Bye, bye Lindsey

[CARLHAYDEN]

During the debate on the Senate amnesty for illegal alien bills this year Sen. Lindsey Graham went nuts, engaging in extensive name calling, even viciously opposing a rather sensible amendment offered by Sen. Barak Obama.  In one of the episodes, Lindsey was mincing around the Senate during one of his tirades (South Carolina voters are going to see that again and again next year in television commercial).

Former South Carolina Democrat Party Chair Joe Evin said of Lindsey  when asked of possible Democrat challengers to Graham that:

"We already have our best Democrat up there in Lindsey."

Well, not only is there an organized effort to defeat Graham in the Republican party, but three candidates have already announced to run against him (John Cina, Gary McLeod and Tim Carnes) while U.S. Rep. Tommny Hartnett and State Representative Jeff Duncan are exploring running for the Republican nomination.

Yeah, Lindsey has raised a nice chunk of dough, but, he has alienated a lot people. 

I am advised that Graham is counting on there being no big races for Democrats so that those who would normally vote in the Democrat party can instead pick up a Republican primary ballot and vote for Graham.  South Carolina does not have partisan registration so any registered voters can pick up a ballot for any primary ballot qualified party.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hartnett?  A guy who hasn't held office in over two decades when he lost his attempt to become Lt. Governor in 1986?

Jeff Duncan? A third term Representative who managed to attract a primary challenger in 2006? (It is quite a rarity for an incumbent State Representative to face a primary challenge in this State.) His main attraction for those seeking to oust Graham is that his district is safely Republican and groups like the Club for Growth can tell him that he owes them one for their primary support in 2006 and threaten to place it elsewhere in 2008 if he doesn't run for the office they want him to.

Now if the immigration bill had actually passed, I could see where Graham could face a real challenge, but I can't see the issue being important a year from now and none of these challengers are likely to beat Graham.  Duncan might have had an outside chance if he were Graham's sole opponent, but the crackpots already in the race will hurt him more than Graham.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Former South Carolina Democrat Party Chair Joe Evin said of Lindsey  when asked of possible Democrat challengers to Graham that:

"We already have our best Democrat up there in Lindsey."

Funny guy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hartnett?  A guy who hasn't held office in over two decades when he lost his attempt to become Lt. Governor in 1986?

Jeff Duncan? A third term Representative who managed to attract a primary challenger in 2006? (It is quite a rarity for an incumbent State Representative to face a primary challenge in this State.) His main attraction for those seeking to oust Graham is that his district is safely Republican and groups like the Club for Growth can tell him that he owes them one for their primary support in 2006 and threaten to place it elsewhere in 2008 if he doesn't run for the office they want him to.

Now if the immigration bill had actually passed, I could see where Graham could face a real challenge, but I can't see the issue being important a year from now and none of these challengers are likely to beat Graham.  Duncan might have had an outside chance if he were Graham's sole opponent, but the crackpots already in the race will hurt him more than Graham.

I expected your response.

First, I do not expect most of the already announced candidates to actually run.

Second, I agree with you that of those currently publicly considering the race, Duncan is the most plausible.

Third, there are several things going on with Lindsey that go beyond he support for amnesty for illegal aliens.

a) his vicious approach to politics = note that Senator Kyl was far more important to the possibility of passage of either of the two amnesty bills, but unlike Lindsey he did NOT call opponents "bigots" as Graham DID nor did he tell them to "shut up" as Graham DID.  Also, Graham acted really bizarre in his rant on Sen. Obama's amendment to the most recent amnesty bill, while mincing across the Senate floor.

b.) Graham is a charter member of the gang of 14. 

c.) Graham's opposition to a conservative Court of Appeals nominee for the circuit, based on a personal vendetta.

d.) his advocacy on behalf of prisoners at Guantanamo.

e.) certain interesting "preferences" of his which are likely to come to light in the next year.

f.) and while the amnesty bills were defeated, McCain is still taking heat for supporting them, even though his language was slightly less strange than Graham's.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

b.) Graham is a charter member of the gang of 14. 

So what is it you dislike about Roberts and Alito?  Absent the Gang of 14, we'd either have only 7 justices on the court now or we'd have less conservative justices than those two named by Bush.  Chief Justice Gonzales anyone?  What a political disaster that would have become.  Altho, it would have been interesting to see a president's popularity numbers flirt with single digit percentages though, interesting in train wreck fashion that is.

d.) his advocacy on behalf of prisoners at Guantanamo.

How dare he insist they be treated as people!  Even evil incorrigible reprobates should treated in accordance with basic civil rights.  Not for their sakes, but ours.

e.) certain interesting "preferences" of his which are likely to come to light in the next year.

Unless he gets dragged into civil or criminal court for his alleged preferences, I can't see it being a problem.  Even if true, such allegations would reek of being a political stunt and need damn convincing physical evidence before it would hurt Graham worse than it would his opponents.

f.) and while the amnesty bills were defeated, McCain is still taking heat for supporting them, even though his language was slightly less strange than Graham's.

McCain's running for a new office not to hold one he already has.  As such he is more vulnerable to negatives than Graham is.

[opebo]

'Mincing'?  You  homophobe CarlHaydan.

[CARLHAYDEN]

d.) his advocacy on behalf of prisoners at Guantanamo.

How dare he insist they be treated as people!  Even evil incorrigible reprobates should treated in accordance with basic civil rights.  Not for their sakes, but ours.

e.) certain interesting "preferences" of his which are likely to come to light in the next year.

Unless he gets dragged into civil or criminal court for his alleged preferences, I can't see it being a problem.  Even if true, such allegations would reek of being a political stunt and need damn convincing physical evidence before it would hurt Graham worse than it would his opponents.

f.) and while the amnesty bills were defeated, McCain is still taking heat for supporting them, even though his language was slightly less strange than Graham's.

McCain's running for a new office not to hold one he already has.  As such he is more vulnerable to negatives than Graham is.

Well, lets look at this.

First, there is an old distinction between soldiers and terrorists which Graham is seeking to blurr.

Second, as I previously noted, Graham is counting on getting a lot of Democrat votes in the Republican primary.  Now, I am fortunate to know a number of wonderful black church ladies in South Carolina who I don't think will be quite as forgiving of Graham's preferences as you.  Remember, as a former RNC Chairman from South Carolina could have told you, South Carolina politics can be a little rough.  

Third, you previous point was that since the amnesty bills were defeated, Graham won't have to worry about feedback on that issue.  Well, as I pointed out, other Republicans ARE having negative feedback on that one.  Just because he's an incumbent does NOT make him invunerable (Hagel probably won't run for reelection, and if he does, he'll get beaten in the primary in Nebraska).

[CARLHAYDEN]

'Mincing'?  You  homophobe CarlHaydan.

From Merriam-Webster

Mincing: "to walk with short steps in a prim affected manner."

Sure seems to describe Graham's actions while engaging in his diatribe in the Senate on Sen. Obama's mild amendment.

[opebo]

Second, as I previously noted, Graham is counting on getting a lot of Democrat votes in the Republican primary.  Now, I am fortunate to know a number of wonderful black church ladies in South Carolina who I don't think will be quite as forgiving of Graham's preferences as you.  Remember, as a former RNC Chairman from South Carolina could have told you, South Carolina politics can be a little rough.  

Of course an effeminate manner has no connection to sexual preference, CarlHeyden, but your point is well taken about South Carolina voters.  I'm curious however, why do you consider hatefilled intolerant ignorants 'wonderful'?

[WalterMitty]

ah.  carlhayden making lee atwater references.  im curious, carl,  dont you think that maybe tom turnipseed was treated a bit unfairly by atwater and floyd spence.  or do you also agree that turnipseed was unfit for office because he had been 'hooked up to the jumper cables'?

i ask this because you seem to look forward to a campaign against lindsey filled with whispers that he is a gay.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This tripe again?  The South Carolina Democratic Party made ugly insinuations about Graham's "preferences" back in 2002, and that garbage never went anywhere.  Good to see you want to dredge the lowest kind of politics up from the bottom of the cesspool, though!

South Carolina's voters are better than that.  Grow up.

[HardRCafé]

Last month, I would have dismissed this thread out of hand, but his 31% approval rating is troubling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

e.) certain interesting "preferences" of his which are likely to come to light in the next year.

Unless he gets dragged into civil or criminal court for his alleged preferences, I can't see it being a problem.  Even if true, such allegations would reek of being a political stunt and need damn convincing physical evidence before it would hurt Graham worse than it would his opponents.

... as I previously noted, Graham is counting on getting a lot of Democrat votes in the Republican primary.  Now, I am fortunate to know a number of wonderful black church ladies in South Carolina who I don't think will be quite as forgiving of Graham's preferences as you.  Remember, as a former RNC Chairman from South Carolina could have told you, South Carolina politics can be a little rough. 

As I said, if it's nothing more than whispers, it'll back fire on the whisperers.  It'll take something more than whispers to cause Graham problems, and so far whispers are all that have come forth.  If there were something more, one would think that they'd already have been forthcoming given all the years he's spent in politics already.

[12th Doctor]

I've become fully convinced that, barring an earth shaking occurance, Republicans might as well not even bother trying to take back either House in 08.  Just try to keep some of the guys we already have, if we can.

EDIT:  I dropped the a keyword... "trying"

[CARLHAYDEN]

ah.  carlhayden making lee atwater references.  im curious, carl,  dont you think that maybe tom turnipseed was treated a bit unfairly by atwater and floyd spence.  or do you also agree that turnipseed was unfit for office because he had been 'hooked up to the jumper cables'?

i ask this because you seem to look forward to a campaign against lindsey filled with whispers that he is a gay.

I don't like the late Lee Atwater.

If you check in the book section you will see a book I cited where Atwater was duly roasted.

Wait for the truth to come aout about Lindsey.

[CARLHAYDEN]

e.) certain interesting "preferences" of his which are likely to come to light in the next year.

Unless he gets dragged into civil or criminal court for his alleged preferences, I can't see it being a problem.  Even if true, such allegations would reek of being a political stunt and need damn convincing physical evidence before it would hurt Graham worse than it would his opponents.

... as I previously noted, Graham is counting on getting a lot of Democrat votes in the Republican primary.  Now, I am fortunate to know a number of wonderful black church ladies in South Carolina who I don't think will be quite as forgiving of Graham's preferences as you.  Remember, as a former RNC Chairman from South Carolina could have told you, South Carolina politics can be a little rough. 

As I said, if it's nothing more than whispers, it'll back fire on the whisperers.  It'll take something more than whispers to cause Graham problems, and so far whispers are all that have come forth.  If there were something more, one would think that they'd already have been forthcoming given all the years he's spent in politics already.

It seems to me that there were rumors about Vitter for some time.

Aoparently the rumors were true.

Took a while for substantiation of those rumors.

Are you sure that substantiation of the rumors about Lindsey won't be substantiated?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

e.) certain interesting "preferences" of his which are likely to come to light in the next year.

Unless he gets dragged into civil or criminal court for his alleged preferences, I can't see it being a problem.  Even if true, such allegations would reek of being a political stunt and need damn convincing physical evidence before it would hurt Graham worse than it would his opponents.

... as I previously noted, Graham is counting on getting a lot of Democrat votes in the Republican primary.  Now, I am fortunate to know a number of wonderful black church ladies in South Carolina who I don't think will be quite as forgiving of Graham's preferences as you.  Remember, as a former RNC Chairman from South Carolina could have told you, South Carolina politics can be a little rough. 

As I said, if it's nothing more than whispers, it'll back fire on the whisperers.  It'll take something more than whispers to cause Graham problems, and so far whispers are all that have come forth.  If there were something more, one would think that they'd already have been forthcoming given all the years he's spent in politics already.

It seems to me that there were rumors about Vitter for some time.

Aoparently the rumors were true.

Took a while for substantiation of those rumors.

Are you sure that substantiation of the rumors about Lindsey won't be substantiated?

I heard a rumor that you rape babies.  If only there was a way for you to prove it false, but alas...

I mean, after all, the rumors about Mark Foley turned out to be true, right?

[Conan]

Lindsey, I would say is dependant on dems voting for him in the primary. I also think the rumors are true, not that there's anything wrong with that, but that he'd be a hypocrite.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lindsey, I would say is dependant on dems voting for him in the primary. I also think the rumors are true, not that there's anything wrong with that, but that he'd be a hypocrite.

In general, I think your conclusions are correct.

However, have you ever spent time in South Carolina?

I personally think (based on experience) that so many of the people I have met there over the years have been some of the nicest people I have met anywhere in the country. 

However, the view of South Carolina Democrats on homosexuality doesn't exactly mirror that of New Jersey Democratsm in my experience.

Admission: My experience with New Jerseyites is just about the opposite from that with South Carolinians.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More likely Independents than Democrats if this should turn into a close contest.  Despite our open primaries, people who identify with a party strongly enough to consider themselves a member don't generally cross the aisle to vote in the other party's primary, even if there is no race they consider voteworthy in their own primary.

[CARLHAYDEN]

More likely Independents than Democrats if this should turn into a close contest.  Despite our open primaries, people who identify with a party strongly enough to consider themselves a member don't generally cross the aisle to vote in the other party's primary, even if there is no race they consider voteworthy in their own primary.

While generally I would agree with your assertion, I am reminded of how McCain "won" the Michigan primary in 2004.

Further, I am currently engaged in trying to reason with a bunch of firebrands in my state that while Sen. Kyl was mistaken in supporting the two amnesty bills this year, he did so because he erroneously believed that bills supported by most Democrats in the Senate, the President of the United States, the Chairman of the National Republican party, big business and the liberal media was bound to be passed and he tried to include some modest security measures in the bills, unlike Senator Graham who was for amnesty and opposed border security.

What I am trying to say is that Graham is an irresponsible, arrogant, dishonest jerk who will actively solicit Democrats to vote for him in the primary to save his skin.

For the reasons I suggested earlier in this thread, I don't think Graham's strategem will work.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Can someone explain to me the reference to Tom Turnipseed?  Didn't he used to work for George Wallace and then ran for South Carolina Attorney General in 1998 or something? 

[WalterMitty]

Can someone explain to me the reference to Tom Turnipseed?  Didn't he used to work for George Wallace and then ran for South Carolina Attorney General in 1998 or something? 

i dont think the tom turnipseed im referring to ever worked for wallace.

turnipseed was a south carolina state senator who ran for congress in 1980.  lee atwater, working for turnipseed's republican opponent let it be known that turnipseed had been 'hooked up to the jumper cables', a reference to his treatment for depression

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Can someone explain to me the reference to Tom Turnipseed?  Didn't he used to work for George Wallace and then ran for South Carolina Attorney General in 1998 or something? 

i dont think the tom turnipseed im referring to ever worked for wallace.

He did, but he reformed and went liberal big time in 70's.

Here's a link to an interview he did about his time with the Wallace campaign.

[WalterMitty]

Can someone explain to me the reference to Tom Turnipseed?  Didn't he used to work for George Wallace and then ran for South Carolina Attorney General in 1998 or something? 

i dont think the tom turnipseed im referring to ever worked for wallace.

He did, but he reformed and went liberal big time in 70's.

Here's a link to an interview he did about his time with the Wallace campaign.

interesting.  i never knew that.  ive always admired turnipseed for his work on depression.