Thursday, November 12, 2009

Tea Baggers to Graham: Don't Talk to Dems

On Monday, the Charleston County Republican Party’s executive committee “took the unusual step” of officially censuring Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The local GOP committee admonished Graham for stepping across party lines to work with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) on a bipartisan clean energy bill and other pieces of legislation. The censure stated that Graham’s “bipartisanship continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom.”

For those who say the democrats don't work with republicans, remember the line above from South Carolina, but I believe from many, many in the Republican party in general:
BIPARTISANSHIP (with Democrats) continues to weaken the Republican brand and TARNISH THE IDEALS OF FREEDOM!
This is typical of one party saying that no matter what the other party says, no matter what the other does, we will not talk to you, we will not work with you ON ANYTHING! You hurt our brand.
The piece goes on further to say:
"Will Graham be able to stand up to the angry backlash being cultivated by far right voices and entrenched corporations interests? At a Graham town hall in Greenville last month, activist Harry Kimball of “RINO HUNT” protested by constructing a display that portrayed Graham, as well as other GOP moderates, being flushed down a toilet:KIMBALL: This is for every RINO who has failed to represent us. [...] [the toilet represents] flushing them, flushing them."
Lindsey Graham is a conservative Senator from South Carolina with a little conscience, who sometimes works with the other side to get things done. It cracks me up when they call him a RINO. He has proven his political hackery solidarity with his party. Remember, Graham was the lead Republican lawyer representing their side in the Senate in trying to bring the last Democratic President down in the impeachment hearings of President Clinton.

One readers comment on that piece: So now GRAHAM isn’t ‘Pure’ enough? Dear Lord. Is that Hell I hear freezing over? These people are truly insane. But hey, if they want to eat their own, who I’m I to stop them?

Please read the piece at Think Progress.

I believe the American people are best served by a robust, honest debate between two (or more) strong political parties.

5 comments:

  1. I don't think bipartanship for the sake of itself is always what's best for the nation. The elephant and the donkey are supposed to be separate animals with different ideas which offer the citizens a choice. Too often it is the bipartisan agenda which hurts the American public. It seems the two animals are both in bed with big business, thus diverting our tax dollars into the coffers of the uber wealthy, and plunging this nation deeper into debt. It is out of the furnace of real differences that new ideas can be forged. Too often the "Republicrat" ideas move us away from the vision our Founding Fathers had. As to the specific merits of the Republcan brand being tarnished by anything Lindsay Graham can do, can you hear me laughing? Both parties have diluted their messages in order to win re election and hang onto power.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, by the way, I read the linked article. I noticed that the headline is different from your article's banner. I assume you wrote your own headline and I think it's interesting that you singled out "tea baggers". If there is vigorous debate these days, it is because of them. People are fed up by the betrayal of our Congress and are making their voices heard. They are not all Republicans. But they sure scared the living daylights out of the Democrats--remember "the mob" ad?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sheila, sorry to say, I think many good, regular Americans have been hood-winked by the right. I'm not debating the tea baggers here. I cannot imagine the outrage that middle-class Americans have over the health care issue, yet continue to think it's OK for the health care industry to get rich on their dime, denying people coverage, refusing treatment (real day death squads), and basically in my judgement, just shafting the middle class. You guys hear Glenn Beck talk about taxes, blah, blah, blah, and say "Yeah, I don't want my taxes to go for socialized medicine", yet still think it's OK for corporations to shaft you.
    It's really evident in the banking/insurance crisis. WHERES THE OUTRAGE? Why don't the tea baggers protest bankers and insurance companies that are propped up with favorable laws and tax breaks? They don't, because they don't know, or don't understand. What they have done is no less than welfare for the banks. You want to cut welfare rolls? Start with the corportations that pay ZERO, NO, NADA TAXES. Where's the outrage?
    It's all backwards. There should be an uprising in this country so strong that every middle-class American could support against what has happened to our money, yet nobody even thinks of this because we are led to believe that socialists like President Obama want to take their/our money to pay for health care for the poor. It's astounding. Remember the French Revolution. "Off with their heads", that is the kind of outrage that I think we should be going through.
    The middle class is totally manipulated by the media. I don't mean just Fox, but the main stream media as well. About ten years back there was a book called "What's the matter with Kansas" in which the authors chronicled the middle-class and poor people of Kansas voting AGAINST their self interests time and again because of the religious right and the media.
    These are things I really believe.
    I would urge anyone to read the book and consider what has happened in the last 30 years in this country.
    Don't call me socialist. Don't call me unpatriotic because I don't support an idiot President's war, and don't call me unAmerican, because I love my country, and the constitution as much or more than anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I worked in a doctor's office for a few years and I saw first hand how patients had to fight to get needed tests and treatments paid for. From pre-existing conditions, to referrals, to precertifications, to capitations, insurance companies had so many hoops the patients had to jump through that it was ridiculous. For me, health care reform means requiring the insurance companies to provide the care that its members pay for. That is what the people I talk to want. We don't need another government health plan to do that. What we need to do is legislate morality, in a sense--it is immoral to deny someone life saving treatment if the premiums are up to date. Pre existing conditions are exactly why people need health care coverage. If you have a chronic condition like high blood pressure, you are more likely to need medical care, and thus, you need coverage. I wouldn't have a problem with varying fees based on the medical conditions of the members, but to collect thousands of dollars in premiums and then deny coverage ought to be illegal. The banking crisis is another topic. Bush's TARP was an outrage, and yet our new President topped that one with his buy out of GM and the massive stimulus bill. We have to stop the massive spending we are doing. People look at the national debt and are apoplectic. In the end, the tea party participants are out there because they have indeed been hood winked by the right. And, by the left as well. Both sides of the aisle better watch out. Americans are finally starting to give a damn about the bottom line of the nation, and if the massive debt issue isn't addressed, we may have that revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Health insurance reform is getting a corporation to pay it's customers what they bought?
    Throw them in jail today.
    We need to legislate morality? We're not even close on this one. It is immoral to deny someone life saving treatment if their premiums are up to date? You're serious when you say that, or jut trying to get me going. How about if their payments are not up to date? It is then moral for the corporations to deny life saving treatment? Is that what the church teaches? Mine does not.
    No, in my opinion, people need health care so they don't develop pre-existing conditions. In other words they need to be able to see a primary care doctor rather than going to the emergency room for an amputation after their diabetic leg turned gagne-green (sp?).
    I can't go on with this.

    ReplyDelete