Lindsey Graham for president thread.

Graham reminds me of Jon Huntsman in the last election. Conservative lawmaker that’s generally not seen as a partisan nut, has said some inclusive things, but compared to a normal person is still incredibly extreme. So he’ll do about as well as Huntsman did

Pataki is this cycle’s Rudy Giuliani. Only less likely to win. For what it’s worth, he leads in his own state, something that Graham cannot claim.

Examples please of incredibly extreme positions by Huntsman.

“Let’s not become the party of anti-science” and a pro-gay marriage stance are already 5 steps ahead of your assertion.

He did have the most conservative tax plan of any of the contenders.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/08/31/huntsman-tax-plan-goes-big-and-bold/

  1. Eliminate all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.

  2. Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

  3. Eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends in order to eliminate the double taxation on investment.

  4. Reduce the corporate rate from 35% To 25%. Huntsman would also shift to a territorial tax system and implement a tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings.

That’s why I said he has some inclusive things. Some. Please reread that, tattoo it on your forehead backwards, and staple a mirror to your face so you never ignore that word.

He asked you what extreme positions Huntsman had taken.

I’m very excited about Lindsey Graham running for president, as he would be very easy to beat.

Yeah, that snark is a total backfire. Way up there on the ironicalistic meter.

As a generally left-center guy, I really liked Huntsman. I’d love to vote Republican if any of them were merely right-center. But Huntsman never even had a chance in the primary. I really wish he’d run again.

But none of those seem extreme to me, and the only one I really have issue with is number 3. That’s a pure nod to the rich, and it’s how some people who make loads of money have lower effective tax rates than I do.

I don’t think that conservatism is a problem for the vast majority of Americans, even many who lean liberal. What I think is a problem is conservatives. Huntsman was likeable because he wasn’t excessively partisan and he didn’t feel the need to reject science he didn’t like.

Graham is in the same class, just with less relevant experience. Huntsman was a governor and an ambassador to China. Graham has only been a legislator. But he does work well with Democrats, so that’s something.

And yet that’s what your party stands for these days. Note that Huntsman, who you trot out as your party’s token sane adult, got almost exactly zero support. At what point would you be ready to acknowledge that your party now is the problem and should not be supported in its present form?

So at least he has a ready-made campaign slogan.

IMHO any candidate who says, even as a joke, that he would use the military against the elected representatives of the people is disqualified to become CINC: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The difference being?

He is saying most Americans would be okay with conservative policies if the people enacting them weren’t mostly fucking crazy.

But, the conservative policies are mostly fucking crazy. You can’t get them enacted without crazy pols.

Or pols willing to act crazy. But you never know when it’s just an act.

Meh. I commented at work today that I’d kill a certain person if he didn’t stop telling one of our customers all our problems. Workplace threats are absolutely verboten, but like all things context is everything, and nobody in the meeting thought I was seriously suggesting violence.

NOW, that anyone thinks our military couldn’t use a bit more nip and tuck, that’s much more concerning to me.

A lot of the proposed policies are, but Ronald Reagan was as far right in rhetoric as they come and his Presidency was many things, but crazy was certainly not one of them. Every conservative policy Reagan got implemented had wide support.

I see that Sen. Huckleberry J. Butchmeup has decided that South Carolina, unlike New Jersey right after Hurricane Sandy, is deserving of Federal emergency relief aid. Guess it’s not big government that offends Graham, just the prospect of Federal money going to the Wrong Sort Of People.

Not that I’m exactly surprised.

Anyway, here’s my brilliant idea: the Senate Dems should let McConnell and Graham know that they’ll be glad to let a bill for Federal relief money for South Carolina come to a vote, as long as the bill also contains a section giving the EPA the authority to implement and enforce cap-and-trade regs.