The most significant, positive thing you can do as a voter today is make sure Lindsey Graham wins outright

A still from a campaign video.

A still from a campaign video.

Where I live, I normally take a Republican primary ballot, because that’s the only way I get any choices, especially on local races.

But four years ago, I broke with that pattern because of one race: I wanted to vote for Vincent Sheheen. I was so disappointed by the whole Republican field for governor (even Henry McMaster, whom I had expected to like for the job, but hated the campaign he ran), and I wanted to have the positive experience of voting for somebody for governor, rather than trying to pick the least of evils on the GOP side. I did this even though it meant I was disenfranchised, unable to state a choice as a voter in several races in which the GOP primary was the election (and again, it is SO wrong that a voter has to make a choice like that — we should get a say on everyone who represents us).

Today, I went back to the GOP, so I didn’t have that problem. But still, as in 2010, my mind was on one race and one race only. Even if there had been compelling contests on the Democratic side that I wanted to weigh in on (there weren’t), I would have taken a GOP ballot simply to vote for Lindsey Graham. On this day, that was the best and highest use of my right and responsibility as a voter.

Totally apart from the fact that he deserves re-election and is a far better candidate than his challengers, the contest for his seat has much broader implications for our state.

The worst thing that can happen to South Carolina in today’s primaries would be for Graham to lose, and the second worst would be for him to get into a runoff.

If he loses (and a runoff makes it more likely that he might actually lose, if all the Graham haters unite behind one candidate), don’t ever expect to see a South Carolina Republican take a political risk in order to do the right thing for a long, long time. He would be the cautionary example of what happens if you think for yourself and stick your neck out.

Conversely, if he wins decisively today, it affirms the kind of thoughtful, principled representation of which we all know he, unlike his opponents, is capable.

The crowd of people running against him all smell blood in the water. Some are just dangerous extremists (Lee Bright) and others are opportunists willing to benefit from his vulnerability — and willing to cater to that same extremism in order to conquer. That must not be rewarded.

All sensible, moderate South Carolinians, regardless of party, should be asking for a GOP primary ballot today, and voting for Graham. And yet I know so many will find excuses not to.

One of my best friends, who for several years constituted the “liberal” wing of The State‘s editorial board (as he would tell you, though, more of a New Republic liberal than a Mother Jones liberal), wrote for a lot of Democrats and independents yesterday when he said:

“If those things happen, don’t EVER expect to see a South Carolina Republican take a political risk in order to do the right thing for a long, LONG time.”

When was the last time that actually happened? Has Lindsey Graham done anything in public during his current term that I actually am thankful for? I’d like to be wrong about this, but I can’t think of one thing in the last six years that I actually approve of. Anything?

It only took me a moment to come up with three good answers to that question:

1. He was the only Republican from SC to vote to reopen the government last fall — even as he was bracing himself for the current onslaught from the right.

2. Voting to confirm Kagan.

3. Voting to confirm Sotomayor.

The list of things that please me would be longer, but I was looking at it from Mike’s perspective. (The second and third points are particularly important, because they illustrate Graham living up to the principle he so often states — that elections have consequences, and unless a president’s nominees are simply unqualified, they should be confirmed. This is an incredibly important principle to the healthy functioning of our system of republican government, and all too rare today — it’s something that the ideologues of the left and right can’t even wrap their heads around. It’s the kind of thing that separates a statesman from a hack.)

It is SO easy for moderates (and the very few liberals in SC) to be turned off by Graham’s recent emphasis on messages that appeal to the hard right — opposition to Obamacare, going on and on about Benghazi, etc.

And of course, some of our friends — Bud and Doug come to mind — find that two-faced and deceptive. They’re wrong. And moderates (or liberals) who see only the things they don’t like, forgetting the things that they do like, are wrong as well.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, or deceptive, or duplicitous about stressing positions that you honestly hold that appeal to people who might vote for your opponents. An honest politician has not only a right, but an obligation to let voters who might be heavily critical of him know that he actually agrees with them on issues that are important to them. Graham has been a vocal opponent of Obamacare from the start; he and John McCain have been the main critics of the administration on Benghazi. And he is, just as he claims, a social conservative.

And moderates and those few liberals who may be turned off by this kind of campaign need to stop and think — this is the only way a guy like Lindsey Graham gets re-elected in this state. Your alternative is not Elizabeth Warren (God help us), or whoever you like out there. Your alternative is Lee Bright, or someone who in office would act like Lee Bright.

The kind of courage and thoughtfulness and sense of responsibility that Graham exhibits, at great political risk, on issues such as judicial confirmation, foreign aid, fiscal issues, immigration and energy are rare qualities. And no one else running for this office exhibits them.

For someone as high-profile as Graham to be brought low by the extreme Lilliputians of the Tea Party would be a tragedy for South Carolina, because nothing could be more guaranteed to make sure we don’t see his kind of courage in the future.

We can’t afford to lose this one guy who puts his country before party doctrine. We can’t afford to lose Lindsey Graham.

Another still from the same campaign video.

Another still from the same campaign video.

81 thoughts on “The most significant, positive thing you can do as a voter today is make sure Lindsey Graham wins outright

  1. Doug Ross

    Let me get this straight – you believe that if Lindsey Graham is re-elected and works tirelessly to repeal Obamacare, that it would be a good thing?

    He has spent a large portion of his campaign dollars running against Obama. I guess you think this is just part of the game that must be played and you don’t really believe he means it. And you think that is a good character trait – to pander to voters.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Doug, you’re setting up straw men again.

      I didn’t say it was OK to “pander” to voters. I said it was completely legitimate, even desirable, for a candidate who’s being falsely painted as a liberal by his opponents to point out that he is, too, a conservative — a real one, instead of one of these hopped-up quasi-anarchists (real conservatives don’t HATE government; they believe in it, even as they believe in the other foundational pillars of a civilization) — and to give specific examples that prove it.

      As for Obamacare, I’ll make two points:
      1. Do you think I think Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread? All I can say categorically is that I prefer it to what its opponents are offering, which is nothing.
      2. Doug, do you only vote for people who agree with you on EVERYTHING? If so, how’s that working out? When’s the last time you were able to vote for anybody? If I had to wait for someone who agreed with me on everything, or even on a list of 10 or 12 key issues, I’d be completely disenfranchised. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone like that in the actual world.

      You look at the totality of a candidate — and on point after point, Lindsey Graham is light years ahead of anyone likely to replace him, in either party.

      He is EASILY the best person who has represented me in either house of Congress since I moved back to South Carolina in 1987. No contest.

      1. bud

        Of course its not possible to vote for someone who agrees with you 100% there are certain key issues that are deal breakers for most people. Brad, are there no issues that you have that are deal breakers? Seems like your 2004 endorsement for George W. was based almost entirely on Kerry’s opposition to the Iraq war.

      2. Doug Ross

        He may easily be the best person who has represented YOU, but he is easily the second worst (after Strom) who has represented me since I moved to South Carolina. He represents everything I dislike about politicians – a grandstanding, war mongering, big government phony conservative who wants to give illegal immigrants a free pass for the crimes they have committed (and called everyone opposed to that amnesty a racist).

        I vote my conscience. I vote third party frequently. The libertarian platform is by far the closest to my own values. I’d rather lose than compromise.

        A vote for Lindsey Graham is a vote for the status quo – for politics as usual in Washington.

  2. Bryan Caskey

    You make a good argument, Brad. I have to agree (in principle) on your position as to confirmation of SCOTUS nominees, but your ideal argument just doesn’t reflect the situation anymore. Heck, Obama voted against Roberts even though he explicitly conceded that Roberts was qualified. Democrats play tough, and I’m sick of Republicans having to play soft.

    Lindsey Graham is probably better suited to be a mediator than an advocate, and sometimes, you need an advocate.

    Graham’s a thoughtful guy, but he’s a little to susceptible to give in on some issues. Specifically, I’m disappointed that he worked to advance cap-and-trade under the banner of global warming. Also, his pushing for immigration reform without serious enforcement first is a bad idea. Other than that, I don’t have too much to really object to. For me, he’s the good, and I guess I shouldn’t let that be the enemy of the perfect.

    I think Graham will break 50% today, but I hope he gets the message that the voters of SC want him to be more of an advocate. At least I do.

    1. bud

      Bryan, Graham is a strong advocate for those positions he feels most strongly about, namely military stuff in all it’s guises. His vote against the reckless destruction of our planet was a plus as were several other reasonable votes. But I just don’t think he cares much about anything but the military. So he bolsters his moderate credentials by compromising at times. That way he can cater to both sides while he pushes his pro-war agenda with impunity. Isn’t it obvious where his heart really is?

    2. Brad Warthen Post author

      Bryan, there’s no two ways about it: On judicial selection, Graham is one of the good guys and Obama is not. Obama voted like a typical partisan hack on Roberts, and I think it was inexcusable.

      I prefer Graham to Obama. And I preferred McCain to Obama, and one of the reasons I gave for that had to do with my multiple concerns about Obama in the area of judicial selection.

      I preferred McCain on judicial selection, but I like Graham even more. McCain says the same thing Graham does about elections having consequences, but seems to have trouble voting that way. Graham does not, in spite of the great political risk he takes in living up to his words.

      To me, the only good guys in the Senate on confirmation are the old Gang of 14, some of whom aren’t there any more. By occupying a key swing position in the Senate, they were able, at least for a time, to maintain the Senate’s status as a deliberative body. They are heroes for doing that.

      1. Bryan Caskey

        Part of what factors into judicial selection is how much deference the Senate should give to a President’s selection. If you’re going with: The Senate should confirm anyone who is qualified, the Senate basically becomes irrelevant. And that’s a legitimate position. However, I think that will create an incentive for Presidents to pick the most extreme jurist they can, since they can always say “this person is qualified, therefore the analysis is over”.

        If you really allow Senators to give less deference to the President, my theory is you’ll get more moderate folks being selected, because Senators from both sides will push the President towards the middle, as the Executive Branch loses the argument that “qualified = confirmed”. Accordingly, you’ll get more folks like O’Connor and Kennedy nominated, and less like Stevens and Scalia.

        Now, it’s up for debate whether having moderates on SCOTUS may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I think I’m correct in the fundamental analysis.

        I’ll say one thing I think we can all agree with: It’s stupid that we have so many vacancies on the federal bench. If State Courts operated like this, the whole system would grind to a halt. Luckily, the federal system doesn’t handle the caseload that the state court systems handle.

      2. Brad Warthen Post author

        Well, that’s what the Gang of 14 came together for — to keep the system from “grinding to a halt,” which it had been threatening to do since Roe, and especially since Bork. Of course, I refer here more to the political system than to the judiciary — but that, too.

        And people like the Gang wouldn’t support the president’s choices if he resolved “to pick the most extreme jurist they can.” The Gang would fall apart over that…

  3. bud

    Just got back from the polls and voted for Nancy Mace. She displayed a great deal of courage and fortitude in her pursuit of a degree from the Citadel. I’m sure she has many issues that I could not support but she has one important point in her favor: She is NOT Lindsey Graham. Seriously Brad, how could anyone support that man after his constant war mongering even to the point of still, STILL supporting continued involvement in Iraq when the president finally withdrew our soldiers. Lindsey will easily be re-elected but at least I had the opportunity to voice my strong opposition to the likes of this misguided neo-con.

    Otherwise I voted for Molly Spearman for Sup of Ed, Henry Mc for gov light and no on both ballot initiatives. Those no votes were the only ones I had any real enthusiasm for.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Well, Bud, I’m disappointed, but not surprised, given that one of the things I respect Graham for is a deal-breaker for you.

      But Nancy Mace? Really? I like Nancy as a friend, but we’re talking about Will Folks’ former partner on his blog, which doesn’t make her sound like a candidate you would like. Also — did you check to see what Nancy’s position was (or rather, would have been, since she didn’t hold office and like Obama had the luxury of not having to go on the record with a vote) on Iraq? Are you sure you would have liked it?

      On the other races, by the way, I think you voted wisely and moderately.

      1. Doug Ross

        What specifically did Nancy Mace do that was offensive while working with Will Folks? Or are you just using “guilt by association”?

        1. Doug Ross

          Here’s one of Nancy’s statements on the role of government — this is good enough for me.. it’s why I donated to her campaign.

          “Do you trust this government? With your health care, with your taxes or your cell phone records…Because I don’t. I believe this government is too big, too intrusive and too powerful, and must be put back in its place by the people. The politicians don’t understand, they don’t decide what rights we get to have and what rights we lose. Our Rights come from our Creator and are guaranteed by our Constitution.”

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Yeah, I disagree with all of that except the last sentence. And I disagree with the last sentence if what she means is that we would enjoy any of these rights in a state of nature, without a strong and stable government, and POLITICIANS who wrote the Bill of Rights, largely for political reasons.

            Just last night I was reading the part of a biography on James Madison about when he came up with the bill of rights (no, they were NOT written in a finger of flame on Mr. Sinai). He had seen no reason for such amendments, and indeed such a bill wasn’t even considered during the Constitutional Convention. AND, let me add, the Constitution was ratified by the states without such a listing of rights.

            Madison was won over to the need for such a set of amendments during the battle for ratification, and by the long-distance lobbying of his friend and mentor Thomas Jefferson, way off in Paris. Yes, the Constitution was ratified without it, but he worried that opposition to the Constitution itself (on the part of Patrick Henry and others) would continue to hobble the new government — his own state had passed a set of suggested amendments when they ratified it, as had New York and other states.

            Madison the political pragmatist (as opposed to the well-schooled theorist) saw the need to get out ahead of this thing. First, he headed off efforts to call a new convention to consider amendments — he saw that as an opportunity for Henry and Brutus and the rest to undo the whole thing. As a leading member of the new Congress, he set forth his own bill of rights — 12 of them. The first and second didn’t make it (although one of them was finally ratified in 1992, as the 27th), so the third became what we know today as the First.

            Lofty rhetoric aside, there is no question that politicians, highly skilled ones, decided “what rights we get to have.” If we simply had these rights from our Creator in a state of nature, there would have been no need for such a set of amendments (as Madison originally maintained).

            1. Bryan Caskey

              “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

              Please explain your understanding of this sentence.

            2. Brad Warthen Post author

              They express the belief of Thomas Jefferson — who 11 years later saw it as necessary to enumerate said rights, as amendments to the Constitution.

              Apparently, when it came right down to it, he thought it needed to be set out as a matter of law…

            3. Brad Warthen Post author

              And Bryan, I, too believe that God intends us to have such things as freedom of conscience. He doesn’t intend for us to conform our minds to the dictates of tyrants. Or political parties.

              What I object to is when people blithely trash government, and say we have all the rights we need WITHOUT government.

              Yeah, you may possess said rights in the abstract, but if you want to ENJOY them (and I chose that word deliberately above), you’d better have a strong, stable government that sets out those rights in writing, and is truly committed to them, to an extent unseen before our Bill of Rights.

            4. Matt Bohn

              Less than 15 years after the The first ten amendments were adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. Clearly the Sedition Act violated the 1st Amendment. Just what the anti-federalist a were worried about. A blot on Adams and his presidency but a lesson in realities. Did Madison see something like this coming? Maybe he was our first pragmatic President. I like to think Graham is cut from the same mold.

      2. bud

        I didn’t say Nancy was a perfect candidate but I had to pick someone to serve as an anti-Graham surrogate. Since I admire her fortitude and anti-establishment streak that was good enough for my purpose.

  4. Brad Warthen Post author

    I just ran into another reason why I so deeply appreciate Lindsey Graham.

    You know, one of the more reasonable of Graham’s primary opponents, Bill Connor, had a video on his website trashing the senator for getting along personally with Hillary Clinton, as though that were some sort of crime.

    Well, a few minutes ago, I ran into a verbatim response from Graham that I posted, in answer to a question about the political risks he ran in being photographed with then-Sen. Clinton:

    “There are people on both sides that can’t be happy unless the other side’s disappointed. The way some people judge political success: Is my enemy unhappy? The way I judge political success: Is my country better off, and is my party on the right track?
    “My country is better off when the Guard and Reserve families and those who serve in the Guard and Reserve have health care they can count on. The country will be better off if a manufacturing company (he and Sen. Clinton have started and jointly lead a new Manufacturing Caucus) can stay and make a profit and not have to leave to go overseas….
    “If she came here and said something nice about me, I would consider it a compliment. And I would return the compliment. And in the next sentence I would say… I like her, but I don’t want her to be president… because she’ll bring an agenda to the table that I don’t agree with in terms of, you know, the whole.
    “But I’m not going to say anything bad about her, because I do like her, I think she’s smart, I enjoy working with her, and… if … the only way I can win is to have to run down people I know, I mean, have to say things about people I know not to be true, I don’t want the job.
    “If that’s the kind of senator you want, I don’t want the job.”

    1. Doug Ross

      And you actually BELIEVE that b.s.? Let’s see what he says about Hillary in 2016. He’ll have plenty of stuff to badmouth her about then.

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        I believe every word of it. And he’ll say in 2016 exactly what he said in the above quote: “I don’t want her to be president… because she’ll bring an agenda to the table that I don’t agree with.”

        1. Doug Ross

          Want to bet he says something worse, unrelated to her agenda? Or when he says “She’s a communist, bless her heart!” that would be fine?

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            He wouldn’t say that, Doug. In South Carolina, “liberal” is harsh enough, and has the added value of being accurate, whereas “communist” would not be.

            Will he enlarge on why he doesn’t think she should be president? You betcha.

          2. Barry

            Can’t see Lindsey saying that at all. You are making things up.

            I’ve heard him say he disagrees with her many times- but I haven’t heard him call her names.

            You do realize it’s possible to like someone a lot personally and disagree wtih them on several important things, correct?

            that’s the way smart human beings function. They can hold various views, but also like the person at the same time.

        2. Dave

          It seems like the best evidence for what he would say about Hillary in 2016 is what he’s saying about Obama now. For goodness sake, it was just a month ago that he called White House officials s*@mbags (I’m not sure I can use the actual word on a family-oriented blog!). Is this forgotten already?

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            I assure you that Lindsey Graham will not call Hillary Clinton a… you know. That’s a word usually reserved for guys, anyway…

          2. Brad Warthen Post author

            And by the way — I thought that sounded terrible, until I read the context. And if you’re someone who “lied about Benghazi,” in Graham’s book you would indeed be a… you know.

            And it was in the context of his saying that that is what HE would be if he were pushing Benghazi purely for political motives…

            1. bud

              Thanks for reminding me of Grahams atrocious comments about the Benghazi faux scandal. I do think that was aimed at the Fox News voters leading up to the primary.

      2. bud

        I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I don’t want Lindsey Graham returned to the Senate, and provided my reasoning. But I don’t see why his kind words about Hillary Clinton are necessarily “BS”. But I do think he wants to bolster his moderate cred so words like this come pretty easy. Sure he’ll slam Hillary when the campaign heats up but for now I don’t think he dislikes her as a person. Why would he?

  5. Kathryn Fenner

    I wonder why Home Depot is running an ad in Spanish next to this post?

  6. Brad Warthen Post author

    Yikes! Why didn’t y’all tell me that I had a typo in my headline? It’s been there for hours! What do you think I pay you people for?

    (What? I don’t…? Well… you know what I mean!)

  7. Ralph Hightower

    I hope that Graham goes back to conservatism once he’s reelected to office because from my viewpoint, he’s gone off the Far Side pandering to Tea Baggers with South Carolina opting out of “Obamacare” and focusing on Benghazi. Okay, if it was found that inadequate security measures are in place for our embassies, then propose solutions to fix problems; more than likely, it involves spending more money. Likewise regarding “Obamacare”, has Graham offered a better solution? He can’t put the genie back in the bottle. South Carolina employers have already made changes to adapt to “Obamacare”; Lizards Thicket converted their full time cooks and waitresses to part time so Lizards won’t have to comply with “Obamacare”

    If all one does is whine about problems, then they are not part of the solution. They are the problem!

  8. Doug Ross

    Some people keep claiming that the Tea Party is no more.. that they are a fringe group. Well, the Tea Party libertarian leaning candidate just beat incumbent Eric Cantor in Virginia. The primary factor given as the reason? Cantor’s support of immigration reform.

    That’s the second incumbent defeated by a Tea Party candidate in the past couple weeks.

    I think we’re going to see a lot more incumbents lose this year… Charles Rangel from N.Y. is in trouble (thankfully).

    1. Doug Ross

      David Brat, the economics professor who beat Cantor, had $207K in campaign donations. Cantor: $5.4M;

      1. Doug Ross

        Brat is telling voters: “Virginia workers are suffering. And the only thing Eric Cantor cares about is delivering low-wage foreign workers to his corporate donors.”

        Replace Virginia with South Carolina and Cantor with Graham… same thing applies. Lindsey wants to provide cheap labor to corporations. Let’s wait until we reach full American employment before unleashing a flood of additional unskilled laborers on the market.

        1. Barry

          You mean like the cheap labor that they have now with without any real reform?

          Your logic is illogical.

          1. Barry

            and Virginia is moving more and more to the Democratic side of the aisle.

            The Tea party might have just cost the House a Republican seat.

            1. Doug Ross

              The district went 57-42 for Romney two years ago. The seat is a lock for Republicans.

          2. Doug Ross

            What jobs do YOU think legalized illegals will take if they can actually work for companies that don’t pay them under the table? Rocket scientists? Doctors? Lawyers?

            Everyone without a high school degree will see their job prospects anywhere cut in half.

            1. Barry

              immigration reform will involve

              1) A clearer process for attracting highly educated specialists to the United States (the kinds of folks high tech companies want – and want here in the US after they graduate the MIT’s and Stanfords of the world.

              2) A path for the millions of kids that are here now (and aren’t leaving) – undocumented- that don’t try to go to college (and don’t even try to do more with their lives) and live on the margins of society because becoming “legal” is almost impossible or runs a risk of being arrested or deported. So they just get by- and drag a lot of with them.

              Or we can do the status quo- which won’t help anyone.

        2. bud

          Doug you’ve described the corporate plutocracy not so much Lindsey Graham or Eric Cantor. Sure guys like that are enablers. But the real villains in our march toward a new guilded age are the greedy, monopolistic corporate power lords. They are the one keeping their thumb on the American worker, not illegal immigrants.

      2. Kathryn Fenner

        Which implies that I and Freakonomics are correct that money is not important in determining elections…

    2. bud

      I wouldn’t celebrate just yet. The Tea Party guy still has to win the general election. History has not been kind to Tea Partiers in the general. They are just too radical with a few resorting to second amendment “solutions” (see the recent shootings in Nevada). Radicalism is not limited to Muslim terrorists. There are plenty of home-grown folks capable of unspeakable violence.

      1. Doug Ross

        Doesn’t matter, bud. I don’t know if he will win or not.. my comment was about the perception that the Tea Party is weaker now. It’s not. Especially against incumbents who support big government.

        1. Bart

          The Tea Party is not dead as the MSM obits have declared and the candidates they are fielding are not the same fringe element that lost elections in the past. I am surprised that Cantor lost and wouldn’t discount a lot of crossover votes against him in order to get the TP candidate elected. I lived in Va. for close to a decade and Va. politics can be just as nasty as they are in SC.

          Obama has done nothing but re-energize the TP with the VA, IRS, Benghazi and after the Bergdahl fiasco and now Hagel is being thrown under the bus to take the heat for Obama, all bets are off when it comes to who wins and who loses today. Could be a major shake-up. The emotional reaction could very well override common sense and some good people voted out.

          If our political scene doesn’t reach a point where moderation and cooperation once again becomes the norm, we are in for one helluva ride on a bad roller coaster.

          Just my 2 cents.

        2. Doug Ross

          According to reports, Romney won Cantor’s district in 2012 by a 57-42 margin. It has gone Republican for the past 20 years. I’d say you can write this one in the Republican tally right now.

          Cantor was the only chance immigration reformers had to get a bill through Congress this year. It’s done. Obama will have to pull out the executive order pen to write up his own laws again.

      2. Barry

        It will be very hard for the Tea party candidate to win in November.

        The Tea Party won the battle tonight- and will likely lose the war in November.

        Another brilliant move. LOL

        1. Doug Ross

          Wanna bet? The Democrat candidate, Jack Trammell, is a sociology professor at the same college as Brat (Randolph Macon). He was named as the default candidate by the Virginia Democratic party because they didn’t want to bother running one in the primary since they expect to lose the seat anyway. The guy doesn’t have a website, just a Facebook page.

          Here’s his Linkedin profile… you think this guy can win an election???

          Seriously, you should try using this thing called Google before posting “predictions”.

          1. Doug Ross

            Again, you wanna bet on it? I’ll donate $50 to any charity you name if Trammell wins. Will you do the same?

            You’d be betting on a sociology professor with zero name recognition, no money, in a strong Republican district. You think Democrats are going to throw money behind a complete unknown? Just wait til the press starts digging into his background. At least Brat has been out campaigning for several months.

        2. Bryan Caskey

          Was there even a legit Democrat running in the opposing primary? Or is this another possible Alvin Greene situation for the Dems? I mean who would logically run as a Democrat in Cantor’s district?

    3. Brad Warthen

      Cantor’s defeat is a classic case of chickens coming home to roost. Cantor was long the standard-bearer for this radicals, making Boehner’s life hell. It’s fitting that he fall at the hands of one of them.

      Et tu, Teaparte?

            1. Doug Ross

              Bryan – you know mouth breathers are well versed on the intricacies of macroeconomics.

              Brat has published a paper called ” “An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.” Be still my heart!

            2. Doug Ross

              Brat is also for term limits, stating he would stay in Congress for 12 years maximum.

              Balanced budget? Check.
              Against Obamacare? Check.
              Opposed to top down Federal government education programs? Check.

              His views are very much in sync with Ron Paul’s.


    1. Brad Warthen

      OK, so there are SOME other races I care about.

      Looks like Spearman and Atwater in a runoff for Supt.

      And McMaster, with a strong plurality, nevertheless looks like he’s in a runoff, too…

      So Graham’s is easily the most satisfying result of the night. And that’s good, since it was the most important one…

Comments are closed.