Posted on 03/18/2016 7:25:29 AM PDT by jimbo123
It's that strange time again in American politics when politicians endorse candidates they have repeatedly said they can't stand.
For months, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has been warning the nation about Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. But on Thursday, Graham told CNN that not only is he supporting Cruz, he's fundraising for him. Graham pointed to Donald Trump's rise as the reason, explaining that Cruz might be the only one to stop him.
"I think he's the best alternative to beat Donald Trump," Graham told CNN. "I'm going to help Ted in any way I can."
It's a strange position for Graham, who has said all kinds of terrible things about Cruz.
Let's take a trip down memory lane ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
He won’t. At this point it seems he wants the presidency at any cost. What will be priceless is when Jeb endorses Cruz and seeing his supporters reactions to that. Cruz is playing on both sides of the fence. He’s appealing to conservatives for their votes, and at the same time selling out to the establishment for their loads of money. Very soon people on both sides of that fence will kick him to the curb.
Even in something so simple as this, Graham shows himself to be a simpering sniveling Wormtongue.
Exactly!
Uuuuuhhh, the “snake” in the Garden of Eden was a master politician, no? Reminds me of the Al Wilson “Snake Story” occasionally heard roundabout!
Try convincing the Trumpettes of that.
Not going to even try.
I was never very good at dealing with those who have special needs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXcYCwaBKnQ&feature=youtu.be
Hahahahahaha...
Neocon Lindsey Graham Calls For Bypassing the Constitution
The New American ^ | 17 March 2016 | John F. McManus
Posted on 3/17/2016, 1:57:14 PM by VitacoreVision
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham parades as a conservative. But he and his ideological confrere, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, are neoconservatives. The distinction is important because neoconservatism has become a dominant force among many elected officials and media pundits.
What is neoconservatism? The man who always claimed to be the “godfather” of the movement is Irving Kristol. In his 1995 book Neonconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, he wrote, “We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” He also bared the roots of his political and economic preferences when he additionally stated, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” So, he wanted the socialism desired by FDR’s New Deal and the United States to be the policeman of the world on the way to world government.
The Leon Trotsky he lauded partnered with Lenin in the takeover of Russia in 1917. A few years later, after Lenin died and Stalin emerged as the top criminal, Trotsky fled for his life. The two had split because Stalin favored head-cracking and gulags while Trotsky wanted to impose Marxist socialism slowly and patiently. His technique called for propagandizing people into choosing it. Both shared the ultimate goal of a tyrannical world government and differed only in how to obtain it.
So, a neoconservative advocates big government socialism and worldwide internationalism via undeclared wars and entangling pacts. Neocon Charles Krauthammer boldly spelled out these goals in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol’s journal, The National Interest. He advocated U.S. integration with other nations to create a “super-sovereign” entity that is “economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world.” His ultimate goal called for a “new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.”
Neoconservatives love war. Not the kind authorized by a congressional declaration that might result in a quick victory and the troops coming home, but a conflict started by presidential mandate with full authorization supplied by the United Nations or its NATO subsidiary. As Senator Graham stated in a recent Capitol Hill press conference, he wants the president given a green light for another undeclared war: “I agree with the president that Congress should act regarding giving him the authority to fight ISIL.”
War without the constitutional requirement for a formal congressional declaration has been our nation’s policy since World War II. Our forces haven’t won a war since that struggle because they have been hamstrung by rules imposed by the UN, NATO, or presidential dictate. The United States never lost a war until our leaders departed from formally issuing a required declaration. Congress, which should have insisted on adherence to the Constitution, lamely tolerated stalemates or losses in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now in Afghanistan. If U.S. forces are to be employed to defeat ISIS (or ISIL), there should be a declaration of war, not a presidential dictate.
Neocon Lindsey Graham swore an oath to the Constitution, not to presidential power. He violated that oath when he supported granting President Obama trade promotion authority, the power to entangle the Untied States in sovereignty-compromising deals with the European Union and Pacific nations. He also voted for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, raising the national debt ceiling, and supplying another trillion dollars to fund socialistic agencies of the federal government. And that’s just some of his record over the past year. Check out his voting adherence to the Constitution as calculated by the Freedom Index.
Not alone in what he supports, Senator Graham has become an outspoken leader of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party. He supports going to war without a required declaration, entangling the United States in the UN and harmful trade pacts, and backing continuation and expansion of federally imposed socialism. This isn’t conservatism; it’s neoconservatism. And it’s terribly bad for our country.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3410498/posts
[But if he endorsed Trump, you’d just assume that Trump was brilliant, right?]
1. I know he would never endorse Trump, and I would be concerned if he did.
2. Trump’s current endorsers prove to me he IS brilliant.
He did tell David Duke to shove it. He even restated that during a debate. If Cruz is an outsider, anti-establishment, why would he allow an ultra insider like Graham to enter his camp. He should figuratively toss him out on his ear. Bad optics. Having Neil Bush on your team doesn’t look to good either.
“Nope. What it tells is that Cruz wants to win, as he should. Any endorsement that is not destructive should be accepted.”
Ordinarily, I’d agree...but this is Goober. Are you sure it isn’t destructive? Not suggesting that Cruz isn’t thinking this through, but...well...this is Goober we are talking about.
With a Graham endorsement of Cruz, one may conclude (rightly or wrongly) that Cruz has now been accepted by the establishment, therefore removing his outsider status.
Oh, stop it.
Grahmnesty is going the way the wind blows.
If Trump becomes the nominee Gramnesty and his fellow sycophants will suck up to Trump.
It’s what these spineless amoral twits do. It reflects not at all upon Trump or Cruz.
As I said in a previous post, both Trump and Cruz are running as non-establishment outsiders. Accepting Graham on your team certainly gives the appearance of being accepted by the establishment. Whether that is correct or not, the optics don't look good. Personally, I think it will hurt Cruz way more than help him. He might reap a few bucks, but people will wonder where he stands. Hence, he should tell Linda to go somewhere else.
Has Trump stated that he doesn’t want votes from anyone?
Did he turn down Christi’s endorsement? Jesse Ventura’s? Vojislav Šešelj’s? Dennis Rodman’s? Tila Tequila’s? Scott Brown’s? Chris Collins’?
The point is, that endorsements are generally not rebuffed. Lindsey is now scared to death that he’ll be left out in the cold in a Republican WH and is now trying to ingratiate himself. Lord knows why he chose Cruz over Trump, as both are a losing proposition for him, which he has clearly stated on numerous occasions.
Linda has as much credibility in endorsing Cruz as Rubio would have endorsing Ted.. Thats especially after the buckets if sludge Rubio tossed on Ted. None. Zero.
It was I-slam-ick fast and furious.
Jedi
They can endorse him. He does not endorse them. The same could be said about trump and duke.
No one really can control who endorses them. I am more concerned with what the candidate themselves support and endorse.
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.