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.

...

[eyespysomething]

I thought it had to do with the national bank.

I still like the sentiment, but maybe not reason behind the statement at the time.

[Prince Charles]

I respected Senator Graham because he was one of the few who led the impeachment fight against The Bent One. But Lindsey has burned his last bridge to sanity with this coup d'etat against the separation of powers.

[ntnychik]

OK, fair enough.

[upchuck]

As I posted on another thread:

Senator Graham, I sincerely hope you enjoy the rest of this, your first and only term in the Senate. You betrayed your constituents. I will campaign tirelessly for your opponent in the primary. Ya blew it big time. South Carolina is pissed at you!

"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Boy! That's gonna make a great bumper sticker! I can't wait.

[Soul Seeker]

Oh, I feel so sorry for the backstabbing McCainiac kiss up.

I'm sure it was so darn hard to flip the base the bird to remain on his buddy's good side and gain MSM acclaim. He looked so disturbed when they were backstabbing and hogging the cameras.

We got your number Lindsey. Now you go convinced enough Dems and and journalists to vote for you because you've just kissed your base goodbye.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

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.

The problem here is that Graham assumes that DemoncRATS want to work together with Republicans.

They have demonstrated since President Bush took office they do not.

Where has Graham been?

This was a fig leaf PR attempt to cover massive damage to his credibility in South Carolina and with the conservatives.

If the nuclear option is all right later, then it is all right now. I'm sorry, his argument here just doesn't hunt.

He's scum.

[NeoCaveman]

DeWine is a possible target for angry conservatives, and could feel the heat in a 2006 primary. But Ohio is very marginal state, and we run the risk of opening the door to a Dem gain if DeWine survives a tough primary. That's a risk I'd be willing to take, by the way.

Look at the off year results in Ohio (2002, 1998, and even further back) the only people who vote are Republicans.

Sure in Presidential years, the GOTV money comes out and the state is then competitive.

I see no reason that 2006 turn out won't look like 2002 instead of like 2004.

[lugsoul]

"It is thus unthinkable that they would introuduce, let alone pass legislation violating our Constitution."

They do it all the time. Usually for crass political reasons - playing to one constituency or another. Do you really trust legislators enough to believe the statement I quoted above?

[jmaroneps37]

David Beasley call your office!

[AFPhys]

I agree: it sounds like Frist was really letting it all hang out, and his belief that he had the 50 votes he needed was razor thin. We must get a few more conservative Senators for him to work with - bt it seems he's done the best he can with what we've elected for him. Look - the long and short of his play now is that these three "Neanderthal" judges - "extreme right wing conservatives" - are now going to at long last get their floor vote. That will change the terms of the "extreme" debate in the President's favor.

I will now finally opine on this: (since I've listened to this interview a second time) that I will not disagree with Graham, though I'm still pretty disappointed. He considered suing the Senate over whether there was a filibuster ability two years ago. I think he's really serious about this issue and finding a way to get every nominee an up or down on the floor, and to tell you the truth, he is the ONLY person I've yet heard make such a blanket statement as "There are Five Solid NO's" ... And, let me state further, that I have not heard Frist, or ANYBODY else say otherwise.

This was going to be a real close vote. Assuming Graham's on a Yes... Which conservative here is willing to take the chance of this vote failing when, after Frist and Bush twist arms and get DeWine or say, Collins on board --- and then confidently take the vote :::::: Depend on SPECTRE's vote !!!??? and possibly Voinovich? and who else was shaky here? Who here called all of them and polled them? Frist HOPED he had their vote, it sounds like... maybe he did... it is possible he really did... would YOU trust them? (Rhetorical question to others, not to you, LS)

I confidently assert that Graham had a far better poll than anybody I have heard of --- only Frist and the R leadership had as good a pulse as Graham did. If he KNOWS this was hanging on a 50-50 at BEST - I will give him his right to vote his conscience as frankly I don't trust some of those others.

Unlike most Americans, I do not expect a representative I voted for to vote lockstep with me in legislation. I ask them to vote as THEY see best in a given situation, not as I see it. I will and do express my opinion to them, but at times I might be wrong. I EXPECT my professional representative, who has a staff to research things, to have a somewhat better handle on the situation than I do. This is why I will always support my elected representative, President Bush, even should he choose differently than I would on certain issues.

Graham clearly thought hard about this. I respect him and his vote here, though I disagree with him here.

I will not say the same about McCain, who I believe has other motivations.

[AFPhys]

I think that during the discussions Graham had with the D's it is quite likely that this question arose. There are likely some pretty good understandings, though not codified, amongst this group as to what that means.

I wasn't there, but Graham seems to believe that it will be pretty clear to all if this understanding is grievously violated.

[Natural Law]

What a spinless pile of crap.

[AFPhys]

i agree - mcCain needs to be castrated for this.

[kcvl]

I am a YES vote - a solid YES - for the Constitutional Option

So why did the coward sign on to a deal with EXTREMIST LIARS?!

[AFPhys]

He also said that with brown, Owen and Pryor it was no longer valid for any Senator to say that a nominee was an extreme nominee just cause they were Conservative!!!!

---

I agree - that is a really big biggie. It completely changes the ground these D's have to battle on. --- Their base is NOT going to like this change.

[AFPhys]

The problem here is that Graham assumes that DemoncRATS want to work together with Republicans.

They have demonstrated since President Bush took office they do not.

Where has Graham been?

------

One of the things that gives me the impression from this interview, and the one he did on Hannity this afternoon, was his candid statement "I might have misplayed this. I might have been snookered. I might be wrong." Which other Senators are so willing to make such a concession. I really think that Graham thought this was the only way to assure that these nominees would get their vote on the floor during this 109th Senate - amd he is certainly clear he didn't give up the right to "change the rules" (to me - reinstate the rules) ... We'll see. We'll probably know in 6-8 weeks whether he was completely snookered or not. By then, at least, three conservative judges will have been approved, and the ground the Ds are fighting on will have been altered at least.

I certainly don't know the outcome at this time, and am very anxiously waiting and hoping that this time Graham was right. No matter, though, Frist forced the D's hand on this and really deserves a round of applause, and Graham was lavishly praising him for doing this.

[ClancyJ]

And you believe a man that stabbed us in the back? He can say anything he wants it does not mean he will act.

[AFPhys]

I think he answered that. He KNEW that the vote was 50-50 AT BEST - not including such wild cards as Spectre, etc.

He is on record as believing that this will gain an up or down vote on the floor for all of these judges, and that no others will be filibustered during this 109th. I hope he is right.

[ClancyJ]

He also said that with brown, Owen and Pryor it was no longer valid for any Senator to say that a nominee was an extreme nominee just cause they were Conservative!!!! ---

I agree - that is a really big biggie. It completely changes the ground these D's have to battle on.

Since when did Democrats follow any rules/expectations? And, it has never been true that a nominee is extreme because they are conservative.

Just because the dems act like it is does not make it so, don't give them the honor of determining who is or is not conservative, acceptable, or whatever.

[stands2reason]

I'm no doomsayer. But I'm not going to let myself get disappointed again.