Lindsey Graham/South Carolina Ping
Posted on 02/12/2005 11:03:01 AM PST by Republican Red
Wow.
The AP praising a "conservative" Republican?
Who'd a thunk it?
(Pronounced eye roll.)
Just for the record, Lindsey Graham was a McCain supporter and not for Bush in the '00 primaries.
Lindsey Graham is a disloyal punk. He won't hesitate to stab President Bush in the back the minute he has the opportunity. He's already tried to derail Bush's social security plan by calling for a tax increase. He's also gone after Alberto Gonzalaz, joining with the libs in accusing him of torture. He's no conservative and no friend of Bush.
Nuff said.
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Ditto, beat me to it.
This is exactly what we need to get these important reforms moving. Finally someone willing to propose meaningful reform AND set out a plan to pay for it. Best of luck to Senator Graham's initiatives.
Interesting that the reporter seems to believe taxpayers are only paying half of the FICA. I suppose he thinks the other half is attributable to that famous employer generosity and charitability.
Reveals a certain ignorance of the issue that should disqualify him from even reporting on the subject.
Gee, just raise the cap so we take more from the rich and give to the poor. Brilliant Robinhoodisque wealth distribution. /s
Not a fan of Graham.
" Lindsey Graham is a disloyal punk.He won't hesitate to stab President Bush in the back the minute he has the opportunity. "
Half the time, I can't figure out what his position is on an issue, because he seems to pivot from one side to the next, mid sentence and then sprinkles his sentences with corn pone rhetoric and country folksisms- almost as a smoke screen.
I don't know if he does this on purpose, to play both sides or whether he's just not that bright and has no idea what he's talking about.
Just when I think he's a good guy, he'll come out with some insane comment .
Like this :
"But it was a Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who put Gonzales on the defensive.
Graham rattled the nominee by suggesting the United States, by abusing detainees, had sunk to the level of its enemies."
And then Graham votes to confirm Gonzales.
Like you, I don't trust Graham because his comments don't seem to match his voting record , so you never know when he's going to flip.
Just think of the field day that RATS and the press will have if President Bush joins his father in breaking his pledge not to raise taxes.
Graham is stabbing Bush and conservatives in the back. he wins NO respect from me for trying to derail S.S. reform by demanding tax hikes. Best thing that could happen is for the conservatives in his state to kick him out and put in new conservative blood.
He's a McCainiac, enuf said.
I think the guy has guts though and he has voted with the Repubs overwhelmingly.......I don't mind if every once in awhile someone has the guts to be an independent thinker. I don't always follow the party line just for the sake of doing it.....sometimes there are good ideas that need to be explored, even if they are wrong......If you know anyone that agrees 100% with the top brass, I'll show you a butt kisser many of the times.......Good for him
I agree with the sarcasm.
But if this is what it takes to get sixty votes for Social Security reform and personal accounts, I'm not averse to doing it.
Long-term, personal accounts are the best solution. And, if the choice is between compromise or no reform, then this would be a compromise I could live with. It's that important that the principle of personal accounts win -- because:
a. Personal accounts will make the Social Security program a better deal for everybody who gets to take advantage of them (I'm two months from taking Social Security, they won't help me).
b. The money in Personal Accounts is money that won't be in the Social Security Trust Fund, for congresscritters like Graham to spend.
c. But the money in Personal Accounts will be available as a pool of investment capital that can help the American economy continue to grow and innovate.
Consequently, Personal Accounts are a principal worth compromising for.
It looks to me that the AP is pushing this to get a tax raise from Bush, then jump all over him for raising taxes.
That is the Dem leadership's idea, except they don't include private accounts to go with it. The reason they screamed that SS was in crisis during the Clinton years was just to raise taxes for more pork. Now they say SS is not in crisis since all you have to do is raise taxes and cut benefits and the problem is solved. They don't want money taken out of the "Trust" fund because it is actually a political slush fund. If it weren't for the pesky problem of having to write checks to SS recipients every month all would be peachy keen.
The left rides sidesaddle.
Is this going to be the proposal that gets pushed forth? I hope the leadership will silence Graham ASAP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.