It seems time for a civics lesson for the anti-U.S. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., set who seem to be floundering in a wayward complaint that he is not conservative enough. I'm going to vote for Graham because he is conservative and is the best person to do the job senators are supposed to do.
As to civics, we have two bodies in Congress: the House of Representatives, which was designed to be parochial with citizens having the right to fire their representative after two years for not doing right – in today's case not being “conservative enough.” The Senate was designed to be a national policy-making body with two people – senators – designated from each state being given the security of a six-year term so that they could stay above transient parochial interests, debate national policy matters, and/or do battle over deviant causes that could do harm to the nation and to their state.
Graham is a lawyer equipped for and unafraid to engage in debate, and as a colonel in the Air Force Reserves, knows of our defense needs and is a strong supporter of our troops and of their needs for proper health care.
He believes that the war against radical Islam, globally and for our nation, is the defining challenge of our time. Domestically, he has opposed Obamacare and fights for fiscal discipline to Washington. For South Carolina, he has championed the deepening of Port Charleston, fought the NLRB's effort to close Boeing's 787 assembly line and supports nuclear, oil and gas developments in the state.
I like what Graham is doing as my senator.
He is conservative and is forceful in his concerns for both our state and nation.
I do not see in any of his challengers the understanding, strengths and convictions that Graham has to offer. That, and this civics review, bids you to vote for Graham for senator.
Notice about comments: