You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
'Chill out,' Graham tells critics
2009-10-14
An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.

Graham returned the fire with a grin, at times shouting over his most boisterous critics and telling some who questioned his Christianity and party loyalty that their minority conservative views wouldn't succeed without the political
"If you don't like it, you can leave," he said. Some did.
coalitions he said are necessary to serve the majority of Americans and attract enough votes in Congress. "If you don't like it, you can leave," he said. Some did.
Very true. The system was designed to require compromise. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership doesn't want to, at the moment.
The 75-minute forum filled several sections of Furman University's Timmons Arena and attracted demonstrators, critics with handheld cameras, shouts of "traitor" and "Sotomayor" - and a smattering of supporters. Graham repeatedly told those who shouted to "chill out," and addressed most of the hot-button issues that have rankled some in the state's conservative epicenter, including an op-ed column he co-authored this week with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, which called for climate change legislation.

One man told Graham he had "betrayed" conservatism and made a "pact with the devil" by working with Democrats, and asked when Graham would switch parties. Graham said he's not going anywhere and instead would grow the party, defending his conservative credentials on such issues as abortion and guns, and calling the view of Libertarians who believe President Bush was a war criminal "nuts."
"We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to more shouts.
"We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to more shouts.

A woman who had been carrying a sign that condemned "unconstitutional, anti-Christ, socialist, federal, deficit-spending programs" told Graham "God does not compromise" and that he had violated his oath of office by supporting federal ideas, including health care reform that overstep states' rights.

Graham rejected the idea that the federal government should stay out of health care, saying few people want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and he defended his Christianity. He drew some applause by saying he opposes Obama's government option for health care because he said it would drive private enterprise out of business and add hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. He said he's not afraid to ask people who can afford care, like himself, to pay more, and that more competition, deregulation and tort reform are all ways to lower costs. "If we do nothing, we all lose," he said.

He handled other questions:
  • On climate change, Graham said he is working with Kerry because he wants to expand off-shore drilling and increase nuclear power to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. He said some caps on greenhouse gases are a reasonable trade-off to get a bill through Congress.

  • On Afghanistan, he said it's crucial to increase American forces to allow the safe training of future Afghan police and soldiers. To make progress through congressional action, he said, it will take working with Democrats to form Afghanistan benchmarks.

  • On his vote for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Graham said he's trying to return to confirming judges based on their legal qualifications to avoid the "never-ending assault" faced by nominees. He said President Obama's Supreme Court pick is no worse than Justice David Souter, whom she replaces.

  • On hate-crimes legislation, Graham said he is "dead-set" against legislation he said would elevate crimes based on sexual orientation to special federal prosecution, which he said is a precursor to recognizing same-sex marriage. But without a coalition, the measure will pass because there aren't enough Republicans to stop it, he said.

  • On illegal immigration, Graham said he's all for a border wall, as well as tamper-proof Social Security cards to help crack down on employers who hire the immigrants. He said he also wants to identify the 12 million illegal immigrants here now, make them pay taxes, learn English and hold a job, then send them home to the immigration line if they want to become citizens.
In the end, Graham told a decidedly right-leaning crowd he wants to build coalitions that will keep the country's politics "center-right." "America is not only worth fighting for, it's worth getting criticized for," he said.
Posted by:Fred

#8  Graham needs to stop talking and start listening.
Posted by: AutoBartender   2009-10-14 15:02  

#7  The people I talk to don't realize it's a Ponzi scheme, Ebbang Uluque6305, but we all trust that we post-Baby Boomers won't get a penny back, that it's all been a quiet way to support the retirements of those born earlier while we have to take care of ourselves.

As an aside, it is nice to see all the people who were away for the summer. Welcome back, y'all!
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-14 14:32  

#6  Compromise might be a good thing sometimes. But when the Democrats are leading the country into a disaster the smart thing to do would be to stand up and tell them to stop.


Graham rejected the idea that the federal government should stay out of health care, saying few people want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare


Oh, really? People I talk to generally understand that Social Security is little more than a Ponzi scheme. They resent the hell out of Big Brother not trusting us with our own money and giving us back pennies on the dollar.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-10-14 12:36  

#5  Jack is Back!: In this case, no. The founding fathers intended that Senators be appointed by their individual States, to give the States leverage against the federal government and maintain the federalism and anti-federalism balance.

But this was stupidly overturned in 1913 with the creation of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators; which was needed to fully implement the also stupid 16th Amendment, the Income Tax, and gave the federal government its first direct control over the people.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-10-14 10:33  

#4  This is the Senate. Always has been and always will be. Our founding fathers constructed our legislative system this way to calm extremism on either side.

Regarding the primary; who is going to run against him? Who has the big money to do the job that is required in a primary to beat a sitting senator? Mark Sanford? Hah!
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2009-10-14 10:24  

#3  "I can hear him on the phone with McCain afterwards: 'those crazy Republicans need to get out of our big-tent party'"
Posted by: Frank G   2009-10-14 10:11  

#2  He's having fun being a "maverick."
Posted by: Fred   2009-10-14 08:39  

#1  Graham, so you think your are safe in your seat?

The voters don't want this bill and you are playing with fire.

I see a fight against you and your safe seat in the future.
Posted by: Gloluger the Great5876   2009-10-14 00:33  

00:00