They are woefully, WOEFULLY overestimating how many people in the US have a hard on to ban abortion. You want to energize voting bases that rarely vote? College students, apolitical, apathetic, and “just not into politics” voters? Make this the standing issues for the midterms. Do it. Please. It will back fire on them for the most part. They live in an information silo if they think most Americans want a federal ban. Look at the Kansas vote. Even in the highly rural counties it was unpopular. And that was the smaller primary election.
Also, I want someone to explain to me with a straight face how they can claim Republicans are for smaller government.
Well, the unspoken part is that they want smaller government for wealthy, conservative christian cisgendered straight white men, not for everyone else.
He’s an evil, duplicitous hypocrite but I don’t think that Graham is stupid enough to believe this has any chance of becoming law. My best guess is that he’s trying to shore up support and get political donations from his hard-core base in South Carolina, and he doesn’t particularly care if it drags down party members around the country as a result. So it could well backfire for most Republicans (which is why McConnell is against the strategy) but still serve Graham’s purposes.
I think the straight face melted during the 2nd Gulf War (if not earlier).
For some reason this came to mind the other day: what do brilliant and/or strapping John Galts care about a bunch of namby-pamby bureaucrats, anyway? If the Galt-types are so great, then surely the likes of the US Gov’t are no obstacle. (Answer: they’re not; it’s what you said )
I dunno - Graham doesn’t have to run for re-election until 2027. So it seems an odd strategy to double down on a topic so unpopular that many Republicans are scrubbing their overt pro-life stances on their websites. I don’t know the context of where he was speaking, so it could be to shore up support for other candidates running in red areas. Which might work for one area, but be bad on the national level. If this becomes the Republicans platform (which is refreshing change of pace having an official platform vs just “fighting the radical left that hates America”), I think it will lead to them definitely losing the Senate, and the House stands a good chance of staying Democrat controlled.
It will take more than just Grahams comment to make the a national call to action, but if enough people parrot it, it will be.
If they control the House and Senate I absolutely think it would pass. Only because Biden is in office is why it wouldn’t be law. He would veto it.
I really think not. She claims to be pro-choice, and was able to split the baby – hah, accidentally-on-point biblical allusion was nicely emergent there, btw – on the Trump SC nominees but this would be too stark.
Wasn’t Graham last up for election in 2020? I don’t think he’s thinking so hard about doing an unusual amount of fundraising right now. (I mean, all congresscritters have to raising at all times, but it’s not a specifically urgent need for him rn.)
Sounds like the author was a right-wing nut who misunderstood Graham’s proposal and thought it would preempt states from enacting even stricter abortion bans. As @Mindysan33 notes above and the author now acknowledges, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Bastards all.
I originally had published a post here taking issue with Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposal for a 15-week abortion ban at the national level, out of concern that it would preempt state efforts to set stricter limits. I am retracting the post because it was factually wrong. I did not realize that Graham’s proposal is just a federal ceiling; it allows states to set limits lower than 15 weeks.
Is it still hypocrisy if one doesn’t even make a pretense of consistency or having any sort of ethics or ideology beyond “take power by any means and exercise it to control - but only on out-groups”? Asking for a friend the Republicans.
What’s making me extra mad is he’s framing it like “All the developed world has decided that a 15 week limit is civilized and we’re being the outlier by not having that limit.” Leaving aside that’s not actually true, it’s as if he wasn’t trying to impose a bunch of limits that would make it extremely difficult to get an abortion at all, as if those other countries also were forcing women to carry non-viable fetuses (whereas in fact have no limits in that case and if life - and health - were at risk), and ignoring the fact that in those countries abortion is both extremely accessible and paid for by the government.
