I hate to break this to everyone, but Graham was just re-elected last year; no kicking him out for another 5 years. Bummer.

I wonder when Lindsey "specter" Graham will decide to swap sides. This guy is a joke. His "gang of 12" on judicial appointee's was a joke, for the record, Lindsey "specter" Graham is a joke. I hope people from his state throw this RINO out on his a**.

The 23rd race was not purists ousting a moderate. It was an example of a rino being ousted by republicans. The republican candidate was for card check, cap and tax, Obamacare, etc. How in the heck she got nominated in the first place troubles me more than what happened to her once the public saw what she stood for.

Insulting Joyce? Really? Gavin, I think it's time for your nap and then recess. Sounds like someone had his lunch money stolen again.

Thank you for your post. You summed up my feelings.

I might be stupid, but I'm not crazy.

No, I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid.

Ahhhh, it's one of those...

"It's funny because for quite a while - NOBODY got it. and now, it's stuck."

What world do you live in? The instant that moniker went out there, the right started with the Barney Frank jokes. You've proven that you have no clue what is going on anywhere or anytime.

This could be the biggest blessing in disguise for the middle of the road Libertarians. If the Libertarian party was smart they would court the Blue Dogs and Republican Moderates to abandon their parties and come to the middle where they sit anyway. A viable 3rd party would emerge as people say enough to the extremist crap of either side and work towards just fixing the problems in the correct Constitutional manner.

I am so sick of hearing folks use "moderate" like it's a good thing! "Moderate" or "centrist" is half-way to being left; they want to control half of your life and take half of your money.

There IS another axis on the political map. If you are truly for personal and economic freedom, you find that you are more libertarian (note, the lower-case "l"), NOT a centrist or statist (nor even conservative).

What the GOP really needs to do is shrink government. Get out of the marriage business and let the churches recognize or prohibit same-sex marriage according to their religious convictions. Allow people to keep their own money so that WE can contribute to charities or churches of OUR choice. With more money in our pockets, churches can compete in the marketplaces of ideas and beliefs for our contributions and support, instead of relying on government to throw our money their way. With more money in our pockets, we don't have to have re-distributive child tax credits (why should a single person's wealth go to support YOUR child).

I am all over the place here; I just get so riled up when I listen to Graham or McCain. I am tired of being called a non-principled moderate--I am nothing like Graham and McCain. My principle is maximum freedom, individual choice and responsibility.

Excellent post and point.

"Lindsay Graham definitely does NOT represent the party, he's just afraid he might get voted out."
Don't you mean he's afraid he might get outed?

"Liberal is to Democrat as conservative is to Republican no longer applies."

I contend that it should. If you want to vote for a liberal, which party will you vote for? If you want to vote for a conservative, which party will you vote for? So why do we keep trying to run liberal candidates? And if both candidates are liberal, who do you vote for then (if at all)? My point is that people like Graham and Scozzafava do not have any party loyalty, so why should we have any loyalty to them?

One other note: Scozzafava still got around 6% of the vote even though she wasn't running anymore! That leads me to believe that there are people out there that just punch the one with the 'R' next to their name and were unaware of the situation. If Hoffman had the 'R' next to his name, he would have won easily... So why wasn't it next to his name?

joyce, if she realized what that word meant, you'd think she'd name the file something else, yes? or change the bumpers in the video?

look, of course I get it. It was a joke for months when this thing started and, now that the Tea Partiers realize it, they now complain about the label.

It's funny because for quite a while - NOBODY got it. and now, it's stuck.

steve - I've never whined about the label of socialism for dems. I've pointed out the factual inaccuracies in the label as it pertains to their actions.

besides - teabaggers is funny as heck. socialism for liberals? pfft... not funny at all.

one was a group's REAL characterization of themselves that was later changed because they had no clue what it meant. THAT is funny. The other is just name calling born of ignorance of basic economics. not funny at all...

Nice try, Skip but you can't just round up "liberals" and compare them to Republicans. Especially when Graham is both in your eyes.

Liberal is to Democrat as conservative is to Republican no longer applies.

rejoyce
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/07/seius-attack-video-on-teabaggers/

hmmm...Michelle thinks it's OK. She a moron too?
By snarkybird

Her article/post is about SEIU's attack on the tea party people, where SEIU calls them teabaggers. Not Michelle.

I mean think!!!! Would we really pick that phrase??? Don't be an ass. We need you for real target practice, not stupid stuff like this.

If Graham wants to be taken seriously he should not go around denouncing one of the major trailblazers in the GOP right now advocating the return to the constitution and small govt in an era where people are fighting against big govt. Its possible that Graham believes that moderate Republicans are people who support the Patriot Act and pre-emptive war against 3rd world nations unable to retaliate on the U.S mainland. It seems Graham wants the more traditional conservatives to accept non-traditional conservatives like McCain,Romney,himself and Giuliani. This kind of acceptance for non-traditional conservatives is PRECISELY what caused the republicans to lose the election to Obama. Let Mccain,Cheney,Bush,Giuliani,Graham for a 3rd party since they are not interested in traditional conservatism or republicanism. They seem more interested in global empire, pre-emptive war, inflationary spending,amnesty the growth of the federal government,moral policing and playing world police. These are simply NOT republican characteristics though the news tries to trick into thinking they are. In a round about way Lyndsay Graham is trying to tell us that he doesn't get it. It is the Lyndsay Graham types that will have to come back around to accepting traditional conservatism,the idea of following the constitution and small govt as they have been astray for many years. Just look at the neocon ideas that have intruded into the republican party....and now the neo-cons are treating traditional conservatives as though they are radical, when in reality the traditional conservatives just want the basic ideas of the founding of this country followed. That is not in any way 'purist' its just logical if you want to preserve the republic. We want the detour away from conservatism into neo-conservatism to end.

Patriots dislike "teabagger" because the definition has nothing to do with protesting socialism. You whined about the label socialist but that one fits. You can't cite how you disagree with socialis

Graham only gets reelected because he is listed as a Republican on the ballot.

In the last election his opponent was a Fair Tax supporter. Graham fear mongered against the Fair Tax by warning voters that we need to be concerned about having the Fair Tax AND income tax at the same time. Boortz listeners, Fair Tax advocates, and likely Graham himself all know this cannot happen if the Fair Tax is ever passed.

Does anyone else wonder why it is only liberals (Lindsey Graham included) that have such great advice on how republicans should run their party. Why should we take advice from the other side? Didn't we try that already? How'd that work out for us? Why would someone vote for a democrat lite when you can have the real thing? While there are some gray areas on specific policies and I'm not in favor of any one issue litmus test, conservatism is a pretty clear set of principles. Either you believe in them, or you're a liberal.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/07/seius-attack-video-on-teabaggers/

hmmm...Michelle thinks it's OK. She a moron too?

You sir, are correct.

:-) thank you for correcting me.

is patently absurd. Scuzzabagga would have voted right in line with the Dems. So at least the voters in NY23 were given a real choice... and if the Repubs hadn't spend a fortune to demonize him, and still left their "withdrawn" candidate on the ballot, the Conservative would have won. This was about the "elites" in the GOP "proving" that you have to run "moderates". Gag me.

Senator Lindsey Graham gives me hope that maybe -- just maybe -- GOP supporters will finally wake up and see that their party has no intention of getting back to basic conservatism when he flat out warns his party against it. Some nerve, Lindsey. LOL. We know you miss the Bush years but your supporters do not, you dolt! Are you listening at all? Tea Parties? Borders? Keep talking Lindsey and doom the GOP once and for all!

Sadly, it's not the GOP who is screwed, it's us if we don't toss jerks like this out on his Chase Buttley! (that was for the Yankees winning #27!)

Mr. Graham is right. I can't believe how stupid Conservatives are related to politics. It's the old, "If you don't agree with mee 100%, I won't have anything to do with you." mentality. I consider myself a common sense Republican that can tolerate the ultra-conservatives to build our numbers to defeat Democrats in national elections. Why can't they be smart enough to do the same?

Lindsay Graham is about a hair away from pulling an Arlen Specter and joining the Democrats. Why he hasn't done so already is beyond me. Maybe he enjoys making the potato salad for all those Pink Elephant meetings.

So the republicans are going to hurt themselves by not embracing moderates (but calling Scozzafava a moderate is like calling Pelosi bipartisan). Didn't the Democrats try to oust Joe Lieberman from the party a few years ago and just last month told another politician not to run because they were moderate. Scozzafava should never have been allowed to run as a Republican, plain and simple. She was a democrat and probably would have switched parties as soon as she was elected.

I'm sorry, but card check? She supported the so-called "Employee's Free Choice Act." How can you support that abomination and possibly call yourself a Republican? What Republican principle does the EFCA NOT violate in the most egregious and harmful manner possible? It is a disaster from the standpoint of fiscal, liberty, and social-minded Republicans.

Perhaps we shouldn't apply single issue litmus tests, but give me a break. Scozzy was to the left of even the Dem running in the race on a great majority of the issues.

Finally, don't even pretend that, had she been elected and performed as the statist she gives every indication she is, you wouldn't have been in the front lines of the folks pointing to her and saying, "See, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. They are just the other face of the same coin."

Senator Grahm is just another opportunist that both political parties are dominated by. Scozzafava was no "moderatate"; her stance on "card check" legislation alone showed that. And Grahm's regionalism assertion is, at best, a quaint lie. Conservatism isn't an attitude that adapts to a locale; it's a value shared by decent folks everywhere. Apparently, that leaves Lindsey Graham on the outside.

Let's face it, this all swings on independents and, if things are good they typically vote to keep the status quo. If things are not good, they vote change - regardless of party.

So, in 2010, if things improve economically. If job numbers start to move more north.. Sure, there will be decent on the left, c'mon - it's the left. But, if the GOP is divided among tea baggers and moderates, their chances of winning elections goes down, not up.

NY is a prime example. District hasnt gone blue in over a century. Thanks to tea baggers, it's one more vote for healthcare.

I know you may think ' Hey!, we had a grassroots campaign with a weak candidate and we almost won, this is good!

No, what you had was a lot of angry people who mustered all they had and still came up short in a district that has been republican for over 100 years. If you cant win in an environment like that.... ?

Listen to Lindsey.