Lindsey Graham’s RINO-Green Defenders
One of the most liberal Republican politicians in the South Carolina legislature is reportedly being called upon to defend one of the biggest RINOs in Washington, D.C.
Sources tell FITS that State Sen. John Courson (RINO-Columbia), will be appearing in a new television ad on behalf of embattled U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, whose poll numbers have been taking a steady nosedive in recent weeks – and are poised to plummet even further in light of his support of a controversial energy tax hike.
Oh, and the fact that he’s been picking a fight with the fiscal conservative wing of the GOP.
Courson was observed being filmed by a camera crew in front of the Strom Thurmond memorial on the State House grounds in Columbia, S.C. recently, and has told several people that he was taping an ad in support of Graham.
Sources tell FITS that the pro-Graham television advertisement will be paid for by the national environmental lobby, which is pushing for the passage of the “Cap & Tax” energy bill.
According to documents obtained earlier this year from the U.S. Treasury Department, “Cap & Tax” could increase the average American family’s energy costs by as much as $4,o00 a year.
Details coming soon …
Comments
By dirtbogger on October 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Bo Dietl speaks of carbin tax. Note; Duke Energy wants the Carbin tax any one who has read Atlas Shrugged knows why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umBGjkt89Y8
By Fact check needed.... on October 28th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
With today’s hyper partisan atmosphere in across the country, Senator Graham should be commended for his efforts to reach across the aisle. We have more than one party in this country for a reason, and he recognizes that the best way to move forward is through cooperation rather than blind opposition.
Second, the bill in question proposes a cap and TRADE system, distinct from a tax. A cap, as opposed to a tax, allows the market to determine the most cost-effective way for industries to reduce pollution. A tax applies the same costs to everyone, without taking variances in competitive advantage into account.
Finally, FITS mentions “documents obtained earlier this year from the U.S. Treasury Department” — these documents are outdated, and are not an accurate cost analysis of either the climate bill that passed the House or the one currently in committee in the Senate. Actual costs, as verified by recent EPA analysis, are around $10 per household per month.
By fitsnews on October 28th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Fact-checker,
Nice try … from our previous coverage (http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/09/30/boxer-botox-man-sell-cap-tax/)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Documents obtained from the U.S. Treasury Department show the potential annual cost of the so-called “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” (a.k.a. “cap and tax”) reaching as high as $300 billion, meaning an American family of four could be paying as much as $4,000 more a year in extra energy costs.
That’s a far cry from what President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats have been selling the American people via a proposal formerly known as “cap and trade.”
A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis claimed “cap and trade” would only cost the average family $175 more a year, but the Wall Street Journal called that estimate “a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity.”
Additionally – and here’s the kicker – the CBO analysis assessed only the day-to-day costs of the program, not the ripple effects of energy restriction on the broader economy. And that’s not just us speculating, either … in a barely-noticed footnote on its summer report, the CBO admits that its figure “does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”
Well, well, well …
The recently-uncovered Treasury documents do, though.
They reveal that the tax hike “may result in loss of domestic and international market shares for U.S. companies, and relocation of U.S. firms abroad, representing both a political problem and an environmental problem.” The documents also single out how “energy-intensive sectors, such as the steel, aluminum, paper, chemicals, and cement industries, where imports are ready substitutes and lower carbon technologies are not widely available, are clearly vulnerable.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now … whatcha got?
-FITS
By Upstate Conservative on October 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Fits wrote, “….U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, whose poll numbers have been taking a steady nosedive in recent weeks…”
Can you link to a poll to back that bold statement up?
By Crush on October 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
FITS,
What is that picture of on your golfball?
By Britney Bennett on October 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“With today’s hyper partisan atmosphere in across the country, Senator Graham should be commended for his efforts to reach across the aisle.”
Agreed. There is no honor in saying nothing but “no” for four years, particularly when you’re often saying no for the wrong reasons, such as the altogether unimportant “party unity.”
By me on October 28th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
why are they running ads? he isn’t up for election for years and he will once again be re elected by the dumb asses in this state who vote for R’s no matter who they are.
By Jon on October 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Mark my words, by year’s end Lindsey Graham will help enable Obama to enact a weak and terrible health care bill and an expensive Cap and Trade Bill.
Either he is a democrat… or being blackmailed (for some unacceptable behavior). Either way, we get screwed. I will never vote for him again.
By fitsnews on October 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
People, people, people … “bipartisanship” (which operates on the flawed assumption that there is a nickel’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans) is not inherently good or bad.
A bipartisan bailout or tax hike, for example, would be bad. A bipartisan tax cut or spending cap, on the other hand, would be good.
One person’s “reach across the aisle” is another person’s sell-out.
-FITS
By Liberty For Me on October 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Energy Tax….that sounds like a great economy builder…
Gee since our dollar has lost 10% of its value in less than a year and we are printing more every day to make it worse..Sure another tax sounds brilliant.Just like the communist Graham
By Reality Check on October 28th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Fact Check: You state, “Actual costs, as verified by recent EPA analysis, are around $10 per household per month.”
First of all, there is absolutely no way that this program will only cost tax payers ten dollars a month. That’s a joke. Longterm costs are going to suffocate our citizens. BUT… even if that were the case:
I would like to know how you, Graham or anyone else can justify implementing any additional financial burdens on South Carolina’s families. While ten dollars may not seem like a lot to an environmental lobbyist, you would be surprised how many of our folks do indeed live paycheck to paycheck – literally counting pennies to make ends meet.
There is no reason for the government to continue to reach into the pocketbooks of hard working and now out-of-work Americans – especially for yet another unnecessary GOVERNMENT program. It’s a Shame that Graham needs the “endorsement” of another RINO to make himself feel better about financially burdening his voters.
By Old Bike Dude on October 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Lindsey Graham will be defeated when pigs fly. Upstate voters are much smarter if not somewhat more devious than their coastal counterparts.
Besides sic I gotta leave you hangin’ on this one and go with Britney. Hell the avatar was the best argument presented.
btw Graham is right on cap and trade. South Carolina needs cap and trade. We need to bust a cap in the ass of the legislature and trade our luvguv for a 9th round draft pick, a 6 pack of Bud, and a Swisher blunt.
By Gomer on October 28th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
A true RINO will tax anything for any reason. Let’s take cap and trade. The earth’s temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. Lindsey and fellow liberals see this as an opportune time to issue more taxes.
If the temperature starts dropping in the next few years, I would suspect Lindsey would find some other way to tax us and leave the cap and trade tax in effect too.
By Lattitude on October 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
The environmentalists are the single most influential lobby in Washington, second only the trial lawyers.
Imagine how many great American cities are built on or near wetlands–Boston, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Charleston, etc.,– all cities whose construction would have been prohibited by today’s restrictive environmental codes.
Environmental cultists are very willing to cite America’s large consumption of energy in comparison to the rest of the world. However, America’s farmers feed the rest of the world.
John Deere tractors don’t run on BS like Washington. Farming is very fuel-intensive. The rest of the would benefits from our agricultural production, despite their protests of our “carbon footprint.”
By Lattitude on October 29th, 2009 at 7:09 am
The environmentalists are the single most influential lobby in Washington, second only the trial lawyers.
Imagine how many great American cities are built on or near wetlands–Boston, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Charleston, etc.,– all cities whose construction would have been prohibited by today’s restrictive environmental codes.
Environmental cultists are very willing to cite America’s large consumption of energy in comparison to the rest of the world. However, America’s farmers feed the rest of the world.
John Deere tractors don’t run on BS like Washington. Farming is very fuel-intensive. The rest of the would benefits from our agricultural production, despite their protests of our “carbon footprint.”
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
By Scott on October 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Heard a radio ad this morning featuring Senator Courson. It was sponsored by the Truman National Security Project http://www.trumanproject.org/
This organization bills itself as progressive and has Madeleine Albright and John Podesta on its board of advisors.
It’s funny that they deride “Washington special interest” groups in the ad and identify Courson as a conservative. Of course, next to Albright and Podesta – Courson is a bona fide knuckle dragging conservative.
By Workin' Tommy C on October 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
The fascist “big lie” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie ) of “global cooling”/”global warming”/”climate change” is outrageous to a reasonable mind that has studied all the facts and is itself firmly grounded in reality.
This foot-in-the-backdoor attempt at even more socialism is just another organized and no-so-organized attack on our rights and liberties.
The whole idea that elitist fascist corporations (who will receive gratis the bulk of the taxpayer funded “pollution credits”) get to create their own stock market at our expense is so bizarre that one has to either laugh or cry at the fact that it’s being seriously (or cynically?) considered in Congress.
Of course the beneficiaries and enviro-zealots who will monetarily and otherwise benefit from the outlandish scam are all for it. They nod seriously when discussing it in somber tones while dollar signs flash repeatedly in their eyes.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
Isn’t this all just some sick joke being played on the tax paying voters of this country?
These people promoting cap & tax must either be mentally retarded or they’re the most cynical, hard-nosed, big lie socialists ever seen on earth. What incredible cojones the have–AND THEY’RE GETTING AWAY WITH IT THANKS TO LINDSEY GAHAM AND OTHERS PRETENDING(?) TO SWALLOW THIS NONSENSE!
The working poor and middle class will be further destroyed by this as the gap between rich and poor continues to widen as it has since at least the Bush II years.
By Matt on October 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I’ll second what Scott said above. I just heard the Courson for Graham radio ad on News Radio WORD in Greenville. The disclaimer says it is paid for by the Truman National Security Project. Anyone who follows this kind of stuff knows that this is a Democratic-affiliated foreign policy group out of DC. Even the people involved with it are called “Truman Democrats”.
By K Trane on October 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I have a buddy in law school who always argues that Democrats are the representatives of the poor. But who does a $4,000 a year spike in taxes hurt more – the poor or the Democrat elitists (yes…Al Gore)?
In another note, Obama said in an interview that he would bankrupt anybody who started a coal plant. I wonder how the coal minor unions in West Virginia feel about that now? Obama is going to bankrupt the state of West Virginia who has an economy less diversified than Michigan. I wonder if coal unions will now start voting Republican?