminals., though I will enjoy watching them try.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pmThe Hill reports this morning that “at least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president,”
Presumably these politicians want to be reelected themselves at some point and just because McCain is too stupid to repudiate the disasterous policies of Bush doesn’t mean they are.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 12th, 2008 at 11:25 pmdebkakes Says:
I resent that any voice of dissent on this site is marked as a troll. I am a firm Obama supporter and a big fan of this site’s reporting. I was making a valid point. Two are naming themselves, but I’m sure there are more red state dems who are being shy about their support of Obama. And it may or may not make a difference. Pointing these things out should not brand one as a troll. Jeez.
Don’t take it personally, debkakes. Name-calling makes most of the posters on this site feel better about themseleves. It’s simply a lack of self-confidence on their part.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:52 amAnd what princples exactly are you talking about Mr.Bounds???
June 13th, 2008 at 2:15 amFor a few of them, I think it has more to do with lingering animosity over the Abramoff hearings than with “policy”.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am