Lindsey Graham interviewed on Mike Gallagher

Mike Gallagher Show - partial transcript ^ | 05/24/2005 | self

[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.

...

[AFPhys]

Passing his words along without further commentary.

Sorry about the disjointed phrases.

If a transcript comes up somewhere, please post at least parts of it.

Thanks.

[dirtboy]

Lindsey, where I come from, if you're hanging out with Hillary Clinton, you're up to no good...

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

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!"

[Colorado Mike]

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...

[DManA]

The dems are playing to their base, the repubs are showing the middle finger to their base. Not too smart.

He's just playing that to his base

[Ol' Sparky]

Someone call up and tell him to burn in hell and switch parties.

[OldFriend]

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.

[sawdust]

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.

[Wooly]

The problem is that the Republicans still have a lot of people who remember when they were the dog under the table eating only the scraps the Dems threw at them. As such they always are saying , what will happen when they are in the majority again.
These people need to realize that the electorate is moving in the Republican direction and not the New York Times/MSM direction and get some backbone or retire.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

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.

[MillardFillmore]

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.

[Air Conditioned Gypsy]

D's said they would not filibuster unless "exceptional circumstances" - and that's not a wide open phrase

Sure. I believe that.

[1Old Pro]

- I am a YES vote - a solid YES - for the Constitutional Option - if the D's resume filibustering.

If should be WHEN.

[Clemenza]

Not that there's anything wrong with it...

[TheBigB]

Pryor, Brown, Owens will be confirmed real soon.

Does he know this? As I said before, I'm optimistic.

[Pete]

A few comments on this point:

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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

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.

[Fledermaus]

"Exceptional circumstances" to the Dems will be in a Bush nominee is breathing.

[liberty2004]

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.

[cogitator]

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.

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.