South Carolina Senator Faces Storm at Home Over Role in Filibuster Compromise

Sen. Lindsey Graham's role in a compromise on filibusters against President Bush's judicial picks did not go over well with some GOP regulars in this Republican state. The first-term Republican, who in 2002 succeeded Strom Thurmond, was among 14 lawmakers - seven from each party - who abandoned their leaders and reached a deal among themselves. They agreed to confirm some of Bush's stalled federal court nominees while leaving the door open for rejecting others.

"It's one of the hottest issues I've seen since I've been chairman," said Katon Dawson, South Carolina's GOP chairman for three years. "There was a lot of heartburn inside the base of the Republican Party. President Bush won 70 percent of the counties in the United States and people wanted his agenda moved forward."

Hundreds of people have called state Republican headquarters to complain about Graham's participation in the negotiations. Graham's role has given Charleston businessman Thomas Ravenel further reason to consider a primary challenge to Graham in 2008. Ravenel, the son of a former congressman, finished third in a crowded field in last year's race for South Carolina's other Senate seat, now held by Republican Jim DeMint. Ravenel does not like Graham's positions on trade and objects to the senator's Social Security proposal to increase payroll taxes on those earning more than $90,000.

"He has long since offended the fiscal conservatives," Ravenel said. "More recently he has offended the other Republican coalition - the social conservatives."

Those same social conservatives were instrumental in derailing Arizona Sen. John McCain's "straight talk express" bid for the presidency five years ago in South Carolina's GOP primary. In 2000 Graham supported McCain, a driving force behind the filibuster deal two weeks ago. By 2002, however, Graham had mended his fences with President Bush's supporters.

"Some people said they did not intend to have two John McCains in Washington, D.C., when they voted for Lindsey Graham," said Beaufort County GOP Chairman Doug Robertson.

In an interview with The Associated Press last week, Graham was confident he would weather the storm.

"This state respects senators who are independent, who share their conservative values and who treat their colleagues with respect," he said. "I'm not going to conduct myself in a way where I'm the loudest guy and I'm not going to be satisfied with rhetoric that gins up a small group of people."

Graham said the deal gives the Senate a fresh start and allows lawmakers to consider some of Bush's judicial nominations. Changing the approach to filibusters is still on the table if the compromise fails, he said.

But even in his home county, some people said Graham's role in the negotiations was out of order, according to Oconee County GOP Chairman Ed Rumsey.

"They wanted him to stand firm and have an up-or-down vote on every candidate," Rumsey said. Still, he added: "Lindsey Graham is our hometown guy. We're going to stand by him."

The last thing the South Carolina GOP needs to do is go back to the sort of Falwellism exhibited by David Beasley and Co. There was a 2 billion dollar a year industry in South Carolina, thrown out because of one fiat of judicial activist by the South Carolina government. My cousin in Charleston had been a Carroll Campbell man, so, he supported Beasley cause he was the party man. Beasley thanked him by putting him out of business. (he ran a video poker parlor)

The truth is, the coming battle in the Republican Parties all across the Southeast is going to be the battle between the Business Wing vs the Religious Right wing.

It's that simple, in Alabama, we already have this battle brewing between Riley and Moore. Or, in a different light, the Goldwater wing and the Falwell wing.

I am very clearly with Bob Riley, this battle is a battle between businessmen who want to bring the South into at least the level of modernization as the Midwest, people who want the government to promote pro-business policies, people who while socially conservative, don't see the the first job of a politician to make stands for every cause Jerry Falwell is barking for. The opposing wing, people like Roy Moore, Tom Parker, and Gerald Allen.

---

Back to South Carolina, I can most assure you, Lindsey Graham is not a "RINO". I support the deal of the 7, because it accomplished two things in Alabama politics. It assured that Bill Pryor got on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals where he belongs. It also gave chance for Roy Moore to repeat his ludicrous charge that Pryor was a "liberal Judicial Activist" further hurting him with the Republican leadership here in Alabama.

There is no such thing as a "Republican In Name Only" just as there is no such thing as a "Democrat In Name Only"

You don't become the majority party by chasing people away. The reason the Democrats are in the minority right now, is because they chased anyone who didn't follow the extremist liberal line out of the party, for example, what they did to Governor Casey at the 92 convention, or what they did to Zell Miller during his term in the Senate.

Right now, the Republican Party in the South has a golden oppurtunity. In a November op-ed in the Mobile Register, Congressman Spencer Bachus was quoted as saying "in the future, most if not all races in Alabama will be decided in the Republican Primary"

What Bachus is alluding to is a situation that is very similar to what existed in Alabama pre-1986, excepted that this time, it would be the Republicans that are dominant, and by dominant, I mean, Alabama would be a One Party Republican state, where not a single Democrat held office.

Already, movement is being made in this direction, as we do have African-Americans on the Executive Committee in Mobile County. As they become more mobile down here, many of them will be enticed into joining the Republican Party, especially if it becomes clear the Democrats won't be winning many more elections.

In South Carolina, the dream of the one-party Republican state is very feasible, of the Deep South states, she's the only one that you could call truly Republican (local, state, and federal) and she was the first one to go that way. In the old one party Democratic South, South Carolina was also the most loyal to the Democratic Party. In 1928, the anti-Catholic campaign worked in several Southern States, not South Carolina, they still went for Smith 91%, like every other election.

That is the oppurtunity the GOP has in the South today, to see a truly solid South, where every single local official, every single state legislator, every single elected office period, will be in Republican hands, and where in Presidential elections, 85-90% will go to the Republicans, always.

If you want to set back this scenario, please, cause Lindsey Graham to lose in a primary, because what that will do is turn off moderates, who had been leaning Republican, making it that much harder to achieve the Republican One-Party System.

Just a thought

Perspective appears to be the lost commodity in some of these posts. Graham may well be a scumbag, spineless traitor, 3d New York Senator, Democrat, not a conservative, RINO,etc., as ascribed to him in this and other threads. While there is no argument that Graham is not the most conservative senator in Washington, he has received quite a few conservative ratings, for example:

* B from Gunowners.org
* 0 from Planned Parenthood,
* 91 from American Conservative Union,
* 90 (18 of 20 votes) from Americans for Tax Reform,
* 100 from the Christian Coalition of America,
* 25% (one of the lowest) from the National Education Association,
* 0 from the Sierra Club,
* 11% (1 vote on secrecy of intel budget) from the ACLU

These ratings would indicate that overall, Graham is a relatively straightforward conservative senator, who is obviously not afraid to step out on the ledge. Given that he is a senator from one of the most conservative states in the Union, what does Graham have to gain from this agreement, other than to see it succeed? As for other legislative areas, there seems little doubt that Graham will vote with his party for those significant issues on the President's agenda including social security, the war on terror and the President's budget proposals.

Time will tell whether the agreement by the 14 senators including Graham is successful. Two points are relevant, however. First, Bill Frist admitted he likely did not have the votes to pull of the nuclear option, and second, at this point, at least we are one more judge ahead than we would have been if the nuclear option failed.

No, the GOP grew nationally for three reasons

Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan.

And, it all depends on your definition of a social conservative. By national standards, I would be a social conservative, I'm against abortion, gun control, and the like.

But by Alabama terms, I'm clearly a BCA Republican, because I support legalized gambling in all forms and fashions, I supported the Plan for Progress, I have agreed with almost everything the Brookings Institution has ever put out on Alabama State government. And most importantly, as a Roman Catholic, I am no friend of the Religious Right, because like everyone down here, I'm fully aware of how people like them treated us in the past.

The reason David Beasley lost in 1998 was that he antagonized business owners, namely, video poker operators like my cousin. My cousin, with his impeach bumper sticker on his car, drove right into David Beasley's campaign office in Charleston, and wrote him both a personal check, and a business check. He even got a Republican's for Hodges sticker on his car. He, and everyone else in that industry, went absolutely livid after Beasley began his campaign against what was a profitable industry. Before my cousin was forced out of business by the South Carolina Supreme Court, he had made somewhere in the range of 2 million dollars, since he had opened his operation in the early 90's.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you have noticed, Bush has said zero on this issue. In fact, Bush helped get Lindsey Graham elected, and if you don't remember, he campaigned on behalf of Arlen Specter when Toomey ran in the primary.

Lindsey Graham is a solid Republican conservative, and that compromise was good for the country, and good for the Republican Party. If the Republicans had gone ahead with the option, all polls show, that would have angered the public, and it would have made us VULNERABLE in 2006. It would have also put W into a spot, which, with his declining poll ratings, he does not need to be put in.

And anyone who knows anything about politics knows full well Frist was consulted before they made that announcement, for the simple reason that well, if a backlash occured against the option, and the Democrats took back Congress next year, it would hurt his Presidential bid.

There's a difference between Conservatism and Suicidalism, and the option was political suicide. It might have motivated the Religious Right to come out in force in 2006, but it would have also inspired a backlash against these same people.

There is nothing the 7 did that was inconsistent with conservative principles, they put Pryor on the court for Goddsakes.

The fact is, there is a public backlash starting to grow against things like the Terry Schiavo thing, and this is what could kill us next year if we are not careful. Which is better, maybe having to put off those 2 judges for a little while so we win in 2006, or ramming them all thru, and losing both houses in 2006 and maybe even the Presidency in 2008.

With a tagline like "azaleacity" I suppose you are from the South. I wonder if you grew up here tho because you certainly don't understand the Southern viewpoint.

Most Southerners are social conservatives and by a fairly good margin. They are against big government too.

I don't think there is a conflict between supporting business and social conservatism. That doesn't mean we support all businesses tho.

We have had one traditional weakness which is part of the conservatism. When we determine a party is against us we will fight them. The democrats took advantage of that for a long time. We didn't like Republicans because we saw them as the party which was against the South.

As a matter of fact, the Dems were against us from the 60's on. It just took a lot of us a long time to change.

The real reason the GOP grew in the South has more to do with Jimmy Carter than anyone else. My Father was a registered democrat all his life but he voted for Reagan and never looked back.

Bill Clinton helped a little more. The last thing the Republicans need to do now is alienate the social conservatives who are the heart of the South.

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.