Well, fellow Freepers, you can count on this Upstater, cowboyway, to vote for whoever runs against Limpsey Graham.
Posted on 07/20/2006 10:35:25 AM PDT by new yorker 77
For several decades, being a United States Senator from South Carolina meant long-term job security. The late Strom Thurmond (Democrat/Dixicrat/Republican) served South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1955 to 2003. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (Democrat) served it there from 1966 to 2005.
Senator Thurmond's successor, Senator Lindsey Graham, is on track to begin a new tradition for South Carolina's United States Senators -- one term and out.
Manuel Miranda, Chairman of the Third Branch Conference, an organization dedicated to realizing the dream of a judiciary that interprets the law, instead of making or even revising it under the guise of interpreting it, is circulating a letter to South Carolina conservative Tom Ravenel requesting him "to run as a Republican candidate for The United States Senate from South Carolina in 2008."
The full text of the letter to Mr. Ravenel:
"We the undersigned hereby request your commitment to run as a Republican candidate for The United States Senate from South Carolina in 2008. Your reluctance to make a decision now is understandable; even admirable. 2008 is three years away [Note: now, actually TWO]. But recent events add urgency to this decision.
By helping Democrats abort the fight to end judicial filibusters, Senator Graham has revealed how much he cherishes the supposed 'traditions of the U.S. Senate'. We, his constituents, do not share his reverence for tradition or his preference for comity over victory. We are appalled that our country, founded by men so courageous they put their very lives at risk, is being held hostage by a minority of men and women so tentative and so timid, they equate a mere Senate rule change with violence.
Senator Graham said it would 'blow up the Senate' and that by averting a rule change, the Senate is 'back in business'. To this we add: Yes, business as usual. When the time arrived to confront Democrat obstructionists, he shrank from conflict and chose compromise over victory. After Senator Graham participated in the backroom deal, he made several bewildering statements. Among them was this one: 'I will not use this job to hate people. There are some people on the right and the left, who expect you not only to vote with them, but to hate the people they hate. Count me out.' We do not equate political opposition with hatred. We did not ask him to hate, and we will not respond to the heated rhetoric he directed at us by returning a similar outburst toward him.
"Lindsey Graham is a fine man and no doubt made his decision in good conscience. He chose to make a deal with Senator John McCain and the rest of 'The Gang of 14', in the belief that compromise was preferable to victory. In the past, he said he believes judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. But belief is not the same as commitment. It is his prerogative to change his mind and follow Senator McCain instead of his party's majority leader and his president.
However, it is likewise our prerogative to change our minds. We would now prefer that you be our Senator instead of Lindsey Graham. You conducted yourself honorably in your 2004 campaign for Senate; a campaign won by Jim DeMint. You fought hard, and conceded gracefully in a close primary. In the general election campaign, you supported Mr. DeMint much more than the minimal amount that sportsmanship and party loyalty require. You supported his candidacy warmly, enthusiastically and even financially. He won by a wide margin. It was his time then. It is your time now. We trust you will answer the call and commit soon, if not immediately. We wish to send you to join Mr. Jim DeMint to represent the great state of South Carolina in Washington as a member of the United States Senate."
Senator Graham, it's a shame, but you have yourself to blame.
And you WERE cautioned in advance.
Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network -- "an organization of citizens joined together to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States...to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair, and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote" -- foresaw that you would join what became the Gang of Fourteen and posted this plea to you on National Review Online's Benchmemos on May 20, 2005, more than a year ago:
"Breaking News: Lindsey Graham Going Wobbly?
"Breaking news: Word is that Lindsey Graham may be a lynchpin in a bad deal being cooked up on judges. Lindsey, can you hear us? We will not be able to hold back a primary challenge if there is some backroom deal with your name on it backstabbing the president's judicial nominees. Politics and principle happily converge here: Every judge, and the American people, deserves an up-or-down vote. Those wishing to fortify Senator Graham can contact his offices...."
That was more than fair warning, Senator.
Still, you abandoned the principle that "...[e]very judge, and the American people, deserves an up-or-down vote." "It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder," said the Marquis de Talleyrand, referring to Napoleon executing the Duc d'Enghien?
It was a betrayal of the people who elected you, AND a blunder, Senator Graham.
Michael J. Gaynor is an independent columnist
Graham is a complete disappointment. I frankly believe he's angling for a post in a McCain administration if not the second spot on a McCain ticket.
anyone who would be mcinsane's little lap boy can't be worth a hoot.
Has Lindsey's gender preference, assuming it's not both or neither, been determined?
What a great idea, we can eat our own! Who needs the Rats when we can do it ourselves.
Was there a filibuster of a judge in the Senate this session? Must have missed that one.
One thing I do know about Lindsay is that he knows where his butt is.
Unfortunately, he will continue to act oxygen-starved until he pulls his head out of it.
Graham got caught up in the "I deserve to be here for life" syndrome. Hope he gets voted out.
yum yum, Rinos, it's what's for dinner.
"Graham is a complete disappointment."
He is a fricken lawyer - what did you expect.
So, you like to elect Rats
I wouldn't mind seeing a conservative challenger to Grayed Ham.
I'm not voting for McVain or his flunkie. There's a lot more like me, but the GOP thinks they can scare us into complaisance by doing the "Boo! Boo! Hillary!" thing.
So, you like to elect `pukes?
Here: http://www.petitiononline.com/ussc2008/petition-sign.html?
Being from SC, I cannot agree more with that letter.Graham has been a great disappointment, at the least, to South Carolinians.
Oh, once in a while, he'll say something in an effort to regain support from us but I, for one, am not going to forget his membership in that 'gang'. I can only hope everyone else, here in SC, recalls too, at election time.
As far as Tom Ravenel goes, he is the perfect replacement for this little sop and I hope he takes the challenge to run in '08.
lindsay Graham has always been limp-wristed, even during the Clinton Impeachment proceedings.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that one can't ever run against rinos in primaries, does it?
South Carolina leans conservative--- I'd bet anyone who beats Graham in the primary would have a better shot than him at winning the general.
Smack down the RINOs in the primaries. If they win there hold your nose and pull the lever for them in the general. To do otherwise is to put truly dangerous people in positions of power.
You are old enough to know that we would never elect anybody if we demanded that they vote our way everytime.
Makes sense to me
I posted this earlier in the week, and it ties in nicely with your Graham piece:
It's not about the terrorists; it's about Lindsey Graham [RINO And Toady To Senator McLame]
Powerline ^ | July 18, 2006 | Paul Mirengoff
Posted on 07/19/2006 5:52:14 AM PDT by conservativecorner
The New York Times has sent Sen. Lindsey Graham a love letter as his reward for blocking the Jim Haynes nomination and advocating the rights of terrorist detainees. The Times' homage follows a bouquet from Sen. Hillary Clinton who, the Times reports, gushed last week that Graham's pro-terrorist rights stance represents
a perfect example of when someone’s experience can be used to inform an issue. He comes to it from his own experience and deeply held convictions about the importance of our military code of justice and an understanding as to the damage that has been done to our standing in general and the potential dangers in particular to our men and women in uniform. Never mind that Graham's views are founded on rhetoric that does not even purport to draw from his knowledge of military law. Consider this gem:
The enemy has no rules. They don’t give people trials, they summarily execute them and they’re brutal, inhuman creatures. But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them. Do they deserve, the bad ones, all the rights that are afforded? No. But are we required to do it because of what we believe? Yes. Nothing in Graham's experience with the JAG Corps gives him any special status to opine on whether our treatment of terrorists is "about" them or us (assuming that this dichotomy makes any sense as a method of making policy) or to tell us how our beliefs "require" us to treat terrorists. Moreover, one could concede that the issue is solely about "us" and still conclude that we should use interrogation techniques that offend Graham because the information will help protect "us."
But the Times article does provide insight into a question that a few readers have asked me -- what is the source of Graham's pro-terrorist rights crusade? It's been clear for some time that the crusade has to do with a strong emotional attachment Graham has to the JAG Corps. The Times story provides this explanation for that attachment:
Mr. Graham. . .grew up in the rooms behind the bar and liquor store his parents owned in Central, S.C., a textile town. The first in his family to go to college, he joined R.O.T.C. and wanted to fly but was disqualified by what he calls “lack of math ability and bad hearing.” When his mother died when he was 21, the Air Force allowed him to continue his education instead of going into the service, so he could stay home. When his father died 15 months later, the service said he could attend law school in South Carolina so he could stay with his sister, and when he finished, the service posted him as a defense counsel to South Carolina so he could adopt her. After she went to college, he went to Europe as a military prosecutor.
“It changed my life,” he said of the military legal corps. “It exposed me to things. I got to spend four years in Europe. I was thrown into court as a young defense attorney doing things, with responsibilities you’d never have in the civilian world as a lawyer.”
As I've argued, though, the issue isn't whether the JAG Corps is a wonderful institution or whether our system of military justice represents a fine way to deal with our military personnel. The issue is whether, or to what extent, that system should be extended to terrorists. All Graham has to offer on this matter are high-sounding phrases that impress the New York Times and Hillary Clinton, but assume away any tension between lenient treatment of terrorists and our ability, for example, to obtain information that will protect the national security.
That, plus his autobiography.
Are you for lifetime tenure for GOP Senators once they are elected, no matter their voting record? Or do you agree that a primary where differences are aired and voters decide is the way to sort those things out in a representative republic with a 2 party system? Let us know which you prefer.
As a fellow South Carolinian, I have to agree with you 100%.
Please do the SC Ping thing.
Either Ravenel or Ingles would be a perfect replacement for Graham. We need a grassroots effort to encourage one of these to run against Lindsey.
As for your eating our own comment? Direct it to the RINO from South Carolina that disregards the wishes of the people that voted for him so that he can be in McCain's good wishes. Last I checked they didn't vote him to be an extension of McCainiac.
As well, last I checked we had the right to challenge even incumbents in primaries. If you love RINO's, that's your right. I don't, and neither do South carolina residents which is why they dumped Mccain in the 2000 primaries.
Manuel Miranda, Chairman of the Third Branch Conference, an organization dedicated to realizing the dream of a judiciary that interprets the law, instead of making or even revising it under the guise of interpreting it, is circulating a letter to South Carolina conservative Tom Ravenel requesting him "to run as a Republican candidate for The United States Senate from South Carolina in 2008."
I LOVE Miranda, an actual conservative btw, and thrilled he's asked Ravenel to enter a primary challange. Ravenel holds elected office, he has the money to run, he only came in second in the previous Senate race and has expressed interest already. Unlike with DeWine who never had a real challenger, Ravenel is a legit challenge for Linds...and that's probably why you are upset at this announcement.
If the rank and file Dem's of CT are going to throw out Joe Lieberman, we might as well find a more conservative Republican to take on Graham. Maybe this will get to be a trend. Incumbent senators and reps. will be less complacent. It used to be almost unheard of for incumbents to get strong intra party challenges. If more and more of them do have to fight for renomination, it could be a good thing for our republic.
"Smack down the RINOs in the primaries."
We tried here in Ohio, but DeRINO still won. Some choice we have in November:
Anti-ANWR, Gang of 14, just-as-bad-as-Specter-RINO-weasel DeWine or the RAT/libtard/socialist/commie Sherrod Brown.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment sounds even better.
"So, you like to elect Rats"
Not at all but get rid of the RINOS!
There's nothing in your big tent but elephant dung!
"Graham is a complete disappointment. I frankly believe he's angling for a post in a McCain administration if not the second spot on a McCain ticket."
Dewine is a complete disappointment. I frankly believe he's angling for a post in a McCain administration if not the second spot on a McCain ticket.
Good, and I'm sure there are many more, here in SC, who feel the same way. I hope you went to 'petitiononline.com/ussc2008/petition-sign.html?' to add your name.
Well, fellow Freepers, you can count on this Upstater, cowboyway, to vote for whoever runs against Limpsey Graham.
Elected Republican Senators should be treated as Kings--Not. But, after the primary, I`ll vote for the worst Rino before I`ll help Harry Reid gain more power.
Senator Goober needs to be shown the door at the next oportunity.
Graham and the other senators seem to believe that the Senate itself is "America." Its traditions stand above all the rest of us.
They must be reminded somehow that we are American and they are simply representatives to do our bidding and work for our welfare.
Alas, I think they are too far gone to ever do so.
Graham is far from a perfect Senator but he`s on the right side in the war. Don`t think the Rat he runs against will be.
I never said I demanded they vote our way everytime, but thanks for playing.
The rats are the minority party.
By electing a RINO, you give Harry Reid power.
If not from RINOs you elect, from where do you think the rats derive their power?
Duh!
Gaynor is an idiot.
A year has gone by and Gaynor still doesn't understand what a masterpiece of political gamesmanship the "Gang of Fourteen" deal was? That's pathetic. Heck, I was disappointed that it even took some freepers a couple of months to catch on, but now that a year has gone by and we've seen John Roberts, Sam Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and other "controversial" judges confirmed with barely a wimper from the rats, there's no excuse for Gaynor's stupidity - - unless Gaynor has the rat agenda of taking over the Senate in mind.
He dated Laura Ingraham. He's not gay.
Graham somehow got the idea that he was "presidential timber"; he's not of course. But once politicians get this bug the only thing their constitutients can do is VOTE HIM OUT.
We are agreed, then.
Let's get this straight: Lindsay Graham dated Laura In-Graham? How is that possible, unless Laura is a female buggerer? (You know, the counterpart to a male lesbian). Ewwww. I think Laura has better taste. Are you sure?
I've often thought it odd that such a masculine state has such a feminine senator...
They need to get him out of there. He's in way over his head and obviously can't make a decision for himself. He is now a wholly owned subsidiary of McCain Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.