Another candidate files against Lindsey Graham

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Sounds to me like that Connor guy wouldn't take much from the challengers, but he could give cover to the MIC vote to abandon Graham. This could open the door to a Bright / Mace showdown on the runoff and should be welcomed.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know anything about Cash or the other guy, does anyone have any info?

Mace would certainly be better than Graham but how much so its hard to say. I kind of got the vibe she'd be more like Ted Cruz than Rand Paul, but I don't know that for sure.

Lee Bright actually flat out said that our own government was more of a threat than terrorists. Lee Bright is the one we should be going for.

 

[MichaelDavis]

"Connor has been a strong critic of Graham and the Obama administration, especially on matters of foreign policy, such as warning against the US supporting the deposing of Mubarak in Egypt in 2011 which led to the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of the country, as well as the more recent warning Connor offered against US support of Syrian “rebels” which he warned were heavily influenced by Al Qaeda, and a potential attack on Syria not being in interests of the US."


"Connor also told us that, if elected he would be a staunch ally of conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Connor adds that for far too long constitutional conservatives like Cruz, Lee, and DeMint have been maligned by the GOP establishment and that it’s time for a changing of the guard in the GOP, especially the US Senate."

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If no one gets +50%, is there a runoff?

Yes.

Now do they all bash Graham or each other?

This guy is new to the campaign. We shall see.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

An article by the new candidate in this race, Bill Connor:

Bill Connor: "Israel needs America's support - not four more years of Obama"
...
At a time when the Islamic World is screaming for the death of both America and Israel (and Israel is facing nuclear annihilation by Iran), it is shocking to watch the Obama Administration and Democratic Party to attempt to put a wedge between our nations. Before the Democrats push us further away from Israel, it may be time to review why Israel is our traditional ally and why we need a change in US leadership back in support of our friend.

Zionism, the nationalist ideology of a Jewish return to the lands of present day Israel, began in the late 19th century. At that time, present-day Israel was a backwater in the Ottoman Empire. The Zionist movement was a secular, nationalist endeavor, meant to give Jews a homeland and some respite from persecution. The Jews turned the desert backwater into a green and lush first world country.
...
Due to the Obama Administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt, Israel now faces a grave threat at its southern border. For three decades after the Camp David Accords, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel, Israel has little concern over Egypt. Though Hosni Mubarak was not perfect, he kept the lid on Islamic radicalism, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood (The same force that murdered his predecessor, President Sadat). Mubarak and the Israelis understood the danger posed by allowing political power to the Brotherhood, and the reality that Brotherhood-backed Sharia Law would end Democracy.

Israel now faces the ultimate threat of nuclear annihilation from Iran. Iran has made clear it will “wipe Israel from the face of the Earth” if it obtains a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided not to use forceful foreign policy in dealing with Iran. Worse, the US State Department has sent the coded message to Israel that we would oppose any attack by the Israelis against Iran.
...
More:
http://earlcapps.blogspot.com/2012/09/bill-connor-israel-needs-americas.html

 

[CPUd]

Yes.



This guy is new to the campaign. We shall see.

Then Graham will sit back and let them use up all their money trying to get to the runoff.

 

[TaftFan]

Lee Bright for Senate. He is a true believer.

Bright: "Lindsey Graham is a community organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood."

 

[jkob]

Anyone but Graham. The goal is to get him under 50%, hopefully the challengers only go after Lindsay and not each other

 

[Christian Liberty]

An article by the new candidate in this race, Bill Connor:

So how is this guy really any better than Graham? How is he helping?

Reminds me of Ted Cruz, actually. Good at fooling people, not much good for liberty.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

So how is this guy really any better than Graham? How is he helping?

Reminds me of Ted Cruz, actually. Good at fooling people, not much good for liberty.

I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he's better than Graham.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he's better than Graham.

Yes, I agree with that. Ted is at least fiscally conservative when it doesn't come to foreign wars. On foreign policy, however, he comes off just as hawkish as the rest of the GOP circus.

I don't know how this applies to Bill Connors. This isn't an issue I'd ever compromise on, though. If it came down to Graham and another warmongering, Iran-hating hawk, I wouldn't vote for either. There are plenty of issues I'd compromise on, but this isn't one of them.

 

[DamianTV]

That asshat needs to go. He is an absolute threat to this Country, our Constitution and Freedom.

I actually made quite a large mistake in saying this. The REAL threat are the people that sponsor Graham, and the countless others willing to take money to sacrifice everything our country stood for.

Be mindful of who is Sponsored, and by whom are the Sponsors.

 

[muzzled dogg]

Worthy of a candidates evaluation thread?

 

[The Proservative]

The biggest problem with whomever runs for office is there is no guarantee someone will hold true to the principles they embraced during an election, after they've been elected. Once elected, there is no immediate penalty for lying to voters other than waiting until his or her next term to vote them out, or in the state's that support them, recall elections.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Yes, I agree with that. Ted is at least fiscally conservative when it doesn't come to foreign wars. On foreign policy, however, he comes off just as hawkish as the rest of the GOP circus.

I don't know how this applies to Bill Connors. This isn't an issue I'd ever compromise on, though. If it came down to Graham and another warmongering, Iran-hating hawk, I wouldn't vote for either. There are plenty of issues I'd compromise on, but this isn't one of them.

I wouldn't directly support one hawk over another, but I would hope for the victory of the hawk with better fiscal views.

At least Ted Cruz was against the war in Syria. I think there is a small possibility that he may change in the future. I wouldn't mind him as a governor or something like that.

 

[mad cow]

The biggest problem with whomever runs for office is there is no guarantee someone will hold true to the principles they embraced during an election, after they've been elected. Once elected, there is no immediate penalty for lying to voters other than waiting until his or her next term to vote them out, or in the state's that support them, recall elections.

Lee Bright has a record and is my first choice.But at this point,anybody but Graham.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So how is this guy really any better than Graham? How is he helping?

Reminds me of Ted Cruz, actually. Good at fooling people, not much good for liberty.

At the best end of the spectrum, this guy will be like Ted Cruz. Worse end, he's a MIC shill pushing for more spending, and a neo-conservative ally on foriegn policy.

If the media starts pushing Connor on the Sunday shows, then we'll know what is up. Watch for a Levin or Hannity endorsement.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't directly support one hawk over another, but I would hope for the victory of the hawk with better fiscal views.

Sure. I even hoped Obama would beat Romney (For reasons I already explained to you back when we were on CFC.) Doesn't mean I'd vote for him or actually support him.

So yeah, I'd probably have a slight preference between two evils most of the time. But I have better things to worry about than which hawk wins out of two in most cases.

At least Ted Cruz was against the war in Syria. I think there is a small possibility that he may change in the future. I wouldn't mind him as a governor or something like that.

Ted Cruz wanted to go into Syria. Oh, he wanted to do it "Quick" but he still wanted to do it, and I'm sure he knew it would/could become another Iraq.

I'd take Dennis Kucinich over Cruz at this point, and I'm no fan of Kucinich.

At the best end of the spectrum, this guy will be like Ted Cruz. Worse end, he's a MIC shill pushing for more spending, and a neo-conservative ally on foriegn policy.

If the media starts pushing Connor on the Sunday shows, then we'll know what is up. Watch for a Levin or Hannity endorsement.

To be fair, Levin and Hannity seem to like Rand as well. Can't tell why.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Ted Cruz wanted to go into Syria. Oh, he wanted to do it "Quick" but he still wanted to do it, and I'm sure he knew it would/could become another Iraq.

I'd take Dennis Kucinich over Cruz at this point, and I'm no fan of Kucinich.

Oh, I thought he was actually against that particular intervention. I haven't really looked into Cruz that much.

 

[Brett85]

So we have a new, improved, Graham 2.0? MIC and neo-conservative approved?

You must have missed this:

"Connor has been a strong critic of Graham and the Obama administration, especially on matters of foreign policy, such as warning against the US supporting the deposing of Mubarak in Egypt in 2011 which led to the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of the country, as well as the more recent warning Connor offered against US support of Syrian “rebels” which he warned were heavily influenced by Al Qaeda, and a potential attack on Syria not being in interests of the US."