Lindsey Graham, Loser

I can't leave this Lindsey Graham story alone.  It's not just that the free market, limited government, social tolerance voters (a swing vote that accounts for up to 20% of the electorate) deserves more respect from the Republican Party - it does - but that Lindsey Graham and many other Republicans don't seem to realize the position of weakness they are in.  Consider...

Lindsey Graham, while announcing that "We are not going to build a party around libertarian ideas", said...

I’m a winner, pal,” Graham [said] ... “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.” [...] “I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham responded.

But the Republican Party is already controlled by people who can't win.

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. [...] By the end of 2008, the party had its worst positioning against the Democrats in nearly two decades.

While it is important to be flexible enough to win elections in more States, the solution to the Republican Party problem is not "be more vague, so that you don't alienate people".

As for Lindsey Graham: It's hard to see any coherent vision from Sen. Graham beyond 'power and perks'.  Republicans need to find out exactly what it is Sen. Graham is trying to "win".  He may have won his own election, but that only makes him a leader in the downward spiral of the Republican Party.

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Comments

One big empty tent

Jon,

Thanks for the followup on this one.  If the GOP can't broaden it's base, it's going to be a big, EMPTY tent.  One might think that by working with other small-government types, the GOP might grow.  Instead, quite a few in the Republican Party seem to be more concerned with bashing fellow travelers.

LOL

"people that can't win"- priceless. I feel sorry for the GOP grassroots.

I would think that 2010 losses, and Obama's re-election, plus aging republicans and a changing US demographic, should be enough to shake the party up by then. I hope, at least.

I thinkthe Republicans have gone Whiggy

and may not be back.

After all, it's only the Democratic-Republicans who have managed to survive from the founding till now. We've lost quite a few parties in the meantime...

As a good GOPer, I just can't let your idiocy stand, Jon.

First off, let's stick a fork in that failed, ol', tired half-truth canard that the Libertarian vote is somehow more than the 509,000 votes who voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in the 2008 General Election, Bob Barr --you know, the guy who the LibbieLoon-atics spokesman claimed was the "best candidate the LP has ever had".

That's the Libertarian 'base".  0000.4% of the 2008 General Election electorate.

You can claim it to be 20% or use the discredited 2006 Gallup poll survey that put the figure at 21% if you define libertarian as people who agree vaguely with at least a single libertarian position but think of themselves as something different.  Sorry Charlie, your attempt at making it to be something other than it is is really making a mountain from a molehill.

The Libertarian 'base" is the 509,000 votes who selected Bob Barr for Prez rather than Obama, Nader, McCain and others.  Period.  Fork stuck.

It's ok to be misleading like that, Jon.  I mean gays do it to expand their influence in politics by claiming anyone who is gay, lesbian, transgendered, sexuallly-confused, bisexual or has had at least a single same-sex dream is part of their base.  They're after the exact same thing you are --appear to have more muscle for your ideology and translate that into more power.

Not what you're doing?  Yeah, it is.  That's why you and your LibbieLoon-atics get so steamed at Senator Graham or Senator McCain or Senator Snow or Senator Collins or Senator Specter or Senator Dole or ... well, you get the idea.  Of course, if you guys could get a single Libertarian Senator elected, we'd get to see how well he/she/it does swerving throught the Senate issues and votes.  But we don't because you can't get one elected.

As for Senator Graham, I'd remind you and your readers that Senator Graham has a 90% LIFETIME rating from the American Conservative Union --the leading voice of conservatives and the conservative movement in America.  I think they know a bit more about conservativism and what constitutes solid public service than a group of disgruntled, pissing-n-their-boots LibbieLoon-atics.

As for Senator Graham's belief that the path to political suicide lays with the GOP becoming more Libertarian --he's dead on right.  The Libertarian base, nationally, is less than 000.4% of the total voters in the last General Election.  To debase our Party and follow the LibertarianParty into political obscurity and wilderness and impotency is sheer folly.

Senator Graham is right.  Politics and political parties are about winning elections.  Not running purity policy debates among the most true, the more pure of the LibbieLoon-atic party.  It isn't about litmus test issues, either.  It's about winning; first and foremost.

Pragmatic politics.  Winning.

You really show how far outside the mainstream LibbieLoon-atics can get when you post this kind of nonsense, Jon.  I'd recommend you read South Carolina's "The State" recent editorial on Senator Lindsey Graham --someone they didn't like and didn't endorse when he first ran in 2002.

http://www.thestate.com/endorsements/story/426262.html 

Of course, if you'd prefer to continue to stand in those piss-filled boots, you go ahead.  Angry bitter white guys make such good catalysts for political change.

It's about, first and foremost, winning.  Good policy can arise from good politics --except when it's the Libertarians... they want everyone to be as cynical, greedy and self-interested as themselves because then they can feel "validated" by society.

Hmmmm, sort of sounds like what the gayLeft wants?  Yeah.

re: As a good GOPer, I just can't let your idiocy stand, Jon

I'm clearly writing about "libertarians", not "Libertarians".  I can distinguish between the hard-core libertarians and the people who are, as I described them, supportive of a "free market, limited government, social tolerance" agenda.  If you want to debate the hard-core libertarians, be my guest.  But go do it somewhere else. 

Ahh, let's move the goalpost another thirty yds downfield...

Jon, the problem with your retort is that you were the one who tried to take 90% American Conservative Union rated Senator Lindsey Graham to the woodshed for daring to point out to you and your thick-headed peers that politics is about winning --not purity policy contests, not litmus tests to purge the unbelievers, not endless debate societies better suited for a college dorm stuffed with AynRand-ers at 4AM --talking when most real college men are getting laid.

The 20% figure you claim is suspect and been widely, roundly discredited.

But, with some intellectual dishonesty, you still seem to think it a viable "factoid".

The problem isn't with the good conservative GOP Senator from SCarolina --the problem is with petty, angry pissed-filled-boots political activists who can't seem to comprehend that the GOP has moved on... right on past you.

That's the problem with your mean-spirited, spite-filled comments, Jon.  And that they are untruthful.

But don't let that get in your way, eh?

Nice Pwning

Jon got owned. 

Graham is, at best...

...squishy.

 

Ahhh, spoken like the loser of the week.

Oh wait, after the May 19th poll, that would Mario Rubio --the Libertarian poster boi fighting the lost battle for the GOP nomination in Florida.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-charlie-crist-ahead-in-2010-florida-senate-race.php

But hey, Stephen, you keep on supporting those losers like NotOneRedCent... is that your blog, btw?

 

It's not my blog...

xc, it is priceless... to a point

xc offers: "people that can't win"- priceless."  Senator Lindsey Graham was speaking about the Libertarian Party who got a little less than 510,000 votes in the last election --even with the best candidate the LP's have ever had --according to the LP spokesman.

Yep, Libertarians can't win.  The GOP has more elected Congressmen, more elected Senators, more elected Governors, more elected State House members, more elected State Senate members, more elected statewide officials, more elected mayors, more elected county leaders, more elected city, town and village leaders than the LP.

Can the LP's win?  Yep, if the election is held in an insane institution or a college debate society for geeks.

Yep, the GOP sure has been on

Yep, the GOP sure has been on a winning streak the last 2 elections.  Why they don't need to change at all...

The Hate Lindsey Litany Is Getting a Little Old

 I think the whole pile on LIndsey Graham is getting just a little old and a little over-blown.  Take Glenn Beck (please)'s spew the other day.  Beck is  Libertarian  Losertarian.  He is seriously anti-Republican.  I'm getting a little sick and tired of the anti-GOP stance on FOX, but that is another rant.

What is being completely ignored in this whole story is the past history between Lindsey Graham and the Ron Paul Bots and Losertarians out of Greenville County.  Several weeks ago, at the Gvlle Co GOP County Convention, Lindsey basically said the same thing.  The SINGLE boo and ONE person who harassed him was obviously from there.

The other thing also not being mentioned is that Mark Sanford (who is considered by SC Republicans to be the WORST GOP Governor since Reconstruction) is receiving major contributions from one of the big-shots from the Cato Institute.  

Perhaps the thing that should be asked is when is Mark Sanford going to either renounce the Losertarian Party and come out as a REAL Republican or renounce the GOP and admit that he is a Losertarian?

My rule of thumb is when someone attacks Lindsey they are either a mindless Ron Paul Bot, Losertarian, or some far right conservative who has no business in the GOP (and probably is not Republican).

SJR

The Pink Flamingo

 

Regarding Mark Sanford

If Mark Sandford is so hated by Republicans, why is he Chairman of the RGA?

You suggest that Sanford "is considered by SC Republicans to be the WORST GOP Governor since Reconstruction."

I assume the SC Republicans to which you refer are the ones being sued by Sanford over federal bailout money.

Most Republicans finally agree: federal bailouts aren't conservative.  Perhaps more of your state legislators will jump on board this train.

 

I'm a Rudy Giuliani supporter from the Northeast

who thinks Lindsay Graham is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

 So, should we add Irish Catholic Yankee law-and-order types to your rogue's gallery?

You may think Graham is beloved outside the Palmetto State, but that Kool Aid ain't sellin with conservative, moderate or liberal Republicans.

Water in the milk.

Winning through compromise is losing.

Reminds me of those greedy gas station owners running a garden hose in their fuel tanks and justifying it by claiming they are allowed a certain percentage of water in the fuel. Eventually unsatisfied customers with engine pings will pick a different gas station.

Unhappy customers eventually go somewhere else.

Lindsey Graham...

maybe a Demilican, Maybe a Republicrat, but no Republican, not even a squishy one. 

Regarding Graham... Rhetoric

Regarding Graham...

Rhetoric aside, there's a simple way to measure him.  Does he live up to his own bill of sale?

Graham is known as a leader who never abandons his independence or strays from the conservative reform agenda.

He has fought to balance the federal budget, provide tax relief to all taxpayers, keep our military adequately funded and prepared, return control of education back to parents and teachers, and ensure the government keeps its promises to America's greatest generation.

And if not, when, where and how often does he stray from his principles. 

Personally, I've always found him interesting to listen to.  He certainly has that Southern charm.

And I think he's right in that, the GOP isn't going to be saved by Libertarians, though libertarians should certainly be an intergral part of the GOP's future. 

If that is what he meant, more power to him, but if "free market, limited government, social tolerance voters" are excluded by him and others, then this republican voter is walking.