It Isn’t So Much Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality As His Political Views That Disappoint

Posted on | July 1, 2010 | 35 Comments

by Smitty

Salon quotes an NYT interview where LG reports: “I ain’t gay”.

Nice tangential datum, Senator, but what matters more is your objection to the taste of Tea in your mouth:

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.”

“they can never come up with a coherent vision”, Senator? Really? For starters:

Federalism
- States support their constituents
- States only tax their constituents
Balanced budget
Decreasing national debt
Separation of powers
- No more wars without proper declaration
- Elimination of redundant, Progressive cabinet posts

In summary, Senator Graham, the vision is that of the Founders: 50 states delegating a minimal set of powers to a Federal government to keep the whole safe from enemies foreign and domestic. And this is the vision that you’ve sworn, in the Air Force and Congress to uphold. Thus, your confusion is confusing. What is your problem, Senator?

Update: More at Liberty Pundits

Update II: Dan Riehl infers more than I would about the good Senator.

Category: Progressivism, Republicans

Comments

35 Responses to “It Isn’t So Much Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality As His Political Views That Disappoint”

Kentucky Colonel
July 1st, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

Jenny Sanford needs to replace this fool.
Kentucky Colonel
July 1st, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

Jenny Sanford needs to replace this fool.
Brian O'Connor
July 1st, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

Graham is pretty clueless;

“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,”

He knows what the problem is, just doesn’t want to do anything about it.
Brian O'Connor
July 1st, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

Graham is pretty clueless;

“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,”

He knows what the problem is, just doesn’t want to do anything about it.
Senator Lindsey Graham
July 1st, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

I ain’t gay.

I ain’t conservative either.
Senator Lindsey Graham
July 1st, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

I ain’t gay.

I ain’t conservative either.
Rob
July 1st, 2010 @ 10:33 pm

I am looking forward to July 2nd…that’s all I have to say…(hint Tea Party related)
Rob
July 1st, 2010 @ 6:33 pm

I am looking forward to July 2nd…that’s all I have to say…(hint Tea Party related)
Senator Lindsey Graham
July 1st, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

I suppose I could focus on fiscal restraint, national defense and be a respected member of the conservative team…

but I feel so much more alive when I walk on the wild side of politics. In the Senate backroom I am everybody’s darling.

Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo,…
Senator Lindsey Graham
July 1st, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

I suppose I could focus on fiscal restraint, national defense and be a respected member of the conservative team…

but I feel so much more alive when I walk on the wild side of politics. In the Senate backroom I am everybody’s darling.

Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo,…
jefferson101
July 1st, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

Regarding Lindsey’s (or anyone else’s) orientation, I’m libertarian enough to be neutral.

I really don’t care if he’s shacking up with Barney Frank. Frankly (Pun purely intended), I don’t want to know, and could care less. They go home, shut the door pull the curtains, and as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult? I’m in Rhett Butler mode, and “Frankly, my dear, I don’t….! I don’t want to hear about it, but I’ve not been appointed to watch over him, or anyone else but myself. That’s above my Pay Grade while I’m in this world, as long as nobody is underage, or there involuntarily.

OTOH, his RINO proclivities give me severe heartburn, and inspire thoughts of salutary tarring-and-feathering on regular occasions.

All I can ask is this: If he’s a “Republican”, why should I even want to be one? I can’t answer that question. Either he leaves the Party, or I will, eventually.
jefferson101
July 1st, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

Regarding Lindsey’s (or anyone else’s) orientation, I’m libertarian enough to be neutral.

I really don’t care if he’s shacking up with Barney Frank. Frankly (Pun purely intended), I don’t want to know, and could care less. They go home, shut the door pull the curtains, and as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult? I’m in Rhett Butler mode, and “Frankly, my dear, I don’t….! I don’t want to hear about it, but I’ve not been appointed to watch over him, or anyone else but myself. That’s above my Pay Grade while I’m in this world, as long as nobody is underage, or there involuntarily.

OTOH, his RINO proclivities give me severe heartburn, and inspire thoughts of salutary tarring-and-feathering on regular occasions.

All I can ask is this: If he’s a “Republican”, why should I even want to be one? I can’t answer that question. Either he leaves the Party, or I will, eventually.
song_and_dance_man
July 1st, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

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

One would think Graham would be ‘happy’ that true conservatism is becoming not only vocal but now making inroads into just who gets elected, and of whom more closely represents the Reagan base.

Oh wait….he’s nary a conservative.
song_and_dance_man
July 1st, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

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

One would think Graham would be ‘happy’ that true conservatism is becoming not only vocal but now making inroads into just who gets elected, and of whom more closely represents the Reagan base.

Oh wait….he’s nary a conservative.
Calypso Jones
July 1st, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

I do care about their character and morals. It is not right for a country founded on the principles of and the character of our founders to be governed by perverts of ANY kind.
Calypso Jones
July 1st, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

I do care about their character and morals. It is not right for a country founded on the principles of and the character of our founders to be governed by perverts of ANY kind.
Lindsey Graham: It’s Dog Track Time [Updated Below] « The Camp Of The Saints
July 1st, 2010 @ 8:05 pm

[…] at The Other McCain, Smitty explains to Lindsey what that bad taste in his mouth […]
Lonely Conservative
July 2nd, 2010 @ 12:41 am

Linked you here: http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/07/maverick-lindsey-graham-not-gay-and-doesnt-like-tea/

🙂
Lonely Conservative
July 1st, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

Linked you here: http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/07/maverick-lindsey-graham-not-gay-and-doesnt-like-tea/

🙂
Brian
July 1st, 2010 @ 9:45 pm

That’s Lispy Graham. He used to be a JAG lawyer. Now he’s just a JAG off.
Brian
July 2nd, 2010 @ 1:45 am

That’s Lispy Graham. He used to be a JAG lawyer. Now he’s just a JAG off.
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:43 am

When did the Tea Party ever make “No more wars without proper declaration” an issue? Is there a single example of this ever actually being an issue for the Tea Party folks? Other than being mentioned by some moronic libertarian allowed to speak by accident, I mean? Or was it just slipped in?

~~~~~~~

I find it odd that self-proclaimed “libertarians” would make sexual innuendo about a elected official, on the sole evidence that they don’t like him. No, I don’t, not really – every single libertarian is just that dishonest about their philosophy, but sex stuff is seldom their smear of choice.

Graham, for those who don’t know, was a dependably conservative vote in the House (amassing a lifetime ACU score of 91 there), and earned the highest marks of any of the House Managers in the Senate trial of President Clinton. Unfortunately, shortly after being elected to Strom Thurmond’s seat, he fell in with McCain and was a party to several McCainiac apostasies, including BCFRA, the McCain-Kennedy version of CIG, the “Gang of 14” and other nonsense – but still managed an 88 for 2009 and keeps his Senate lifetime score over 89.

Graham always emphasizes his overall conservative record when running, and it’s been enough to keep primary opposition scared away (without $1-2 million, you wouldn’t stand a chance).
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 1:43 am

When did the Tea Party ever make “No more wars without proper declaration” an issue? Is there a single example of this ever actually being an issue for the Tea Party folks? Other than being mentioned by some moronic libertarian allowed to speak by accident, I mean? Or was it just slipped in?

~~~~~~~

I find it odd that self-proclaimed “libertarians” would make sexual innuendo about a elected official, on the sole evidence that they don’t like him. No, I don’t, not really – every single libertarian is just that dishonest about their philosophy, but sex stuff is seldom their smear of choice.

Graham, for those who don’t know, was a dependably conservative vote in the House (amassing a lifetime ACU score of 91 there), and earned the highest marks of any of the House Managers in the Senate trial of President Clinton. Unfortunately, shortly after being elected to Strom Thurmond’s seat, he fell in with McCain and was a party to several McCainiac apostasies, including BCFRA, the McCain-Kennedy version of CIG, the “Gang of 14” and other nonsense – but still managed an 88 for 2009 and keeps his Senate lifetime score over 89.

Graham always emphasizes his overall conservative record when running, and it’s been enough to keep primary opposition scared away (without $1-2 million, you wouldn’t stand a chance).
smitty
July 2nd, 2010 @ 9:47 am

@Estragon,
When did the Tea Party ever make “No more wars without proper declaration” an issue? Is there a single example of this ever actually being an issue for the Tea Party folks? Other than being mentioned by some moronic libertarian allowed to speak by accident, I mean? Or was it just slipped in?

Purely me. Among my minor observations about WTF is wrong is this: the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is as poorly founded as the Community Reinvestment Act.
These are all steps towards an imperial fed and a unitary executive.
smitty
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:47 am

@Estragon,
When did the Tea Party ever make “No more wars without proper declaration” an issue? Is there a single example of this ever actually being an issue for the Tea Party folks? Other than being mentioned by some moronic libertarian allowed to speak by accident, I mean? Or was it just slipped in?

Purely me. Among my minor observations about WTF is wrong is this: the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is as poorly founded as the Community Reinvestment Act.
These are all steps towards an imperial fed and a unitary executive.
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 9:48 am

Ah, gg, you are scarcely the first to use the “estrogen” slur or the herb for reading my tea leaves. Few do recognize the Godot connection, which is the true source of the screen name, so congratulations are in order.

Of course, the others who did deduce it also discerned the joke, but we can’t all be intelligent, can we?
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:48 am

Ah, gg, you are scarcely the first to use the “estrogen” slur or the herb for reading my tea leaves. Few do recognize the Godot connection, which is the true source of the screen name, so congratulations are in order.

Of course, the others who did deduce it also discerned the joke, but we can’t all be intelligent, can we?
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:04 am

@smitty #15 ~ The difference between the War Powers Act (which I fully agree is an ill-conceived law of dubious foundation, questionable enforcement potential, and unneeded) and the CRA is that the WPA was challenged in and determined to be constitutional, while CRA was not.

May I then further assume that the items under “Federalism,” to wit “States support their constituents” and “States only tax their constituents” are also of your invention, since I’ve never seen any such signs or heard any such themes out of the Tea Party?

Not to bring up the typical Libertarian attempt to hijack the Tea Party movement, but lacking the fiscal issues of cutting spending and deficits, in the most general sense, without any specific plan or even clearly enunciated strategy upon which to build one, is it not fair to say there isn’t a “coherent vision” from the Tea Party movement itself?

That’s not a bad thing, it’s a grassroots movement and “the whole vision thing” (GHWB) takes time to coalesce and mature. But it does mean, if there isn’t such a vision, that Graham was correct in what he said, if in his usual rude, pompous, arrogant asphole sort of way, which he often slips into, mainly because he IS a rude, pompous, arrogant asphole.
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 6:04 am

@smitty #15 ~ The difference between the War Powers Act (which I fully agree is an ill-conceived law of dubious foundation, questionable enforcement potential, and unneeded) and the CRA is that the WPA was challenged in and determined to be constitutional, while CRA was not.

May I then further assume that the items under “Federalism,” to wit “States support their constituents” and “States only tax their constituents” are also of your invention, since I’ve never seen any such signs or heard any such themes out of the Tea Party?

Not to bring up the typical Libertarian attempt to hijack the Tea Party movement, but lacking the fiscal issues of cutting spending and deficits, in the most general sense, without any specific plan or even clearly enunciated strategy upon which to build one, is it not fair to say there isn’t a “coherent vision” from the Tea Party movement itself?

That’s not a bad thing, it’s a grassroots movement and “the whole vision thing” (GHWB) takes time to coalesce and mature. But it does mean, if there isn’t such a vision, that Graham was correct in what he said, if in his usual rude, pompous, arrogant asphole sort of way, which he often slips into, mainly because he IS a rude, pompous, arrogant asphole.
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 10:13 am

I apologize for feeding the troll. It’s just that while I’ve heard the estrogen jokes hundreds of times in 16 years online using the nick, and the herb reference lamely incorporated dozens of times, only a few made the connection with Waiting for Godot.

Nowadays, though, I suppose Google has replaced reading Beckett, eh?
Estragon
July 2nd, 2010 @ 6:13 am

I apologize for feeding the troll. It’s just that while I’ve heard the estrogen jokes hundreds of times in 16 years online using the nick, and the herb reference lamely incorporated dozens of times, only a few made the connection with Waiting for Godot.

Nowadays, though, I suppose Google has replaced reading Beckett, eh?
Annoying Tea Partiers the World Over! | The Pink Flamingo
July 2nd, 2010 @ 8:41 am

[…] idiots who wouldn’t know what Reagan stood for, but they do worship Ron Paul! Then again, people like R. S. McCain (the guy who hangs out with Nazis) hates Lindsey. That is a great advertisement for someone like […]
Charles
July 2nd, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

I would have the agree with Lindsey Graham that the Tea Party doesn’t have its shit together yet on how it would govern the country.

Electing a few congressman and a senator or two would be a good start, but that’s not a government.

Put me down to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but I would worry that some of the Tea Party’s federalism goals would have the effect of foisting federal debt on the states. Take medicare and social security, please.

The American people are not going to vote for the idea of paying their medicare or social security taxes to their state government instead of the federal government, and are not going to vote to eliminate those programs.

It’s awfully easy to lose focus (and votes). Get back on the deficit and the debt.
Charles
July 2nd, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

I would have the agree with Lindsey Graham that the Tea Party doesn’t have its shit together yet on how it would govern the country.

Electing a few congressman and a senator or two would be a good start, but that’s not a government.

Put me down to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but I would worry that some of the Tea Party’s federalism goals would have the effect of foisting federal debt on the states. Take medicare and social security, please.

The American people are not going to vote for the idea of paying their medicare or social security taxes to their state government instead of the federal government, and are not going to vote to eliminate those programs.

It’s awfully easy to lose focus (and votes). Get back on the deficit and the debt.
‘Maverick’ Lindsey Graham: Not Gay and Doesn’t Like Tea :: The Lonely Conservative
July 7th, 2010 @ 7:17 pm

[…] Reagan ran on a platform of small government. How is that at odds with the Tea Party vision? (See The Other McCain for a pretty straightforward and easy to read summary of that […]