Lindsey Graham Tears Into Tea Party

This Year's GOP Maverick

Good thing he’s not up for reelection until 2014: Senator Lindsey Graham tears into the Tea Party in a New York Times Magazine article that doesn’t figure to sit well with his South Carolina constituents. “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,” he says. “It will die out.” He describes himself as being “completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement’s at,” especially on climate change, immigration, and the Guantanamo Bay detention center. And then he says something that will certainly cause a few gasps in the GOP: “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.” The never-married Senator also clears up rumors about his sexuality, saying “I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men…but I ain’t available. I ain’t gay. Sorry.”


Filed under Republicans

45 responses to “Lindsey Graham Tears Into Tea Party

  1. Glad he’s not a senator from my area of the country. He can pretend to represent “moderates” but what party is that? TEA people are not a political party, they are citizens yearning to abandon social engineering government programs. TEA want the freedom to choose, not the burden of being taxed to fund “new ideas” of social planning. We believe in a helping hand, but not designing people to fail. I remember the failed “public housing” of Chicago where people literally were dying to get out from government help. The “new idea” of our current President is turning the entire country into public housing.

  2. wicked

    It’s always good to start the day with a laugh. 🙂

  3. I live in Kansas and Senator Graham fails in comparison to Senator Brownback. In fact, can’t hold a candle to the amazingly stupid, backwards, outrageous Senators Brownback and Roberts from Kansas.

    From the article of the thread header I see that Lindsey Graham is among the best of the “deal makers.” These are the old time politicians who perfected the ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine’ kind of governing. Sadly, now that deals aren’t made as easily we are separated into the team who pushes legislation through and the team who have nothing but HELL NO!

    I expect an ad from a Republican any day now that says — We didn’t do anything, and in fact we couldn’t even stop the Democratic Party, but vote for us anyway. That’s us, the GOP, the party of nothing, no ideas, no solutions, no progress. You can count on us to take our country back — to say around the 1800s.

  4. davika

    ”I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men…but I ain’t available. I ain’t gay. Sorry.”

    LOL.. that was good!!!!

  5. tosmarttobegop

    The problem with the Tea party is that when listing their complains and what is a problem they see.
    Is that it is always too general, large and undefined phrases like “against the social engineering” when a better example of what hoboduke refers to by “designing people to fail” is welfare is a trap where the person can not advance or gain a stronger foot hold.

    Any gain that would allow a better stance is then taken away but the lost of that much welfare received.
    It also is tied in with the minim wage and the type of jobs that the person can get.
    Welfare gives a minim standard of living that is above that which a minim wage job would gain.
    Working for a employer that does not provide insurance or that they do is the premium is so high that it would take any money they earn.

    A good example is the net wage is eight hundred a month and the insurance premium is six hundred a month. The person on paper makes too much to qualify for any welfare or Medicate assistance.
    But the reality would be that they only after insurance is making two hundred a month.

    The incentive is not to get a job, it only makes common sense to stay on welfare and have its minim standard of living. Being trapped in a social program that is designed to have them be a failure.

    But the above I outlined is too complicated and lengthy to explain or shout while expressing outrage.
    To be honest most who consider themselves to be Tea partier would not even read that much of what I outlined….the details do not fit into the simple outrage felt by them.

  6. A ‘movement’ [big eye roll] names themselves Taxed Enough Already at a time when federal taxes are lower than they’ve been in 50 years. What does that tell you about how well informed they are? They are full of hate and more full of fear — after all, their party not only lost power, they have no leader, no ideas, no solutions and no candidates who both appeal to their base and Independents.

    • Freebird1971

      I think there is the same hate and fear coming from some on the left as well. If the Tea Party was such a non factor as has been said,why all the uproar? I just can’t see getting my knickers in a twist over people woho don’t believe as I do,they have as much right to voice their opinion as I do to voice mine.

      • WSClark

        The extremes on both sides are a little wacky, to put it mildly. The Tea Baggers, however, are more vocal and get more press than does the Left.

      • wicked

        The squeaky wheel always gets the grease.

        For instance, take the smoking ban. A few people bitched and moaned and finally got what they wanted…while others had their rights trampled. Why? Because those others didn’t pitch a screaming fit.

        So their going to fine smokers who break the new law upwards of $100 or more, while they slap a $5 fine on non-compliance of the new seatbelt law. Oh, and let’s not forget the texting-while-driving fine. Another $5. Does this make sense?

        I no longer smoke. I always wear my seatbelt–and not because I’ll get a ticket if I don’t–and I don’t text…EVER. Please let me scream Nanny Government! Oh, wait! Kansas (especially those representing us) is RED.

        I feel much better after that little rant. 🙂

      • wicked

        Holy crap! My spelling is atrocious. 50 lashes for me. 🙂

  7. My comments do no represent anyone but hobo unemployed outcasts. However, the “new ideas” of our President who wants to scrap the failed ideas of the past, is a little empty on facts or specifics. So my complaints and wise cracks are about as loaded with information as the President knows. So there, so much for large undefined phrases. How about “global warming” , “immigration reform”, “green energy”, and of course “new ideas” as being empty stupid meaningless political slogans that connect with nothing in reality! FDR during his fire side chats to the USA during the Depression gave target figures, dates, and action plans to make progress. Our current deal is to hire a czar, hold a commission, and not measure anything done with a couple trillion dollars! I’m getting hot under the collar, and better stop at this point.


      More information and details than any president in history has provided. It’s your choice, because we are a free country, to find the details or believe they aren’t available. It’s also your choice to spread the exaggerations and misinformation without relying on facts. But most people will readily recognize your opinions and be able to separate them easily from the facts.

    • WSClark

      As I wrote earlier this week, Hobo, without using the words “I wouldn’t have!” what would you have done beginning Janaury 20, 2010?

  8. Calvin Coolidge is a President we can use right now. No forced government bailout, GM went bankrupt anyway after we dumped 50 billion into the union pension fund of GM. Would have executed the senators that signed on eliminating the Glas Stegal Act from the the Depression that prevented banks from acting as retail banks and investment banks that President Clinton signed abolishing as outmoded and outdated. Would stop the pension of President Clinton for signing that abolition law. And doing nothing, would not have cost a couple of trillion, and we would be better off today. Oh yeah, the sweetheart mortgage deals our senators and representatives plus campaign warchests from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, Bank of America would all have to be returned. Doing nothing would be better than today.

    • WSClark

      Ah, virtually every leading economist has stated emphatically that “doing nothing” would have led to a worldwide depression, one that would have been deeper than the Great Depression.

      • Sorry to report, the world is in a deeper and more prolonged drop than the Great Depression thanks to our economic response. What comes next is inevitable. When governments run out of money from taxes, they go to war to restore their treasury. World War III is already underway. Normally a war restores the economy, but with this crew in the White House they will screw that up too.

    • wicked

      Normally a war restores the economy, but with this crew in the White House they will screw that up too.


      So how did that work with Iraq? So how did that work while cutting taxes? So how did that work when not including the costs of that war? The one charged on the Chinese credit card?

      Oh, that’s right, it was okay when the “right” people were handling things.

      Am I the only person who notices that some are able to completely ignore the recent past?

      • Our green energy policy here in the USA literally tied hands of those bidding on IRAQ oil industry business. We walked away from profiting, and allowed other nations to walk in and get the lucrative oil contract. Strange way to deal with Iraq? It seems our diplomacy and international trade is based on the new religion of green energy. No one has clearly defined that as yet, but it’s a “new idea”.

      • Freebird1971

        Not saying it is the case now but WWII yanked us out of the depression.

      • wicked

        Freebird, I don’t disagree with you on the WWII facts. But those facts also show that there was a shift in the country that backed our participation in that war. (And please remember that it was a war.)

        Compare that past to our venture into Iraq. President Bush encouraged us all to go shopping!

      • WSClark

        Could you be more specific as to how our “green energy policy” tied the hands of those bidding on Iraqi oil business. We had two “oil men” running the show, so how is it that our “policy” preempted us from gaining access to the oil?

    • WSClark

      “Sorry to report, the world is in a deeper and more prolonged drop than the Great Depression thanks to our economic response.”

      Sorry, but you are not even close. The Great Depression lasted over a decade and at it’s height, well over twenty five percent of Americans were out of work.

      To describe this recession as anything remotely close to the Depression certainly minimizes those years of economic and social disaster.

      • Freebird1971

        And please remember that it was a war

        I consider any venture where our troops die a war,but you are right Iraq was wrong(even my son who is a vet shared those thoughts with me in his first letter home from there) and although Afghanistan was justified the focus on what we are there for seems to be lost and I put the blame for that directly on XXXX.

      • wicked

        Freebird, if we felt we had to go into Afghanistan, we should have stayed until the job was done. We’re only there now because we didn’t do that. And Iraq was a mistake.

        For what it’s worth, my opinion is we never should’ve gone into Afghanistan in the first place. Why our military (and much of our government) thinks we can succeed in something that has proven to be a disaster in the past and present is beyond me. It makes it really hard to be “proud.”

  9. WSClark

    Just as an aside, I would like to personally thank the lovely Ms. Fnord for thoroughly screwing up my plans.

    In researching topics for next week, I had been looking into Senator Graham’s career with the intention of writing a similar piece regarding the Senator from South Carolina’s efforts at bipartisanship.

    I do not necessarily agree with his politics, but Senator Graham seems to be one of the few in his party willing to buck the Tea Baggers.

    So, cross that one off the list!

    • Freebird1971

      Rumor has it she did it on purpose

    • I’m sorry! We’ll need to re-sync our crystal balls. I would still be very interested in your thoughts on the Senator.

      I don’t like the ‘deals’ that used to be politics, but now realize they are preferable to gridlock.

      This will sound sexist because it is, but we need more women in elected office. A bunch more, enough to minimize the old white guys who have been in power so long they feel entitled.

      • Freebird1971

        I don’t necessarily look at the sex of the person who I am voting for. To me who they are and what they stand for is much more important than what sex they are.

      • WSClark

        A part of the reason I supported Barack Obama in the primaries and in the general was that I felt he could bring an element of bipartisanship to Washington.

        Unfortunately, I under estimated the opposition that stood foursquare against him even before he took the oath.

      • WSClark

        The only time I consider the sex of someone is when it comes to sex.

        That, and the SI Swimsuit edition.

      • Freebird, we don’t have as many female candidates to look at. It’s still a man’s world, like so many other industries and businesses.

      • It would be absolutely the greatest help if we actually did hear who most candidates are and what they stand for. Usually party politics and platforms, and hot-button items turn into soundbites that mean nothing.

        Most candidates rely on tactics that trigger anger, hatred and fear against the other party. Few give us a vision for the future that is solution-oriented and inspiring. So campaigning turns into another way to divide America. This is before they’re even elected! Wonder what would happen if they opened the polls and no one showed up to vote for any of them?

  10. tosmarttobegop

    There is always the valid question of what to do? This is not a put down of being Conservative.
    I is one! I am so conservative that when ever having a bowl movement I always set for another five minutes after feeling I am done. Just in case I am not and I do not want to waste toilet paper!

    But there is a difference between being slow and deliberate in doing anything to make sure it is the right and good thing to do. And simply setting there collecting taxpayer funded wage and saying “Ah….NO!”.

    They are elected to handle the hard decisions and the important things are always a hard decision.
    Complicated and detailed they are elected so we the majority of people do not have to labor with these decisions.

    such decisions are not a matter of simply a yes or no answer.

  11. I am positive there are people involved in the Tea Party Movement who are honest, disappointed people. People who want change and improvements. But they’re definitely not the ones we hear enough about.

    I can’t be for a movement that screams we need to vote out incumbents and yet isn’t as interested in getting rid of Republicans as they are Democratic incumbents. I can’t be for a movement that screams for government to leave its hands out of their Medicare and Social Security. I can’t be for a movement that doesn’t recognize we currently have the lowest federal taxes in over FIFTY years. And its just plain hypocrisy to scream that President Obama is trashing the Constitution and ignore what bushco did during their reign of terror. It isn’t true that President Obama is going to take your guns away! Today gun owners have more rights than they did under Bush 2 — that’s a fact!

    Now if we could actually be honest, quit exaggerating, quit yelling and begin to examine where we agree and build from there I would welcome that kind of discussion. But when facts are ignored and you begin from a place that isn’t close to reality what chance is there for compromise?

  12. wicked

    I believe we need both liberals and conservatives in government. It takes a balance. It takes that dirty word (compromise) to make things work for the majority. That doesn’t mean there won’t be people who aren’t happy with the outcome. That’s a given. But saying NO to everything and not offering legitimate suggestions is childish.

    • WSClark

      One of the things that encourages me about Obama is that he has managed to piss off both the right and the left.

      Must be doing sumptin’ right!

    • Freebird1971

      And it is childish no matter who is doing it.

      I believe we need both liberals and conservatives in government
      I just don’t understand why some find that an impossible concept to grasp

  13. Freebird1971

    what would happen if they opened the polls and no one showed up to vote for any of them?

    Years ago I saw a bumper sticker that said “don’t vote,It just encourages them”

    • tosmarttobegop

      This may sound like I am totally disillusioned. But they would win the election anyway.
      The concept of represented government through voting for the candidate of choice is more a bright and shinny object that is used to appease the unwashed masses.

      It truly is not the people that decide if they ever truly did.

  14. tosmarttobegop

    Senator Graham is pretty typical of the Republican officials I like. More pragmatic then ideological.
    I do not agree with every stance he does take, but realize he is also in between a rock and a hard place.
    There is the right and sensible thing to do and then there is the problem of having to please the base in order to be re-elected to continue to be able to do the right and sensible things in the governing.

    He does try to balance between his conservative leanings and where such leaning are not what is needed for the best. That is bound to cause him problems in the atmosphere that is flowing through the party.
    From the blind ideological and partisan that see anything less then hard blind ideological and partisan.
    As selling out or betraying the people, again no problem has such simple answer as yes or no.

  15. trojanwife

    Senator, you may not want to come out as being gay, but you also should not pose as being a Republican.

    • WSClark

      God forbid a Republican should be willing to compromise for the good of his country!

      Shoot the SOB!

    • indypendent

      Another person playing that RINO card.

      I am so sick and tired of seeing people who think they, and only they, know what a real Republican should be.

      What I would like to ask is why are these RINO haters so obsessed about someone’s sex life?

      There must be something obviously missing in one’s life to be constantly obsessing about another person’s sex life.

      That is just too perverted for my taste.

  16. indypendent

    What is really pathetic is alot of these so-called real Republicans who are gay-haters also profess to be such good Christians.

    Sen. Graham has stated he is not gay and that should be the end of the bombardment of accusations.

    For these so-called Christians to keep spreading the inuendos that Graham is gay would be guilty of bearing false witness.

    And I believe bearing false witness is a big NO-NO in God’s eyes – at least that is what the Christian Bible states.

  17. I’ve seen the Tea Party as mostly people who rebell against those intelectuals who tell them what they don’t want to hear. Anyone who stands up against them deserves brownie points in my book.