PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #61
Lindsey Graham takes on conservatives
By: Manu Raju
July 24, 2009 04:17 AM EST
When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it was a sign that Graham is unreliable ... as a thinker and a leader.
Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, called it proof that Graham still lacks courage, statesmanship and an understanding of the Constitution and rule of law.
May his antics get the attention they richly deserve.
The response from Graham: Enjoy life in the minority.
In an interview with POLITICO Thursday, the South Carolina Republican defended his decision to back Sotomayor by laying out a broad critique of conservative activists who push ideological purity and refuse to cooperate with a Democratic Congress and White House.
If we chase this attitude that you have to say no to every Democratic proposal, you cant help the president ever, you cant ever reach across the aisle, then I dont want to be part of the movement because its a dead-end movement, Graham said.
I have no desire to be up here in an irrelevant status. Im smart enough to know that this country doesnt have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology. And those who are ideological-driven to a fault are never going to be able to take this party back into relevancy.
While a handful of other GOP senators have said theyll back Sotomayor when her nomination comes to the floor, Graham is the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support her.
He may be the only one. Not all of the Republicans on the committee have announced their views, but the two who would seem mostly likely to defect Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), two veterans who have voted for every Supreme Court nominee theyve faced in the Senate have both expressed reservations about Sotomayor.
Hatch said that hes troubled by her nomination, and Grassley said that people take things into consideration now that they didnt used to before. He added: So obviously, there are other things to consider than just qualifications.
Graham said that Sotomayor is not the nominee he would have chosen.
But after questioning her extensively during her confirmation hearing asking about everything from her views on abortion to the charge that shes a bully on the bench he said Sotomayor deserves his support because a review of her 17-year record proved she was well-qualified, her confirmation would not upset the ideological balance on the court, and Obama is entitled to some latitude in making his pick because he won the election.
Most of all, he said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.
More:
Lindsey Graham gives as good as he gets - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com
![]()
Graham is not a leader... he's a follower; always has been.
All the above explanation is, is a tepid endorsement of leftism...
What Graham and the Centrist (read: fascist) gaggle are simply not bright enough to understand is that being in the minority is a function of POOR LEADERSHIP...
The simple fact is that there has not been a CONSERVATIVE advocate in the US federal Executive since Ronald Reagan left office, or in the Federal Legislature since Gingrich left office, having let the Clinton machine roll over him.
Graham believes, which is not to say "thinks", as he's ill-equipped for such, is that being in the majority is somehow beneficial to anyone but those seeking mic-time... or face-time on Television. He wants to be POPULAR... and that's the bottom line.
He doesn't want to be a leader, because being a leader requires one to understand instinctively, the principles involved and to be able to unapologetically articulate those principles in the FACE OF AN OPPOSSING MAJORITY...
So screw his subversive ass...
Graham... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP... We DON'T WANT YOU HERE... Take your yellow stripe to the left side and STAY THERE/ ya spineless little Deniis the Menace looking POS...
Who is "we"?? FASCISTS like you who continue to demand MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?! I think you're terribly confused as to what "fascism" is, pal.
ROFLMNAO... Do you really?
Well I'm prepared to prove that you don't think... much at all... and here's how I will prove it.
I will advance one query, based directly upon the assertion highlighted above... when you fail to provide a lucid, cogent, well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument... YOU will have proven that you, in fact, possess little, if ANY MEANS to think, let alone your actually having engaged in such...
Now to the simple, direct and unambiguous question; a question which I predict you will have absolutely NO MEANS to answer with any discernible level of cogent veracity:
Maggie, what are you basing this assertion upon? Please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow; I am looking for your specific understanding of the word "fascist;" I want to know in unambiguous terms what you think "fascism" is; I would like you to provide a correlation of my SPECIFICALLY STATED position to fascist history... cite an example which for you to reasonably be able to make that assertion would necessarily need to have such a correlation IN YOUR MIND AT THE TIME YOU MADE THE STATEMENT... and how that understanding supports this conclusion... further; I want you to specifically explain whether or not you believe that as an abstract concept: 'my way or the highway' , is an exclusive component of fascism?
Now best of luck with that sis...