"Warner's always been a problem child," was the remark of one conservative Republican state legislator from Northern Virginia after his state's Republican U.S. Senator for the past 29 years became one of seven GOP senators to vote in favor of the non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s deployment of an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The legislator (who, like most Virginia Republicans critical of Warner, requested anonymity) was referring to Warner's long-standing pattern of occasional-but-painful non-conservative votes and actions: voting for government funding of abortion in some cases and the Brady gun control bill and the renewal of the assault weapons ban; putting a hate crimes measure in the '04 defense authorization bill; opposing Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 and the campaigns of home school movement leader Mike Farris for lieutenant governor in 1993 and for Oliver North to the U.S. Senate in '94 after they had become the Republican nominees (Both were defeated by Democrats).

Prior to the Iraq resolution last week, Warner's latest apostasy among conservative GOPers was his support of state tax increases proposed by the Old Dominion's Democratic Gov. Mark Warner (no relation, and, in fact, John Warner’s Democratic opponent in 1996).

Overall, Warner's lifetime rating in the Senate by the American Conservative Union is 81%. But the issues on which he breaks with most Virginia Republicans are significant and even critical. (One thinks of Franklin Roosevelt's response to the remark that New York Times columnist Arthur Krock agreed with him 90% of the time: "But, ohhh, that ten per cent!").

"I wish for John Warner the same fate as Saddam Hussein in Iraq," is how insurance man James F. McIntyre, a longtime GOP party leader in Fairfax County, Virginia, reacted to the senator's vote on Iraq. "And that goes for [moderate Republican Northern Virginia Rep.] Tom Davis, too." [Davis was one of seventeen House Republicans to break ranks and vote for the Democratic-crafted withdrawal resolution].

So, as John Warner is poised to seek a record sixth term as senator from Virginia, the question speaks for itself: should he be challenged for renomination by a more conservative Republican?

"Warner's overall record merits a challenge for renomination every six years," is how one very active volunteer in Virginia Republican politics put it, "Yes, if he runs again, he should be challenged in '08. But he probably won't be." Like the conservative state legislator who voiced dismay with Warner's record, the GOP volunteer requested anonymity.

That so many of those who are upset by Warner's voting record don't want to go on the record in criticizing him or calling for a primary challenge speaks volumes. One week after his 80th birthday, John Warner appears almost to have developed the image of invincibility in the party where he is quite frequently -- albeit anonymously -- cursed for his votes. Moreover, a unique law that permits incumbents in Virginia to determine the means of their own nomination -- convention or primary -- works to the advantage of the senator who shows he can stray from the conservative farm. As he did the last time he faced a renomination challenge (1996), Warner will almost surely insist on a primary rather than a convention, which draws party activist who tend to be quite conservative. In a primary, any registered Virginia voter can participate since the state has no party registration -- which means voters who normally back Democrats in the fall can turn out for Warner in the primary. (In 1996, with the primary as the nomination avenue, Warner easily defeated former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Miller, who hit him hard from the right, by a margin of 2-to-1).

But there is another part of the Warner saga. Morton Blackwell, Virginia's Republican National Committeeman and a veteran conservative activist, told me, "But there is a story circulating that the senator and his people are going to lead everyone to believe he will run and then not file at the last minute. This would be opening the way for Tom Davis to seek the Republican nomination. As a result of the circulation of that story, conservatives are looking for a prominent figure in the party -- say [former Gov.] Jim Gilmore or one of the House members -- to be ready to run in the event it happens."

But, what if Warner lives up to what he has so far said publicly and runs again? Said Blackwell, without hesitation: "John Warner can stay in the Senate for the rest of his life if he chooses."