Posted on 11/26/2005 4:55:05 AM PST by HonduGOP
Graham, McCain continue to stand for what is right
THIS NEWSPAPER did not endorse Lindsey Graham in 2002, but he keeps giving us reasons to be quite proud that he represents our state in the U.S. Senate.
On Oct. 7, we praised Sen. Graham for being among those who led the Senate to vote, 90-9, to reassert essential American values in the way we treat prisoners in wartime.
Later that month, he was one of seven Republican senators who tried to inject at least a little sanity into the federal budget by trimming out $125 billion worth of mostly ill-considered spending to help pay for Katrina relief. It was an inadequate gesture in light of a $318.62 billion deficit in fiscal 2005, but it was also, unfortunately, far more responsibility than the rest of Congress was willing to take on.
On Monday, we had fresh reason to cheer upon reading the front page of The New York Times, which reported that Sen. Graham was one of three senators — along with John McCain of Arizona and John W. Warner of Virginia — taken to the figurative woodshed by Vice President Dick Cheney over the detainee issue.
Mr. Cheney wanted the provision removed from a defense appropriations bill. As the Times reported, “The senators would not budge.”
Their stand has not only put them in hot water with the White House, but with many of their fellow Republicans in the Congress.
But the members of what Sen. Graham called their “little triumvirate” are not renegades. They are not in revolt against President Bush, but are determined to press the administration to achieve its goals in the war on terror without sacrificing the ideals that we are supposed to be fighting for.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. “I think I can help the administration by forcing this through,” Sen. McCain was quoted as saying. “I think I can help them more effectively pursue the war on terror in general and the war in Iraq in particular.”
We agree. The Abu Ghraib scandal may have done more to frustrate our nation’s ability to win hearts and minds in this struggle — in Iraq, through the Muslim world and among our Western allies — than anything else, including the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. And in order to build a stable and peaceful Iraq and defeat terrorism worldwide, we must win hearts and minds to our cause; we cannot do it through force of arms alone. The Bush administration has maddeningly refused to recognize this, and anyone who corrects that error acts in this nation’s best interests.
It’s worth noting that Sens. Graham, McCain and Warner were also among the “Gang of 14” who saved the Senate from self-destruction over judicial nominations earlier this year. But the three don’t agree on everything: Sens. McCain and Graham are steadfastly committed to increasing our efforts to succeed in Iraq, and voted against a Warner plan that they said smacked of a defeatist timetable for withdrawal.
Triumvirates aside, Sens. McCain and Graham have been an almost inseparable duo, joining to take stand after difficult stand to lead our nation in the right direction.
We recently published a letter from a reader who hoped to be able to vote for a McCain/Graham ticket for president and vice president in 2008. It’s a bit early to talk about endorsing anyone in an election that far off, but we can certainly understand where that reader is coming from.
Allen and Barbour are the only two on your list worth spit.
Strange, I have heard neither McCain or Graham come out for Constitutional Rule of Law, immigration control, individual freedom, abolishment of the welfare state, national sovereignty, a strong national defense, to get rid of the U.N. to allow individuals to manage their own affairs, or for abolishment of the drive toward world government.
Explain?
I believe Mark Warner is more liberal than he showed himself to be as governor of Virginia. I don't think he or anyone else can beat The Hildabeast for the nomination--she believes it's hers and she can raise $100 million for the primaries alone.
So was and am I.
I wasn't clear on what Warner's amendment was about. But knowing him(I'm still upset at what he did to Ollie North), it was probably a RINO move to make the Republican Senate look more acceptable to the anti-war crowd.
George Allen will have to do alot to recover from this IMO.
I'd vote for Barbour, but have no reason to believe he'd run.
After Allen's-
Support for the McCain amendment
Warner Amendment
Defense of Sheehan deserving an audience
I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him in the General.
I have two issues I place primary importance on. The WOT and the Judiciary. As well, separated from policy issues I place extreme importance on ones character. Allen has flunked the Spine test on the WOT. He hasn't been a leader in the fight over the Judiciary either, the way Chuck has featured his face for the Dems. Character seems okay from what I know.
Rudy has the WOT I'd probably trust him on, but I don't trust him concerning Judges. His character would be subject to attack based on his divorce.
George Allen voted for the Warner amendment. He is toast.
I'd certainly advise any and all Republican candidates to target that weakness. None of this "civility" nonsense. He has a short fuse, make McCain lose it on stage in the public arena.
I guarentee if McCain/Lindsey are on a ticket they can count my vote out. Hillary can win for all I care, I see no difference between them. Other than she's probably a little more open about who she is, as well, more emotionally stable.
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.