Name the Least Odious Republican

In the spirit of bipartisanship (ala unity 08) I would like it if we could take a moment to pay homage to all of those honorable men on the other side.
Let us list all the republicans who are living today (or have been recently) who don't absolutely s**k.
I would be glad to start off the list but I cant think of a single one. Anyone else?

either
:bounce:

Too true. Too true.

Oh :think: wait a minute :think: nevermind

bubba
:toast:

:toast:

If you had to rank them from worst to least worst, some of the New Englanders are less horrible. Mitt the Shitt Romney, who plays at being a New Englander but isn't one, excepted.

Howard's a fossil, but a fossil with integrity.

Gergen I think is appalled by what has happened to the Republican party, and occasionally comments on it.

I thought about listing Hagel, but he always seems to go back into the fold when the vote counts.

He seems like the old, wise sage of the party. They should start listening to him.

OT: His brother used to be my doctor.

If he's still a Republican.

to independent.

Because we haven't seen him in ...forever!

I will NEVER EVER forget his grinning ugly face the day of the 94 election on Crossfire when he knew that the Rethugs were going to sweep...a horrible visage that.

He's been criticizing the takeover by the Religious Right of the Republican party.

helped it along.

He smells pretty bad to me.

Danforth was Sec. to the UN and was a natural to be elevated to Sec. of State when Powell left. Instead, King George picked Condi.

although I must admit I don't know enough about him to make an informed opinion. Maybe he is just fooling me like Chuck Hagel is fooling so many people into thinking he isn't a complete slimebag. The only republican to not vote for the war took plenty of balls though.

If Ohio Republicans (Not including Hackwell) weren't as corrupt as Abramoff and Friends, then I would say they would be alright too.

A good man, a great president and ...

dead and buried. My kind of Republican.

I heard he did some great things.

During reconstruction after the Civil War, the Republicans really were the party of civil rights for African Americans, while the Dems were the party of racist oppression. Then, during a contested Presidential election, the Republicans agreed to give up their reconstruction and civil rights program in return for the Dems saying that the Republican won the Presidency. It was at that point that racist government policies were allowed to spread without challenge, and some African American elected officials were assasinated by people never brought to trial.

:toast:

originally elected to congress as an anti-war Republican in 1968,

Jacob Javitz was my favorite Republican, a very decent man.

he has a very libertarian view on social issues.

well, was at one time, anyway.

Even so, though I don't detest him as much as many republicans, Simpson was actually my senator growing up, and I still find him odious :)

Kind of a non-starter for trusting him, although he is tolerable as a human being. ;)

Despite his opposition to the Iraq war, he's a partisan hack in every other way. He's a corporate ass-hole down to the bone.

Paul is simply Pat Buchanan with more hatred for taxes.

Lets think of a name for him.
I know.
He is a REPUBLICAN. :)
Now that we got that out of the way ......

a dead one

Not without his flaws, but I would take him over any other Republican President since Teddy Roosevelt, and even over a few of the Democrats.

If only we had listened.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother Edgar, November 8, 1954,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

but their influence is not negligible, whatever their numbers.

Still, we should have listened.

3 cheers
:toast: :toast: :toast:

When I was very young (don't ask), Ike was in my hometown of Newport, RI golfing and rode up the main street in a limo. We lived right up the street and ran down to see him. I still remember his kind smile. Yeah, Ike was ok (for a repub).

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientist and the hope of its children. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The man was downright prophetic!

closer to a DLC Dem than one of the wingnuts who've hijacked the repuke party. Since I can't think of a single living repuke politician with any integrity or independence, I'll go with Ike as well.

Intelligent, progressive, and well mannered



By the way, she is currently married to another great Republican, former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker.

I can't believe some of the names other DUers have put up. They are all party line fanatics who vote to screw the poor and middle class at every turn. Some of them put a veneer of humanity over it, but it's just that a veneer.

No, I take that back. He's pretty damned odious.

They fought to get rid of slavery, and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Lincoln. Definitely Lincoln.

Chuck Hagel doesn't mince words and comes right out and says it. Even though he's usually wrong, not alot of politicians do that today, especially on the repug side. Plus, he's somewhat stuck it to dick and shrub before. And that s always welcome.

There are a few others whose names escape me at the moment who are not bad at all... then there are the ones that I wouldn't vote for, but aren't nearly as bad as some of the others (Sen. Warner of VA and Sen. McCain of AZ, for example).

I think he's much better dead than when he was alive.

If only he had died sooner.

MUCH sooner.

nt.

One of my best friends, who's a classic republican in the Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower tradition. I may not agree with him most of the time, but we have some really good debates, and he is always most willing to listen to my point of view. In fact, he listened to the opposing view and voted for Kerry, and the wire-tapping scandal has him spitting mad. However, we do have different values, and we do look at the world differently. I've found that it's always healthy to have opposition, so long as there's respect for one another present. LOL we joke that when he's elected Pres in 2028, he'll appoint me his sec of state.

Ex-Senator Howard Baker (R-Tenn) -A moderate to centrist Republican who also promoted an emphasis on bipartisanship, compromise and fairness during his time as Senate Majority Leader during the early 1989s
Ex-Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker (R-Kansas): Wife of Howard Baker -they married after both had left the Senate, I think. Another moderate Republican who supported Ted Kennedy's efforts to promote healthcare legislation
Ex-Senator William S Cohen (R-Maine): A liberal Republican who went on to serve as Clinton's Secretary of Defence and whom, according to Mike Moore (I think he was the source), refused requests to participate in *'s stealing of the 2000 election
Ex-Senator David Durenberger (R-Minnesota): Had a problem with ethics but nevertheless was not aligned with the right wing of his party. He came out and endorsed Kerry in 2004 and stated that the Democrats were better at handling healthcare issues than the Republicans and that * was wrong about Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Durenberger
Ex-Governor Bill Milliken (R-Michigan): Endorsed Kerry in 2004
Ex-Senator Marlow W Cook (R-Kentucky): Endorsed Kerry in 2004
Ex-Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon): Liberal Republican who voted against the first Iraq War
Ex-Rep Connie Morella (R-Maryland) Liberal Republican. I think she voted against IWR
Ex-Rep Amos Houghton (R-New York): Voted against IWR
Paul O'Neil -*'s Treasury Secretary who came out against *
Ex-Governor Arne Carlson -Ex-Governor of Minnesota who was quite centrist in his political views
Ex-Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker -Liberal Republican

***********************************************************************************************
There are more but those are only the ones who come to mind at the moment. Of those currently involved in politics, that's a more complex issues.

A few years ago, Robert Taft of Ohio would have been one of those Republicans I would have classified as not being that odious. But his complicity in the 2004 Ohio voting debacle combined with his problems with ethics and accountability has diminished his stature IMO

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are sometimes worthy of respect but they tow the line with this Administration much too often. Arlen Specter deserves some respect for his vote against Robert Bork and some other Reagan appointees in the 1980s, but he hasn't really shown any backbone since then and has too often condoned the actions of this Administration. The same goes for Lincoln Chafee, although I will give him a considerable amount credit for being the only Republican to vote against IWR and also for publicly disclosing his intention not to vote for * in 2004


Some of the Republican libertarians from Arizona -Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe -probably deserve an honorable mention as well. I have a feeling that they represent the "true conservatives" -not the right wing extremists who seem to have overtaken most of the party

Lincoln Chafee's father. Chafee the younger was appointed to his seat when he died. Both of them were good. In almost any other state, they would be moderate dems, but in RI, they are Republicans. And I think Chafee the younger is only a republican because his father was one.

And Abraham Lincoln doesnt count. By the looks of this penny in my hand he has been dead for quite some time.

would have supported this admintration and voted their disgusting laws on to the books. They have aided and abetted in the Attack on our rights and the Constitution. So, the least odious Republican
would have to be someone who has been out of politics for awhile. My vote, in that case, would go to William Weld.

That having been said.... all Republicans and the Democrats who vote with them all suck.

TC

I have generally not been a big fan of Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and I don't care much for his brand of capitalist-libertarianism.

But this speech is absolutely awesome and extremely informative:

http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr040506_146.wmv,80_hflr040506_147.wmv,80_hflr040506_148.wmv,80_hflr040506_149.wmv,80_hflr040506_150.wmv,80_hflr040506_151.wmv,80_hflr040506_152.wmv,80_hflr040506_153.wmv,80_hflr040506_154.wmv,80_hflr040506_155.wmv&sTime=00:03:17.0&eTime=00:01:11&duration=00:42:42.0&UserName=reppaultx&sLocation=G&sExpire=0

and here is an other link:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7953

transcript - link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

excerpts from transcript:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

April 5, 2006

Iran: The Next Neocon Target

snip:"This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties."

Snip:"There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India."

snip:"IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.

We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement."

snip:"Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.

The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.

Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible."

snip:"Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily.

One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump. The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion"
______________

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientist and the hope of its children. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

He was pro environment, anti big business, and helped create the estate tax to keep power from getting into the hands of just a few very wealthy families. Plus he was a bad ass. In reality he was more liberal than conservative.

If that's your cup of tea...

Washington State Secretary of State. He did his job during the governor's election debacle.

eom

Pro-choice, pro-ERA, and he gave us John Paul Stevens. And of course, he's a Michigander. Also the only president I can think of who went to a state-run university.

He pretty much ended his political chances by pardoning Nixon because he honestly believed that this would "heal the country," no matter how misguided we think that may have been, and that took considerable courage.:shrug:

But my main reason for admiring him is that he's become close friends with Jimmy Carter, his former rival, and has worked with him on behalf of The Carter Foundation.:-)

Ford realized that the country needed healing after Watergate. Therefore, he purposefully avoided confrontational politics and ideological battles.

that's about it.

Say it ain't so.

One of the last representatives of Minnesota's Progressive Republicans.

http://rulers.org/indexa3.html#andere
<Though he never left the Republican Party, he spoke out when he wasn't happy where it was going. In 2004 he endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president because he said the war in Iraq was unjustified. He also criticized the George W. Bush administration for doing too little for such programs as early childhood education.>

I knew I had left someone out. A true liberal Republican and a great person. We need more like him today

Undersecretary of the Treasure under Reagan, a committed supply-sider, a deeply honorable conservative. No one on the Left--and I mean *no* one--has disembowelled this criminal regime, as he has from a traditional conservative stance. He is a national treasure, and if we had a civilized country, he would be an honored member of the opposition to the liberal left. As it is, he is our most treasured ally, and maybe someday we can have that "civilized country"...but I'm not holding my breath...

Teddy Roosevelt would have been driven out of the current GOP.

Oops, I thought you said Least mel-Odious, sorry ;-)

Otherwise, I'd have to go with Lowell Weicker and Olympia Snowe

The "Tiger of the Senate" legendary for his integrity, brilliance, and oratory. Along with Gruening of Alaska, one of only two Senators to vote "nay" on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and a great voice against the Viet Nam misadventure. First elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1944 but resigned the party in protest against Eisenhower's selection of Nixon for VP in 1952. Eventually became a Democrat and was reelected as such.

Just cant think of his name ...
After the 2000 election wasnt there some senator that switched party affiliation to independant to deny republican control of the senate? Who was he? Hmmm ...

My kind of republican.

Abe Lincoln?

since he's criticized this administration more severely than the Democrats have. So his endorsement of Bush* makes no sense to me, especially after the "dirty tricks" campaign in the 2004 SC primary. Can anybody explain this to me? I've asked before, but never got much of an answer.:shrug:

and getting Bush's campaign staff, campaign financers and theo-con activists on board all but cinches that for him. In theory, anyway.

for him, either, since he doesn't seem to agree with them on much and has been their harshest critic. He seems almost schizophrenic, in this, calling them on their failed policies, then saying he supports Bush*...:shrug:

Welcome to DU, CPMaz! It's great to have you with us!:toast:

Rhiannon:hi:

that he says anything to anyone to get their support.

It's that simple.

There's someone on the Dem side that fits that statement, but DU rules "discourage" negative posts about Dems.

PS - thanks for the welcome, Rhiannon! It's great to be here...

But if he's willing to do anything, say anything, just to get the nomination (which he really should have had in 2000, IMHO), then why has he been so critical of the very people whose support he wants? I've cheered him on, numerous times since 2001, when he's called the Bush* administration on their blunders and stupid decisions, while most Democrats in Congress stayed silent.:shrug:

And I think I know enough about the guys on our side of the fence, by now, to tell the good guys from the best guys. I'm pretty sure I know who you mean and there's no love lost for him on DU, trust me!:evilgrin:

And we're very glad to have you with us! We may disagree among ourselves, but we tend to pull together on the important stuff. I know you'll enjoy being here...:D

Rhiannon:hi:

and Senator George Aiken who said of the Viet Nam Conflict "Declare victory and get out"

If they're republi-CON, they're automatically The Enemy.

but we don't dare name them because they could easily be purged (they're not hardcore enough or corrupt enough to beat the Repub leadership in a straight-up fight).

Of course, even the decent Repubs are "decent" only by comparison to the other Repubs.

That was what he said to Lyndon Johnson about the Vietnam War. A truly wise man, we could use some of those now.

He switched to Republican because he knew he could not win the Democratic primary in NYC.

He's been a pretty good mayor.

Who switched to a Democrat in order to win in New Orleans..

I suppose if I had to pick one fair Republican, Bloomberg would be a pretty good choice.

Nonetheless I'll nominate President Ford as he's out of power and is alive. And I like the guy anyway.

I really like listening to her grill people during committee hearings on c-span. She's pretty ruthless and recently she smacked down the Chairwoman of GAO for a whitewash report re: energy price gouging.

I also like Chuck Hagel, John Danforth, Lincoln Chaffee, and Ron Paul

He would never fit into today's Republican Party. He had a conscience and was known for his independence from the party. He was a big champion of environmental causes and his support of many social welfare programs would earn him the label of liberal by today's standards.

He definitely would not fit into today's Rethuglican party.

A truly great liberal Republican Senator. My second choice is Sen Clifford Case (R) - NJ. Case won election to the United States Senate in 1954 and was re-elected in 1960, 1966 and 1972. In 1978, he lost the Republican primary to Jeffrey Bell, an anti-tax conservative. Bell went on to lose the general election by a wide margin to Bill Bradley. Case was a liberal and anti-Viet Nam.

Lincoln of course
Teddy R (for his trust busting and conservation policies...not so much in love with his imperialist ways)
Lincoln Chaffee (if all Reps were like him I could live with it)

I can't really think of any more...Snowe is OK.

And he's been dead for decades.

Once he left, it was replaced by a religious right whack-job, pro-Big Business version that the American middle class has been suffering under since, with only brief periods of prosperity (you know, whenever there's a democrat in office).