Graham aims to tackle 'radical' views [attacks conservatives, defends Big Gov't]

The Post & Courier, Charleston, SC ^ | 10-19-2009

[rabscuttle385]

Some say U.S. senator should focus on emphasizing his conservative record.

BY BEN SZOBODY

The shouts of "traitor" that rained on Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham last week at a local town hall meeting revealed rifts among conservatives that some analysts say might signal trouble for center-right politicians such as Graham.

Political experts say a burgeoning group of right-wing activists long seen as the fringe of the party is growing in influence, fueled by economic fears and populist ire over unchecked Washington spending and magnified by the power of the Internet.

Whether they represent a vocal minority or the seeds of a serious election challenge for Graham remains to be seen, though at least one Republican consultant thinks the state's senior senator has "real problems" outside of just a raucous town hall meeting.

"If he were running right now, he'd be in serious trouble," said Dave Woodard, a Clemson University political science professor and former campaign manager for Graham who said he has Upstate polling to support his view.

Graham, re-elected last year to another six-year term, flatly rejected that idea, describing the crowd at his town hall meeting this week as 40 percent Constitution Party members who are about to spark a "backlash" because of their "radical" views.

"They're a political fringe group," Graham told The Greenville News. "They believe that Medicare is unconstitutional and student loans are unconstitutional. I'm the conservative in the room."

[rabscuttle385]

"They believe that Medicare is unconstitutional and student loans are unconstitutional. I'm the conservative in the room."

Well, they ARE un-Constitutional, Miss Lindsay. And, if you're so conservative, why are you defending leftist institutions? After all, Medicare was created by LBJ, and the Department of Education--including federal student loans--was spawned by Jimmy Carter. Both were leftist Democrats.

[Rastus]

Will all our “throw the bums out” talk ring as hollow in 2010 as it did in SC in 2008?

[Rickcbw]

Graham was always a RINO but lately, he must be getting his kool-aid through an IV supplied by Obamacare.

[monocle]

Lindsey Graham is the soundest argument against big government.

[whatisthetruth]

Why at the age of 52 has Miss Lindsey NEVER been married, does the Obama administration know something we don’t.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX4_rmUY-Rs

[The Cajun]

does the Obama administration know something we don’t.....

My guess is they also have pictures and recordings of what we don't know.

[word_warrior_bob]

He’s following the “McCain Model” to get publicity, bash conservatives, call your party “extremist”, etc., get attention from the NY Times, etc., as the “answer” for the Republican Party.

If he’s the “answer”, I’d hate to know what the question was.

The fact that he looks like an old lesbian doesn’t help him either.

http://menwholooklikeoldlesbians.blogspot.com/

[Rickcbw]

That’s a great question, I’ll bet they do have confirmation on this!

[SmokingJoe]

“I'm the conservative in the room.”

In a room full of moveon.org lunatics perhaps, not in that particular room.

[Rickcbw]

OMG, you're right, he does. That's scary, lol. I also agree that he's pulling the old McCain stunt for attention. What a bunch of kooks!

[nathanbedford]

I agree with you, these massive entitlements, these laws which massively redistribute wealth are unconstitutional. And I have so believed all my adult life. Unfortunately, you and I do not get to declare the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of federal legislation. In that sense, Lindsey Graham is correct, there is simply no realistic possibility that the Supreme Court of the United States will find the statutes to be unconstitutional. Therefore, under the system which has evolved, constitutionality rarely comes into question for any federal welfare legislation.

If these people are indignant today, why did they not take to the streets when Judge Bork was borked? The people stood up against the court packing scheme in 1937-38 but the court did not. Whether the court packing scheme intimidated the court or not, the historical fact is that the Supreme Court ceased applying the Constitution to federal programs for all intents and purposes thereafter.

The civil rights controversies in the 1950s and 60s further cemented the Republic to the idea that federalism was dead. Whatever the virtue on either side of the states' rights arguments, the matter was settled and closed.

It remained only for the Supreme Court to devise ways to get around the limitation of powers on Congress contained in article 1 section 8. That has been fully achieved. There are effectively no constitutional limits on Congress in this arena and there is virtually no hope that the health care legislation will be found unconstitutional, although some provisions might fall for arcane reasons.

I do not fault Lindsey Graham for planting his standard somewhere else. It is hopeless to fight against the federalization of everything; that simply is not going to be stopped now. We federalize thinking (hate crimes), we federalize education (no Child left behind-student loans) we federalize speed limits, we federalize the size of your lightbulbs and the size of your toilet flush, we are about to federalize completely the doctor patient relationship.

But I certainly do fault Lindsey Graham for carrying the standard forward against the Constitution. It was his compromise against the Republican Party with the gang of 14 that wrecked any chances of bringing sanity to selection of federal judges.

Why are folks in the audience beyond the mainstream for asking whether China will fail to pick up our debt? Why is it" alarming " that people ask under these circumstances whether the entire economy will collapse?

It is one thing to reluctantly accept the reality of our distorted Constitution, and quite another to concede that one is out of the mainstream for asking perfectly rational questions. Lindsey Graham has betrayed so many times that he has no conservative philosophy, no constitutional framework, but an ad hoc idea of government which says that whenever Lindsey Graham comes to believe is right.

[Defiant]

Please figure out what the dems have on this guy so we can use it ourselves to get rid of him. I can’t take 5 more years of this douche.

[Cobra64]

Why at the age of 52 has Miss Lindsey NEVER been married, does the Obama administration know something we don’t.....

Just listen to him. I bet he's buddies with Bwaney Fwank.

[bustinchops]

Surely the great state of SC can do better than Graham.

[AmericanInTokyo]

This guy is no longer a Republican in my book, and he ought to just get it over with and make it official.

[antceecee]

Little Lindsey has to go... sorry baby doll your time is up! Don’t call us......

[iopscusa]

Wadda we expect from el douche Graham. Thanks to the brain trust of the RNC, Graham and his baby daddy Mccain were the only Repub choice in 2008,...Graham’s opponent was a DemoRat get-along for Harry Reid.

[Joe Boucher]

Anything not specifically spelled out in the constitution is illegal there lindsey you closet fag.

[dixiedarlindownsouth]

“if they didn’t like his efforts to build a big-tent party they could leave.”

That’s not the way it works around here. You’ll be the one leaving.