Why a Creep Like Lindsay Graham is Sitting Pretty and Probably Won't be Challenged in a Primary

Liberty activists are constantly frustrated by the fact that they can't unseat worthless, warmongering and despicable incumbents in primaries.  Lindsay Graham is a prime example of all that is wrong with our primary and election system, the Republican Party and Republican voters.  Politico did a puff piece on Graham that disclosed a bitter truth, a truth that applies to nearly 100% of Republican incumbents who are nearly impossible to dislodge from their solidly anchored thrones.

Lindsey Graham faces down primary challenge

Graham has repeatedly poked his finger in the eye of the GOP base..... 

Yet a year out from his primary, Graham is in surprisingly good shape. He had over $5.4 million in the bank at the end of March....

Some South Carolina conservatives loathe Graham, and will express as much next year, but right now they’re outnumbered by the ranks of those who like him or at least respect his leadership role. “The 30 percent of the Republicans who don’t like him really don’t like him, but generally speaking Lindsey is very highly regarded back home,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C).

Precisely because the Republican voting base is exceedingly accepting of big government statists and warmongers who stomp on civil liberties, folks like Lindsay Graham are never really threatened.

Then there's the money.  Few challengers have the financial resources or the ability to compete with Graham $5 million plus campaign war chest. MapLight.org reported that the average cost of a US Senate seat is a staggering $10,476,451, or an average of $14,351 that was raised every day during the 2012 election  cycle, here.

Who funds campaign coffers?  Special interests dough owns US elections.  According to Open Secrets, an organization that tracks campaign finance money, Lindsay Graham's top campaign contributors by industry are:

Industry                             Total     Indiv.   PAC

Lawyers/Law Firms	$1,026,779	$894,529	$132,250
Electric Utilities	$434,562	$225,110	$209,452
Real Estate	$371,130	$341,630	$29,500
Lobbyists	$309,379	$302,015	$7,364
Retired	$301,664	$301,664	$0
Securities & Investment	$286,208	$265,208	$21,000
Leadership PACs	$233,500	$0	$233,500
General Contractors	$196,538	$106,038	$90,500
Insurance	$194,800	$83,800	$111,000
Health Professionals	$173,362	$104,862	$68,500
Commercial Banks	$147,710	$52,560	$95,150
Business Services	$146,199	$135,699	$10,500
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$141,619	$86,619	$55,000
Misc Finance	$141,163	$127,663	$13,500
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing	$137,380	$66,980	$70,400
Defense Aerospace	$132,100	$24,600	$107,500
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$129,936	$51,936	$78,000
TV/Movies/Music	$121,143	$44,467	$76,676
Railroads	$107,250	$6,250	$101,000
Textiles

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?type=C&cid=n00009975&newMem=N&cycle=2012

While it's true that the American people are mostly clueless about campaign finance, they also fail to comprehend that our election system is rigged for the exclusive benefit of special interests and corporations and certainly not for the benefit of We the People.  We the People haven't been a part of the process for decades.

Once you understand campaign finance, you also understand why folks like Lindsay Graham can give We the People the birdie.  After all, he's been bought and paid for and all with the blessing of the Sheeple People voters.

For more on our corrupt to the core election system, see:

The Rot, the Stench and the Filth of Campaign Finance & How to Fix It

Are the Neocons Changing their Stripes? Don't count on it and here's why.

Like the Bob Dylan song, Times They Are a-Changin, Senator Rand Paul struck a raw nerve in GOP circles with his famous, media and Twitter viral filibuster.  Rand Paul didn't succeed in stopping John Brennan, the godfather of murderous drone strikes, from being confirmed as the new head of the CIA but he definitely succeeded in bringing drone use and US foreign policy out of the GOP's closet. For that he was cheered and jeered but mostly cheered by civil libertarians on the right and left.  The jeers flowed from old guard neocon whackjobs like John McCain, Lindsay Graham and their reliable partners on the left.

The Jeers:

McCain, Graham Attack Rand Paul for Anti-Drone Filibuster, Antiwar.com that stated "Paul's question about Obama's authority to kill US citizens doesn't deserve an answer, Graham said".

James Carville: Rand Paul’s ‘Nutty’ Concerns About Drones Akin To Birtherism, Evolution Deniers Mediaite

MSNBC Hosts Mock Rand Paul: Made Serious Issue Of Drones Sound ‘Absurd,’ ‘Crazy,’ ‘And On The Fringe’  Mediaite

It should come as no surprise that the far left and far right were at the forefront in attacking Rand Paul. These bat shit crazies have no respect whatsoever for the constitution, civil liberties or peace.  They are a pox upon humanity everywhere.

The Cheers:

While the cheers were loudest among civil libertarians, the cheers also hailed from some surprising places like the traditional standard bearers of neocon foreign policy.  Rush Limbaugh, the icon of Republican talk radio, actually smacked McCain and Graham while defending Rand Paul.

Limbaugh Hits McCain And Graham For Opposing Rand Paul, Dining With Obama: ‘Who Are They Siding With?’

Laura Ingraham, another popular neocon icon of Republican talk radio wasted no time praising Rand Paul and promptly interviewing him on her radio show.

Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)

The neocon armor is slowly cracking. With both Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham standing with Rand, the foreign policy debate will be brought out of the Republican closet and this will not bode well for Republican foreign policy hawks. It's not that either Limbaugh or Ingraham even care about peace, liberty or the constitution but they are apoplectic over back to back Republican general election losses. Folks like Limbaugh and Ingraham are not motivated by ideology; in fact, they are merely weathermen who sense and follow the political winds. Right now in America, the political winds are strongly blowing away from costly foreign interventionism and non-stop wars.

Despite all the glowing and supportive tweets, as well as the right wing media professing its undying love for Rand Paul, we have to ask ourselves if any of this in any way signals that the Republican Party and its pundits are serious.

Or is it more like a stealth date when the guy has a romance strategy to get in her pants because he really only wants to screw her?

Despite the barrage of poetic wing nut words, the neocons can never be trusted.  Every conservative, constitutionalist and small government advocate has been down this road many, many times and drank the Koolaid with the flavor FOOL.

How will we ever know if they are serious?  That's not difficult.  Just look back in history and how the Vietnam War finally ended.

How Congress Ends Wars, It always comes down to money

As the Democratically-controlled 110th Congress searches for a way to end the Iraq war authorized by the Republican-controlled 107th Congress, it seems appropriate to recall how the U.S. Congress ended the Vietnam War, and more recently, further U.S. military combat involvement in Somalia. At the end of those dark days, ending the battle came down to ending the money.

On Aug. 5, 1964, Congress enacted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, authorizing President Lyndon Johnson to use "all necessary measures" to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces in Vietnam. The resolution passed easily, 466-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate, with the only dissenting votes coming from Democratic Sens. Wayne Morse (Oregon) and Ernest Gruening (Alaska).

Unlike the resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Iraq, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained language allowing Congress to repeal it at any time. Unsuccessful congressional efforts to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution began as early as 1966, just two "quagmire-ish" years after its passage. Finally in January of 1971, Congress succeeded in passing a measure repealing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. While he did not veto it, President Richard M. Nixon refused to honor the measure and continued to wage the war, claiming presidential authority to do so as commander in chief of the military. But, another far more effective act of Congress would ultimately end the Vietnam War by closing the federal purse strings.

In December 1970, Congress reacted to the U.S. invasion of Cambodia by passing the landmark Cooper-Church amendment to the Foreign Military Sales Bill. The amendment, named for and sponsored by Sens. John Sherman Cooper (R-Kentucky) and Frank Church (D-Idaho), prohibited the use of any funds already appropriated for military spending on the introduction of additional U.S. troops into Cambodia. While President Nixon denounced Cooper-Church as harming the war effort, he failed to veto it. Today, the Cooper-Church amendment is regarded as the first congressional action taken limiting presidential powers during a war.

Following Cooper-Church, and even after the Paris cease-fire agreement, Congress literally dropped the hammer on the Vietnam War with its passage in 1973 of a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 636) prohibiting any further appropriation or expenditure of any funds for any "combat in or over or from the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.

And that's precise how wars end.  When Congress finally refuses to fund them through appropriations, they are over.

Let's get back to the GOP.  What Republicans are willing to defund the current wars?  For that matter, the same question also applies to the war friendly Democrats.  It would be nearly impossible to find a Republican or Democrat who would agree to defund the wars, let alone reign in executive powers.

When Republicans and their pundits start demanding that the wars be defunded along with military spending, that's when you know somebody is serious about ending the wars.  If a candidate is unwilling to vociferously and loudly campaign on ending war funding, then they are still fully committed neocons.

Who is talking about the cost of the wars?  Absolutely nobody but I blogged about war costs.

The Cost of America's Wars - $3 Trillion, $4 Trillion, $5 Trillion, $7 Trillion, $8 Trillion, Going Once, Going Twice, SOLD

If Americans want to understand why America is bankrupt and why the economy lies in ruins, look no further than war spending.

Meanwhile, it's definitely not time to start singing Bob Dylan's song, Times They are a-Changin.