Lindsey Graham’s collaboration with Democrats points to tea-party primary challenge in ’14

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s opposition to political ads targeting several Democratic senate incumbents could create a significant re-election issue for him in 2014.

When Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul launched an ad campaign against Democrats who opposed his proposal to end foreign aid to Libya, Egypt and Pakistan, Graham took the unusual step of defending the Democrats from a fellow Republican.

Graham held a conference call with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin to slam both the ad and Paul’s foreign aid bill.

Paul swiftly fired back, telling Politico, “I don’t see myself campaigning against a Republican in a general election ever, that’s why I think it’s extraordinary that Graham is supporting a Democrat in a general election.”

“Which is more important,” he asked: “Defending … a failed policy of foreign aid or getting a Republican majority?”

The comes amid speculation that Graham could be a tea party target when he faces re-election two years from now.

In September, Club for Growth president Chris Chocola told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast that his group may have Graham in its sights.

Noting several high-profile conservative primary victories over established Republican incumbents, Chocola said, “If you are looking over the horizon of 2014, the sun may rise over South Carolina.”

“Sanford married her. Whatever your opinion of his unfortunate choices in his personal life, he was an excellent Conservative Governor and Congressman. I wouldn’t hesistate to support him on his public record.”

I disagree. He used funds he had no business using to help with his dalliances. He made his personnel lie to his constituents to cover his backside. What this showed was that he was willing to do all of this to have what he wanted. Then after being ‘caught’ he was petulant and unashamed. To hell with his wife and children. All that mattered was his happiness.

The whole thing displayed a serious lack of control along with an uncomfortably large ego. Am I any better? No, I am not. I have made mistakes in my life as well. BUT I’m also never going to try and be a Governor or US Senator. And neither should he ever again hold a position of such power over other people’s lives. When is the next time he might really, really want something? What might he do to get it? No. He made his choice and he should move on with his life and leave governing to others.

"Often “reductio ad absurdium” is Latin for I don't have the smarts to convincingly contradict reality so I will affect intellectual superiority over the dirt beneath my feet and the clouds above my head."

Are you saying my identification of your logical fallacy is incorrect?

(Actually, I'm trying to brush up on logic and thought I might research and apply in my conversations.)

Your inference that "I don't have the smarts to convincingly contradict reality so I will affect intellectual superiority over the dirt beneath my feet and the clouds above my head." is a combination ad-hominem and appeal to authority in an attempt to divert me and other readers from the real issue.

My real issue being "For what reasons should one support and vote for a particular representative?".

You do realize that your phrase "convincingly contradict reality" indicates you've closed your mind (besides being self-contradicting)?

(Maybe you're OK with that. If so, nothing I say matters so please disregard my response.)
...
...
...
...
...
Still reading?
...
...
...
... OK.

You say "OK, say you are trapped in a pit in Hell and two demons are looking down on you—one wants to pee on you and one wants to defecate on you.
You have but one rock that you can toss to stop one of them."

I think I'm less likely to find myself in the hypothetical situation you describe if I avoid supporting those that preselected a 'representative' who voted for Supreme Court nominees that promote abortion and homosexuality as pansey did.

I'm not saying that party affiliation is inherently bad, just that it should be secondary.

The S.C. Citizenry in their laziness and complacency allowed the party to avoid discussing the truth about graham and leave us with unacceptable "representation".

I have reason to hold suspect those who describe our only choice as having to support the r’s.
An enemy who would have us compromise our principles would use this method to attempt to hide behind the veil of ‘reasonability’ or as a scare tactic.

The r’s have done this time and again and I will no longer buy into that ‘my team’ mentality.

I'm saying that not focusing on the individuals we support, ensuring they have the honesty, honor and integrity to stand against known wrong or bad acts allows those who would further destructive agendas to raise up true believers or useful idiots in the name of party affiliation.

It is sad that, even on a Christian Conservative site like FR, there are those who would have us deny what our 'lying eyes' tell us, and expect us to join the team.

We shouldn't be ‘sheeple’ for _anyone_ and should encourage those who will listen to seriously consider the reasons for how they vote. Otherwise, we're likely to have another pansey, mclame, boner, or specter foisted upon us once again.

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.