Redstate

remarkable change of heart.

Strike One - endorsing an increase in FICA taxes as part of a deal on Social Security reform before a proposal is even on the table.

Strike Two - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on Monday and selling out two, possibly four more appellate court nominees.

Foul Ball - this ugly smear:

"But 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."

Um, all we asked for was a vote to ensure an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees that enjoyed majority support in the Senate. I can accept a certain amount of triangulation and appreciate civility and bipartisanship when it moves us forward* but unless there is more to this quote than I'm seeing or Senator Lindsay Graham qualifies his remarks to specify who he was talking about and (more importantly) who he wasn't talking about - this reeks of gratuitously bashing your base in order to appear more "moderate" and bipartisan.

I'm with Mike Krempasky on this, I'm generally also a supporter of vigorous primary challengers for all incumbents**, we're probably not in any serious danger of losing South Carolina and if Senator Lindsay Graham should be vulnerable in the future; we ought to consider replacing him with someone better.

* By which I mean the conservative agenda, not simply passing legislation so that we can say we "did something."

** When I say "vigorous primary challengers," I don't mean some mudslinging crackpot, I mean someone competent, articulate, and honest who will either offer constructive criticism of the incumbent while making them account for their actions while in office or stands a serious chance of defeating them if they're bad enough or have been in office for too long. I'm also a staunch supporter of term limits and refuse to vote for a third term for any Senator or a seventh term for any Representative. It was a mistake IMO for Republicans to abandon their support for term limits when they became the majority party.

Thumbing your nose at the other party just to prove your loyal is completely destructive. The congress is being rated by the people of the United States as acting like "spoiled children" by a very high percentage and the Republicans are taking the majority of that blame. Graham did exactly the right thing. Party loyalty is not a suicide pact. That goes for both parties.

He is a GIANT in the U.S.Senate.

Our party is in the hands of religious extremists.

The President taking us to war in Iraq was the greatest foreign policy disaster in our country's history.

At least spew some relatively new talking points. Then perhaps you could also provide us with some fake "analysis" to go along with it. While it won't make your time here more interesting, it will probably make it last longer.

I'll give you credit on the first one, however. You're admittedly person numero uno to make that one, on either side of the aisle. Wonder why that is?

Bay of Pigs...

Agreed Framework...

Islamic Revolution in Iran...

Somalia...

Hey, I may be accused of going wobbly on Iraq, but it is a bit of hyperbole to suggest that it's "the greatest foreign policy disaster in our country's history", don't you think?

Heck, Iraq is not even "the greatest foreign policy disaster" of this generation, much less our entire history.

As to the rest, it's not worth the additional bandwidth required to comment on.

HeHe.

I wasn't aware that the Religious Left had completely taken control of the Democratic party.  I'm glad you told me.

at your party, and the people who elected you, to get some attention is pathetic. I'd take destructive any day.

all the way over onto the left hand shoulder of the highway isn't particularly what some of us had in mind when we went to all the effort and expense of getting a Republican majority.

If they don't want to act like they are Republicans, we need to find some replacements who will.

and he's destined to be a one-termer in the mold of John Edwards and Carol Braun.  And I doubt very seriously that you consider the GOP 'our' party.  

I tried posting but it never went.

Just to clear things up - this whole Nuclear Option mess along with the Schiavo incident has been a public relations nightmare for the Republicans. I live in a purple to blue battleground state - Minnesota. I also work in an office that is heavily Republican and people I talk to about it in the office said it looks terrible. We have one Republican senator and Kennedy is trying to be number 2. Does the RNC wants to lose them? The answer is simple.  Just keep dragging this garbage out. We have a TON of moderates in this state along with heavily liberal population. So you do the math and then lecture me about right and wrong. Not everyone is a Senator from Texas or Utah.

in order to have more Republican Senators, we should avoid pursuing Republican interests?

What the heck is the point of voting Republican in that scenario?

value-free voting where you only vote for candidates who don't stand for anything.

It elects Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins like clockwork.

Monday night I sent an email to Senator Graham to tell him that I thought Thomas Ravenel would make a fine Senator in 2009.

I am glad to hear Ravenel speaking up. He was my first choice last year.

DeMint was a very close second, and I am very happy with him so far. I have met him twice now, and he is a fine person.

Te reality in Minnesota is different from where you are perhaps. Norm is following loyally to his credit but he is hurting himself in the process. The statewide independents and conservative Dems in the northwest and north decide our elections. The Republicans do not hold a majority here. Between the metro area and the south the R's and D's split. Put simply, you have to know when to stop politically. The Senates actions under Frist are/will hurt the Republicans here because they don't know when to call it off. If you don't care, fine. Sacrifice Coleman and Kennedy and wait another 20 years for a Republican Senate seat from here.

Should we or should we not stop pushing for Republican values so that more Republicans can get elected?

And if so, remind me: why is that we want to have Republicans elected?

I am currently "served" by 2 Democrats in the Senate (Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor), and I can tell you that their opposition to the very 2 things you bring up is hurting their re-election chances greatly.

The idea of Senator Graham as a Giant in any capacity seems to me to be a rather queer definition of the word.

Hold a line until all hell freezes over? And what Republican values? Destroying a process that is over 200 years old just because you didn't get your way? That is how it looks here. You may like that picture or you may not. You are not from our state and I don't need you telling me the definition of a Republican, thank you. Win the fights you can win and do it within the rules of the republic. If the Democrats look bad filibustering, then let them take the hit come election time, but we look worse trying to undo it.

The pro-life stance is a central plank in the Republican Party platform, which you can check at www.gop.com. I would wager that of all single-issue Republican voters, pro-life voters comprise by far the largest bloc - and yes, we expect them to stand on the line for as long as it takes in defense of the unborn. There are more important things in life than political careers.

The rules of the Republic are determined by the Representatives in the Republic, and being that we've sent them there, we expect them to act in our interests. I guarantee you that a bunch of Andrew Sullivan readers did not send the Republicans into control of both chambers of the legislature and the executive branch.

If the Democrats look bad filibustering, then let them take the hit come election time

We already did this. They're slow getting the message. We're trying to help.

Glad to see a Minnesotan around here.  I was conflicted about the whole Constitutional/Nuclear Option mainly because I thought Democrats were abusing the filibuster by using it frivolously but I didn't want to get rid of it entirely.  I think many moderate Dems and Reps would agree.  "The Deal" seems to honor that idea.  I also agree with you that the Schiavo incident was unnecessary and a PR nightmare in addition to being a blatant disregard for other conservative values including states' rights.  I think GOV Bush handled it well doing all he could (which was quite a lot and took much effort) but acknowledging the limitations of his office and his desire to not overstep his powers.

I hope you are working to help future Senator Kennedy round out the slow right-ward movement of the state of Minnesota.  And I hope your GOV is giving 2008 a thought or two as he is on my shortlist of candidates.

If the Senate can get back to work and let things cool down, we should be ok. When even the Eden Prairie/Bush Lake Road area Republicans were getting po'd I thought there was a problem. Kennedy better not turn any of this into a "holding the base" issue. He will get thumped. We lost 1/2 the state legislature last election - granted for transportation bill reasons. The NW metro area wanted it and got ignored. Not smart losing the St Cloud area like that. I hope they learned.

We lost 13 state seats last election in the senate (house?) gutting the majority.

We're obviously afflicted with the same set of Senators.

And I've made it my goal to see Prior toasted in '06.

He only got elected the last time because the Republicans couldn't be troubled to run anyone with a known name against him, and everyone down here thought they were voting for his Daddy.

And Ms. Blanche got re-elected the same way.  And only got numbers slightly above 55% with the endorsement of the State newspaper and her opposition having no money worth mentioning.

Arkansas could easily go red, if someone on the national level will make a little effort and give the candidate some help.

I don't know anything about the politics in Arkansas. I only spoke based on what I was witnessing in Minnesota. Politically, we are a warzone and if the Republicans continue with a "you are with us or against us" attitude they are going to lose this state. Republicans here may follow them to prove loyalty but just try that with an independant or conservative Dem (the swing vote here). 3 guesses what that will get you and the first 2 don't count.

Ex-Minnesotan myself.  

I moved to Texas in '83, and "back north" (about 30 miles north of the Red River, that is) in '87.

But I've got family and in-laws all over the Wisconsin Indianhead and points west.  So I'm still there regularly, and I know a little bit about how they think up there.

My Father-in-Law is a huge Union man.  And he'd never voted for a Republican in his life before about '92.  But I showed him the real Clinton, and took him around down here to talk to people who knew Bill.  It took some work, but I purely educated the man.

He's never looked back at the Dark Side.  

It isn't that hard.  Give me the classic "Minnesota Nice" guy, a shooting range and a 6 pack for afterwards, and I'll have them cursing Barry Goldwater for being a liberal before I'm done.

And if I can do it, socially and eloquitionally inept as I am, I know for sure that most anyone can.

HEHEHEHE!  I'm in a Blue county, in a Red State.  But it won't be blue next time, if I can help it.

You got to work on them.  It's all about one-on-one outreach here.

Or has Arlen Specter had more backbone on the judicial confirmation matter than the Senator who followed Strom Thurmond?

One could understand Lincoln Chafee and the Maine Senators going along with the compromise, because they are Republicans but not necessarily conservatives.  Even DeWine probably is trying to curry favor with segments of the Democratic vote in  a state like Ohio which seems pretty moderate on some issues.  

But Graham had no reason to be party to this deal at all.  He comes from one of the most conservative states in America.  It is a sad day for the Conservative movement when a self described liberal/moderate senator from Pennsylvania is showing more backbone than the man who followed Senator Thurmond.  Would Strom have backed down to the moderates?  NO!  I think Lindsey has some fences to mend.

I think Lindsey has some fences to mend.

I think Senator Graham has been temporarily mesmerized by the shiny objects (called camera lenses) that surround Senator McCain. He seems to have formed the opinion that McCain has solved the riddle of how to become President. That's probably because he gets his news from the New York Times and the Washington Post, which is a common disease in the Senate. To hear them tell it, McCain just sewed up the 2008 Republican nomination.

Fundamentally, Lindsey Graham is not a bad guy. He gets a 92 from the ACU, so we can call him a 'solid conservative' as far as his actual voting is concerned. But I think he's fallen for this "be a maverick" act as a way to gain some notoriety for himself.

Unfortunately for him, he's going to be facing re-election about the same time he finds out just how well McCain's shiny objects worked. And that will be too late to save him if he's a pulled another couple of these "maverick" stunts between now and then.

Senate oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

The Constitution has 52 enemies in the Senate, but protecting and defending the Constitution is part and partial to the "work" of Senators.  It's time for Republicans to figure that out.

but you seem to imply that, since they are the majority, the Constitution is whatever they say it is? Therefore anyone who votes against the stated Republican majority position regarding judges is an enemy of the state?

A dangerous opinion. Sorry but I cannot back you on that.