GOP Graham's endorsement boosts climate bill

The surprise endorsement of climate-change legislation by a leading Senate Republican has jump-started the languishing proposal but also has raised the prospect that it will include two major items that environmentalists dislike: more nuclear power and more offshore oil drilling.

In an op-ed published Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the chamber's leading Democratic advocate of climate legislation, to promote a bipartisan plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

They proposed a compromise that reduces U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions - which are widely considered to contribute to climate change - through a market-based "cap and trade" system, combined with a "clean energy" program providing incentives for nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal emissions controls.

Analysts from the political left and right expressed optimism that the unexpected alliance will improve the bill's chances of passage. The House narrowly passed its version this summer, but the Senate has long been considered a much tougher sell.

I’m mad as hell at Senator Graham for getting on-board with cap and steal, but I don’t think he deserves all that is being said.

Yes, he was USAF until 89, he’s the only Senator currently serving in the Guard or the Reserves. He had been called to active duty during the Gulf War. His parents died and he raised his younger sister while he put himself through law school.

I do know that Graham has been determined to get us more nuclear power and offshore drilling. I’m not sure what the logic is in his cap and trade support, that REALLY annoys me! He may have went rino or whatever but I disagree he deserves the attacks I see on his person. JMO

“That’s truly a shame he’s gone so far leeward, in lieu of his service to our country...”

SIGH... As you said, McCain has done the same thing. Perhaps it is time to clean the slate and put away those things that have nothing to do with selecting a conservative (or even rational) elected official. I would propose that previous military service has little, or nothing, to do with making a good elected official.

McCain = Navy
Kerry = Navy (as he reminds us ad nauseum)
Murtha = Marines
Carter = Navy

Well, I could go on and get all of the services covered, but you get the idea.

Perhaps, rather than viewing previous military service as a virtue in our elected officials, it should be given minimal weight in our selection process. The fact that one served is only one of the items that MIGHT indicate that a person is worthy of public office.

I was tempted to state that Reagan did not serve in the military, but that would not be true. He served on active duty during WWII and churned out some 400 training films. Something of an accomplishment, but he certainly did not serve in a combat role. Yet with only a military support function, he was one of our finest conservative presidents with an exemplary record in the use of our military.

In summary, you’re just as likely to get a stinker with previous military service, as you are to get a gem. The best thing to do is look at a person’s record and positions on the issues, which our electorate did NOT do in their election of Obama.

Finally, if a politico running for office (and they always are) starts touting his military accomplishments, it should make us extremely nervous. As often as not, there’s something wrong when a politician starts leaning on this as a qualification for office. I’m of that school that reveres folks that return from our nation’s wars that don’t talk about their service. Humility is a good thing, even in a politician. It should be noted that I sat down with McCain for three hours one afternoon (just a BS session before he was a really big politician, but still a US Senator) and though there were three of us, not one mention was made of any military service. He was actually rather nice outside of his political role. If I had only known. :-(

It has been my experience, that those who do the most for our country while in the military, are likely to say the least about it upon returning to civilian life. I’ve worked for years with at least two folks that received Silver Stars, but I never even knew they were in the military. Both are good men, a quality that is becoming increasingly rare in our public officials.

He had been called to active duty during the Gulf War.

During his first campaign, Mr. Graham sent out literature that described him as a "Veteran of the Gulf War". A couple of local radio talk show hosts revealed that he had in fact been called to active duty, but had served as a JAG Officer at Ft. Dix preparing wills and other legal documents for those who were actually being deployed. He appeared on at least one of the shows and defended the statement in his literature by insisting that "technically" he WAS a Gulf War Veteran.

His service during that conflict was honorable and necessary, but I have always held the feeling that we never quite get the whole story on this guy.

I’ve given this increasingly worm like GOPer the benefit of the doubt for a long time but this bit of traitorous idiocy takes the cake. We need to get rid of him he is an embarrassment and there is no reason for a conservative southern state to tolerate such a weak conservative when we can get a real one in his place. Anyone who believes in Global Warming is a moron or just simply misinformed. Anyone who votes for the Cap and Trade bill deserves to be pilloried. Why is it when we are so close to stopping Obama on his core issues that we have individuals like Graham and Snow rushing to rescue him? They should know that they are signing the end of their careers by going along with our would be third world socialist dictator of a President.

You are so right, especially in stating military service should have little or no impact on the selection. Having served 20 years in the Navy myself, I did not enlist as a rock-ribbed conservative but a clueless Democrat, who suddenly figured out after nearly 15 years that the party my family so ardently supported could give a rat's behind about those fighting and winning wars and did (and still do) everything to de-fund them. But having said that, we also have R.I.N.O.s to contend with that are the same way. In addition, most of the young people I met and associated with in the mid 1980s were also anti-Regan.

...As they say, hindsight is 20-20.

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.