Quotes of the day

posted at 10:37 pm on July 1, 2010 by Allahpundit

“Everything I’m doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement’s at,” Graham said as Cato drove him to the city of Greenwood, where he was to give a commencement address at Lander University later that morning. On four occasions, Graham met with Tea Party groups. The first, in his Senate office, was “very, very contentious,” he recalled. During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . . Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”

In a previous conversation, Graham told me: “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. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”…

[Rahm] Emanuel went on to say: “He’s willing to work on more things than the others. Lindsey, to his credit, has a small-government vision that’s out of fashion with his party, which stands for no government. . . . He’s one of the last big voices to give that vision intellectual energy.”

***
“Graham’s comment reflects the very thing we felt all along — that is, that he is incredibly out of touch with the people of South Carolina,” Jonathon Hill, organizer of the Anderson Tea Party, S.C., told reporter Alix Pianin.

Others agreed. “I think he’s hoping it’ll die out because he’s not too favorable among the tea party,” Allen Olson, who organizes the Columbia Tea Party, told us. On the issue of staying power, Olson said “I believe we do, absolutely.”

“In fact,” he went on, “I’m determined just to keep it going to get him elected out of office in 2014.”

***
Even so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized political power.

“It’s a party opposed to the idea of parties,” says Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian whose book about the movement, The Whites of Their Eyes, is scheduled to be published in October. The Tea Party reminds her more of a religious revival than a political movement. She compares it to the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s, a religious resurgence that helped fuel temperance and abolitionism…

Their faith in the Founding Fathers is a signature of the movement. Citing links to the Revolution has been a mainstay of American politics since the nation’s beginnings, Lepore says, but the way the Tea Party uses those symbols and language is original. “It is a fundamentalist way of thinking of the past: The founding documents are gospel; they come alive for us,” she says.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

I think it is time for Lindsey Graham to retire. He just doesn’t get it.

petunia on July 2, 2010 at 1:07 AM

“Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”…

Hell, Ronald Reagan had a hard time getting elected in 1980! He lost the nomination in 1976. “Conservatives” hated Reagan in his first run for office and during most of his first run. They claimed Reagan was too liberal. They HOWLED when Reagan declared amnesty for illegals.

It chagrins me a little to see “conservatives” today wrap themselves in the mantle of Reagan when conservatives so hated him (and he didn’t have much love for the so-called “staunch conservatives” either) at the time.

crosspatch on July 2, 2010 at 1:11 AM

So… I’ll go there. McCain has broken bones/scars/years of torture to temper angst against him. What has Lindsey Graham got?

Look, I cut Mac a pretty wide swath for the stuff he put up with. The man literally went through $h1t hell for this nation. That buys you a lot in my book. What has Graham done?

flashoverride on July 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM

So is this Country going through what took place just before the fall of the Soviet Union?

Electrongod on July 1, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I’ve had a similar question on my mind lately: is this what Germany felt like in 1933?

txleadfoot00 on July 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Start here…

Seven Percent Solution on July 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Arlen Sphincter with a southern drawl.

hillbillyjim on July 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Amen to that.

And there are a few others wearing the same RINO label.

Kini on July 2, 2010 at 1:19 AM

The Tea Party will die out.

Just like that first one in Boston Harbor had no significant historical consequence… it faded away… into direct rebellion and revolution when the powers that be ignored the voice of the people!

We’ve dumped the Tea. The statement has been made. This is just the beginning. This isn’t about grabbing power! This is about regaining our freedoms!

Graham along with the rest of the Royalists must go. What is the difference between the battle between big government and self-determination in 1775 and today? Very little actually. It’s the same war.

Graham is a Royalist. His question could well have been asked of Samuel Adams in 1775. And gotten the same blank stare.

We know tyranny must be opposed, and when it is opposed the outcome is better than tyranny. What more do we need?

petunia on July 2, 2010 at 1:20 AM

They go from not believing the Tea Party is real, to castigating it as a tiny bunch of fringe whackjobs, to being a tad more curious about it (as if looking at animals in the zoo), to debating its importance, to writing books about it. All in less than 18 months.

One can’t help thinking of:

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
–Mahatma Gandhi

Missy on July 2, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Oh, wow…I was researching the SC Constitution to see if, indeed, Nikki Haley could remove Lindsey, and I stumbled upon this…

SECTION 4. Supreme Being.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
SouthernGent on July 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Oh my.

When was that written?

Obama would declare war on SC today, just like he’s declared war against Arizona.

petunia on July 2, 2010 at 1:23 AM

I want a Republican that can attract Democrats

Says it all.

I want a Republican that’s a Republican.

Then, Republican voters will follow.

BacaDog on July 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM

I want a Republican that’s a Conservative, not a watered down Republican or a liberal loon. Then, once the grown-ups are in charge we can start to take the country back and stop the hemorrhaging. And after that’s done, we’ll talk about where to take the country. But chaining it and its citizens hand and foot with Cap and Trade, and all the other liberal feel-good but otherwise destructive schemes has got to be nixed from the start.

In my younger days, I thought the Left was full of impractical pie-in-the-sky idealists. Now I know that my father was right when he said that liberals were out to destroy everything good about America. Proof? All you have to do is to look at the results of nearly four years of Democrat control of Congress. No one could get things wrong so consistently and so destructively unless it was deliberate.

I don’t think a hard-headed lawyer like Graham has missed what they’re up to, nor do I think he’s a bit idealistic. I think he has decided that going along with the Liberal agenda is good for Lindsey Graham.

hachiban on July 2, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Lindsey Graham could have, would have asked the same question of the Yankee Doodles in 1775.

This is the same war. Big government tyranny vs. self-determination.

It’s pretty clear what side Mr. Graham would’ve picked.

And I know what side I’m on.

petunia on July 2, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”…

Hogwash. Reagan was about American exceptionalism, strong defense, cut taxes, small government. Sounds like Tea Party.

pearson on July 2, 2010 at 1:30 AM

Just come out already, Lindsey. You’re not fooling anyone.

Shiny_Tiara on July 2, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Shut up Grahamnesty! I cannot wait until Rush gets a hold of this!

margategop517 on July 2, 2010 at 1:53 AM

A LOT of things in this country aren’t sustainable, but I pray God the Tea Party isn’t one of them.

Inkblots on July 2, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Reagan was about American exceptionalism, strong defense, cut taxes, small government. Sounds like Tea Party.

Yup. Listen to his inaugural address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPt7xGx4Xo

crosspatch on July 2, 2010 at 2:06 AM

The portion from about 7 minutes to about 11 minutes should be the theme for Tea Party movements everywhere.

crosspatch on July 2, 2010 at 2:16 AM

In my younger days, I thought the Left was full of impractical pie-in-the-sky idealists. Now I know that my father was right when he said that liberals were out to destroy everything good about America.
hachiban on July 2, 2010 at 1:25 AM

The excess of paroled pedophiles and murderous creeps have the lib stamp of approval. There are plenty of affluent sociopaths, so it’s not about income. Then there’s the pandemic of self-mutilating, drug-addled twenty-somethings who trace their ancestry back to the 1960s. Good job, liberals. Way to wreck a nation.

Miss Lindsey hasn’t heard, but the Tea Party wants representatives who respect the Constitution and law-abiding American citizens, not Mexico and trans-national oligarchs.

Feedie on July 2, 2010 at 2:16 AM

Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . .

This ia the same kind of arrogance exhibited by Pete Stark ( D-bag, CA) last week. This level of snarkiness and hostility towards their constituents is downright evil.
It has infested DC-critters regardless of which party they belong to .

Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”

Thats because Ms Lindsey’s God-complex stunned them

macncheez on July 2, 2010 at 2:21 AM

I will never again vote for Graham, but I won’t vote for a Democrat against him. Unfortunately, he scares off primary challengers with his established fund-raising network – it would probably take $1 million, minimum, and perhaps 2, to seriously contest a primary against him.
`
`
Among his detractors, I feel alone in my willingness to acknowledge my anathema for him is based on a very few, but important and high profile, votes: BFRCA, McCain-Kennedy CIG, the “Gang of 14,” and his willingness to continue with “cap-’n’-tax” nonsense. Otherwise he does have a strong conservative record of 91 lifetime ACU in the House, 88 in 2009, and 89+ lifetime in the Senate.
`
`
Oh, and he is an arrogant prig, but this is the state which sent Fritz Hollings to DC for forty years. It seems we like to keep as many arrogant prigs as possible out of the state.
`
`
I told Jim DeMint when he won his 2004 primary that he needed to be our voice in DC, we can’t depend on Graham, to forget about the “junior Senator” stuff and stand up and lead, and the people would follow. He seemed hesitant in his first two years, but since then he has picked up the ball and run with it, and the results are clear.

Adjoran on July 2, 2010 at 2:24 AM

No wonder Mark Levin calls him Goober Graham.

If anything is unsustainable, it’s his RINO style liberalism. His drunken liberal style tax and spend legislation approval, that’s what’s unsustainable. His amnesty shilling: that’s unsustainable, too. As for the Tea Party movement dying before his political career: guess again. I’m hoping that if the recall movement takes flight and is viable, he’s one of the first RINOs in the crosshairs. Right next to McCain. If he’d’ve asked me what I would do, I would’ve thrown one of my pocket Constitutions in his face and yelled: “THAT’S WHAT I’D DO, PEEWEE! GOT ANY OTHER STUPID QUESTIONS?!” Maybe they were just too stunned to answer such a stupid question coming out of a Republican (in Name Only) that has eyes, but doesn’t see what Obamanomics is doing to America, and has ears, and doesn’t hear what the people are asking for. Including his constituents.

Maybe his lack of a woman is what made him all f*cked up in the head. Send him out on a date with Kagen, and see what they can drum up. I’m sure Obama’d be happy to pay for it.

Virus-X on July 2, 2010 at 2:27 AM

Maybe his lack of a woman is what made him all f*cked up in the head. Send him out on a date with Kagen, and see what they can drum up.
Virus-X on July 2, 2010 at 2:27 AM

Gah! Gag reflex on hair trigger since Gore and Portland. Are they scared straight or do they frolic into unisex bath-house?

Feedie on July 2, 2010 at 2:46 AM

What we need is more people like Christie in New Jersey with his attitude that I may be unpopular and a one term gov. but I promised fiscal restraint and that is what I going to do. Obama had the same mantra but it was the exact opposite of what the country needed. As far as the Tea Party is concerned it is not like a religious movement. It is the culmination of 8 years of Bush and his over spending and now the maniac in the WH spending three times as fast as Bush. It is a liberal Congress that never listens to the people and we are fed up with it! There is NO religious part of the TP. Graham is nothing but a moderate Repub. with liberal leanings and will be voted out in 2014.

inspectorudy on July 2, 2010 at 2:48 AM

What we need is more people like Christie in New Jersey

Agreed.

The closest politician we have today with Reagan’s rhetoric and positive message is Palin. That is why the media is so afraid of him. Her “common sense” message is pretty close to Reagan’s message.

The media has run a “preemptive strike” on her, though. We will see how well it sticks after a few years have passed, though.

crosspatch on July 2, 2010 at 3:08 AM

Eeek! I called Palin a him! Meant “her” of course. Was thinking Reagan while writing about Palin.

crosspatch on July 2, 2010 at 3:23 AM

The Tea Party reminds her more of a religious revival than a political movement. She compares it to the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s, a religious resurgence that helped fuel temperance and abolitionism…

Yeah, people awake to the fact that we’re on the edge of being f-ed no matter what. And it’ll only take a few more years of spending like we are to push us over.

rockhead on July 2, 2010 at 3:29 AM

McGoober still doesn’t quite get it that you can spark green innovation without cap and trade. Problem is, no one is going to do anything with the laws and regulations so out of control, everyone is afraid to do anything.

As for Juan McLame, I really think he’ll stay uber conservative even after the election. Why? Because he detests Barry sooo much and feels personally insulted the empty suit got elected over him. Remember in the Obamacare meetings-their little spat? You could see it on McCain’s face how much Barry annoys the crap out of him. That does mean I want to give McAmnesty a pass to win the election over JD who I’d like to see win, but if he AZ puts him back into the Senate, he may be able to keep Goober in line and retire that Mavricky persona. Remember, his dream to be POTUS is over and he ain’t got nothing to lose now by NOT reaching across the aisle and can make Barry’s life a bit hellish from the Senate. I think McCain’s just that petty and it may not be the worst thing if he gets back.

But really, I’d like to see JD retire him for good.

Renwaa on July 2, 2010 at 3:32 AM

Oops, meant “that DOESN’T mean I want to give McAmnesty a pass….”. Still drinking my first coffee of the day!

Renwaa on July 2, 2010 at 3:33 AM

As for Juan McLame, I really think he’ll stay uber conservative even after the election. Why? Because he detests Barry sooo much and feels personally insulted the empty suit got elected over him.

Like to see it come true, but never saw it work like this. I think it’s the inherent nastiness of leftists. RINOs fear leftists, but not the likes of Bush, and never the base, who can always be fooled one more time. Until now (?).

Feedie on July 2, 2010 at 4:04 AM

The hyperlinked world leaves Graham utterly at sea. He has never owned a BlackBerry or an iPhone. His staff maintains a Facebook page and posts on Twitter on his behalf, but without Graham’s supervision.

He’s confused by an IPhone? Sorry, but I am firmly entrenched now in the “throw every incumbent out” mode. These fossils are going to kill us. Carly, Marco, Sarah, Jan – NEW BLOOD. In. NOW.

Marcus on July 2, 2010 at 4:25 AM

flashoverride on July 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Ditto. McCain has let me down quite a few times but at least I know he loves his country and would die to protect it.

Graham is a putz. Always has been, always will be. I’m sure he can smell what the Tea Party has cooking for him.

Mr Purple on July 2, 2010 at 5:25 AM

Just come out already, Lindsey. You’re not fooling anyone.

Shiny_Tiara on July 2, 2010 at 1:52 AM

agree….what a waste of space…i hope there is a gop who is up to taking this putz down for the count

cmsinaz on July 2, 2010 at 5:53 AM

You take back your country — and do what with it?’ (said Graham).

If THAT doesn’t define who and what Lindsey Graham is, then nothing does: he’s utterly clueless.

Graham’s only concepts are “getting elected” and “working with Democrats.”

And otherwise, he has not a clue what to do so of course he’s finding the Tea Partiers implausible.

By the way, I think this explains Graham’s cutesy exchange with Elena Kagan the other day as to which one of them “sucks”…

Kagan forced Blue Cross / Blue Shield to provide “sex change operations” to students at Harvard Law while she was Dean there. Said it was to provide services to “gender identity” students.

So I’m thinking that a large part of why Harvard’s tuition is so high is because of elaborations and excesses such as that.

Lourdes on July 2, 2010 at 6:04 AM

As for Juan McLame, I really think he’ll stay uber conservative even after the election. Why? Because he detests Barry sooo much and feels personally insulted the empty suit got elected over him.

Is this a recent point of view by McCain? ‘Cause in the last Presidential election, you’d never guess that McCain had any hesitations in lending support to Obama. “You don’t have anything to fear from an Obama Presidency,” said McCain as he denigrated an audience from among which an individual tried to ask him about Obama’s legitimacy under the Constitution to the Presidency.

Lourdes on July 2, 2010 at 6:07 AM

“ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’

This shell of a leader has never read the constitution (in English) Keeping the RINOs is like keeping just a few rattlesnakes in the sleeping bag. When will we ever wake up to the fact that these guys love being part of the ruling class and don’t mind being number two? Life doesn’t change much for them or their families -UNLESS they are thrown out of office on their unprincipled butts even faster than the other enemies of America.

Don L on July 2, 2010 at 6:19 AM

Wait until McCain is re-elected. With the left winning most battles (If you can call what the GOP puts up a battle)The RINOs will lead the charge with their friends across the isle in destroying our freedoms.

It is the tea party that they really fear (like the Minutemen) How dare the peasant arise!

Don L on July 2, 2010 at 6:24 AM

To answer Lindsey as to what we will do; win the war against leftist and RINOs and then like our patriot forefathers we’ll write the law later. Like they did in 1776

We’ll start with the constitution and enforce it with mandatory sentencing for leaders who play legal games – term limits, right to life codified, unbiased teaching, randomly selected money czars(pols man not manage or control any money including their own wages, no lawyers in congress, recalls of anyone’s rep by 60% vote,

In short Lindsey, we’ll figure it out.
And now the big question, not what we’ll do with it, but what are you doing with it?
s

Don L on July 2, 2010 at 6:34 AM

Even so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized political power.

I totally and completely disagree with all of this. People who hate the Tea Party movement are trying to define it.
Don’t try to tell me that Tea Party people would have no idea what to do with the country once they took it back. That’s ridiculous. That is an insult and an attempt to portray those people who are protesting as idiot rednecks who don’t have a clue! That disgusts me!
Walk into a crowd during a Tea Party demonstration and start asking people what they want to see change in America and you will get clear and straight answers!

I am getting so freaking tired of politicians who are so upset that average Americans dare take to the streets and attempt to influence their government!

JellyToast on July 2, 2010 at 6:39 AM

What this RINO is saying is that American ideas are dead! Freedom and self government is an archaic idea! That the word “liberty” is a little embarrassing! It just doesn’t fit in with today’s progressive new world order kind of thinking!

The truth is, one world globalists socialist views of the world is as old as the Tower of Babel! That is the real archaic backwards view of government! It’s as old as time!
America is the shining city! Our constitution is and always will be on the cutting edge of of what humanity should be!

JellyToast on July 2, 2010 at 6:46 AM

Why is it always RINOs and never DINOs? Yeah every now and then a libDem will vote against Oblablah. But 99/100 times the politician who runs as one thing (conservative/liberal) yest votes as another (liberal/conservative) is the Republican.

Where is the Dem version of McCain or Ghraham or Brown or The Maine Twins? They don’t exist. Dems run as liberals and vote as liberals. For that I have to give them credit. They’re honest in their intentions.

At some point you have to stop blaming the likes of McCain/Graham and start looking at the voters. Fool the voters once, shame on the politician. Fool them repeatedly every 6 years, shame on the voters. Any Republican that votes for McCain in Arizona’s primary is an idiot, plain and simple.

angryed on July 2, 2010 at 6:56 AM

I think the issues that drive the Tea Party are here to stay, they will remain a part of the political landscape even if people do not continue to turn out in big numbers. So I guess it depends on what you mean by dying out.

Terrye on July 2, 2010 at 7:04 AM

At some point you have to stop blaming the likes of McCain/Graham and start looking at the voters. Fool the voters once, shame on the politician. Fool them repeatedly every 6 years, shame on the voters. Any Republican that votes for McCain in Arizona’s primary is an idiot, plain and simple.

angryed on July 2, 2010 at 6:56 AM

McCain and Graham are not the same people. So far as I know the Tea Party in AZ has not really come out and picked a candidate in that state, not officially anyway. If they did, I missed it. And McCain has not been hostile toward the Tea Party movement either. I think anyone who votes for a guy like Hayworth with his history of crooked connections and big spending and infomercials for free money and thinks they are getting some brand new face is an idiot myself. Maybe that is why McCain is ahead in the polls out there, Hayworth is a crappy candidate.

Terrye on July 2, 2010 at 7:09 AM

“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. It will die out.”

We don’t need to come up with a coherent vision for governing the country, you ignorant douchebag. The Founders already did that for us; it’s called the U.S. Constitution.

And we fully understand why corrupt, big-government fools like you are so fervently hoping that those of us who still believe in the Founders’ dream for this nation will soon “die out.” You may get your wish Lindsey Graham, but understand this: we will go to our deaths fighting to the last breath for the liberty that is our birthright.

AZCoyote on July 2, 2010 at 7:09 AM

During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . .

Oh I don’t know… let’s try something really crazy like focusing on the economy so that every American that wants a job can get one. Perhaps we can stop the irresponsible deficit spending the government does. Do something substantial about our national debt. Let’s take away the option of being a welfare recieptiant for life. Change Social Security so that if you don’t pay in you can’t draw out. Secure our borders from unwanted intrusion.

You know, stupid stuff like that Grahamesty.

Hog Wild on July 2, 2010 at 7:10 AM

A Republican pushing the Democratic Party/MSM Teaparty meme. The party of stupid.

Basilsbest on July 2, 2010 at 7:46 AM

[Rahm] Emanuel went on to say: “He’s willing to work on more things than the others. Lindsey, to his credit, has a small-government vision that’s out of fashion with his party, which stands for no government

I defy anyone to point out anything Lindsay has done, any stand he has taken, which reflects a “small-government vision”.

tommyboy on July 2, 2010 at 7:47 AM

Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’

Live our lives as we see fit, you idiot. My God, this man is a freaking jackass.

fossten on July 2, 2010 at 7:48 AM

I loathe Lindsey Graham. I hope South Carolinians begin grooming a challenger–NOW.

BuckeyeSam on July 2, 2010 at 7:51 AM

I want a Republican that can attract Democrats

To hell with Democrats. All I want is a Republican who can attract independents and that does not mean squishy RINO. It means someone with vision, optimism, and some fairly libertarian ideals.

Kafir on July 2, 2010 at 8:04 AM

Put up a good candidate against him next time, and he’s toast. Meanwhile, work hard to make him irrelevant. Can’t wait until November.
Randy

williars on July 2, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Says it all.

I want a Republican that’s a Republican conservative.

Then,

Republican

conservative voters will follow.

BacaDog on July 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM

..with the greatest respect, FIFY.

The War Planner on July 2, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Graham is a pusillanimous poltroon.

GnuBreed on July 1, 2010 at 11:25 PM

If that means a transsexual buffoon, I agree….

theaddora on July 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Progressives trying to hold onto power by their fingernails.

Dr Evil on July 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Fact is that Graham and McCain, his mentor, handily win re-election because there are not enough Constitutionalists out there yet to give them the boot.

Enemies within the gate should always have priority when dealing with internal politics.

Valiant on July 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM

If Republicans have a smaller government message, they are going to attract Independents and Libertarians if not turn out will be weak in November.

I have NO intention of voting status quo – if that’s what Graham is selling.

Dr Evil on July 2, 2010 at 8:54 AM

I don’t believe the Tea Party, which to me isn’t a party but a massive group of people from around the country that have the same goals, is sustainable and nor should it be.

It only has to be sustained long enough to get this country back on a conservative track and remove all socialist/progressive tendencies, including RINOS, that have been creeping into the fabric of this country.
This has to be done at every level of government, from dogcatcher to President.

iamsaved on July 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Where in the world did South Carolina dig up that jackass, pandering jerk?

rplat on July 2, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”…

You know, as much as I dislike him…..I don’t think Graham is wrong here.

I say that because some of you are lightning quick to write off a Republican as soon as they take a less-than-idealogically-perfect opinion on even one issue. Look at Chris Christie this week.

Reagan’s stance on immigration alone would be enough for some of you to whip out the torches and pitchforks.

Vyce on July 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Lindsey Graham – obama junior

notagool on July 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Reagan’s stance on immigration alone would be enough for some of you to whip out the torches and pitchforks.

Vyce on July 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Perhaps. But the situation on the border is a lot more serious than it was in Reagan’s presidency. I imagine his stance might be different were he alive today.

Disturb the Universe on July 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I posted on a liberal site last evening that the Tea Party was a relatively spontaneous creation, thanks to Rick Santelli’s rant on the trading floor last February (2009). We will never be a third party, we don’t want to be a third party, and it wasn’t all Obama that caused the anger. Bush had his own issues as well. Many Americans reached their boiling point and needed a way to express their anger.

I hope the TP is around for a long time, but the bottom line is: conservatives are more involved in government than ever before. People can’t stop talking about us. We are now on school boards, in judicial positions, mayors, council members, running for Congress, educating voters, giving MANY of the conservative politicians “permission” to be conservative, etc. Regardless of how long the TP lasts, we are winning. The passion won’t disappear for YEARS. And we have lots and lots of time to make a difference (regardless of what that means).

But faster please.

Yellowdog12 on July 2, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I totally disagree with the senator. I was at my son’s baseball game in a predominantly liberal suburb of Chicago when I got to talking to one of the spectators from the area. We started talking about politics and how sick and tired we are of both parties. He believed in the tea party movement and what it stood for. “We need to take the country back”, seems to be the mantra. I’m running across more and more people concerned with the socialist direction our politicians are taking this great country and how more and more people want handouts. The tea party movement is a state of mind. It’s not going away.

Cpoy2 on July 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM

During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ ”

And do what with it? AND DO WHAT WITH IT?

Live our lives in a country that honors its Constitution and cherishes its heritage, free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without some jackass politician seizing our hard-earned wealth, telling us how to live our lives, and imposing a collectivist social engineering agenda on us.

And do what with it? Graham is seriously clueless.

cheeflo on July 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Lindsay sounds like a progressive conservative. Believe me, you don’t need that type in a Party if you value your Constitution.
.

By definition : Progressive conservative

George_Canada on July 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Bill Kristol points out that a USAToday story on the Tea Party commented on the “scattering of minorities” in the typical Tea Party crowd. Only around 23% of the Tea Party is made up of minorities.

But that’s pretty representative of the nation as a whole. There’s less people in minorities, which is why they’re CALLED minorities.

Graham is wrong. The party doesn’t stand for nothing. It stands for empowering individuals at the expense of government.

When Graham asks “what do you want to do” after taking back the country, he misses the point. Government’s job isn’t to chart some national direction. The government’s job is to protect citizens so they can chart their OWN direction.

hawksruleva on July 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Perhaps. But the situation on the border is a lot more serious than it was in Reagan’s presidency. I imagine his stance might be different were he alive today.

Disturb the Universe on July 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

And Reagan wasn’t above ackowledging his mistakes and then moving in the right direction.

hawksruleva on July 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM

What?!? You left out the quote where Graham tries to pretend hes not gay???

“I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men — I’m sure hundreds of ‘em are gonna be jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge — but I ain’t available. I ain’t gay. Sorry.” — US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

THAT’S your Lindsay Graham quote of the day.

Now the question is, who buys it?

American Elephant on July 1, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Our friends over at HillBuzz think Lindsey is as ghey as they come, and if anyone would know ….

Their theory is the Marxist-democrat party knows this and holds it over him. Not as far fetched as it seems.

gary4205 on July 2, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Graham seriously under estimates the mood of the country. He’d better wise up, or find himself on the unemployment line, like so many others.

capejasmine on July 2, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Don’t tread on me biotch…….

adamsmith on July 2, 2010 at 12:47 PM

SC used to produce men. Now they produce Graham and eunuchs who vote for him.

Extrafishy on July 2, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Graham can’t see through all his own smoke and mirrors. If he’s still behind climate change legislation, then he’s sitting on a couch with Nanzi and Newtie, which means he’s getting some money from someone with an interest in seeing it passed.

Kissmygrits on July 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2