THOMAS RAVENEL TURNS UP THE HEAT ON “WASHINGTON LIBERAL”
If Labor Day is the unofficial end of summer, then the day after Labor Day is the unofficial beginning of South Carolina’s political season.
Talk about a raw deal for you, huh?
Anyway, it’s the day when campaigns start ramping up their rhetoric and making moves to get their messages out to you … hoping to generate momentum that will carry them to victory in November.
The first candidate out of the gate this year? Thomas Ravenel – the independent conservative who’s running as a petition candidate against incumbent “Republican” Sen. Lindsey Graham.
In what we’re told is a preview of forthcoming internet, radio and television advertisements, the Lowcountry businessman and reality television star released a broadside against Graham on the issue of Obamacare. The email’s time stamp? A quarter to eight o’clock in the morning … making it one of the first missives to land in reporters’ inboxes as they returned to work.
“Lindsey Graham has spent hundreds of thousands of special interest dollars this election year trying to convince South Carolinians that he opposes Obamacare,” Ravenel wrote. “Is that true, though? And if it is true – why is Graham having to spend all that special interest money convincing people it’s true?”
According to Ravenel – whose release is peppered with links to specific roll call votes – Graham’s opposition to Obamacare is “in name only” – “like his ‘Republican’ label.”
“Last September Graham bragged about his support for a House resolution that would have defunded Obamacare – but when it came time to actually stand up for this resolution (and remove Obamcare funding from the budget) he folded like a cheap suit,” Ravenel wrote. “While real conservatives – including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and South Carolina’s own Tim Scott – courageously stood against funding Obamacare, Lindsey Graham voted with the Democrats.”
Say what you will about Ravenel, but … he’s right.
Ravenel adds that in addition to advancing Obamacare in the budget, Graham “was one of only five ‘Republicans’ in the entire U.S. Senate voting to confirm both of Obama’s radical Supreme Court justices.”
Both of those judges voted to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare’s insidious individual mandate – including Elena Kagan, who received Graham’s support even though she had a clear conflict related to the legislation.
“Graham is no ‘conservative leader,'” Ravenel concluded – quoting references taken directly from Graham’s campaign website. “Nor is he a ‘strong opponent of Obamacare.’ The truth is he’s an Obamacare enabler. And anyone – including Graham – who tells you different is lying.”
Again … say what you will about Ravenel, but this issue shouldn’t be up for debate.
When conservative Senators were standing against this socialized medicine monstrosity in Washington, Graham was joining the ranks of “Republicans in Name Only” and voting to move it forward. Even worse, he was one of only a handful of GOP Senators giving Obama the judicial support necessary to uphold the law.
Bottom line? If you oppose Obamacare, you might want to think twice about giving Graham your support …
36 comments
Obamacare is a blessing in disguise to anti-statists…for after a decade the financial destruction of it is going to punch the last few holes in the US’s financial Titanic.
Sure, some people will die in the long run as a result of shitty government run care…but you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet as the saying goes.
Might as well cheer on a few more wars to while we’re at it.
Sure, some people will die in the long run as a result of shitty government run care…
Well, there’s plenty that have died thanks to private industry dropping coverages on technicalities, but if we entertained the idea that sometimes the invisible hand of the free market has no qualms with swatting away
peopleflies in the name of profits, we might arrive at the conclusion that government intervention may very well be necessary in vital markets such as health care.“we might arrive at the conclusion that government intervention may very well be necessary in vital markets such as health care.”
…and to come to that conclusion one has to ignore the whole of written history over 100 year history blocks to see that every large scale socialized financial system ends in bankruptcy, preceded by rationing and shitty service.
But don’t like that interrupt your thought process.
There’s a reason all the leading thinkers that wrote books critical of socialism on large scales lived under such systems.
*like=let
so any idea what the affordable care act does? no? well let’s fight loud and hard about it anyway.
Therein lies the irony in the massive debate of healthcare reform. Hands down, less than 5% of those that argue actually have read the law, or have enough understanding of health care economics to actually debate the thing.
Rather, 95% of those simply pick out an isolated talking point and beat it to death, or kick the proverbial dead horse. Indeed, the majority of these talking points are found from picking any of your favorite 24hr news channels (doesn’t matter which side, either).
“Hands down, less than 5% of those that argue actually have read the law, or have enough understanding of health care economics to actually debate the thing.”
Yes, in that aspect I agree with you both.
Let’s not kid ourselves though, less than 5% of the elected representatives read the bill as well. (though I’m sure their aides lied and told them they read it all)
Even more laughable though, is that the bill is still changing, without even votes and/or approval of the reps. It’s now a mish mash of executive orders and supreme court decisions because nobody knows what the fuck the 2000+ page bill really says.
As Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”
So what if the “talking points” are birthed out of MSM? Are you saying that makes them irrelevant? What a stupid comment if that’s the case.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that just the massive failure of the website on both a implementation as well as fiscal scale is a small example of the financial destruction to come. It’s axiomatic, no “study” needed, no talking heads to explain, no nothing…it’s something that everyone that removes their personal agenda should be able to understand short of them being incredibly stupid.
a=an
If you did not insist on being an anonymous troll, and had the courage to get a Disqus account, you could edit your posts.
Shut up fuck face.
Is that enough “troll” for you?
Don’t you have neighbors to report for tree infractions or some stupid shit?
Oh, it’s you again.
Fuckface is one word. If you followed Tom’s advice…
I don’t believe I disagreed with anything you said. No need to extrapolate my comments beyond their plain language.
Although I am more cautious to estimate the number, I would also agree that a majority of those in Washington likely are not fully informed as to the substance of law.
That said, I do find issue with one point you just made….
If talking points all come out of 24-hr news channels, then folks are merely regurgitating a single isolated facet within the grand scheme. As such, this too, highlights the perverse nature of our entertainment cycles. Very few people realize that 24-hr news channels are merely a business. Thus, there is little to no incentive to search beyond what is needed to gain viewers and, subsequently, sell advertisements.
“I don’t believe I disagreed with anything you said.No need to extrapolate my comments beyond their plain language.”
I haven’t done that, I’ll requote what I originally quoted in your/my response:
“less than 5% of those that argue actually have read the law, or have enough understanding of health care economics to actually debate the thing.”
So in plain language, you are claiming that 95% of the people can’t debate Obamacare on its fiscal merits, so we do disagree and I’ve posted my counter argument as to why.
I imagine that the number has certainly increased as so much time has passed. I was caught up in this debate from what seems like long ago, when taking the current day into account.
Let me refine and/or restate the original point that I made…or at least attempted.
Far too many arguments claim PPACA is “good” or “bad” based on any one particular facet. However, the economics of the health care industry are extremely complicated. As such, it is extremely different to isolate any one particular facet and claim that–within its vacuum–the law is “good” or “bad.” I’ve heard and seen far too many commentators or news hosts (or even water cooler debates) that merely repeat this. (aka death panels, Medicaid expansion, men forced to purchase maternity coverage)
The cause and effect relationships are substantially different and interwoven. Now, does this mean that intelligent people cannot debate the fiscal merits? Absolutely not. Rather, this entire process is merely a manifestation of the complexity of the health care industry. However, I choose to ignore those that find a single “dead horse” and proceed to kick it until kingdom come.
Notice I’ve not mentioned whether I thought “Obamacare” was “good” or “bad.”
No one understands the ACA, not even employers. One of the problems with the ACA is that it does things that aren’t even in the bill.
One of my employers won’t allow me to work more than 25 hours any week because he doesn’t want to provide healthcare even though the cut off is 30 hours. This cost me but it also effects my employer negatively if he could otherwise use me for more than 25 hours. This employer is also going to fire me for two weeks and then rehire me. They are doing it to all the other part timers also. When I asked why I was told because of the ACA. This an employer that has several thousand employees and is getting expert advice.
Perhaps you should talk to a labor lawyer. It is not out of the realm of possibility that your employer is wrong.
I can tell you as an employer that my accountant is not even sure what the final tax forms are going to be as the IRS & Obamacare are in fighting about how penalties and tax treatment are going to be implemented next year.
Right now it’s looking like small business owners will have to claim their insurance payments(but this isn’t set in stone) as income a la similar to HDHP with contributions depending on corporate structure.
So big government bureaucrats are battling over who is gonna do the most paperwork and how next year….nice.
I can’t even plan around their internal bullshit, thankfully my employees haven’t been dropped by our carrier, but it doesn’t strictly conform to the ever changing rules of what is Obamacare qualified.
It’s a big fucking mess.
Not only wrong, but ignorant. The part-time distinction does not take effect until 2015.
My employer is a state agency.
My condolences.
All the more reason to talk to a labor lawyer
The cutoff is actually 32 hours and they just have to offer insurance. You can decline and pay the penalty. Employers are screwing around with employees because they can. That isn’t the ACA’s fault.
When you pass a law, you should consider what the secondary effects are going to be.
Many years ago the government passed a luxury tax. Nothing in the bill told the yacht industry to cut back employment, but that’s what happened.
Interesting Kagan voted as a SCOTUS justice BEFORE Graham voted on her confirmation. Neat trick.
I’ve never seen so much attention lavished on a second-tier candidate by a website since, well, Nancy Mace.
Well…..considering that you seem to think that Lindsey Graham is “first tier” then what party favors are you enjoying….?
Cheaper ELECTRIC Bill…..?
Cheaper INSURANCE rates…?
A choice at the pump instead of FOSSIL OIL…?
Investment advice in Somalia….Egypt…….Ukraine…….Syria….Iraq……Iran……Libya………Nigeria…….Djibouti……Bahrain…………????
Real Estate Investment in the Neck Area of Charleston…???
Does the Post and Courier editorial consider you to be a first tier benefactor…?
On the long shot chance of Ravenel getting elected, what party if any would he caucus with?
I would rather him “Rukus” than “Caucus”…!@!!
Rukus gets a lot accomplished. Just ask Ron Paul.
He ran as a Republican for Treasurer. He is more Republican than Graham. He will be an asset to the Republican Party.
The vote on the ACA that actually could have made a difference was the vote for cloture. If the vote had failed to cut off debate the bill could have been killed. By voting for cloture (which required a two thirds vote) and against the funding bill (which was a simple majority vote) Graham sought to deceive the voters of SC. Just another case of his lying to the people. Tell me again how many times that mule has to kick the voters . I may be wasting my vote , it won’t be the first time, but I will not vote for a two faced lyre. For better or worse T Rav gets my vote.
Mine too.
Me three!
Graham is a f-ked up pussy ass. Why the douche bag wont come out and debate. What a wuss. Guess he is too busy HUGGING and SLEEPING with little illegal alien boys, huh? ….. Hey Graham …. YOU SUCK. And so do your spies on this website.
Turning up the heat on LG? I wouldn’t quantify what TR’s up to as “heat.” Stroking himself? Yes. Self-aggrandizing? Yes. Annoying normal people? Yes. Turning up the heat on LG? Uh, no. We’ll see just how “hot” TR is in about 69 days, and just how full of shit the breathless coverage of his ever-increasing momentum has been…