Skip to comments.Lindsey Graham interviewed on Mike Gallagher
Posted on 05/24/2005 11:18:01 AM PDT by AFPhys
In the last hour of the show, Lindsey Graham was on the Mike Gallagher show. Here is a synopsis of what he said
- I pretty much leave out the other side of the conversation since it is usually pretty clear what Mike said:
- It's tough to disagree with your friends...
- I'd like to give you my reasoning here...
[interrupted by Mike with clip played of Reid crowing: sent a message to Pres & Radical R's]
- He's just playing that to his base. The bottom line is that Reid and the D's lose the battle over these three that they most wanted to block. Pryor, Brown, Owens will be confirmed real soon.
- If filibusters are allowed, that will damage the judiciary. We had to end that. This is a chance to start over and reinstate the Senate tradition of parties working together. But ...
- I am a YES vote - a solid YES - for the Constitutional Option - if the D's resume filibustering.
- I predict all eight of these nominees will get back in the process, and that seven of those eight will be confirmed - but that one will not.
- This is all about the Supreme Court, though.
- The real big problem I had is "what happens if the Constitutional option failed?" There are FIVE SOLID NOs against the Constitutional option. There are 4 or 5 unknown. This was too close. Failure would be a disaster and really cause problems.
- Best is to get these conservative justices on the bench, and that will reframe the debate for the D's since these are not now "too extreme".
- [What if D's Filibuster USSC justices?] - D's said they would not filibuster unless "exceptional circumstances" - and that's not a wide open phrase - they aren't sinning this.
- Conservative justices will now make it through the judicial process.
- I will vote for the Constitutional option if they filibuster Supreme Court and so will at least one more of the 12.
- [lost momentum?] - Maybe - but don't forget that they have now put "Neanderthals" (Kennedy/ Reid's words) to be judges, and so these are not "too conservative" to be on the bench.
- This has been the hardest thing I've done ...
- If they filibuster, I'll fight back hard - I'll start over with the "nuclear option" - but we'll be in a far stronger position when we're discussing the Supreme Court justices with the public.
- I may be wrong and hope I'm not about all this - time will tell.
Sorry about the disjointed phrases.
If a transcript comes up somewhere, please post at least parts of it.
Lindsey, where I come from, if you're hanging out with Hillary Clinton, you're up to no good...
We've already got the campaign stickers for any opponent willing to challenge Sen. Graham in the primary right out of his own mouth. "Republican by day; Democrat by night!"
Lindsey, where I come from, if you're hanging out with Hillary Clinton, you're up to no good.
And your feet stink, and your mama dresses you funny...
He's just playing that to his base
Someone call up and tell him to burn in hell and switch parties.
Too bad the backstabber didnt' work his heart out to convince the NOs to support our President and honor all those who worked so hard to get the President re-elected.
We (libs and conservatives alike) are all so concerned about how appellate and Supreme Ct. justices will rule concerning legislation--legislation passed by freely elected US and state legislators. Yet, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the US constitution giving federal judges the authority to overturn legislation passed by such legislators. The judiciary (under Chief Justice Marshall) essentially seized this power in a constitutional coup in the seminal case Marbury vs. Madison. What we conservatives should be debating is whether the institution of judicial review should even exist in this day and age. Most representative republics don't have it. A law passed by a freely elected parliament is assumed to be constitutional. That is how it is in Britain and most of Europe. American legislators and executives swear an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution. It is thus unthinkable that they would introuduce, let alone pass legislation violating our Constitution. I know this seems quixotic, but if we press our allies in the Federalist society and in Congress, we may, someday, be able to push through a constituional amendment eliminating the odious doctrine of judicial review.
The Bible says we will be known by our "Fruits" and since Graham hangs with the group he has chosen to vote for. That says more than the mere words he used to spin his position.
AFPHys, Thanks for taking the time to write all this down and post it!
Sounds like Graham (& DeWine) are not planning to forgoe votes for the constitutional option after all, despite what the agreement says.
Sure. I believe that.
If should be WHEN.
Not that there's anything wrong with it...
Does he know this? As I said before, I'm optimistic.
Maybe - but don't forget that they have now put "Neanderthals" (Kennedy/ Reid's words) to be judges, and so these are not "too conservative" to be on the bench.
Certainly, if the Dems try to fillibuster another judge, Lindsey can say, "Well, this guy is no more Conservative than the other three you approved". Unfortunately, such a response is likley to carry little weight with the Dems or the MSM. They will just plow forward. The whole idea that the Dems have to even try to be consistent is the fallacy in the logic. Just look at Peach's list of Dem quotes from the late 90's if you don't believe me.
He's just been duped by McCain. McCain needs to be the first to pay for this fiasco. We must get him out of power. Then we can move on to the others.
"Exceptional circumstances" to the Dems will be in a Bush nominee is breathing.
I pray that someone will tell this sissy, that he should NEVER EVER think for one second that he has any hope to be President. His voice shows how little of a man he is. He is a squirrelly, girlie man. Lindsey, you are pathetic wimp. You have NOTHING to offer this country. I would give anything to tell this to his face. My God, this man just help do great damage to our Republic.
Lindsey and I are/were on the same page. The nuclear/Constitutional option was not a slam-dunk, and losing would have meant a persistence of the status quo. Getting the three most "extreme" judges a vote and likely confirmation, plus the restraint of making a judicial filibuster radioactive (pardon the metaphor) for the Dems:
this is a win, folks. The status quo has been altered in significant favor of the Republicans.
So which word will he break; the MOU or this statement?
He is saying all of the right things. The more I hear about this deal, the more I like it.
DeWine and Graham are now the two ultimate power brokers in the Senate. They have both said definitively that they will support the Constitutional Option if the Dems start to filibuster again. They have also both indicated that they will support the President's nominees to the USSC.
And it is also a clear signal to the base--us--that we have the votes needed to get our Supreme Court nominees voted on and appointed.
I mentioned this on a thread a few days ago. This is the only solid reasoning I could think of. If the nuclear option failed to carry, then Frist couldn't get any of them confirmed because it would totally embolden the Dems. This is the only logical scenario that makes sense. Still, Bush should have worked the phones like he did to get his pet welfare projects through Congress.
Did you hear Grahan on the Senate floor..about 11am this morning?..That's the transcript we need to find?..and when C-span reruns it.you must catch it..
I agree :::
McCain is the MAJOR problem here.
I will never vote for him. Never. I will send any opponent of his cash. I will pray for his demise.
Oooooooh Sparky, your so strict! *~* (The part about switching parties that is). LOL
dewino would not have sunk this by himself.
This all about bogus power.
Cboldt..pls see my #28 here..can you help us out..I lost that search link you gave us yesterday..actually, i didn;t lose it, it's on my puter, I can't find it..LOL
Here is the email I just sent to Senator Graham:
I see you've caved on the matter of judicial filibusters by the Democrats and that is your perogative. I will now exercise my perogative as a voter. You sir, will not get my vote again. I will also vote for whomever opposes you in the Republican primary.
If it was just this one issue, I'd probably overlook it. But anymore, I don't know what you stand for or where you are coming from. Acturally, I think that I'd rather vote for a liberal democrat than for you. At least I know what THEY stand for.
You'd be wise to listen up. There are many other conservatives out here in the hinderlands who think as I do.
A very disgruntled voter,
I didn't catch it - there's some way to get the Senate record from their web site, but I don't have time to dig that up now. I have to leave here real soon...
One certain thing, at least if he's being candid:
Graham is on a hair trigger with this "extraordinary circumstances" and filibuster. He is really counting on honesty from these Demo's in on the agreement, and if they don't come through, that will be "all she wrote" - is he wrong? He admits the possibility, but hopes not.
I also believe that those "five certain NO's" could easily turn into 4 or three if the D's break their agreement. (rumors have it...)
Pray for W and Our Troops
Since the DemoncRATs have already broken the agreement Limpy Graham looks like a total fool and idiot.
"And queer as a football bat all of the time."
I'm glad you think with your head and not your knees!
This is the heart of the problem.
Unfortunately, this confirms what I feared, which was that we NEVER had a solid 51 votes. I will be calling DeWhine's office, and telling him that I expect action on these, and while I can't vote against him this year, I can work like hell to derail his son's congressional seat.
Your tagline, I love that quote and the context of it.
http://www.gobrinkman.com/ for those of like mind, State rep. Tom Brinkman for Congress running against Pat DeWine in the primary
Steeped in gayness.
The problem is that he took on all kinds of things, like vote counts, that WERE NOT HIS JOB. Every senator does not know the overall picture and the fact that he did not know that he could equally cause damage to the voters, his party, and the remaining 48 senators makes me wonder how he ever got to be a senator in the first place. I hope he is as naive as he sounds and is not just trying to play it both ways. No matter, he is still a baby playing with wolves.
Graham: '..."exceptional circumstances" - and that's not a wide open phrase...'
Good grief, what a tool.
I don't have a transcript from 5/24 yet. Is that what you are looking for?
http://thomas.loc.gov/r109/r109.html <- Congressional Record by day
What Graham Says everytime MCCain sidles up behind him...
Ill take Potent Potables for 400 Alex...