Lindsey Graham Announces Possible Presidential Run, Says Tea Party All About “Hating People”

[MACVSOG68]

Oh, I suppose so....     

[truth_seeker]

You need to look at the bigger picture here.  TEA's influence is what has catapulted the REVOLUTION to revitalize conservatism and the very principles upon which this country was founded and to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Voters spoke very loudly at the polls during the past election; they want the insanity of this administration stopped - period.

The way I see it, you can either be a part of rebuilding America and support TEA are you can be a part of liberalism and the progressive movement that is hell bent on destroying her.

The choice is of course yours.

The TP of 2010 was focused on fiscal topics, and by design avoided social topics. And they won.

Then by 2012 the TP got coopted by the social-religious conservatives, who wanted to hitch rides on the success. And they lost with Angle, Akins, O'Donnell, Buck, Mourdock etc.

Then comes 2014 and the establishment party used their strength to squash the TP because of the losses and craziness of 2012.

So IF the TP can remember their origins, and apply discipline and common sense, NOT challenge every incumbent, NOT call everybody a rino, vet candidates better, then there is an important role.

But from the early high approval ratings, the TP DID lose 10 percent. Approval turned into disapproval. The overall electorate holds views much closer to the center, from the TP candidates of 2012.

Part of the key is this: The independents comprising the largest group, hold conservative fiscal opinions, but more libertarian social opinions.

[jmyrlefuller]

I'm still looking for the quote that was the headline of this article.  In fact in the body of the article he was quoted as saying he usually agrees with the tea party, but says the test for SOME is "do you hate who I hate".  I think his point was made right here on this thread, referring to him as a possible "first lady", calling South Carolinians "scumbags", and making comparisons to Hitler.  There are some whose opinions are laced with hatred. 

But I guess that's politics. 

I do hate Lindsey Graham—and hate is a word I do not throw around willy-nilly. He is a contemptible, detestable man. He represents everything that is wrong with politics: promoting a self-serving, corrupt, unprincipled and bloated government while buying off the masses who should have been smarter than to re-elect him over ALL HIS PRIMARY OPPONENTS COMBINED. There is ZERO excuse for that, and the people of South Carolina should be totally and firmly ashamed of their decision. Yet they are not, and share in the guilt of putting and keeping that man in power, just as every blue state shares in the guilt of re-electing Obama in 2012. Politicians derive their power from the people who vote for them; when a corrupt politician manages to stay in power, the masses must be corrupt as well.

If you have seen my postings for the past two years or so, you know how much contempt I have for the majority of American voters.

[MACVSOG68]

There is ZERO excuse for that, and the people of South Carolina should be totally and firmly ashamed of their decision. Yet they are not, and share in the guilt of putting and keeping that man in power

With No due respect Mr. Fuller, I'll not lose any sleep over your pretentious judgments about who we elect in South Carolina.  Nor am I ashamed that our state is one of the reddest in the Nation.

Some of Graham's primary opponents have been true wing-nuts, who might better have run for moderator on TOS.  Others simply had little to no experience or name recognition.

But you certainly made Graham's point quite well. 

[alicewonders]

I do hate Lindsey Graham—and hate is a word I do not throw around willy-nilly. He is a contemptible, detestable man. He represents everything that is wrong with politics: promoting a self-serving, corrupt, unprincipled and bloated government while buying off the masses who should have been smarter than to re-elect him over ALL HIS PRIMARY OPPONENTS COMBINED. There is ZERO excuse for that, and the people of South Carolina should be totally and firmly ashamed of their decision. Yet they are not, and share in the guilt of putting and keeping that man in power, just as every blue state shares in the guilt of re-electing Obama in 2012. Politicians derive their power from the people who vote for them; when a corrupt politician manages to stay in power, the masses must be corrupt as well.

If you have seen my postings for the past two years or so, you know how much contempt I have for the majority of American voters.

I'm right there too Myrle.  We fought hard to defeat McConnell in Kentucky - and although Matt Bevin got more than one out of three Republican votes against a 30 year incumbent - it wasn't enough to beat the Mitch Machine.  Most voters are lazy and just vote for the name they've heard of before.  My father still thinks Mitch is the bomb - of course my father has dementia too!  But most older people just vote for who they always have, I'm sure it's the same way in South Carolina - plus all the pork Mitch and Lindsey bring home.

It is extremely frustrating and yes, I too, have contempt for most of the American public. 

[jmyrlefuller]

I'm right there too Myrle.  We fought hard to defeat McConnell in Kentucky - and although Matt Bevin got more than one out of three Republican votes against a 30 year incumbent - it wasn't enough to beat the Mitch Machine.  Most voters are lazy and just vote for the name they've heard of before.  My father still thinks Mitch is the bomb - of course my father has dementia too!  But most older people just vote for who they always have, I'm sure it's the same way in South Carolina - plus all the pork Mitch and Lindsey bring home.

It is extremely frustrating and yes, I too, have contempt for most of the American public.

I can understand the idea of being given two choices, if the alternative is worse than the incumbent, then you have to hold your nose and vote for him. That's exactly what would have happened in Wyoming if Cheney had run against Enzi; Cheney didn't bring anything better to the table. Some might argue that's what happened with Bevin vs. McConnell; like you, I disagree and would have much rather had Bevin win that one. (To think that cockfighting turned out to be the issue at hand still reeks of irrelevant politics at its finest.)

But South Carolina was just inexcusable. They had enough candidates to please just about anyone. A vote for any of them would have been a vote against Graham. All they had to do was get more combined between all of them to force a runoff with Graham, and then make the decision about which one would be better. It's not often that we get a “yes or no” choice in politics, but Lindsey Graham vs. Anyone Else was pretty close to that. Yet the Republicans of South Carolina affirmatively chose Graham, shutting out any opposition.

My only explanation is that a lot of the conservatives in Kentucky and South Carolina are no longer registered Republicans (or maybe never were) and are actually independents.

[jmyrlefuller]

With No due respect Mr. Fuller, I'll not lose any sleep over your pretentious judgments about who we elect in South Carolina.  Nor am I ashamed that our state is one of the reddest in the Nation.

Yeah, as red as the Communist Party.

[truth_seeker]

Yeah, as red as the Communist Party.

That statement is a top nomination for the most ridiculous thing written by a member here.

[MACVSOG68]

Yeah, as red as the Communist Party.

What an idiotic statement.  No wonder the extreme right wing is going no where.  I do apologize to all for one thing.  I'll try to cut back on my past support for certain wings of the Party I don't necessarily see eye to eye with.  It's become very obvious over the past few days, some of those on the far right want nothing to do with solidifying the GOP and going after the Democrats.  Instead they want to make sure the Republican Party is decimated and purified by those with alleged "principles".  Or they will leave.  Gee what a shame.  The new majority isn't even sworn in yet.  Fine.  Don't let the screen door hit you in the a$$.   

[xfreeper]

True the newly elected have not been sworn in yet but the incumbent GOP gives us plenty to be concerned with. The idea that anyone that doesn’t toe the party line is an extremist or some kind of wing nut is getting very tired.

[240B]

Rush is on this once in a while.
 
If you took raw quotes from what is called "the GOP leadership" and made a list mixing them with quotes from Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, NOBODY, and I mean no one in the world, would be able to pick the 'so called' Republican quotes from those of the Democrats. They are virtually identical in every way.
 
If this moron wants to experience hate, he should talk to a Leftist professor, or go to any Leftist rally. Not only will he see his imaginary 'hate', but he will also enjoy the violence and vandalism that follows.
 
idiots and fools, all of them.

[MACVSOG68]

True the newly elected have not been sworn in yet but the incumbent GOP gives us plenty to be concerned with. The idea that anyone that doesn’t toe the party line is an extremist or some kind of wing nut is getting very tired.

The idea that anyone that doesn't toe the right wing line is a RINO, Dem lite, Communists, and several other pejoratives is also getting very tired.  And for all the future "party switchers", hell, go for it.  And you don't even have to start your own.  Some will feel much more comfortable in the Libertarian, Constitution or America First parties along with a few more.  Have fun.

[alicewonders]

I can understand the idea of being given two choices, if the alternative is worse than the incumbent, then you have to hold your nose and vote for him. That's exactly what would have happened in Wyoming if Cheney had run against Enzi; Cheney didn't bring anything better to the table. Some might argue that's what happened with Bevin vs. McConnell; like you, I disagree and would have much rather had Bevin win that one. (To think that cockfighting turned out to be the issue at hand still reeks of irrelevant politics at its finest.)

But South Carolina was just inexcusable. They had enough candidates to please just about anyone. A vote for any of them would have been a vote against Graham. All they had to do was get more combined between all of them to force a runoff with Graham, and then make the decision about which one would be better. It's not often that we get a “yes or no” choice in politics, but Lindsey Graham vs. Anyone Else was pretty close to that. Yet the Republicans of South Carolina affirmatively chose Graham, shutting out any opposition.

My only explanation is that a lot of the conservatives in Kentucky and South Carolina are no longer registered Republicans (or maybe never were) and are actually independents.

That's a reasonable assumption.  Kentucky has closed primaries, which is the only reason I haven't changed my registration to Independent from Republican - I still want to vote in the primary!  My brother and other people I know got so angry with the GOP that they left the party and switched to Independent.  They were not able to vote for Bevin, I begged my brother to switch his registration back, but he said he would never go back (I think that was a mistake).  If Bevin could have gotten those votes - he very likely could have won. 

Just between me and you ( :nometalk: ) - I can't prove it, but my gut tells me that the whole cock-fighting thing was a set-up.  That's just the kind of dirty crap Mitch pulls, he's really a very nasty guy!  But Bevin was a newcomer, I'm sure he's a lot less naive now and I still get mail from him - he hasn't given up on politics yet!  Fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me.  I hope he runs again in some capacity in Kentucky politics. 

And it's the same with the Tea Party movement - we're just getting out of the infancy phase and we've still got a lot to learn.  But our principles are sound, our ideals are constitutional - we're not dead by any means and we're only going to grow stronger as we learn how to deal with these deep-rooted incumbents that are actually part of the problem. 

[Bigun]

...And it's the same with the Tea Party movement - we're just getting out of the infancy phase and we've still got a lot to learn.  But our principles are sound, our ideals are constitutional - we're not dead by any means and we're only going to grow stronger as we learn how to deal with these deep-rooted incumbents that are actually part of the problem. 

  Sister! 

[Bigun]

The idea that anyone that doesn't toe the right wing line is a RINO, Dem lite, Communists, and several other pejoratives is also getting very tired.  And for all the future "party switchers", hell, go for it.  And you don't even have to start your own.  Some will feel much more comfortable in the Libertarian, Constitution or America First parties along with a few more.  Have fun.

Mac I would ask you kindly to go and read this post http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,156676.msg630413.html#msg630413

And then simply tell me whether or not you believe what Victor said there to be true.

[katzenjammer]

That's a reasonable assumption.  Kentucky has closed primaries, which is the only reason I haven't changed my registration to Independent from Republican - I still want to vote in the primary!  My brother and other people I know got so angry with the GOP that they left the party and switched to Independent.  They were not able to vote for Bevin, I begged my brother to switch his registration back, but he said he would never go back (I think that was a mistake).  If Bevin could have gotten those votes - he very likely could have won. 

Just between me and you ( :nometalk: ) - I can't prove it, but my gut tells me that the whole cock-fighting thing was a set-up.  That's just the kind of dirty crap Mitch pulls, he's really a very nasty guy!  But Bevin was a newcomer, I'm sure he's a lot less naive now and I still get mail from him - he hasn't given up on politics yet!  Fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me.  I hope he runs again in some capacity in Kentucky politics. 

And it's the same with the Tea Party movement - we're just getting out of the infancy phase and we've still got a lot to learn.  But our principles are sound, our ideals are constitutional - we're not dead by any means and we're only going to grow stronger as we learn how to deal with these deep-rooted incumbents that are actually part of the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLjXt7KxD4c

[jmyrlefuller]

It's become very obvious over the past few days, some of those on the far right want nothing to do with solidifying the GOP and going after the Democrats.  Instead they want to make sure the Republican Party is decimated and purified by those with alleged "principles".

What you do not see is that you must have BOTH for real change to happen. Our country has been decimated the past several decades by the creeping growth of liberalism. It does not matter whether that carries the label of Republican or Democrat. You may very well be able to create more Republicans by capitulating to the left—after all, "conservative" parties still exist through much of Europe—but you will not actually change the course of the country unless you get more people to follow actual conservative PRINCIPLES first.

Evil men like Lindsey Graham thrive on the Status Quo. They are unharmed by the winds of change and “progress,” drifting along in the world of Washington politics, standing for nothing except their own self-preservation. I will not support Lindsey Graham just because he has an (R) next to his name. Sometimes, you have to make a stand, even if the person is a Republican (and I'm sure very few people doubt Graham is a loyal partisan).

Yes, as you say, South Carolina is one of the "reddest" states in the union. That only goes so far as to describe whether it chooses Republicans over Democrats—when that divide's taken away, the state's record on voting is very questionable. It's the same state that put Alvin Greene in a senate election four years ago. It's the same state that has a congressional district where the two candidates were a disgraced former governor and the sister of a TV comedian. Finally, of course, you the debacle that was the Graham primary.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Scumbags in South Carolina…

The same voters who re-elected Graham also elected Tim Scott the first Black GOP Senator.

[jmyrlefuller]

The same voters who re-elected Graham also elected Tim Scott the first Black GOP Senator.

Tim Scott was unopposed in his primary.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

http://www.lindseygraham.com/graham-gowdy-support-giving-states-ability-opt-obamacare/

h

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Fourth District Congressman Trey Gowdy today pushed legislation which gives states the ability to ‘Opt-Out’ of the major provisions of Obamacare. - See more at:

Trey Gowdy was re-elected by a lot of those same SC "scumbags."

[Fishrrman]

Somebody did it right back in Washington state in 1994.

Remember "anybody but [Tom] Foley" ?

Doesn't matter who -- Republican, democrat, no matter -- just ANYONE BUT (fill in the blank).

"Anyone but Foley" worked beautifully -- defeated the Speaker of the House only two years after Clinton's election. Someone who had previously seemed untouchable.

This is the only way to get rid of types like Graham, McConnell, and Boehner -- even if it means putting up with a democrat for at least one term.

[MACVSOG68]

Mac I would ask you kindly to go and read this post http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,156676.msg630413.html#msg630413

And then simply tell me whether or not you believe what Victor said there to be true.

Some of it, not all.  I do agree that politics isn't the ideological enterprise many would like it to be.  Those few who refuse to step over the very tight line of their particular ideology frequently aren't going to be a force in the give and take of a political objective.  Putting a major bill together can and usually is a messy process.  It's why almost nobody liked the Cromnibus.  It had stuff in it that simply turned off both sides.  The fact that the IRS was cut and Homeland Security was only funded through February meant nothing.  To the other side, the fact that Obamacare was left alone for the time being didn't matter.

Some significant decisions are delayed just as Victor wrote, while others simply because enough ideologues are able to use the complex rules of the Senate to stop something. 

I was hopeful after the huge GOP victory last month.  I wanted to see some major efforts in energy, tax reform, immigration reform, debt reduction, regulatory reform.  But I already see the plans from both wings to stop anything from getting done that will benefit the Country.  I know that Obama and his policies were the target of the Republicans which led to their victory.  But I don't think they achieved this victory for no other reason than to just put a stop to everything.  Meanwhile we have no energy policy; debt is climbing to a point of no return; immigration is out of control and getting worse now that Obama thinks he can legislate.  Another couple of thousand pages will be added to the IRS Code; Obamacare will continue to get more expensive and fewer and fewer real jobs are on the horizon.

There are some on both sides of the aisle that actually want to sit down and craft real legislation.  But both wings rip them apart as traitors to the cause.

There are politicians and then there are politicians.  Most of them have various principles, but principles and the art of negotiation and compromise don't always work well together.

Then as Victor mentioned, there's the money people.  Yet most conservatives were happy with the Citizens United decision.  Go figure.

[MACVSOG68]

Tim Scott was unopposed in his primary.

No he wasn't unopposed.

[Bigun]

Some of it, not all.  I do agree that politics isn't the ideological enterprise many would like it to be.  Those few who refuse to step over the very tight line of their particular ideology frequently aren't going to be a force in the give and take of a political objective.  Putting a major bill together can and usually is a messy process.  It's why almost nobody liked the Cromnibus.  It had stuff in it that simply turned off both sides.  The fact that the IRS was cut and Homeland Security was only funded through February meant nothing.  To the other side, the fact that Obamacare was left alone for the time being didn't matter.

Some significant decisions are delayed just as Victor wrote, while others simply because enough ideologues are able to use the complex rules of the Senate to stop something. 

I was hopeful after the huge GOP victory last month.  I wanted to see some major efforts in energy, tax reform, immigration reform, debt reduction, regulatory reform.  But I already see the plans from both wings to stop anything from getting done that will benefit the Country.  I know that Obama and his policies were the target of the Republicans which led to their victory.  But I don't think they achieved this victory for no other reason than to just put a stop to everything.  Meanwhile we have no energy policy; debt is climbing to a point of no return; immigration is out of control and getting worse now that Obama thinks he can legislate.  Another couple of thousand pages will be added to the IRS Code; Obamacare will continue to get more expensive and fewer and fewer real jobs are on the horizon.

There are some on both sides of the aisle that actually want to sit down and craft real legislation.  But both wings rip them apart as traitors to the cause.

There are politicians and then there are politicians.  Most of them have various principles, but principles and the art of negotiation and compromise don't always work well together.

Then as Victor mentioned, there's the money people.  Yet most conservatives were happy with the Citizens United decision.  Go figure.

That then is the nexus of our disagreement because I agree with every last word of what Victor wrote on that thread! My response is right below his post.

[MACVSOG68]

What you do not see is that you must have BOTH for real change to happen. Our country has been decimated the past several decades by the creeping growth of liberalism. It does not matter whether that carries the label of Republican or Democrat. You may very well be able to create more Republicans by capitulating to the left—after all, "conservative" parties still exist through much of Europe—but you will not actually change the course of the country unless you get more people to follow actual conservative PRINCIPLES first.

Which conservative principles are you referring to?  Do they permit any give and take in crafting legislation?  As for Europe, some of those conservative parties are closer to socialist simply because that's the way Europe wants to live.  Those very far right ones don't usually get a lot of traction, though the UKIP is making some advances. 

As for needing both, that's been my line now until recently, but given the meme of some even before the new Congress takes their oath of office, I don't think it will happen.

Evil men like Lindsey Graham thrive on the Status Quo. They are unharmed by the winds of change and “progress,” drifting along in the world of Washington politics, standing for nothing except their own self-preservation. I will not support Lindsey Graham just because he has an (R) next to his name. Sometimes, you have to make a stand, even if the person is a Republican (and I'm sure very few people doubt Graham is a loyal partisan).

I can't tell anyone how to vote.  But to suggest that someone who is actually willing to cross the aisle to help forge legislation is evil makes no sense to me.  Litmus tests are great for choosing a doctor, but less so when choosing a representative.

Yes, as you say, South Carolina is one of the "reddest" states in the union. That only goes so far as to describe whether it chooses Republicans over Democrats—when that divide's taken away, the state's record on voting is very questionable. It's the same state that put Alvin Greene in a senate election four years ago. It's the same state that has a congressional district where the two candidates were a disgraced former governor and the sister of a TV comedian. Finally, of course, you the debacle that was the Graham primary.

Alvin Greene was the Democrat, and apparently the only one breathing they could find.  But almost every major office is held by Republicans.  As for the Graham primary, a lot of people were coming out of the woodwork to run against him, but as I said earlier, a couple were out of the office when they issued common sense, most had little to no name recognition and little financing.