Video: Graham reaches out to pro-choicers at SC GOP convention
posted at 8:05 am on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Not a message conservatives are in the mood for today, especially with opposition to abortion surging in Republican ranks. Even so, think of this as a counterpoint to The One’s treacle at Notre Dame. Graham’s not keeping an “open mind” on the subject and neither is anyone else; rather, he wants to set it aside completely and find common ground with pro-choice Republicans on issues like fiscal responsibility. A baby step towards remaking the GOP not as a party without social conservatives but with social conservatism as a lower priority than the economy and national defense.
You’ll be pleased to know the Paulnuts were there to greet him.
“You’re a hypocrite!” one man yelled.
“I’m a winner, pal,” Graham shot back. “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.”
“Ron Paul is not the leader of this party,” Graham said, prompting a few jeers. Some people yelled, “Yes, he is!”
“I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham finished, drawing most of the crowd to its feet.
Needless to say, opinions differ about which people can and can’t win. Nice tribute to Jim DeMint near the end, though.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
You spew out these ratings, and I dealt with this ignorance throughout the primaries, most of these ratings are complete bunk, especially the ACU. Do you support funding for the UN? Paul was against it and that was a strike as being anticonservative, voting against the Bush era budgets was anticonservative from the ACU’s perspective and plenty of wasteful spending like this. I also liked how the NRA gave Paul a B because he was against mandatory gun lock legislation. I’d be willing to bet most of those NARAL numbers are because he is actually one of the few people that believe in Federalism that votes that way. That’s why its become impossible for me to be bugged by the insults us Paul supporters got from other Republicans for a long time, some of you are so ridiculuously uneducated that I actually pity you. We can have a serious discussion about his foreign policy stances and there are reservations that I have, but trying to knock him on the domestic stuff just shows that you are either ignorant of the ratings you cite or deliberately misleading. Is opposing UN funding Chompsky stuff? Is being against mandatory gun locks Chompsky stuff? Maybe relying on these hack organizations is part of the reason we elect so many bad incumbents year after year.
LevStrauss on May 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Yep, RP is the biggest Federalist to take others money in the form of earmarks and give it/spend it on pet projects.
Some Federalist.
catmman on May 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM
catmman on May 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Well who is your Federalist in Congress? Frankly this idea that people who pay federal taxes should let their money just fly out of their district to make a point that is currently falling on deaf ears is nuts. I don’t agree with Paul’s method on this, earmarks should be reformed in a way that allows districts to opt out of at least certain kinds of federal spending if they choose and then be either refunded or exempt from paying those taxes. I’d like to see that coupled with some kind of federal mandate reform that respects federalism as well. Or at least they should earmark a tax refund to the citizens of a given district for agreeing not to request certain kinds of earmarks. Right now we don’t have anything in place to support this. But back to my original point, I’d like to see an example of a national representative or Senator who is a stronger proponent of federalism.
LevStrauss on May 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to the glorious foreign misadventures the RINO Bush GOP is now all about, not to mention the federal Ponzi entitlements that the gutless, unprincipled Republicans have no interest in getting rid of anymore — quite the opposite.
FYI, a $96.7 Billion war supplemental passed the House last week to fund Obama’s wars. The so-called fiscal conservatives in the GOP porked it up to the tune of 2.9 Billion, none of which belonged to ZOMG TEH EVOL LIBRUL Paul.
Paul’s already said he’s not running in ’12 (he’ll be too old), so you Big War RINOs can go change your panties and find another conservative to hyperfocus your vitriol on. Maybe Sanford?:
Rae on May 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM
LevStrauss on May 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM
You make an argument that RP is strong Federalist.
I contend his stance on monetary policy is all well and good, but when it comes time to “walk the walk” he goes after earmkars like the worst liberal Democrat – hardly an example of strong Fedralist tendencies. RP loses credibility on his fiscal talk with this behavior, like it or not.
catmman on May 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Rae on May 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Earmarks may be a drop in the bucket for you, but when someone like RP purports to be a person of fiscal restraint, yet gobbles up earmarks like so much bacon, you lose the argument your trying to make on fiscal responsibility.
Why is it Rae that people like you never want to deal with the negatives of your guy? RP is touted as a Federalist, whose supposed strongest leg is fiscal policy. His “sucking at the government teet” himself shows the guy to be at best, an insider – at worst a typical Washington hypocrite, and you can’t deal with it.
Maybe he didn’t take any pork in the latest supplemental, but how much did he get in the budget? $300 million dollars in pork disclosed during the 2007 campaign. In 2008, over $43 million.
You sound like a liberal, “Well you mean warmongering RINO’s are spending moneyeny so I get to! Waaah! Waaah.!
catmman on May 18, 2009 at 6:47 PM
There’s always something about Graham that’s never sat well with me. I can’t put my finger on it, but he strikes me as a bit of a condescending prick. I’m all for making fiscal issues the top priority, but let’s not pretend that we lost in 2006 or 2008 because of social issues. I understand the socially liberal in the party want to push those issues to the back burner, but a little intellectual honesty would be nice as well. We lost because Republicans supported massive increases in spending & failed to win the political fight over Iraq. We also shot ourselves in the foot with the guest worker bill. That bill should have only been introduced after we passed a bill to secure the border & make sure that all future immigration was legal. Graham, McCain, and Bush are responsible for that serious miscalculation.
Stickeehands on May 18, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I deal with it just fine. I understand his reasoning on the issue. Do you?
Oh my. Well, no. That’s not my thinking, but as long as you’re having fun, have at it! Only, can we stop calling the progressives “liberals,” please? There is nothing liberty-minded about Stupid Evil Party 2.
And rest assured, I am not in charge and, as Lindsey illustrated for us in the above video clip, Stupid Evil Party 1 will most likely continue running on RINO Bush‘s ’04 message because, ya know, it went over so well in ’08.
Rae on May 18, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3