Graham on Kagan

I didn't watch the video, but I read his comments when he announced his support. He has quickly become of my favorite Senators - not because of his positions, but because he understands that the Senate and House are going down a very dangerous path of partisanship where opposition is done for no reason other than to oppose the other side.

 

Heartening and heartbreakingly rare.

 

i've always been fascinated with graham due to the fact that he's never been married and apparently doesn't feel the need to. just very strange for such a conservative politician. i disagree with much of what he stands for, but it's nice to see someone reach across the aisle with a bit of reason.

 

Of course, you know the right will construe his non-partisan approach by declaring him a RINO or something.

 

Tea Party understands why he isn't married....

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2MCXjkS8cc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2MCXjkS8cc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Graham has a long rope because he isn't up for re-election until 2014.

 

I've never been a fan of Graham, I don't like how he goes out of the way to sound folksy and his ridiculous rhetorical questions he ask nominees which he then goes to answer himself. I will give him his due though this time.

 

As Mulder pointed out above, one could cynically chalk Graham's sudden move to moderation as a reaction to the Tea Party calling for his ouster/public outing (without actual proof that he's gay).

But Graham's been around longer than his recent spell of moderation, and it's just as likely he'll tack backward (er, rightward) when it suits him/becomes expedient for re-election:

E.g. Graham was part of the Potemkin market Americans were shown back in 2007, as proof that the media was lying to us about how great the war was going.


NY Times

ThinkProgress: "McCain Strolls Through Baghdad Market, Accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apache Gunships"
[rquoter]Sen. John McCain strolled briefly through an open-air market in Baghdad today in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq.

NBC’s Nightly News provided further details about McCain’s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.[/rquoter]
Getting less attention was McCain's entourage, which included Graham:
Washington Post:
[rquoter]"We were warmly welcomed," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who was part of the delegation, along with Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). "I bought five rugs for five bucks. People were engaging." [/rquoter]
If memory serves, in the days after, after the politicians and American calvary left, there was a bombing in that very same market which killed/injured dozens.

It's actually kind of interesting that Graham has taken center stage (with the exception of the Maine senators) as the main voice of Republican moderation. For so long he was McCain's lapdog, and now McCain is having to completely renounce all of his former positions/independent thoughts just to get reelected. I'm kinda curious what Graham will do (vote-wise: so far we've seen little) while playing that role.

 

While it seems like he's ripping pages from McCain's early playbook, I don't like where the Tea Party is heading with its know-nothing obstructionism, and I'll welcome any real help in "taking back" some sanity in the Republican party.

I thought Dub**** and co. lowered my standards for that party. I was wrong.

 

Graham isn't politically moderate, per say. He's moderate in terms of process. He accepts that his role is to oppose but not necessarily obstruct everything. Or oppose but follow the traditions of the Senate, etc. He doesn't think his role is just to yell and scream about the other side being the devil.

Historically, that's not really "moderate". It just seems that way because the rest of the GOP has gone so nutty. Most people in the Senate used to be that way. (For example, just 10-15 years ago, Supreme Court nominees used to get 80 or 90 confirmation votes even when people were opposed politically to them)

 

I've always hated Graham since I first saw him being the chief prosecutor in the Senate for the show trial impeach of Clinton for lying about a blow job. He was so sanctimonious. I would have great schandefreude to see him voted out due to a sex issue.

He reminds me so much of McCain He is or isn't a "maverick" depending on which way the wind is blowing.

 

Great post, Major. I would never describe Graham as a moderate, but he's not an obstructionist. At this point, I'll take what I can get.

 

deck go see what he's done on national security. he gave the administration an ultimatum that they can either try KSM in fed cts, or do what he wants and he'll 'deliver' votes on gitmo.

for someone who talked tough on torture (e.g. his bud mccain) he never delivers when it counts. he has that specter/mccain quality of talking a good game at times, but at the end of the day following the party line and being a complete and utter hypocrite. i'll take an idiot ******* like cornyn over a slimy two faced devious hypocrite like graham.

 

Great to see that there is hope for the Republican party. Perhaps it can spin off the Tea Partiers and attract enough moderate Dems to re-cast itself into something of a mainstream American party.

 

<Herrera>The thread title sounds like a Grade Z porno.</Herrera>

 

You have a point. Frankly, I wouldn't take Cornyn or Graham for head of the local SPCA (OK, I might take Graham for the SPCA gig, but not Cornyn. He's got "Guv Good Hair Lite" written all over him). Let's face it... the leadership of the GOP has been so incredibly obstructionist towards the President's agenda, with too much "help" from the President, IMO, that when someone like Graham does something like this there is a tendency to jump up and down and shout, "Hurray!" That's what Democrats have been reduced to. I expected far more aggressive leadership from the White House. Not from Congress, Congress continuing to be what Congress has been for so long now... a muddle, interrupted by moments of chaos, but I expected more from the President.

He's still learning on the job, which is not too surprising, but the man should hop back on the stump and raise hell. Now is not the time for the "calm voice of moderation, comity, and bipartisanship." Raise hell and direct it at those doing nothing but attacking you, while thumping their chests and claiming the President is not reaching out in the spirit of "moderation, comity, and bipartisanship." Far too frequently, "the reasons" are connected to his race, either for the political benefit, privately not giving a damn what his race is, or out of old fashioned bigotry. Anyone with two eyes, two ears, and a functioning brain can see that. Yes, it is depressing and a sad comment on too large a segment of our population after the national joy of the election of a Black president, sooner than most thought possible. We can't fixate on that. Things are what they are, not a post-election fantasy.

Take a page from Mr. Truman, Mr. President, and give 'em hell! Might actually do some good.

 

Wait - what exactly is wrong with this? He's trying to influence policy by being willing to make tradeoffs. Isn't that what we want, as opposed to just obstructing everything everywhere for the hell of it?

His job is not to just acquiese to whatever the admin wants. His job is to try to use his vote to influence legislation to be more in line with his views, understanding that he's a minority Senator and doesn't get to drive the agenda. This seems like an example of that.

Certainly, there's a lot of duplicity and willingness to compromise on beliefs, but that's the case for virtually every Congressperson in both parties. I don't think it's fair to single any particular player out for that.