Lindsey Graham Doesn’t Get It
There’s a growing notion that fiscal conservatives are somehow to blame for the collapse of the Republican Party – that we have created a “small tent” that is pushing voters away.
Funny, we thought people of all genders, colors and sexual orientations liked personal freedom and being able to keep more of their money – at least that’s what several civil rights movements and “the money we could be saving with Geico” told us.
Yet in spite of those fundamental truths, another myth is beginning to form – and certain Republicans are helping form it.
Their latest opportunity to propagate the fiction? The decision of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter to bolt from the GOP.
From The Politico:
Two leading Republicans say Sen. Arlen Specter’s decision to become a Democrat highlights the hostility moderates feel from an increasingly conservative GOP.
“You haven’t certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,” said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate.
Snowe said the party’s message has been, “Either you’re with us or you’re against us.”
Her frustration was shared by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who slammed right-wing interest groups for pushing moderates out of the party.
Specter switched parties Tuesday after a recent poll showed him badly losing a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year to Club for Growth founder Pat Toomey. Toomey’s staunchly fiscally conservative political action committee backs only those Republicans who support a low-tax, limited-government agenda and comes down hard on those who break with party orthodoxy.
“I don’t want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”
“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.
Are you effing kidding us? The party of George Bush, Trent Lott and Ted Stevens was the most flamingly liberal (fiscally speaking, anyway) in American history – until their excesses ushered in the era of the smooth-talking commies.
Seriously, Democrats are only in power today because Republicans spent too much money- and in the process were shown to be hypocritical, lying, corrupt and out-of-touch with the people they should have been hooking up with real tax cuts, not Dubya’s laughable excuse for them.
The fact that the party is 99% comprised of crotchety old white men obviously doesn’t help matters, but most people still vote according to pocketbook, not pigmentation.
In fact, when exit polls were parsed from the first round of GOP bloodletting three years ago, Republicans were shown to have been beaten because they were the big spenders. In fact, one poll in Ohio showed that a majority of young voters identified Republicans as “the party of big government.”
And what of last year’s electoral debacle?
Well, the last time we checked, Obama won (and carried Democrats across the country with him) because his otherwise generic vision of change was accompanied by a “middle class tax cut” – a variation of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s classic cavalry maxim “get there firtsus with the mostus.”
What we mean is that Obama told a majority of voters he was going to give them money – and make somebody else pay for it.
Republicans had no answer to that because, for whatever reason, they were unwilling to promote truly conservative fiscal policy that would have given every American a sizable tax cut.
Why didn’t they do that? We’ll never know. Obama could have been easily outflanked on pocketbook issues – but Republicans apparently couldn’t stomach giving up their entitlement culture.
And what of the oft-repeated mandate for “change?”
Well, “change”could have been fixing Social Security, privatizing health care, ending welfare and enacting school choice nationwide.
It also could have been implementing a federal spending cap and coming up with a plan to get rid of our crippling national debt.
It could have been sweeping ethics reform that would truly – once and for all – clean up the culture of DC corruption.
But Republicans had no appetite for any of that … and so the Democrats emerged as the only party offering something different, even if the promises of “change” turned out to be vastly different than what anyone ever imagined.
Oh, and Lindsey, the GOP could have stood up for all of those things while pursuing pro-black, pro-gay and pro-female positions.
Like we said, last time we checked – everybody likes getting more of their money back.







Comments
By Tim on April 28th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’ve yet to see any evidence that Americans elected a man the Republicans branded a socialist because Republicans themselves were big spenders, but you guys keep repeating it, so it must be true in that vast empty space between Mark Sanford’s ears.
“Republicans had no answer to that because, for whatever reason, they were unwilling to promote truly conservative fiscal policy that would have given every American a sizable tax cut.”
In fact, John McCain did propose a classic Republican, trickle down fiscal policy in which the middle class would have received a smaller tax cut than that from Obama while delivering – again – a big whopping windfall to those at the top. Apparently, though, those middle class taxpayers were tired of waiting to be trickled on by the fat cats.
By fitsnews on April 28th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
TK-
“Trickle” is for NASCAR drivers. Massive reductions in ALL marginal rates, to be paid for with less government and … wait for it … GROWTH.
McCain – and his campaign – sucked donkey balls.
-FITS
By TK on April 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Is that a Trickle a Cole or a Dick?
By Justwondern on April 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
As my sr. sen. from SC, Lindsey is a major embarssment. I would expect him to wear a bra when doing pic. ops.
By Phillip Branton on April 28th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
What’s worse is that the WOMEN of South Carolina DO NOT ….GET it !!!!
As per …..
http://www.gaffneyledger.com/news/2009/0420/columns/012.html
Mrs. Landess is clearly LEADING woman….!!!!
If you need another example…..
The MOXIE section of the Post really enlightens the Ladies of the Lowcountry…..
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/apr/24/making_case_more_women_as_leaders79845/#comments
We wonder why Robert Ford or ANY fine RINO would not PROMOTE the actions of a young BLACK Reporter-ette…!?!?!
Here….watch..!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4xqkoPF2g
Lindsey Graham………..get busy !!!!!
By Silence Dogood on April 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
“Funny, we thought people of all genders, colors and sexual orientations liked personal freedom and being able to keep more of their money”
FITS, I think some voters may realize that fiscal convervatism, which many Democrats like John Spratt understand (he was the author of the ‘pay-go’ system which worked under Clinton) is just and incy wincy bit more complex and difficult than cutting taxes. Bush cut taxes, and therefore was seen by everyone in the GOP as a “fiscal conservative,” after the fact everyone now says – “well, he wasn’t really fiscally conservative.” Big spending and the foolishness to cut government revenue at the same time is the GOP way. No wonder people are rejecting that idea.
By fitsnews on April 28th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
SDG,
Good points … and we’ve never advocated tax cuts in isolation. In fact, from the article you just commented on, we proposed that the GOP cap spending and do a whole host of other fiscal conservative things.
-FITS
By wow on April 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
now that picture belongs on an official fits t-shirt
By medstudent on April 28th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Silence Dogood,
Great point.
‘Tax and spend’ may be an fair characterization of Democrats’ fiscal policy, but ‘borrow and spend’ is an fair characterization of Republicans’ fiscal policy. I wouldn’t call that fiscal conservatism, I’d call it fiscal irresponsibility.
And while the Democrats raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for the spending is berated as being awful for economic growth, let’s remember the Clinton years.
The longest period of peacetime economic growth happened under Clinton’s tax rates, with budget surpluses and debt reduction.
I just wish we had some more John Spratts in D.C.
By BIN News on April 28th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
sic(k) willie, your stupid photoshop pic is confusing.
Is it intended to make a point? Please explain.
Or Lindsey may stick that bayonet up your @rse.
Fiscal conservatives are one thing. Fiscal wackos are another.
Please don’t ask us to explain, because sic(k) willie has posted enough ultra right wing wacko cr@p on this blog to choke a porn star. Right, Howie?
It is unlikely that sic(k) willie is capable of choking a porn star. Perhaps he could kick one around with broken furniture, but he could not choke her.
BIN News Editorial Staff
By Silence Dogood on April 28th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
FITS, as a staunch Democrat (who does cross the isle at times) real fiscal conservatism – i.e. balanced budgets due to lesser spending – is perhaps one thing we agree on. The main problem with the Bush tax cuts was that they were done in vacuum. Also, once partisan glasses come off and more objective historical lenses are donned, I think looking back to see that we cut taxes/revenues for the governmetn at the same time we were managing an actual war on two fronts and significant increased domestic security spending to boot, not mention passig the biggest drug prescription give away in history under Medicare part D, Bush won’t get the historical thumbs up analysis he was hoping for.
If we do not learn to balance budgets sooner or later a day of reckoning is coming. As what I call – in my VERY hubmle opinion – a real fiscal conservative, I am for moderate tax increases and big government spending CUTS in order to get our nations fiscal house in order. Now given, you would get booed out of the state for advocating such a position, but it is the kind of pragmatism I think we need right now.
By Again with the gay baiting on April 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
More gay baiting. Great. And if Graham renews his ad spending for this blog, it will stop for a while. Again. Right?
By fitsnews on April 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Lindsey has never advertised with us unless it was some random Google ad. He is welcome to advertise with us if he wants, though, but it will stop (or start) nothing.
-FITS
P.S. – Why is it gay-baiting?
By One National Party Under God on April 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I frankly cant tell a tinker’s dam worth of difference between the Repugnants and the Democrats- they can play switcheroo back and forth between parties all they want- the taxpayers are going to get screwed either way.
Obama’s budget increased military spending – more troops to Afghanistan and vague talk about coming home from Iraq sometime in the future. Blatant deficit spending programs with no mention nor notion of how to ever balance a BUDGET. Massive bank bailouts , massive car bailouts, and a Federal Reserve which refuses to tell us where they are spending our money- which administration am I describing?
It could be Bush and or Obama -or Barney Frank or Trent Lott or Teddy Kennedy or Lindsey Graham. They would all do the same things. Fox news and MSNBC might tell you differently but just look at the big picture.
Look at the trend of our national debt under Bush and now Obama – it seems like a drunken race to see who can rape and pillage and bankrupt us the fastest.
By lou on April 28th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Fix Social Security??????? HAHAHAHAHA
Republicans fixed it in the early 90’s or late 80’s….one or the other and I am quite sure of that too.
By RON PAUL on April 29th, 2009 at 7:24 am
You speak the truth fits….I hope everyone holds the rinos to their actions.They should be the first ones tared and featherd.The Democrats at least now admit they are socialists. Read the Constitution!!!!!!