Misdirection, Inconsistency Among Graham Defenders

Keeping track of all the different left-of-center environmental advocacy groups currently pouring money into South Carolina on behalf of embattled U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has become a full-time job lately …

It seems that every day, a new group with a radio or television ad is popping up praising Graham for his “strong leadership” or “bold vision” on climate change legislation.  Meanwhile, those of us who criticize Graham’s position are accused of being in the pocket of “Big Oil.”

Personally, we’re opposing Graham on this issue because we don’t want to pay as much as $4,000 a year in increased energy costs, which is what President Barack Obama’s own Treasury Department has said the “Cap & Tax” proposal could cost each American family.

We’re also not 100% sold on global warming, but even if we were – Obama’s proposal wouldn’t make the slightest dent in the global emissions problem.

So what’s the point?

Anyway, we’ve already exposed the main thrust of the left wing’s pro-Lindsey campaign (here, here and here), but last week we uncovered no fewer than three additional efforts to prop up the RINO Senator – all of them involving some element of misdirection.

“(We) are seeking your involvement and good name for (another) SC newspaper ad thanking Sen. Graham for his strong stance on climate & energy and seeking a bi-partisan arrangement for this critical national and global issue,” reads one of the many emails we were forwarded. “Environmental Defense Action Fund will pay for the ad and we will seek a South Carolina host.”

Wait … they will “seek a South Carolina host?” How Borg-like.

In another email obtained exclusively by FITS, S.C. Coastal Conservation League president Dana Beach implores several of South Carolina’s “business leaders” (a.k.a. these people here, here and here) to get on board with another ad.

“We are putting an ad together thanking Lindsay Graham for his leadership on climate change,” Beach’s email reads. “Duke Energy is paying for it and we are hoping to have the 70 most influential people in the state sign it.”

Beach’s email may have been referring to an ad that has already been published – although we don’t recall seeing the Duke Energy name on the required “paid for” tag.

A third radio ad praising Graham – ostensibly paid for by a group called the South Alliance for Clean Energy – raises additional questions.

This group adamantly opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power – i.e. the very two issues Graham is trying to use as leverage to forge a compromise on climate change legislation.

“Nuclear power is an extremely risky and expensive way to boil water to generate electricity” the South Alliance website claims, urging its members to “fight against new nuclear power plant proposals here in the Southeast.”

Same thing with respect to drilling.

“We can’t drill our way to lower prices or energy independence, but we can drill our way to a climate disaster,” the South Alliance website claims. “As we look for ways to address climate change, increasing our addiction to fossil fuels with more offshore drilling will only add to the problem.”

Just yesterday, Graham praised the use of nuclear power in France – which derives 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power plants.

“Surely we can be as bold as the French,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C., where he is being feted as a “climate change powerbroker in the U.S. Senate.”

Similarly, Katon Dawson – one of the GOP dinosaurs trotted out to defend Graham on the climate change kerfuffle – specifically referenced Graham’s efforts to insert an offshore drilling provision within the “Cap and Tax” bill.

“At the end of the day, what we are looking for is offshore drilling for natural gas and Lindsey got that in the bill,” Dawson told the Columbia (S.C.) Free Times.

Hmmmm … last time we checked, groups didn’t run ads in support of elected officials who stood against two of their central provisions.

The only question, then, is “who’s taking advantage of who?”

Comments