Facing Primary, Lindsey Graham Now Supports Defunding ObamaCare

Breitbart.com ^ | 9/21/13 | Mike Flynn

[cotton1706]

On Friday, the House voted for a resolution to keep government open but also defund ObamaCare. Within minutes, Nancy Mace, who is opposing Sen. Lindsey Graham in the GOP primary, issue a press release attacking Graham for his past criticism of the defunding strategy. In just two hours, Graham tweeted that he supported the House's efforts to defund the unpopular health care law. Such is the power of primaries.

As recently as July, Graham said that defunding ObamaCare was "a bridge too far for him." Primary opponents do tend to focus a politician's mind.

Graham faces at least three opponents in next year's primary contest. Normally, multiple challengers give an edge to incumbents, as opposition is split among several challengers. South Carolina, however, uses a run-off system. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two voter-getters face off in a run-off. Multiple challengers increase the odds that Graham falls below 50% and has to face a run-off.

Graham is no doubt a nice man and would make a good GOP Senator from a state like Maine. His representing South Carolina, however, is a wasted opportunity for conservatives. An East Coast John McCain does a disservice to the Palmetto State.

Graham's tweet in support of the House action indicates he is aware of the challenge before him. Few incumbents are so disliked by the grass-roots, both in South Carolina and across the country. A run-off election, with a single conservative challenger, would ignite national interest and possibly create a wave that washes over Graham.

His tweet in support of defunding ObamaCare was a good start. He now has to follow that up over the coming weeks.

[Jacquerie]

Consider just one difference among several if senators were once again appointed by the states.

What is the chance our federal courts would be filled with anti-tenth amendment judges? With senators responsible to the states, is it reasonable to expect senators to reject nominees hostile to the senators’ employers?

Yes.

[madison10]

Vote him out anyway. As soon as he wins he’ll flip-flop again.

[Mamzelle]

You mean that having Senators elected directly by their states would lead to lessened respect for States Rights and more federal power? The forces to centralize power are not found in the simple difference of a state house elected a representative. That's just part of the human condition that the Costitution tried to hold back like a dam.

I promise you, the Carolina house and senate would send LG right back to the Senate, and would never have put Jim DeMint or Tim Scott in office. I think things are better as they are.

[cardinal4]

Primary him, we don’t need gay GOP members in the Senate..

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

They should really begin to call him “Pee-Wee” Graham.

[Mamzelle]

I voted for Lindsey Graham with the knowledge that he was probably gay. I still wouldn’t mind voting for a gay person if I also believed that he was a conservative. Lindsey Graham went to Washionton and was seduced like so many heterosexuals. I mean, look at Marco Rubio. He turned faster than Graham. It’s an inherently corrupting environment. And I think McCain gets a pass in all this gay stuff about Lindsey...I’m guessing John is half Janie, on a switch current. I despise the way McCain treated his first wife a lot more than any issue with homosexuality.

[Jacquerie]

You mean that having Senators elected directly by their states would lead to lessened respect for States Rights . . .

No. Did you read what I wrote regarding the courts? I mean going back to the founder's system means more power to the states at the expense of the consolidated government in DC.

Even if the SC legislature sent Graham back, his perspective and voting would be entirely different.

It is stupid to have two popularly elected houses in congress. The senate was designed to dam the whims of the mob in the house. Today, because of the 17th, senators are worse than three term congressmen.

Return adult supervision, return the states to the senate. Repeal the 17th.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Don’t bother trying to argue the reality of the membership of a legislatively-elected Senate with Jacquerie. She’s been told repeatedly that it would populated with the same radical leftist Democrats from Democrat states and people like Ted Cruz would never get elected, but lots of statist liberal RINOs would, like Crist in FL (now a Democrat), DewCrist in TX & even Karl Rove as a thank-you to Dubya. No thanks to a moronic idea like repealing the 17th !

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Even if the SC legislature sent Graham back, his perspective and voting would be entirely different."

OK, this may be the funniest and most delusional thing written by a FReeper this year.

[Mamzelle]

re: Even if the SC legislature sent Graham back, his perspective and voting would be entirely different.)))

Well, I do have more pressing problems than to worry about a change that took place a hundred years ago--such as the change in income taxes that also took place a hundred years ago. I am unconvinced that, given the cultural changes that have taken place, that things would be any better if the particular band of thieves and cheats in the state house of SC chose a Senator rather than the people of that state, who now have the internet to keep them abreast of the nonsense that one Senator can accomplish, as opposed to a hundred small-time crooks in the state houses.

I don't think LG would be any less in love with himself or his paramour if the state house had sent him, or any more inclined to put the interests of South Carolina ahead of his preening, prating narcissism.

You don't take into account how cheaply a state house rep can be bought--a sandwich and a can of beer will do the job.

[Resettozero]

Even if the SC legislature sent Graham back, his perspective and voting would be entirely different.

On this occasion, you are just wrong in your assessment. Who do you think runs Columbia S.C.? If you think it is we the people, again you would be wrong. Since the uncivil conflict, the Federal Government operates Columbia S.C. according to the wishes of Northeastern States. Being up for re-election makes Senior S.C. Senator Graham MORE likely to PRETEND to be a conservative.

[upchuck]

Weak-kneed and limp-wristed RINOs have no principles.

Linda got all dressed up in honor of your comment :)

Uber RINO Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."

Want on or off this ping list?
Just FReepmail me.

h/t to martin_fierro for the graphic

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— If senators were appointed by state legislatures, I guarantee each and every one of their votes would be closely scrutinized and duly noted. -——

I never understood the importance of that amendment. I do now.

[catnipman]

Not to worry. If Graham manages to get re-elected, he’ll switch back to opposing defunding Obamacare.

[Jacquerie]

Okay, you don't think a senate of the states would keep anti-tenth amendment lawyers from the federal bench. That is illogical.

You don't acknowledge our history, in which state prerogatives were generally well protected by the states prior to the 17th amendment.

The government in DC is not federal and has not been federal since 1913. It is consolidated. There is a ruling class up there with an R or D after their names that makes absolutely no difference.

The framers knew the fallen nature of man and designed a system to minimize the influence of the bad side of our nature. They did it by dividing power, by retaining the federal nature of the Articles of Confederation, in the Senate of the States under the constitution.

[Resettozero]

1. Okay, you don't think a senate of the states would keep anti-tenth amendment lawyers from the federal bench. That is illogical.

2. You don't acknowledge our history, in which state prerogatives were generally well protected by the states prior to the 17th amendment.

3. The government in DC is not federal and has not been federal since 1913. It is consolidated. There is a ruling class up there with an R or D after their names that makes absolutely no difference.

4. The framers knew the fallen nature of man and designed a system to minimize the influence of the bad side of our nature. They did it by dividing power, by retaining the federal nature of the Articles of Confederation, in the Senate of the States under the constitution.

1. Was not looking for a 17th Amendment discussion. My post deals with South Carolina only.

2. Don't care; it's my day off from caring about it.

3. Whaaa...?

4. Erudite, but meaningless to me. I've read your opinions regarding the 17th Amendment on other threads and really don't understand your fixation on it.

[Jacquerie]

I met with my state representative for about an hour this past week.

He’s a businessman, a nurseryman with 1,000 acres under cultivation and 150 employees. He knows well the heavy hand of the EPA, and employee diktats from Washington.

I spoke of Article V and the necessity of 17th amendment repeal. Keeping radical leftists out of the court system, his future influence regarding treaties and secretarial appointments got his attention. He asked about the history of the 17th, and more about its aftermath.

To my surprise, he told me of FL house and senate resolutions headed for a joint committee to express interest in calling for an Article V state amendment convention.

I gave him a copy of Levin’s Liberty Amendments.

There is hope.

[Jacquerie]

Borrow a copy of Levin’s new book

[Resettozero]

Borrow a copy of Levin’s new book.

Sir! Yessir! Permission to suggest alternate course of action sir. Thank you sir! I already own a copy SIR!

(What's up your craw? Everything you've said to me is off this thread's topic.)

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’m sure he’d love to have more power. Too bad it comes at the expense of the PEOPLE.