WashTimes Fail: Graham Did Not Embrace Jenner

I am not a Lindsey Graham fan, on a number of issues. I was hoping that Congressman Mick Mulvaney would primary challenge him and remove him from office in 2014.

Despite the strikes against him, Graham does have strong foreign policy credentials.

We do need leaders in Washington who recognize grave threats in the Middle East, and how Islamic terrorism a metastasizing cancer, does not stay contained.

Yet his push for immigration "reform" and his boast as a "Chamber of Commerce" Republican have not emboldened him with conservatives, nor encouraged his party leaders to support him.

Graham, however, is a shrewd politician, and he had enough sense to declare during a CNN interview: "Obamacare sucks!"

Yes, it does.

Now, as a presidential candidate, Graham commands little attention or respect. Stephen Crowder quietly criticized him:

I'm SUPER excited to vote for Lindsey Graham. - said no one ever.

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) June">https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/605395840279048192">June 1, 2015

So, why is the Washington Times making skirt-like waves over Graham on "Face the Nation"?

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday reached out to Caitlyn Jenner in an appeal to transgender voters.

US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Really? How did he do that?

“If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be safe and have a prosperous economy, vote for me,” Mr. Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked about sex change by Olympics hero Bruce Jenner.

Actually, Graham's response should be commended. He focused on safety and prosperity, something that all Americans care about. Scott Walker rebuffed a similar, needlessly divisive "social issue" question about TransJenner with: "It's a personal decision".

Walker handled the question much better, in my opinion.

Yes, a personal decision, and one which Presidential contenders should not have to waste their time contending.

Mr. Graham, who is pursuing a long-shot White House with a campaign focused on strong foreign policy stances, said he wanted to grow the Republican Party and therefore welcomed transgender Americans into the fold.

Did he say that he was seeking to expand the Republican Party in such a manner? What did Graham say?

“I have not walked in her shoes,” he said. “I don’t have all the answers to the mysteries of life. I can only imagine the torment that Bruce Jenner went through.”

The South Carolina Republican said that he hoped Mr. Jenner had “found peace.”
He also said that his acceptance of Mr. Jenner’s choices does not conflict with his own conservative religious views.

The truth is that the argument for transgenderism is in gross conflict with conservative values. Great consensus does exist on the safety, security, and individual prosperity issues.

“I’m a pro-life, traditional marriage kind of guy, but I’m running to be president of the United States. If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be a Republican, she is welcome in my party,” said Mr. Graham. “Understanding what you are getting with Lindsey Graham: I am pro-life. I believe in traditional marriage without animosity.”

In other words: live and let live.

I would have preferred for Graham to call Bruce who is. . Bruce. He is not a she, cannot be a she. At least we can recognize that Republicans are learning to push away these inane gotcha questions.

Millions of people are out of work in this country. The wage gaps have gotten worse, with only the politically connected doing better. Government has gotten bigger, and  everyone else's paychecks and quality of life have gotten smaller.

Moreover, which ties in with Graham's modus operandi, people feel less safe. The world is boiling over with terrorist aggression, and Muslims are brazenly attacking public places, inciting violence in cities across the country.

Before a number of things, the President is the Commander of the Armed Forces, and the current  Occupant in the White House plays golf rather than wage war.

As for the headline that "Graham embraces TransJenner", the title is misleading at best, and misses the bigger point: there are a number of bigger points facing this country, from constitutional crises to illegal immigration (one big reason I will not be voting for Graham), to a lagging economy throttle by government bureaucratic morass.

Graham is wrong to refer to Bruce as a she. He is right to affirm that anyone who wants a pro-life, pro-marriage Republican who cares about national security can vote for Graham, and more importantly join the Republican Party.