The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Millee on December 17, 2014, 08:16:51 pm
-
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says he is thinking about seeking his party’s presidential nomination.
Graham is a conservative with a maverick streak who would likely be seen as a long-shot should he launch a candidacy. He’s long been involved in defense issues and is closely allied with Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s losing 2008 presidential nominee.
Graham told reporters on Tuesday that he believes he has a unique ability to deal with security threats overseas and at home.
He says he believes in conservatism that can solve problems. He says it makes sense to work with Democrats if it leads to solutions that can help the country.
Graham is 55 years old and has been in Congress for 22 years.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a conservative with a maverick streak and a folksy manner, said Tuesday that he is thinking about seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
The 20-year congressional veteran, whose highest profile interests include defense, would likely be seen as a long-shot if he launches a candidacy. He made his remarks to reporters the same day that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said he will explore running for the White House.
Graham, 59, has been a close ally of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the GOP’s unsuccessful presidential candidate in 2008. Last year, Graham was one of eight senators — four from each party — who crafted an early version of compromise legislation overhauling the nation’s immigration system that passed the Senate but went nowhere in the Republican-run House.
Graham cruised to Senate re-election in November. He easily defeated six GOP primary rivals who cited his history of negotiating with Democrats as proof that he wasn’t conservative enough for South Carolina.
Graham told reporters Tuesday that in his re-election campaign, “I never shied away from trying to solve problems, and working with the Democrats is not a sin if it advances the overall cause.”
He said that while he usually agrees with the tea party, “The problem is that in our primary field, it’s not about the times that you agree, it’s about the 1 in 10 times that you disagree.”
He added, “The test for some is not, ‘Do you agree with me on the issue.’ It’s, ‘Do you hate who I hate.’ And I’m not going to live my political life hating people.”
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Graham was one of the GOP managers of the Senate’s 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, in which Clinton was acquitted.
“I am not there yet, but what drives my thinking is I do think I have something unique to offer the country, dealing with the threats we face,” he said. “And stay tuned, we’ll see what happens.”
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/lindsey-graham-announces-possible-presidential-run-says-tea-party-all-about-hating-people#.VJGnJZNizwU.facebook
-
He can be both President and First Lady. :whistle:
-
He can be both President and First Lady. :whistle:
:silly: So true! And the way he follows John McCain around - he could also be first puppy!
-
Wrong on both counts.
-
Says Tea Party all about hating people; beginning with Lindsey Graham. :whistle:
-
I read the first few lines of the article until I got to the sentence that stated Lindsey Graham was a "conservative" and I knew then that the article wasn't worth reading. :silly:
Interesting how the media, GOP establishment and DEMS keep bashing TEA ... but TEA is alive and well and oh ...did I mention the GOP tidal wave that just hit?
-
I read the first few lines of the article until I got to the sentence that stated Lindsey Graham was a "conservative" and I knew then that the article wasn't worth reading. :silly:
Interesting how the media, GOP establishment and DEMS keep bashing TEA ... but TEA is alive and well and oh ...did I mention the GOP tidal wave that just hit?
Great minds think alike!
He's about as conservative as Juan McCain!
Both are conservatives if you are comparing them to Bernie Sanders!
-
I read the first few lines of the article until I got to the sentence that stated Lindsey Graham was a "conservative" and I knew then that the article wasn't worth reading. :silly:
Interesting how the media, GOP establishment and DEMS keep bashing TEA ... but TEA is alive and well and oh ...did I mention the GOP tidal wave that just hit?
Thankfully, the GOP tidal wave featured few actual TEA party candidates, and none of the Sharon-Angle-Christine-O'Donnell types.
-
Go ahead. As long as he resigns his post in the Senate to do so.
Scumbags in South Carolina…
-
Oh, Goodie. By the time the primaries get to Pennsylvania I'll get to choose between Bush, Romney, Christie and Graham. Tough decision.
-
Rush Limbaugh
Liked · 2 hrs ·
The ideal, the perfect ticket for the 2016 election is Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Now, they can figure out who's on top of the ticket on their own. But when you compare their positions -- Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush -- on the key important issues, they are two peas in the same pod: Bipartisanship, crossing the aisle, united government, no more gridlock. They have key agreement on all the important issues that people vote on. Clinton-Bush '16!
-
I read the first few lines of the article until I got to the sentence that stated Lindsey Graham was a "conservative" and I knew then that the article wasn't worth reading. :silly:
Interesting how the media, GOP establishment and DEMS keep bashing TEA ... but TEA is alive and well and oh ...did I mention the GOP tidal wave that just hit?
Agreed!! :patriot:
-
I wonder if he has checked his voter ID lately to see which party he belongs to. He's starting like Obama, divide the voters and give them someone to hate. Hey :facepalm:, Hitler believed in that too.
-
Right. Reducing gov't and hating people /s
-
Right. Reducing gov't and hating people /s
Yeah, we're horrible haters that hate in such a hateful hating way.
-
I love freedom and the U.S. Constitution. If I hate anyone, it would be those who work against the two things I mentioned loving.
-
Lindsay Graham: Living proof that not all doofuses are Democrats.
-
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. :pondering:
-
Poor little Lindsey, his feels are so easily bruised.
Lindsey, what you see isn't reality. The reason you think the Tea Party is about hating people isn't a reflection of them, it's the response you evoke. I'm not Tea Party, and I hate you Lindsey.
-
calling South Carolinians "scumbags"
I didn't get that either?
-
Poor little Lindsey, his feels are so easily bruised.
Lindsey, what you see isn't reality. The reason you think the Tea Party is about hating people isn't a reflection of them, it's the response you evoke. I'm not Tea Party, and I hate you Lindsey.
I don't think the tea parties are about hating people, but I also didn't see any quotes where he said that either. If he did, he needs to retract it, or explain himself. If he didn't, then the author might want to retract his headline.
-
I don't think the tea parties are about hating people, but I also didn't see any quotes where he said that either. If he did, he needs to retract it, or explain himself. If he didn't, then the author might want to retract his headline.
Man, I hate when this happens, MAC.
I actually agree with you. ^-^
The title is misleading. As much as I despise Graham, he didn't say what the headline says he said.
-
Thankfully, the GOP tidal wave featured few actual TEA party candidates, and none of the Sharon-Angle-Christine-O'Donnell types.
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.
-
Man, I hate when this happens, MAC.
I actually agree with you. ^-^
The title is misleading. As much as I despise Graham, he didn't say what the headline says he said.
:laugh: C'mon ML, we gotta agree on something...sometime.
-
:laugh: C'mon ML, we gotta agree on something...sometime.
Oh, I suppose so.... :beer:
-
Oh, I suppose so.... :beer:
:beer:
-
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.
-
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. :pondering:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah, as red as the Communist Party.
That statement is a top nomination for the most ridiculous thing written by a member here.
-
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$$.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
:amen: Sister! :amen:
-
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 (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.
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLjXt7KxD4c)
-
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.
-
Scumbags in South Carolina…
The same voters who re-elected Graham also elected Tim Scott the first Black GOP Senator.
-
The same voters who re-elected Graham also elected Tim Scott the first Black GOP Senator.
Tim Scott was unopposed in his primary.
-
http://www.lindseygraham.com/graham-gowdy-support-giving-states-ability-opt-obamacare/
hU.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."
-
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.
-
Mac I would ask you kindly to go and read this post http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,156676.msg630413.html#msg630413 (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.
-
Tim Scott was unopposed in his primary.
No he wasn't unopposed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Wonderful. Very happy for you. As I said, I agree with some but not all. Hopefully that's not a sin here yet...
-
Wonderful. Very happy for you. As I said, I agree with some but not all. Hopefully that's not a sin here yet...
Disagreeing with me? Haven't you read the bylaws? It's punishable by death, as it should be.
-
Wonderful. Very happy for you. As I said, I agree with some but not all. Hopefully that's not a sin here yet...
I don't run anything here but as for as I'm concerned it certainly isn't!
-
"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."
Reaching across the aisle USED to be an honorable thing, when both parties wanted America to succeed. But, there are some things you cannot compromise on. I think today's Democrat party has very little to offer anyone that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! How do you compromise on those things? :shrug:
An even bigger problem than the Democrats, are Republicans that actually agree with them! Those R's have certainly lost their way and they need to be reigned in. I know there are a lot of members here that actually want to see amnesty, or amnesty-lite passed. There are members here that the thought of just tinkering with and trying to fix Obamacare is a good thing. People are certainly entitled to their opinions and it's true that the GOP is a big tent - but there are also a lot of us that don't feel these things should be compromised and we feel that the American people spoke pretty plainly in November that we want the dang stuff stopped!
That's where I do get riled up, when the people we elect to represent us - stop representing us and start representing themselves. A lot of people are sick to death of it. I, for one, realize that we are in a minority right now - but I will just say flat out - we mean to change that!
We feel deep in our bones that is the only thing that will save this country from the Titanic cruise we are currently on.
-
Reaching across the aisle USED to be an honorable thing, when both parties wanted America to succeed. But, there are some things you cannot compromise on. I think today's Democrat party has very little to offer anyone that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! How do you compromise on those things? :shrug:
An even bigger problem than the Democrats, are Republicans that actually agree with them! Those R's have certainly lost their way and they need to be reigned in. I know there are a lot of members here that actually want to see amnesty, or amnesty-lite passed. There are members here that the thought of just tinkering with and trying to fix Obamacare is a good thing. People are certainly entitled to their opinions and it's true that the GOP is a big tent - but there are also a lot of us that don't feel these things should be compromised and we feel that the American people spoke pretty plainly in November that we want the dang stuff stopped!
That's where I do get riled up, when the people we elect to represent us - stop representing us and start representing themselves. A lot of people are sick to death of it. I, for one, realize that we are in a minority right now - but I will just say flat out - we mean to change that!
We feel deep in our bones that is the only thing that will save this country from the Titanic cruise we are currently on.
Well said Alice! Well said indeed! :beer:
-
Disagreeing with me? Haven't you read the bylaws? It's punishable by death, as it should be.
:laugh: Will this help at all Vic?
(http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/1/3/9/13800518782083390549get-out-of-jail-free-card-rob-hans-md.png)
-
Reaching across the aisle USED to be an honorable thing, when both parties wanted America to succeed. But, there are some things you cannot compromise on. I think today's Democrat party has very little to offer anyone that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! How do you compromise on those things? :shrug:
Until you have 60 votes, you're either going to sit down with the opposition or go home. Even then, some of your 60 votes may actually want to allow amendments to a bill submitted by the minority. And most legislation isn't about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's about running the federal government.
An even bigger problem than the Democrats, are Republicans that actually agree with them! Those R's have certainly lost their way and they need to be reigned in.
Wow, right out of George Orwell.
I know there are a lot of members here that actually want to see amnesty, or amnesty-lite passed.
I don't know of any such members here. I do know of some who actually want to see immigration reform that includes better border security, stronger employer sanctions, and changes to the educational and skill requirements for residency, English language proficiency, and end to chain migration, better fraud-proof id.
And those same members know that we're never going to deport every illegal here, and rather than putting everyone in the same bucket, we provide a system where those without felonies or gang relationships can get a shot at legalization, so that the feds can actually go after drug and human traffickers, gang bangers and the perpetrators of fraud in the system.
Are those the members you are referring to?
There are members here that the thought of just tinkering with and trying to fix Obamacare is a good thing. People are certainly entitled to their opinions and it's true that the GOP is a big tent - but there are also a lot of us that don't feel these things should be compromised and we feel that the American people spoke pretty plainly in November that we want the dang stuff stopped!
I saw a lot of evidence that the voters want Obama's "my way or the highway" tyranny put to an end. But I missed all that evidence that the voters didn't want any negotiation and compromise to get energy, immigration, tax reform, debt and other issues worked on through legislation.
That's where I do get riled up, when the people we elect to represent us - stop representing us and start representing themselves. A lot of people are sick to death of it. I, for one, realize that we are in a minority right now - but I will just say flat out - we mean to change that!
Good. I'm always glad to see political activism as long as it moves us toward a stronger Republican Party. And if in your crusade you concentrate on issues most Americans are interested in too, you might make some headway.
-
Until you have 60 votes, you're either going to sit down with the opposition or go home.
Or you can simply redefine the rule midstream, as Harry Reid did not too long ago.
-
Or you can simply redefine the rule midstream, as Harry Reid did not too long ago.
This is the salient point. Not having 60 votes did not stop the other side from enacting the worst piece of socialist legislation in the history of the Republic.
-
This is the salient point. Not having 60 votes did not stop the other side from enacting the worst piece of socialist legislation in the history of the Republic.
Harry's nuclear option is allowing most appointments that might have been argued. Obamacare was passed without the 60 vote debate shutoff using "reconciliation", which BTW, has been used by Republicans too. But most legislation introduced in the Senate still requires a cloture vote. How McConnell will handle this isn't clear yet, though many see him keeping the lower threshold.
-
Never been a member of the graham fan club but the article is poorly written and intentionally misleading. First the article says he is 55 and then 4 or 5 lines down, it says he is 59. The two lines "referencing" the Tea Party do not appear to me to have been connected, missing statements in between. Not convinced he hates the tea party.
That said, he is a sell out, not mushy...