I think he also noted that new invention people are calling “The Phone” will never catch on and no one, absolutely no one, would ever want to switch from the reliable horse to that freakish thing called “The Automobile.” Or something.
…On four occasions, Graham met with Tea Party groups. The first, in his Senate office, was “very, very contentious,” he recalled. During a later meeting, in Charleston, Graham said he challenged them: “ ‘What do you want to do? You take back your country — and do what with it?’ . . . Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent.”
In a previous conversation, Graham told me: “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. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.” […]
The White House logs do not record visits paid by U.S. senators. According to his office’s records, however, Lindsey Graham has been to the West Wing 19 times since Barack Obama became president. When I asked the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, if any other Republican senator was so frequent a guest, he thought for a moment before responding, rather doubtfully, “Maybe Susan Collins.”
His greater transgression, however, has been his willingness — even eagerness — to seek common ground with Democrats. For his sins, Glenn Beck termed the senator Obama Lite, while Rush Limbaugh labeled him Lindsey Grahamnesty. Less tame are the blogosphere monikers, like “Miss Lindsey,” that play off of Graham’s never-married status.
Oh yes, that’s right, I call everyone who’s never been married “Miss.” ROTFLMAO!!
Okay, in all fairness to the Never-Married-Dude Lindsey, he notes:
During a South Carolina Tea Party rally this spring, one speaker created an uproar by postulating that Graham supported a guest-worker program out of fear that the Democrats might otherwise expose his homosexuality. (Graham smirked when I brought this up. “Like maybe I’m having a clandestine affair with Ricky Martin,” he said. “I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men — I’m sure hundreds of ’em are gonna be jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge — but I ain’t available. I ain’t gay. Sorry.”)
Well, actually I was thinking someone more like Paul Lynde. But I could be wrong.
Ha ha ha!
He’s never going to live down “Miss Lindsey.” Did you see the political quote of the day? Apparently, he’s worried men might throw themselves from the Golden Gate Bridge because he’s “not gay.”
Well, if Miss Lindsey is looking for things that should die out, I’m thinking that there might be a tacky sequined number in that little ‘ol closet of his that has seen better days.
Maybe something like this: http://tinyurl.com/2f9qwqu
or perhaps this: http://tinyurl.com/2e4zj7c
And yes, Tammy, totally with you on Paul Lynde. LOL!
LOL, Kelly. You’re so right.
That second picture looked like Dame Edna. No, Dame Edna has class!
girl, the real issue is when are you going to finally be dragged out of the closet as a flaming liberal pinko girly-man democrat because you ain’t fooling no one. your eagerness to ‘work with’ tyrannical democrats isn’t civil or rational or proof of your fair mindedness- it’s complicity in the destruction of our rule of law and constitution.
and take the new england twin girls with you. pretend to be Labelle- i know you’d like that, soul sister.
in case you haven’t noticed- and i mean how could you not as apparently you’re right there sitting on urkel’s lap exchanging recipes and hair tips and what not all the time- it’s the democrats who have shut the republicans and, most importantly, the citizens out of government. your snotty distaste for the tea party rests not on your lame ass assessment of their quite well spelled out political agenda- clearly you see yourself as insightful and near visionary in your exposé of the doltish thick peasants- but rather on the fact that they’re reading your beads quite successfully and they do not like what you’re doing. and they are no longer shutting up about how you are not representing their will.
the values espoused by the tea party are very much those of our founding fathers and ronald reagan and have always been the core values of the majority of americans. these faddish ideas (they’re called ‘ principles’, miss thing) never went away it’s rather politicians like you who have spent generations selling them out and lying about your own principles or lack thereof.
the tea party isn’t the problem -the problem is self serving arrogant politicians and runaway government . your answer to democrat psychosis and rule by decree is to pour more gas on urkel’s fire by aiding and abetting. the tea party rightly sees the democratic small d solution as removing the politicians lighting the fires first then returning to the principles that founded this country over 200 years ago- it’s called the Constitution and it has never gone away despite the best efforts of legions of liberal politicians and judges. if you find common ground with the democrats you need to go- that’s the depraved ‘ vision for running the country’ that’s running us into the ground.
That is what I am always saying: I ain’t gay.
But I do waddle like a duck when I try to walk.
###
Graham, Snowe, Collins, Brown, Cao, McCain, Spector and some lesser lights are all seduced by the concept of The Most Important Republican in the World. And that’s always been the key Republican that sides with Democrats to forge the liberal majority.
The Tea Parties will fade away after this conception of politics has been drawn, quartered, staked through the heart, and torn into little bitty momma-bear-sized morsels. Right after each of these politicians’ memories are dragged through the mud, and summarily dismissed. While Graham and friends are still talking to the media, there is zero possibility that the Tea Party — dispersed conservatives acting in concert, sans big money, sans media cooperation, sans top down control, committed to “Stop Spending”, etc — will fade away.
Graham would like to marginalize the Tea Party people much like blacks are marginalized by the Democrat party. His problem is, like that of any other grifter, that you can’t cheat an honest man. To get acceptance from the Tea Party people, Graham would has to transform himself.
Just in, Monday July 12. Scott Brown is buying his prom dress right now.
Reminder, there are 113 days to 11/2/2010. And probably another 5 years of Brown’s softshoe before that particular senator gets worse.
“…that freakish thing called “The Automobile.” Or something.”
I believe they call it a Horseless Carriage.
Mark Levin has the perfect nickname for this worthless piece of South Carolina trash–Goober.
die out my ass!
Well, isn’t that special, Miss Lindsey. Did Juan tell you to say that?
When Kim Komando sought to take her computer-topic radio show national in 1994, network executives told her that computers and internet were a fad, like the pet rock, and would never catch on.
Even more than computers, there is a real need and passion for tea parties. Wishing them to go away won’t make it so, and Miss Lindsey is a moron.
Miss Lindsey discounts the Tea Party at her own peril.
The comments are dismissive and exactly what I want to hear. Graham is the product of a lifetime in institutions, with their culture of well defined rules, structure and goals. He has literally always been a cog in an organizational machine. He does not have the insight, based on experience, to understand that the Tea Party movement at this point in time is not an event, but a stage (The Growth Stage) in the evolutionary cycle of all organizations. If Graham, an experienced politician, cannot honestly comprehend what is going on, then chances are no one else of any consequence in the machines can comprehend either. As in nature, if a competing organization cannot or will not adapt, they will wither away for sure.
Die out?…He is delusional, amazing what exists in his imagination…far from reality
Graham might very well have put his finger on something that’s an important distinction about the Tea Party movement, though I think he misses the point.
When United We Stand America, a grassroots movement inspired by Ross Perot, got going in 1992, we were accused of the same thing: we don’t stand for anything. Reporters could find UWSA supporters who seemed more excited about being a part of something that was against what the government was doing, than having anything coherent to say. What the media did was set expectations: We didn’t stand for anything, because they couldn’t understand what we were about. The conclusion that was put out was “They’re just a bunch of angry, scared white people.” Translate this today to “People who cling to their guns and religion.” What we stood for at the time was mainly “balance the budget, reduce the federal debt”. There was more detail behind that, which Perot supplied, but that was the basic thrust. This was portrayed as “nothing”, because we weren’t proposing new things for government to do at all. Unlike many Republicans, we were for smaller government, and we meant it! What we wanted was for the government to spend less and reduce the debt while doing whatever the political consensus in the country said should be the government’s priorities. There were specific policy proposals in that if anyone cared to look, but few in the establishment cared. The reason they said it was “nothing” was because it didn’t fit the progressive philosophy of government! It was really about establishing a basic philosophy of fiscal discipline. We felt comfortable leaving the details of implementation to others. What we had were our votes, and to a certain extent our dollars. We had a “field of dreams” strategy: “Build it, and they will come.” We were in essence an interest group, even though we preferred not to think of ourselves that way, because we saw interest groups as wanting the government to spend more, not less.
What was interesting is at the time we had an independent political candidate who was “the designated hitter”, if you will, of our movement. He was the spokesman. I think the reason the Perot candidacy happened is because people in the movement felt powerless to affect change, and were searching for leverage. In that way people got the idea that we were a prototype of a political party, and so we should have policies at the ready about taxes, education, foreign policy, defense, etc. We had some of that. Perot published about 3 books that had many policy proposals, mostly about budgetary issues. What the establishment was looking for was something that resembled a “plan”, or at the very least a “bumper sticker” brand, something that would fit in a sound bite. We didn’t have that, from my perspective, though if one tried, one could’ve expressed it succinctly as, “Increase taxes, and cut entitlements spending” as a way of producing budget surpluses and reducing the federal debt. But this didn’t have the feel of “a vision for America”. I think that’s the reason why we so often got labeled as having “nothing”, because the question from the establishment would be, “Okay. Say you succeed in doing that, then what? You can’t keep doing that forever.” You can almost hear that in what Graham said. This is a legitimate point, but only if you think that we were trying to establish a new political order for generations to come. We weren’t. What we were really about was a new philosophy, not a new order. We were about addressing specific, significant problems in our republic which we felt were not being addressed by either major party. Since we weren’t engaged in a “100 year plan”, the establishment put little value in what we had to say.
The Tea Party has a similar dynamic to what I describe with UWSA, though the leadership is diffused, and the overall agenda, if we could point to one umbrella concept, is somewhat different. Rick Santelli I think said it pretty well the other day, “Stop spending! Stop spending! STOP SPENDING!!!” though I think there’s more to it than that. What’s also different this time is the Tea Party does not have a singular leader. It is very deliberately picking and choosing which candidates to support. I think it has gotten its role in the political process right, and this will provide the longevity needed for a sustained effort. I think unlike UWSA it makes no bones about being an interest group (I’m using the term broadly).
I think what the UWSA movement and the Tea Party movement have said implicitly is that we don’t need to worry about setting up a new order. The Founders of this country did that, and we respect what they established, or at least we’ll try. What both have in common is a desire for smaller government, one that lives within its means, a philosophy of prudential spending. What some elements of the Tea Party add to that is a desire to return to constitutional government, because we’ve clearly gone off the rails there as well.
Individualism VS the government
Makeshifty, great post. As a Tea Party gal myself, I agree with your assessment.
Especially about how the Left treated the Perot folk and the Tea Partiers – they want a list of things to do when all we want is the gov’t NOT to do things. They simply cannot comprehend it.
We want to be the party of HELL NO! We are the parents, the adults, for whom the word NO is essential in keeping the children (Democrats) in control.
I take that back – I think they do comprehend what we want – limited gov’t, individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. They are terrified of it because it removes them from power, so they demonize what we believe in. Talk of the Founders, founding principles, the Constitution, are all treated, at best, like antiquated things. At worst, it’s a hate crime, in need of a disclaimer.
We need to stand firm. We need to “question with boldness”. We need to continue to make noise. It may not turn around over night, but we need to stop wanting instant gratification. Delayed gratification is the sign of adulthood (for some of us anyway).
We will prevail.
The one consolation I’ve had is that despite the internal problems we had within the reform movement, we had an effect. More or less, this effect came about because like Glenn Beck says, we realized we weren’t alone, and we publicized that fact to the rest of the country and the political establishment. We became what we originally hoped for, which was a political constituency that the two parties had to cater to to win office. The Republicans got the message. As Gingrich has said over the years, one of the aims with their “contract with America” campaign was to win over Perot voters. To hear him tell it, this worked out. Gingrich claimed recently that with his leadership the House was able to hold the line on spending.
Dick Morris has also said over the years that Clinton specifically tried to woo Perot voters when he ran for his 2nd term. This is where he and Morris came up with his triangulation strategy.
As I recall, it was the Republicans who forced Clinton’s hand. I remember there was a budget showdown at some point. The Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling. Clinton responded by shutting down parts of the government, like the national parks, for a time. They apparently came to a compromise, which reduced spending. As you’ll remember, this was when Clinton said, “The era of big government is over.” According to a retrospective look at the debt figures, we had budget surpluses, and the debt decreased (as in, actually went down) for a few years after that.
Looking at all the factors though, this can mainly be attributed to extraordinary economic growth in the latter part of the 90s, and therefor greater tax revenues. Giving credit where it’s due, deregulation of the internet played a significant role in that. The government was the beneficiary of a bubble that eventually burst. Had the economy been different during that same period, the cuts in government spending would’ve probably had to have been more dramatic to get the same results.
I think ultimately the reform coalition, which influenced both parties, fell apart because of 9/11. Priorities shifted to national security, not to getting the budget back in balance. I remember feeling that shift of priorities within myself. Anyway, there was a lot less talk of balancing the budget after that happened.
I see the Tea Party as a renewal of that coalition, though there is a distinctly different flavor to it, perhaps more libertarian in its philosophy, though from what I’ve been able to glean, I’m sure that varies from state to state.
The Tea Party groups in my area seem more focused on libertarian issues like legalizing pot and stuff. I have mixed feelings about that. I can understand the argument for legalization, but the whole medical marijuana thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. I’m sure there are some people who medically benefit from it, but it’s turned into backdoor legalization, and it seems like that was the intent all along. O’Reilly has talked about this, saying druggies can go into a doctor’s office, pretend they have a headache, get the paperwork written up for marijuana, go to a dispensary, get their pot, and then resell it illicitly to make money to buy harder drugs. I dislike the dishonesty. In my book, if the goal was complete legalization, they should’ve campaigned on that, not try to sneak it in under the table.
Anyway, on the drive to cut spending, and restore constitutional government, I wish the Tea Party well.