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

Skip to comments.

Lindsey Graham's About-face
American Thinker ^ | 8-03-07 | Janet Levy

Posted on 08/03/2007 4:29:23 AM PDT by Renfield

In a remarkable turnabout reminiscent of the famous John Kerry flip flop, "I was for the war before I was against the war," U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) effected a dramatic reversal last week in his position on illegal immigration.

Not more than a month earlier, Graham, or "Grahamnesty" as he was labeled, had been a strident supporter of the most extensive amnesty program in U.S. history, one cloaked in the deceptive rhetoric of humanitarianism and comprehensive immigration reform. The hypocrisy and betrayal were clearly evident a large majority of the American public.

Has Graham committed political suicide? The fallout from Graham's turnabout will provide months of edifying politics. Chronicling and reviewing Graham's reversal of his pro-amnesty position is instructive, providing an example to elected officials of the consequences they face if they pursue their own agendas despite vocal opposition by their constituents, and lose sight of their role as public servants.

The Rise of Sen. Grahamnesty

Graham, in concert with senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), crafted and promoted S.1639, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. What was purported to be a comprehensive solution to the problems presented by runaway illegal immigration in the United States turned out to be a massive amnesty program. It would have rewarded criminal behavior with billions of dollars in entitlements for health care, social security, legal assistance and other benefits. At a time when Americans are concerned about national security and have demanded that government secure our borders, this bill offered nothing to solve the border security problem. To add insult to injury, in 2006 Graham voted for an amendment that would essentially ensure that the border fence with Mexico would never be built. The amendment stipulated that the Mexican government must be consulted prior to construction of any border structures and fences.

S.1639, the McCain-Kennedy bill championed by Graham, would have granted immediate amnesty to anywhere from 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, making them permanent legal residents of the United States. It would have authorized the importing of additional "temporary" foreigners as guest workers with full legal status and renewable work permits. Under the provisions of S.1639, undocumented immigrants would have been eligible for social security benefits, even if they identified themselves with stolen or forged documents. In addition to free public education, health and hospital care, food stamps, welfare and in-state college tuition rates currently provided to existing illegal aliens, the bill would also have given them free legal assistance at American taxpayers' expense. Also, S.1639 would have increased the number of eligible family members that illegal immigrants could bring to the United States. Clearly, under S. 1639, the benefits conferred upon those who violated U.S. immigration laws were bountiful rewards, not disincentives, for crossing the border illegally.

"Loud Folks"

As Graham embarked on a mission to vigorously support passage of S.1639, his mostly conservative constituency began to complain about his attempt to hoodwink them with an amnesty plan for those who entered the country illegally. According to some reports, the volume of dissenting calls to his office necessitated additional phone capacity. Angry constituents complained that as calls increased, staff members eventually declined to answer calls altogether. Publicly, Graham asserted that the majority of his constituents supported what he was doing and dismissed the complaints as coming from "loud folks." Graham believed that most voters accepted the flawed logic of granting amnesty now for breaking the same law that would henceforth be vigorously enforced. Allowing amnesty in order to slow the future flow of immigrants didn't make sense, but Graham paid no heed.

To make matters worse, in May, Graham addressed the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") to apprise them of his efforts to legislate amnesty for illegal aliens. As part of his speech to the largest Hispanic advocacy organization in the United States, Graham declared that to those opposing amnesty he would "tell the bigots to shut up." In this offensive statement to La Raza, Graham blatantly disparaged as insensitive racists the vast majority of law-abiding American citizens who favored upholding existing immigration laws.

Ironically, La Raza is a Hispanic rights organization that lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grants in 2005 and actively funds the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, or MEChA, one of the most anti-American groups in the country. MEChA rejects the notion of assimilating to American culture and advocates the "Reconquista" or repatriation of the "stolen" American southwest, including Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State to Chicanos. In April, thousands of Mexican expatriates, many here illegally, and some affiliated with La Raza, MEChA and other Hispanic rights groups, joined others in a massive protest of U.S. immigration laws, whose very existence they find offensive and a violation of their rights to be in an America that they feel rightfully belongs to them.

The Fallout

The fallout experienced by Graham following his wholehearted endorsement of amnesty for illegal aliens and his conspicuous pandering to La Raza was extensive. According to an Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion poll, 63% of his constituents disapproved of his support for S.1639. His approval rating plummeted to 31% and campaign contributions critical for the senator's re-election in 2008 ground to a halt. The blogosphere responded with a proliferation of "Dump Lindsey Graham" websites, with one displaying a Lindsey Graham countdown clock. In response, a Graham spokesman commented with flagrant disdain that "Lindsey Graham has never governed by the polls - real or bogus - and is not about to start now." The spokesman added that well-informed South Carolinians, who constituent the majority of state residents, support the provisions of the "immigration reform proposal." It was evident to many South Carolinians that their senator was placing the interests of Hispanic supremacist, illegal alien support groups above that of lawful American citizens and that he refused to respectfully engage his constituency in a reasonable debate on the problems of illegal immigration and border security.

Apparently the backlash and political implications for Graham were significant enough for him to reconsider his position and co-author with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK) an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill. Last Friday, the Senate passed the $3 billion in emergency spending for immigration and border enforcement. The Graham-Pryor amendment stipulates that the U.S. government must achieve full operational control over the U.S.-Mexico border. It requires an increase in the number of border patrol agents for a total of 23,000, allocates funding for 45,000 detention beds to end "catch and release" procedures that set illegal aliens free for lack of detention space, and calls for the acquisition of four unmanned aerial vehicles and 105 ground-based radar and camera towers. Further, the amendment provides for the expedited removal of illegal aliens. It also addresses visa overstays by requiring detention under Department of Homeland Security provisions and allows local law enforcement to obtain immigration status information in sanctuary cities, municipalities that have adopted a non-cooperative stance with federal immigration enforcement laws. In a complete volte-face, Graham said that he likened the passing of his amendment to "having been robbed 12 million times and finally getting around to putting a lock on the door." He is now advocating better electronic employee verification systems, merit-based entry requirements and assimilation programs that include learning English.

In the face of overwhelming public disapproval - that may yet result in his forfeiting re-election - a humbled Graham reversed his La Raza-consonant position on amnesty and cowered to voters' demands. He recognized that his support for securing national borders and enforcing immigration laws were important prerequisites for recapturing lost political capital. As Dan Stein, president of the Federation of Immigration Reform (FAIR) so aptly stated,

"The American public has made it absolutely clear that they want the government to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws - and that none of these efforts should be conditioned on rewarding people who have broken our laws."

It is evident that the American people want to see a reduction of the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border and the enforcement of existing laws to secure the border. Wise politicians can take a lesson from Graham's experience. Politicians who want to remain in Congress should heed the will of the people and enact legislation worthy of true public servants.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 110th; amnesty; elections; graham; immigration; southcarolina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Renfield
Lindsey, dude, you can slip and slide and slyly contort
But you're una dia late y uno peso short.

Leni

41 posted on 08/03/2007 6:16:28 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Three Cheers for the FRed, White and Blue !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

later


42 posted on 08/03/2007 6:16:53 AM PDT by I_be_tc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970; doodad

I firmly believe that we are at a crossroads with respect to the future of our republic. We can either uphold the status quo of RINOism, globalism, and the slow slide into the abyss of full-blown socialism... or we can FIGHT. Not just with words, not just online, but with money, with time, with action. We can replace the current crop of elitist RINO politicians... with leaders.

Donate. Volunteer. Spread the word. Everyone is good at something... do whatever you can to effect change, and WE WILL CARRY THE DAY. Can you imagine the financial impact of everyone on this site making a donation, not just to the primary candidate in their state, but to ANY viable conservative candidate?

The time to change the course of history for our country will be in the next primary election. Let’s do it.


43 posted on 08/03/2007 6:29:43 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Tarred and feathered, and thrown out of office. That would have been Graham’s fate in a more civilized era.


44 posted on 08/03/2007 6:35:19 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty

Misquoting is not something we should tolerate... yes we can say the quote captures the gist of Kerry’s legacy but when you put quote marks around something is has to mean something. People who like to pat themselves on the back over their principles shouldn’t just let this slide. That was my point in questioning the opening quote.


45 posted on 08/03/2007 6:50:42 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Okay, all you South Carolinians! Throw the bum out! He's too dumb to serve in the U.S. Senate--and that's saying PLENTY!

Graham's got a big war chest, I understand; and it's not going to be easy for a challenger to succeed in the Republican Primary against him, but a grassroots rejection of Lindsey--remember how Chambliss and Isakson were booed by Republicans?--might force the State GOP to reject the renomination of Lindsey as political suicide.

The key, I think, is to find a replacement for Lindsey now.

Lindsey's served as a useful idiot for the likes of Teddy Kennedy before. He'll do it again. He lacks the wit to avoid it, and he might have something up his sleave--like getting to be some RINO's Vice Presidential candidate at some time in the future, or something like that. He's gotta go.

46 posted on 08/03/2007 6:55:24 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

so don’t let it slide. conduct a search for each an every instance kerry is misquoted and lecture to the people who have misquoted him. unless youre really just patting yourself on the back for pointing out an error that everyone else takes for fact.


47 posted on 08/03/2007 7:00:12 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty

Shouldn’t we point out an error that everyone takes for fact? Do you see something disingenuous with that? Imagine the misquotes that will be made for Fred Thompson. Shouldn’t these too be pointed out too?


48 posted on 08/03/2007 7:05:49 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

absolutely. you have a lot of work ahead of you. :)


49 posted on 08/03/2007 7:07:39 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty

My point is that I’d expect a little help from those who indulge themselves with claims of having principle. I’ll see you then.


50 posted on 08/03/2007 7:12:06 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: new cruelty

Done. I was the one who first brought it up and tried to enlist the help of Freepers. My memory or my search techniques could have been faulty so I questioned myself first. Pissy? That’s what I’d call your first comment to me but I may have misinterpreted.


52 posted on 08/03/2007 7:27:17 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d

But it looks like Graham is the alternative so ...


53 posted on 08/03/2007 7:31:11 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: All
In the face of overwhelming public disapproval - that may yet result in his forfeiting re-election - a humbled Graham reversed his La Raza-consonant position on amnesty and cowered to voters' demands.

Ha!... ARROGANT BASTARD most politicians are, but this one!... is a special one... He has all the makings of the "McCacain the II." Politicians are so full of themselves... but when they actually see their *ss is on the line...Boy, do their "convictions" change quickly. I detest people like that, especially politicians.

It is rewarding to see that now with the Internet, we are able to REMEMBER all their transgressions and bring them back at the proper time. We no longer are the bunch of idiots that can easily be manipulted by political consultants who had it as a rule we would forget everything by the next election. Just look at Mr McCacain... he is paying and will pay back for all the backstabbing to the Republicans just a few months ago.

54 posted on 08/03/2007 7:36:28 AM PDT by ElPatriota (Duncan Hunter 08 & Let's not forget, we are all still friends, basically :) despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Pissy? That’s what I’d call your first comment to me but I may have misinterpreted.

Nice recovery. Just to be sure, let's take another look together...

I began my first post to you with "good question." That seems innocent enough. So far so good. Though you might have taken that to mean, "geez and pete, you moron, what the hell is the matter with you?"

I dunno. Let's continue... "i searched around and found that quote was attributed to kerry on several sites but i have not found a direct source siting the moment he said it." Ah,... an effort was made to help clear up the matter. It's a stretch but maybe you mistook this to mean "you are a low life piece of trash that i wouldn't waste a moment of my time on". again, i dunno.

No matter, my search for a quote was inconclusive so I closed with a possible scenario that you likely took to mean that I was insulting your race, religion, or sexual preference, "it could be that people are paraphrasing his comments. in any case “I was for the war before I was against the war” has become kerry’s legacy."

I'm going to have to go with you "may have misinterpreted". Notice the fine use of quotation marks. : )

55 posted on 08/03/2007 7:43:49 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
What an awful lot of work you are putting into this. Sorry, it wasn't your first comment it was this comment...unless youre really just patting yourself on the back for pointing out an error

Pissy or not, what's the deal with lambasting me for questioning the initial quote this article was based on? Seems strange and misplaced effort to me and WAY TOO MUCH WORK.

56 posted on 08/03/2007 7:54:47 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Too much work? I have no principles, now I have too much. Be flattered. I'm not lambasting you. I think you're worth the effort. And I haven't lambasted you for questioning the quote. I think it's a valid question. I even offered some assistance. Here's the deal... If you feel lambasted, it is likely because of this preachy comment that you made to me but did not back up with any action until later, "People who like to pat themselves on the back over their principles shouldn’t just let this slide". So don't let it slide. If you're going to make a comment like that, then back it up with some action of your own (i.e. write the author of the article and report the response back to the masses) otherwise you're just patting yourself on the back and are no different from those you are complaining about. I think it's great that you finally wrote to the author for clarification on the quote and look forward to a response.
57 posted on 08/03/2007 8:11:18 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Wasn’t he also a member of the gang of 14? Flip him over the cliff he’s gone for!
58 posted on 08/03/2007 8:11:48 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas
ooops, gone should read done :)
59 posted on 08/03/2007 8:12:39 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty

Done all that. We’ve been down this path before.


60 posted on 08/03/2007 8:13:32 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 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