Oct 19, 2009

Graham, on big issues, is a center-left opportunist

Graham, on big issues, is a center-left opportunist

by Dr. Ecarma (bio: Reggie Ecarma has a Ph.D. in political communication, teaches for North Greenville and Furman universities in mass communication and politics. He is also Republican precinct chairman of Travelers Rest, member of the Greenville County GOP Executive Committee, faculty advisor to the NGU College Republicans, and serves as fire commissioner at Tigerville, S.C. fire district. He can be reached at reecarma1@yahoo.com)

Fresh from a 67 percent GOP primary victory and the first state candidate to win more than 1 million votes in a general election, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham sounded confident, if not cocky, at the Greenville County Republican Convention this past April. He said that he wants to grow a center-right party, which reflects the country, to win elections. And if any Republicans in the room did not support his efforts, they could leave.

He echoed this sentiment at the Furman University town meeting last week. Question: If Graham is growing a big-tent center-right party, why is he telling a vocal and engaged group to leave. Doesn’t center-right include centrists and rightists; a big-tent includes activists from center to right. At both places, Furman and the GOP Greenville convention, Graham sounded downright condescending.

With all his heroics, Achilles has a weakness. Graham’s heel is his hometown region, the Upstate. As the biggest part of the Upstate, Greenville County voted against Graham in the primary. The 200 vote margin by little known Buddy Witherspoon should be a warning to Graham, perhaps humbling.

Apparently, after making rounds in the national media circuit and enjoying conclaves with the likes of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and the late Ted Kennedy, his homies have become prudish party poopers. Just like a BMOC (big man on campus) football jock coming home to his small-minded family, Graham is getting too big for his britches.

Instead of being grateful to have the privilege of serving his home folks, Graham is becoming arrogant like Lonesome Rhoades of the 1950s movie A Face in the Crowd. An arrogant centrist, he is quickly outgrowing his humble conservative roots.
An explanation: In the Greenville News article “Graham vows to challenge ‘radical’ views” and editorial “Sen. Graham holds his own,” both articles miss the critical “constitutional” point: Graham says that he is conservative, fair enough, but on big constitutional issues, he is center left. Consider these landmark issues:

1. Constitutional option on judicial nominees of 2006: the leftists and the centrists, including Graham opposed it; constitutional conservatives like U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-S.C., supported it (see http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/32726.shtml
2. Illegal immigration of 2008: the center-right and center-left and far left supported the Kennedy-McCain –Graham bill, constitutional conservatives like U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint opposed it;
3. Climate change 2009: Graham is working with far left U.S. senator, John Kerry; constitutional conservatives oppose any new regulation on carbon emission whether by legislation or the Environmental Protection Agency;
4. Sotomayor U.S. Supreme Court vote of 2009: centrists and leftist voted for the nomination, conservatives like U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, opposed the high court nomination.

To be fair, Graham is a reliable pro-life vote, according to Citizens for Life. He is strong on military issues, and he also voted against Obama’s stimulus bill. It is also true that, as reported by the Greenville News, Graham has an 82 percent rating according to the American Conservative Union and votes 90.7 percent with his party (The Washington Post’s congressional vote database).

But the preceding record on big issues and the on-going record of Graham, including climate change and health care are troublesome. For example, the heated debate on health care clearly pits constitutionalists/conservatives vs. centrists/leftists. Where is Graham on this—in the center-left. Consider this quote from Greenville News on September 21:

“Graham, in signing on to the bipartisan Healthy Americans Act, has agreed to requiring people to buy health-care insurance, an unpopular idea among Republicans.
“I have found common ground with Democrats,” Graham said of the bill backed by seven Republicans and seven Democrats.

Such common ground or center-left decision of historical constitutional issues has moved Graham from right toward the center-left over the years. With the illegal immigration vote and the constitutional option on judicial nominees he took the center-left ground, along with his senior partner and senate mentor, U.S. Sen. John McCain , R-AZ. But in the Sonya Sotomayor vote for U.S. Supreme Court justice, even centrist and maverick McCain voted to oppose Sotomayor, while Graham voted for President Obama’s judicial “empathy” nominee and got kudos from the media and cultural elites.

As Clemson University political science professor, David Woodard, a one-time Graham confidant, said, he (Graham) “make[s] a point of his foray across the aisle to work with Democrats.”

Colluding with liberals is a prominent project for Graham. Furman University political science professor Danielle Vinson said Graham “needs to get past those headline-grabbing moves.”

Graham is not only moving from right to center -left, depending on the big issue, he is garnering more face time on the broadcast networks. If one watches national politics and the news on a regular basis, it is hard to miss Graham. Recently, on the Greenville News article of Sep. 21, Obama remarked about extremist talk: “The easiest way to get 15 minutes of fame is to be rude to somebody.”

Conversely, for a Republican, the easiest way to get 15 minutes or even 15 hours of fame is to work and act in concert with other maverick Republicans or liberal Democrats. Ask U.S. Sen. Olympia Snow during the Democrat health care and Obama stimulus bills debates during the last few months. It is awfully difficult to deny oneself of the red carpet treatment by the media and cultural elite of Washington, DC and NYC.

Graham’s timing also needs to be scrutinized. When it was popular to challenge the senate Republican majority in 2006 regarding the constitutional option on judicial nominees, Graham, as part of the “Gang of 14” (7 Republicans and 7 Democrats) went against President Bush and conservative Republicans. The Gang opposed Bush’s full slate of strict constructionist (constitutional and conservative) federal judicial nominees.

Social conservatives around the country were rallying in churches across the nation to encourage U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN to go for 51 senate votes instead of the customary 60 cloture votes to let the full slate of judicial conservatives ostensibly reverse Roe v. Wade.
So Graham short-circuited the social conservative effort to attempt to stop judicial promotion of abortion-on-demand.

In the health care issue, where is Graham in voicing his criticism on the constitutional option that is, most likely, to be employed by the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV?

The political and media elites in DC are cheerleading health care through, so let’s see if Graham, their new “conservative” darling from the belt buckle of the Bible belt crows against their sacred health care for the uninsured, including (probably) illegal immigrants. Graham has had many months to voice his previous concern about using the constitutional option of 51 senators to pass a non-emergency and non-budget issue. Rather, he appears anxious to pass a health care bill by working hard with Democrats, again.

Ironically, Graham said in the same Greenville News article he also feels a responsibility “not to let the president have it both ways here.” Perhaps, the libertarians and constitutional conservatives feel the responsibility not to allow Graham to have it both ways either—calling himself a conservative and then chooses opportunities to grab the headlines and the TV lights by forging liberal leaning bills.

Graham seems more of pragmatic political opportunist than a principled, constitutional conservative.

Many Republican party loyalists will not openly oppose him, as Sam Harms, the former Greenville County Republican chair, who promptly lost his position. Party loyalists prefer acceptability and collegiality as a norm; however, if a credentialed and monied Jim DeMint like person arose to challenge Graham, he would humble Graham, if not defeat him in 2014.

Graham should take stock that Thomas Ravanel, former state treasurer, who lost his job and credentials in 2007 due to cocaine charges, could have effectively challenged him in 2008. Instead Graham got a free pass, relatively speaking. Is there going to be credible challenger in 2014 such as a David Beasley or a Jim DeMint clone or . . .

If he continues his centrist ways, Graham would lose big in the Upstate (his home region) and would have to fight hard and win big in the moderate Low Country, perhaps with the help of his new Democrat friends.

Why does Graham want to “grow” the party? Is it for altruistic reasons? Perhaps, but it may also be for power. Is he looking at the majority party leadership? Probably not. Is he looking at a presidential run in 2016? If he is, then he should look at his mentor McCain. McCain tried the maverick route for 10 years. He was loved by the liberal media elite in DC and NY, but when he ran for president as a Republican, his fawning media coverage dissipated.

By 2014, Graham will be feigning right to re-establish his conservative credentials, but by then, his Achilles heel may be overly exposed by video records in YouTube and other Internet sources. The SC Achilles needs to represent the felt needs of his state--the Upstate.

What do you think?

Oct 11, 2009

President Jimmy Carter backtracks

Plains, Georgia man not plain spoken

President Jimmy Carter backtracks and revises history. He initially said the overwhelming number of people at the Washington, D.C. Tea Party who opposed President Barack Obama disagreed with due to his race (see YouTube.com).

Now Carter said that he really said a "fringe" element oppose Obama.

Should we believe our ears and eyes as we view YouTube or should we believe Carter's revisionism?

This Plains, Georgia man is not plain spoken but has a forked tongue, or a double-minded mind, or simply an aging opportunist who should know better. With age, comes wisdom, unfortunately, not so with this 85-year-old former democrat president.

Sep 20, 2009

The Politics of Race: America 2009

The Politics of Race: America 2009

Former President Jimmy Carter, by definition, accused political opponents of President Barack Obama as racists saying that they "just cannot accept a black man as president."

Carter's accusation smacks of racist politics. Black economic experts including Thomas Sowell, a Hoover Institute scholar and former University of Chicago economics professor and Walter Williams of George Mason University, both vociferously oppose Obama for his attempt at federal takeover of the United States economy, health care and banks. Black political leaders such as former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell now with the nonpartisan Family Research Council and former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele now the Republican National Committee chairman both strongly reject such race-based attacks.

Oftentimes, the last and desperate ploy for liberals is the race card. Meant to shut and shame the opponents, mostly white Republicans and Southern conservatives, such race baiting is not only a sham but destructive to free speech and robust political dialogue.

From Jimmy Carter and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who accused U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) of racism, such elitists should pull back their collective fangs and argue based on the merits of their issues.

After all, their chosen leader in the White House is only in his 8th month in office. Such political bomb throwing is premature, unless their arguments are already being overwhelmed by the loud informed majority that opposes Obama's policies (see recent Pew and Gallup polls).

As a minority, I despise such talk from Carter and Dowd. From their elitist perch, they are not helping minorities. By vicariously but wrongly personifying minority victimhood, Carter and Dowd are helping us all become victims of an overbearing federal government by quickly forcing upon us a tyrannical nanny state.

According to Ronald Kessler of Newsmax, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice rejected the 1984 Democrat National Convention refrains appealing to "women, minorities and the poor, which basically means helpless people and the poor."

The shrill politics of victimhood threatens to dilute the dramatic steps advanced by Martin Luther King, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rice.

Like Rice, who formerly was a Stanford University provost, "I'd rather be ignored than patronized."

As a senior professor of political science and mass communication, I know that this country--the United States of America--has more opportunities than any nation in history that I know of. My parents, who left the Philippines shortly before President Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship, staked their family's future on American exceptionalism—a belief that America will especially reward those who work hard for their posterity. I continue to believe in their faith in the American Dream. Let’s not accept divisive racial slurs nor squander liberty’s blessings.

Truly, freedom is the foundation of this constitutional republic--one nation under God indivisible. Let's defend liberty. Let’s pray to Providence, the personal and infinite God, as well as work because as Edmund Burke said, “vigilance is the price of liberty."

So as minorities and as Americans, the best play for personal and national success is not by embracing victimhood but living happy and contented lives.

Sep 17, 2009

No protection of Poland, No stimulus, No decency,

No protection of Poland
Seventy years to the day that the Nazi britzkrieg destroyed Poland, U.S. President Barack Obama militarily undressed Poland by denying them the agreed upon land based missile defense shield. Obama's meandering rhetoric retrogrades Poland's security. Is U.S. leadership in Eastern Europe in question?

No stimulus
What about the other Obama promise--the economic stimulus? Apparently, FedEx has not felt it: 1st quarter earnings down an astonishing 53%.

Under President Obama and this year alone (post-Bush), 2.5 million American jobs lost. Where have all the old jobs gone?

No decency
Factoid: United Nations reported today that there are four million porn sites and 750 thousand pedophiles online at any time. Where has decency gone?

Quotes from one of the largest DC protest rallies in U.S. history:
"Your wallet, the only place [liberal] Democrats are willing to drill. Don't share my wealth--share my work ethic."

"Compassion is voluntary, not compulsory."

Aug 26, 2009

Barack Obama on Being Human

Barack Obama: Being Human

By the end of Sunday, August 23, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama's power waned, so did his popularity. This politically historic day occured while the Obama family enjoyed the place of the rich and powerful--Martha's Vineyard.

Popularity plummets

According to the most reliable pollster, John Zogby, Obama's popularity "has plummeted to a record low, with just 45 percent of likely voters now approving of his performance," reported Newsmax.

The Zogby International poll found 50.5 percent of all-important likely voters registering disapproval of the president's job performance.

Dick Morris, former advisor to President Bill Clinton said that dropping below 52 percent means serious political trouble due to the abandonment of almost 60 percent of the critical independent likely voters. The results point to a srong indication of disapproval of Obama's most recent push of nationalized healthcare.

Power receding

With popoularity waning, Obama's power to rein in Democrat leaning moderates is weakening. The first to escape Obama's grip is the Democrat leaning but Independent and influential senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman.

Nationalized health care unhinged

Speaking to CNN's John King on Sunday August 23, 2009, Lieberman said, "There's no reason we have to do it all now." Asked if it was "time to hit the reset button," on federalized healthcare, Lieberman said "yes."

"In other words, we're in a recession." Lieberman concluded "I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, [a] healthcare reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about."

Being human

With his popularity and poll numbers down, Obama's presidency has touched the ground where most presidents in the past had to tread. He will no longer have superhuman influence--except in the elite media.