Sen. Lindsey Graham: "Tea Party Unsustainable"

Senator Graham sounds like a partisan Democrat doesn't he? The same kind of mantra you hear from the numbnuts and even a few of the more sensible leftists here on USMB. An almost desperate hope that the Tea Partiers aren't for real because they are anathema to lefists and to wishy washy RINOs like Graham.

There have been shining moments for Graham in his long political career and at times I have cheered him on when he has gotten something spot on right.

But he is no conservative as the Tea Partiers define conservative. And I think we can no longer afford to tolerate a Republican Party that is little more than liberal lite. Graham is part of the liberal lite group.

Such an uppidity Repblican Graham is.
He speaks the views of his constituents and gets labeled.
Graham is a real conservative unbossed by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Lush Rimbaugh and the religous right.
Get used to it. The fraud side show is over.

Real conservatives don't support amnesty with unrestricted benefits for illegals.
Real conservatives don't support an anti-business, freedom diminishing cap & trade bill.
Real conservatives don't go along to get along.
Real conservatives don't hold important legislation hostage in order to oppose other legislation.
Real conservatives do not hold the core principles expressed by Tea Partiers in contempt or fail to understand what the Tea Partiers are all about.

Graham isn't a flaming liberal extremist but he is too often on the left side of issues to be called conservative. He is liberal lite.

And as I keep saying, the fact that he only supports half the liberalism that has diminished our freedoms and prosperity is not particularly commendable, and it is Republicans like him and his ilk that the American conservatives and right leaning moderates rejected in 2006 and 2008.

It isn't good enough to simply not suck as badly as the other side sucks.

By the way, comments on Steele's latest? I remember recently you saying how much a gracious gentleman he is because he aplogized to Rush because he spoke his mind.

Comments on his feelings on Afghanistan ...on and him saying Obama is the one who started that war....I loved that gem.
 
Such an uppidity Repblican Graham is.
He speaks the views of his constituents and gets labeled.
Graham is a real conservative unbossed by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Lush Rimbaugh and the religous right.
Get used to it. The fraud side show is over.

Real conservatives don't support amnesty with unrestricted benefits for illegals.
Real conservatives don't support an anti-business, freedom diminishing cap & trade bill.
Real conservatives don't go along to get along.
Real conservatives don't hold important legislation hostage in order to oppose other legislation.
Real conservatives do not hold the core principles expressed by Tea Partiers in contempt or fail to understand what the Tea Partiers are all about.

Graham isn't a flaming liberal extremist but he is too often on the left side of issues to be called conservative. He is liberal lite.

And as I keep saying, the fact that he only supports half the liberalism that has diminished our freedoms and prosperity is not particularly commendable, and it is Republicans like him and his ilk that the American conservatives and right leaning moderates rejected in 2006 and 2008.

It isn't good enough to simply not suck as badly as the other side sucks.

By the way, comments on Steele's latest? I remember recently you saying how much a gracious gentleman he is because he aplogized to Rush because he spoke his mind.

Comments on his feelings on Afghanistan ...on and him saying Obama is the one who started that war....I loved that gem.

He didn't say Obama started the war. He said it was Obama's war, but it was an inappropriate and stupid thing to say even if it wasn't intended for public consumption which it wasn't. I oppose all who say anything that could be used in any way to encourage the enemy and thereby weaken the position of and/or endanger our troops in harm's way. It was just one of those extemporaneous gaffes they all do from time to time, I doubt he meant it the way he said it, but this one especially rankled those who do support our troops 100%.

I don't think the Republicans are wise to ask him to step down now though with less than six months remaining in his term of office. I think that would create an unnecessary distraction when the focus should be on other things. Anyhow his role is primarily as fund raiser and he should be able to continue to do that though I hope they'll keep him away from the media while he does it.
 
Real conservatives don't support amnesty with unrestricted benefits for illegals.
Real conservatives don't support an anti-business, freedom diminishing cap & trade bill.
Real conservatives don't go along to get along.
Real conservatives don't hold important legislation hostage in order to oppose other legislation.
Real conservatives do not hold the core principles expressed by Tea Partiers in contempt or fail to understand what the Tea Partiers are all about.

Graham isn't a flaming liberal extremist but he is too often on the left side of issues to be called conservative. He is liberal lite.

And as I keep saying, the fact that he only supports half the liberalism that has diminished our freedoms and prosperity is not particularly commendable, and it is Republicans like him and his ilk that the American conservatives and right leaning moderates rejected in 2006 and 2008.

It isn't good enough to simply not suck as badly as the other side sucks.

By the way, comments on Steele's latest? I remember recently you saying how much a gracious gentleman he is because he aplogized to Rush because he spoke his mind.

Comments on his feelings on Afghanistan ...on and him saying Obama is the one who started that war....I loved that gem.

He didn't say Obama started the war. He said it was Obama's war, but it was an inappropriate and stupid thing to say even if it wasn't intended for public consumption which it wasn't. I oppose all who say anything that could be used in any way to encourage the enemy and thereby weaken the position of and/or endanger our troops in harm's way. It was just one of those extemporaneous gaffes they all do from time to time, I doubt he meant it the way he said it, but this one especially rankled those who do support our troops 100%.

I don't think the Republicans are wise to ask him to step down now though with less than six months remaining in his term of office. I think that would create an unnecessary distraction when the focus should be on other things. Anyhow his role is primarily as fund raiser and he should be able to continue to do that though I hope they'll keep him away from the media while he does it.

What he said was it "was a war of Obama's choosing". I do not understand this at all.

You still feel as though he is a gracious gentleman?
 
"The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country," Graham told the magazine, recounting his private meetings with members of the movement. "It will die out."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - TRENDING: Graham: Tea Party ‘unsustainable’ - Blogs from CNN.com

The Tea Party thing is more of an ideology, not something that, if carried out, could realistically govern millions of people.

The Tea Party's sole purpose is to get a republican elected in 2012. If that happens they will vanish like smoke in the wind.
 
The Tea Party will disappear after this November. They had a rally at courthouse yesterday, all 27 of them.
 
By the way, comments on Steele's latest? I remember recently you saying how much a gracious gentleman he is because he aplogized to Rush because he spoke his mind.

Comments on his feelings on Afghanistan ...on and him saying Obama is the one who started that war....I loved that gem.

He didn't say Obama started the war. He said it was Obama's war, but it was an inappropriate and stupid thing to say even if it wasn't intended for public consumption which it wasn't. I oppose all who say anything that could be used in any way to encourage the enemy and thereby weaken the position of and/or endanger our troops in harm's way. It was just one of those extemporaneous gaffes they all do from time to time, I doubt he meant it the way he said it, but this one especially rankled those who do support our troops 100%.

I don't think the Republicans are wise to ask him to step down now though with less than six months remaining in his term of office. I think that would create an unnecessary distraction when the focus should be on other things. Anyhow his role is primarily as fund raiser and he should be able to continue to do that though I hope they'll keep him away from the media while he does it.

What he said was it "was a war of Obama's choosing". I do not understand this at all.

You still feel as though he is a gracious gentleman?

Yes. I do still believe he is a gracious gentleman. There are a number of members here on USMB who I disagree with on several issues, but whom I consider gracious gentlemen. I don't require perfection in people, nor do I require that they agree with me, in order for them to be decent and gracious people.

If you follow Steele's subsequent remarks--you know the ones the mainstream media hasn't bothered to put on the front pages or lead the evening newscast with--he explained that he was referring to Obama's earlier contempt for the war in Iraq and Obama's often repeated assertion that our troops, translators, and resources should be focused in Afghanistan. Obama emphatically criticized President Bush for putting resources in Iraq that should have been devoted to Afghanistan. Obama chose Afghanistan as the important war--Afghanistan was a war of Obama's choosing. Awkwardly expressed and easily misunderstood, of course--a gaffe of the type a liberal Democrat would be easily forgiven--but I have no reason to believe that was not Steele's intent with the remark.

When you look at it from that perspective, Steele's remarks are far less offensive.
 
Last edited:
Real conservatives don't support amnesty with unrestricted benefits for illegals.
Real conservatives don't support an anti-business, freedom diminishing cap & trade bill.
Real conservatives don't go along to get along.
Real conservatives don't hold important legislation hostage in order to oppose other legislation.
Real conservatives do not hold the core principles expressed by Tea Partiers in contempt or fail to understand what the Tea Partiers are all about.

Graham isn't a flaming liberal extremist but he is too often on the left side of issues to be called conservative. He is liberal lite.

And as I keep saying, the fact that he only supports half the liberalism that has diminished our freedoms and prosperity is not particularly commendable, and it is Republicans like him and his ilk that the American conservatives and right leaning moderates rejected in 2006 and 2008.

It isn't good enough to simply not suck as badly as the other side sucks.

I will start with one issue at a time you have brought up:
Do you even know what the amnesty proposal was that Graham supported and Tea Partiers oppose Fox?
Are you knowledgeable to the realities of the issue of immigration?
Do you know that the amnesty proposals were a bi-partisan bill proposed and supported by conservative Republicans in the Bush era and administration?
Tea partiers oppose amnesty. Do you side with them?
Amnesty allows a path tocitizenship to those that have been here and haveestablished families here in America.
Are you sure you want to side with Tea Partiers that fully support thye deportationof the adults that are not citizens and leave school age children, that ARE legal citizens, here to fend with themselves without their parents?
Many of us seek a humane answer to the immigration issue. Tea Partiers do not. We seek your support. Being a conservative does not mean you seperate children that are US citizens of illegal immigrants frrom their parents.
Fox, you look like a thinking man. The Tea Party movement puts mouth in motion before brain in gear. Either you are with them or you think and come up with rational legislation and oppose their sopomoric approach.
Next issue tomorrow.

We can't catch all the speeders and sometimes radar guns malfunction, so lets don't enforce speed limits. We can't catch all the bank robbers, so lets don't even try to stop them. We can't catch all the welfare cheats so lets just let people take whatever they want from the public treasury.

I do not support amnesty for 12 to 20 thousand people who are breaking our laws just because it is 'difficult' to enforce those laws. Neither do the Tea Partiers. Once that concept is established, then you figure out what else needs to be addressed. You don't pick out the most difficult things and say some things are hard, therefore we can't do anything.

And you don't zero in on a few hardship cases and say oh well, we can't deal with that so just give amnesty to everybody, let them bring all their other relatives in, and we'll just take care of every poor or disadvantaged person that wants to come here. Never mind who gets hurt or what damage it does to the economy or the culture. If Gadawg feels noble giving away other people's money to whomever, that makes it all worth it.

You are once again twisting, slanting and distorting.
The Bush immigration bil lwas a good one. You allowed Rush and Sean to dictate policy to the Senate.
Fox, Rush and Sean are accountable to NO ONE.
You call millions of illegal immigrants with children that ARE US citizens "a few hardship cases"?
I was wrong. Like most tea partiers you have no clue as to the realities of the issues before us. We do not deport those now and you want to move forward on that. George Bush knew that was a very bad idea. Unbelievable that the religous right, or wrong in this case, could side with such inhumane and unChristian practices as seperating children from their parents.
Not conservative in any book anywhere. Sorry Charlie.
 
He didn't say Obama started the war. He said it was Obama's war, but it was an inappropriate and stupid thing to say even if it wasn't intended for public consumption which it wasn't. I oppose all who say anything that could be used in any way to encourage the enemy and thereby weaken the position of and/or endanger our troops in harm's way. It was just one of those extemporaneous gaffes they all do from time to time, I doubt he meant it the way he said it, but this one especially rankled those who do support our troops 100%.

I don't think the Republicans are wise to ask him to step down now though with less than six months remaining in his term of office. I think that would create an unnecessary distraction when the focus should be on other things. Anyhow his role is primarily as fund raiser and he should be able to continue to do that though I hope they'll keep him away from the media while he does it.

What he said was it "was a war of Obama's choosing". I do not understand this at all.

You still feel as though he is a gracious gentleman?

Yes. I do still believe he is a gracious gentleman. There are a number of members here on USMB who I disagree with on several issues, but whom I consider gracious gentlemen. I don't require perfection in people, nor do I require that they agree with me, in order for them to be decent and gracious people.

If you follow Steele's subsequent remarks--you know the ones the mainstream media hasn't bothered to put on the front pages or lead the evening newscast with--he explained that he was referring to Obama's earlier contempt for the war in Iraq and Obama's often repeated assertion that our troops, translators, and resources should be focused in Afghanistan. Obama emphatically criticized President Bush for putting resources in Iraq that should have been devoted to Afghanistan. Obama chose Afghanistan as the important war--Afghanistan was a war of Obama's choosing. Awkwardly expressed and easily misunderstood, of course--a gaffe of the type a liberal Democrat would be easily forgiven--but I have no reason to believe that was not Steele's intent with the remark.

When you look at it from that perspective, Steele's remarks are far less offensive.

Obama inherited wars on 2 fronts. Neither was his war.
Of course, as usual, anyone that disagrees with you is labeled a "liberal Democrat".
Fox, you would be a horrible poker player. Too predictable.
 
Isn't it wonderful that there is such compassion for families and children of those who are breaking U.S. laws? It's great to have such a warm heart and generous spirit. But I'm guessing Gadawg isn't opening HIS home to the less fortunate and emptying HIS bank account to feed, clothes, and educate them.

It is so easy to to generous with other people's money, jobs, property, and opportunities isn't it? Shoot, just take down the wall, open the gates, and wave them on in. It's the right thing to do isn't it?

And of course the consequences that it makes it easy for other countries to continue policies that make people poor and desperate. Hey if they get overloaded, they can just send any excess 'burdens' here and complain that we are racist if we object or try to send them back.

And slowly but surely, the resources that allowed us to help hundreds of millions of the poor around the world dry up as more and more of our people are out of work or under employed, social services shut down because they can no longer handle the load, and the national treasury remains empty while our debts pile up to the point that we are incapable of helping anybody.

Encouraging people to break the law is not the best way to help them.
 
Encouraging people to break the law is not the best way to help them.


Right we should have let the banks and funny money outfits fold.
Instead we had a Republican driven bailout.
 
Encouraging people to break the law is not the best way to help them.


Right we should have let the banks and funny money outfits fold.
Instead we had a Republican driven bailout.

That Palosi and Co. had no problem approving.
Aye votes;
Democrats 241 - Republicans 19
No votes
Democrats 10 - Republicans 156
:lol:

The bailout was led and directed by Bush and his economic advisers. The Dems went along because it was the right thing to do. Unemployment would be over 20% if the banks and other companies had collapsed, we wouldhave been a worldwide Depression, and the "angry internet posters" here would be blaming Bush and the Democrats if it had not been done.

This real fact will keep the GOP in the solid minority as the elections.
 
Encouraging people to break the law is not the best way to help them.


Right we should have let the banks and funny money outfits fold.
Instead we had a Republican driven bailout.

That Palosi and Co. had no problem approving.
Aye votes;
Democrats 241 - Republicans 19
No votes
Democrats 10 - Republicans 156
:lol:

The bailout was led and directed by Bush and his economic advisers. The Dems went along because it was the right thing to do. Unemployment would be over 20% if the banks and other companies had collapsed, we wouldhave been a worldwide Depression, and the "angry internet posters" here would be blaming Bush and the Democrats if it had not been done.

This real fact will keep the GOP in the solid minority as the elections.

You act like it's over. What's up with that? Controlling the media still does not change the fact that the emperor has no clothes. How's that Fannie Freddie scheme going????? When is enough enough Jake???
 
Who voted for the bailout in October 2008?

Senate 74 aye 25 nay
House 263 aye 171 nay

A breakdown:

. . . .divide the Democratic party into liberal and moderate halves and the Republicans into conservative and moderate halves. Almost 80% of the conservative Republicans voted against the bill while only 55% of the moderates did so, a statistically significant difference. On the other hand, 55% of Democratic liberals and 61% of Democratic moderates supported the bill. This difference is not statistically significant. These results hold up in a multivariate analysis that includes a host of other variables. . . .
A Breakdown of the Bailout Vote - CSDP Election 2008

BUT.....because George W. Bush supported the measure and because the media was more than eager to promote and perpetuate the myth that this was the GOP's doing, a majority of the Americans who opposed the bailout believed it was the GOP's fault. Many still do. In fact, probably a huge number of Americans were still operating under the illustion that the GOP had control of Congress at that time.

The vote for additional TARP funds in 2009, with Obama at the helm, was much more ideologically lopsided, but again the media was able to keep the focus on the GOP as the culprit.
 
Isn't it wonderful that there is such compassion for families and children of those who are breaking U.S. laws? It's great to have such a warm heart and generous spirit. But I'm guessing Gadawg isn't opening HIS home to the less fortunate and emptying HIS bank account to feed, clothes, and educate them.

It is so easy to to generous with other people's money, jobs, property, and opportunities isn't it? Shoot, just take down the wall, open the gates, and wave them on in. It's the right thing to do isn't it?

And of course the consequences that it makes it easy for other countries to continue policies that make people poor and desperate. Hey if they get overloaded, they can just send any excess 'burdens' here and complain that we are racist if we object or try to send them back.

And slowly but surely, the resources that allowed us to help hundreds of millions of the poor around the world dry up as more and more of our people are out of work or under employed, social services shut down because they can no longer handle the load, and the national treasury remains empty while our debts pile up to the point that we are incapable of helping anybody.

Encouraging people to break the law is not the best way to help them.

More of the same. All accusations with nothing to back it up with.
 

Forum List

Back
Top