Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Graham Faces Storm Over Filibuster Deal - (South Carolina Republicans very upset)
WJLA.COM ^ | JUNE 4, 2005 | Michael Kerr, AP Writer

Posted on 06/04/2005 9:28:03 PM PDT by CHARLITE

NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (AP) - Sen. Lindsey Graham's role in a compromise on filibusters against President Bush (website - news - bio) '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."

In strongly Republican Lexington County, most people thought the compromise was "typical Lindsey," said Tim Miller, the county's GOP chairman. "He said: 'Look, we can't allow something like this to bog down the country. We need to do what's best for America.'"

South Carolinian Roberta Combs, president of the national Christian Coalition, said the compromise was not what the conservative group wanted.

"What people were upset about and what I was upset about was these judges had been waiting so long and you couldn't get them to the floor," she said.

But she does not think Graham's base is damaged.

"In politics a day is forever. Only time will tell," she said. "I don't think this is going to hurt Lindsey because he is strong on defense and supports the president on the war and has been a team player."

Doug Woodard, a Clemson University political scientist who often serves as a Republican consultant, said Graham always has had an independent streak and a flair for attracting attention.

"He's got the best political instincts of anyone I have ever seen," Woodard said. He noted that Graham won, without any primary opposition, the GOP nomination for Thurmond's seat, which had been coveted by South Carolina politicians for decades.

Graham said that while some people will disagree with the compromise, he and most Republicans want to achieve the same thing - getting more conservative judges on the bench.

"For some people in politics it's not enough to agree with them on the issue, you have to hate the people they hate," he said. "I'm not going to be a hater. I'm going to be a solid conservative and a reformer."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: compromise; filibuster; fourteen; gop; grahamsorosmoney; grahamsuckthis; johnmccain; lawmakers; lindseygraham; republican; rino; sellingamerica; senator; seven; southcarolina; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-277 next last
To: judgemc
From reading the letters to the editor in my local paper in his district I would say he has won as many supporters who were straddling the party fence as he has lost. The letters are about 50/50. He's losing strict conservatives but gaining moderate Democrats.

Judging public reaction from Letters to the Editor is laughable. The editor is choosing which letter to print. You do realize this, right?

21 posted on 06/04/2005 10:01:58 PM PDT by Carling (FReemail me if you want articles that interest, well...me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: judgemc

No, either party cannot vote in both primaries. How ridiculous would it be to let people vote in both primaries? Think before you post newbie!


22 posted on 06/04/2005 10:03:24 PM PDT by SoCar (Refugee from NJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Notice though I am the only one who has not resorted to name calling and conspiracy theories.


23 posted on 06/04/2005 10:06:08 PM PDT by judgemc (My judicial sense is tingling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
We need to can everyone in Congress and just pick people off the street instead. Reminds me of a very cheesy and leftist movie called DAVE. It had one redeeming scene. In it, a cabinet meeting was filmed by the networks. The idea was to balance the budgets. DAVE was a schmo off of the street who decided that he should balance the budget. What did he do? He started slashing pork. And the cabinet and congressional leaders were forced by TV to agree.

I hated the movie, but that one scene was very poignant to me because THAT is how a regular guy, w/out political motives, would run this country.

24 posted on 06/04/2005 10:07:21 PM PDT by Carling (FReemail me if you want articles that interest, well...me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoCar

O.K. let me repharase: south carolina doesn't require you to register your party affiliation when you register to vote and because of that people Democrate or Republican can vote in either primary.


25 posted on 06/04/2005 10:07:48 PM PDT by judgemc (My judicial sense is tingling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: judgemc
Since when, in the last 20-30 years can we believe what is printed. At some point, one must go with their gut feeling. I have heard newspaper guys (3) agree that in order to get an even representation, they had to print all three of the anti letters they received just to get an 'even' representation of the opinions. I f*rt in their direction. When everyone you meet shares the same thoughts, it's a good bet that it's got some validity.

Nam Vet

26 posted on 06/04/2005 10:11:09 PM PDT by Nam Vet (There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: judgemc
Notice though I am the only one who has not resorted to name calling and conspiracy theories.

Those who stand in the middle of the road too long often end up as road kill.

27 posted on 06/04/2005 10:13:01 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Graham should be drop-kicked by the Republicans. He's counting on time and the nature of people to forget. This is one incident I'll never forget.

Graham is someone I'll never support again, regardless of the race and regardless of who he's running against. We need to start making it painful enough to be a turncoat that people like Graham are afraid to turn on the President. The only way that will happen is if we start sending these RINOs home, for good.
28 posted on 06/04/2005 10:13:45 PM PDT by RavenATB ("Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCar
This issue cuts a wide swath amongst all Republicans.

You are SO correct in that statement.

Nam Vet

29 posted on 06/04/2005 10:14:35 PM PDT by Nam Vet (There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nam Vet

Yes I would ordinarily agree, but I have been reading this paper for years and know for an absolute fact that it is a highly conservative paper. If the editor says the letters that she has been recieving (not printing, recieving) have split about 50/50, I'm inclined to beleive her. Also, I find it strangly humorous that we are arguing over the validitly of what a newspaper prints while responding to a newspaper article that was posted.


30 posted on 06/04/2005 10:15:37 PM PDT by judgemc (My judicial sense is tingling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Same story, from different publications here:

Graham Takes Heat Over Filibuster Deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416638/posts

and here:

Graham Faces Storm Over Filibuster Deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416522/posts


31 posted on 06/04/2005 10:16:00 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

That's only if they don't pay attention to the traffic.


32 posted on 06/04/2005 10:16:28 PM PDT by judgemc (My judicial sense is tingling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: judgemc
If you like Graham and his positions, then you're going to get VERY beat up on this site.

Sooooooooooo, tell us all, just WHY it is that you think that charging people who make $90,000 and up, for SS, is a Conservative position and a good thing. Then, you can explain to us why pulling off a coup d'etat/forming a shadow government, with Dems, who will stab us in the back, as soon as look at us, and turning a GOP majority into the minority, WITHOUT the populace's permission or vote, are reasons to "like" this man and the rest of the morons in the gang of 7.

33 posted on 06/04/2005 10:18:28 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: judgemc
"It is not unreasonable or naive to support a person who believes is communication and compromise."

Give me a break. Graham didn't compromise. He undercut his leadership for his own political benefit and virtually surrendered to the Left. If it was a "compromise," then why was it that only the Democrats were celebrating after the announcement?

The Republicans took that one in the backside, and we've got Graham and the rest of the "Spineless Seven" to thank for it.

This was all about cutting the legs out from under Frist to make McCain a more viable candidate. Graham hopes to be a big part of a potential McCain presidential run.

I don't know what it is you "like" about Graham. I prefer Senators who put their country ahead of their own personal gain.
34 posted on 06/04/2005 10:19:36 PM PDT by RavenATB ("Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoCar; judgemc
Thanks for pointing that out.

The newbie is quacking like a troll.

35 posted on 06/04/2005 10:20:07 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheSarce
I WILL send money to serious opponents of the Sellout Seven.

You are certainly not alone. Actually, I'd like to form (or help form) a PAC of all Conservatives to funnel money to those primary elections and support those who actually believe in and vote for the Constitution.

Nam Vet

36 posted on 06/04/2005 10:20:29 PM PDT by Nam Vet (There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheSarce
Ravenel is legitimate as an opponent. He nearly knocked off DeMint to get into the Republican Senatorial run off against Beasley last year. I voted for him thinking he would be a better candidate then either DeMint or Beasley. DeMint beat Beasley and then went on the face Rat Inez Tennenbaum.

Of course DeMint won and has turned out to be an A+ Senator so far. However, the race at times got scary as DeMint made some gaffes that Ravenel most likely would not have. He's charming, smooth, and could easily beat Graham.

37 posted on 06/04/2005 10:21:07 PM PDT by SoCar (Refugee from NJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: judgemc

Graham's office told me their calls were running 50/50 for and against "the deal." I suppose you believe that too.


38 posted on 06/04/2005 10:22:09 PM PDT by SoCar (Refugee from NJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

You need to read post 25.


39 posted on 06/04/2005 10:22:30 PM PDT by judgemc (My judicial sense is tingling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SoCar
This issue cuts a wide swath amongst all Republicans.

If the truth were told by the MSM, the "swath" is across the board. Most Americans want these judges to have an up or down vote.

It is the extremists who want to deny them that right. These Democrapic extremists (Schummer, Lahey, Reid) want to control the whole pie not just the small piece they were given by the voters. They want to end representative government.

DUH!!!

Does the MSM tell you that?

Well, it's true!

40 posted on 06/04/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson