Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lindsey Graham’s collaboration with Democrats points to tea-party primary challenge in ’14
Daily Caller ^ | October 13, 2012 | W. James Antle III

Posted on 10/15/2012 2:31:26 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

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.”


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: arlenspecterlike; selfserving; snakeingrass; twofaced
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: servo1969

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.


41 posted on 10/15/2012 11:02:24 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“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.


42 posted on 10/15/2012 11:36:42 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Well, it’s more likely one of the excellent 5 (or 6, after January) Congressmembers will take a run to replace Graham in 2014, and Sanford probably won’t be one of them.


43 posted on 10/15/2012 11:48:17 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: plsjr
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.

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.

44 posted on 10/15/2012 3:53:32 PM PDT by Happy Rain ("Mitt four then Sarah eight.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Except for Pansey, the GOP Capital Hill caucus from South Carolina is solid TEA party and for good reason, against his liberal worser judgment, Graham has been voting with the rest of them.

Pansey may run his RINO mouth on TV but he knows who butters his bread come election time and is hoping us dum ass kakalaki rednecks will forget his dum ass Yankee liberal ass showing...

...ain't gonna happen.

45 posted on 10/15/2012 4:04:14 PM PDT by Happy Rain ("Mitt four then Sarah eight.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
"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.
46 posted on 10/16/2012 6:17:22 AM PDT by plsjr (<>< ... HIS will be done! (choose a "lesser evil"? NEVER AGAIN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: plsjr
Fine rhetoric and top notch rationalizing.

You win FRiend, I cannot compete with such gifted paralogisms...

...guess I need remedial classes in sophistry.

In short, we agree to disagree because you are apparently invulnerable to the contemporary applications of pragmatic reason...not that there is anything wrong with that, if anything it's kind of amusing--you are both wrong AND droll:)

47 posted on 10/16/2012 1:22:02 PM PDT by Happy Rain ("Mitt four then Sarah eight.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
You're still avoiding the issue, which is "For what reasons should one support and vote for a particular representative?"

You appear to be promoting the idea that one should support whoever 'the party' selects over considering the honesty, reliability and integrity of those individuals.

That's something a rino/rat proponent would do...

... are you a rat or rino?
48 posted on 10/16/2012 10:51:10 PM PDT by plsjr (<>< ... HIS will be done! (choose a "lesser evil"? NEVER AGAIN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson