Graham Supported Holder


February 6, 2009, 09:05 PM
I just copied this from Senator Lindsay Graham's website. He has got to go!

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on his vote in support of Eric Holder to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

“Mr. Holder understands the threat to our nation posed by terrorism. In the Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the nomination, Mr. Holder agreed with me the United States is undoubtedly at war with a vicious and shadowy enemy, and that the war began before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“Mr. Holder agreed with me as well that the battlefield in the War on Terror is the entire globe. It is not limited to the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, but also includes the financial system, through which terrorist networks are funded; and the internet, through which terrorists communicate and spread their message of violence and hatred. Indeed, the tragic events of 9/11 proved that the battlefield even extends within our nation’s own borders. The question of how best to win the War on Terror is the most profound issue facing the next Attorney General. Mr. Holder understands the nature of this enemy and this conflict.

“There are some who argue that Mr. Holder’s previous mistakes should bar him from serving as Attorney General. In expressing my support for Mr. Holder, I do not mean to minimize those misjudgments. Indeed, Mr. Holder faces his past mistakes fully — admitting them, learning from them, and promising to exercise better judgment in the future. While I understand concern with Mr. Holder’s past errors, it would be a mistake in its own right to reject on that basis this qualified nominee who comprehends the challenge our nation faces in defeating terrorism.

“I look forward to working with President Obama and Mr. Holder to fashion a system of detention for the War on Terror involving all three branches of government and of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Holder and I agree that in order to maintain the critical moral high ground in this war, we must treat detainees fairly, with more process than they would necessarily provide us. We also agree that we must not release dangerous warriors back to the fight against our nation. Criminalizing this war would be a terrible mistake, and Mr. Holder understands that.

“Four years ago, President Obama, then Senator Obama, stated on the floor of the Senate that the test of a nominee for Attorney General is, “whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President.” Eric Holder meets that test and for that reason I will support his nomination.”

I will be writing Mr Graham tomorrow morning and expressing my displeasure with him. We need another Senator like Jim DeMint here in SC. I will be working to rid ourselves of this CINO (I am a conservative, not a republican.) Sentor Graham has let us all down!

If you enjoyed reading about "Graham Supported Holder" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 6, 2009, 11:07 PM
I'm not sure it's really that bad. Remember, even if Holder didn't pass, there's always another anti-gun nominee. He might have been trying to at least get an anti-terorism candidate. (But I'm not sure he's best for that either.)

(I am a conservative, not a republican.
Same here. I think a better term would be COIN, conservative only in name, if he really is as bad as you say. But I'm not sure he is.

(BTW, if he loses, the democrats have a fillibuster proof majority, so make sure he's really bad or loses to someone really good)

February 6, 2009, 11:42 PM
What's the plan? How do you propose to replace a powerful sitting Senator with strong home support?

February 6, 2009, 11:55 PM
And is he really anti-gun? If so, is it enough that any alternatives would be better?

February 7, 2009, 09:03 AM
Unfortunately, Senator Graham is my state's senator.

I propose an email/letter writing campaign by SC residents to express our displeasure. Here is his email contact form to use.

If he was willing to capitulate on Holder, who is as anti-gun as they come, what else might he give in to? Ammo encoding? AWB?

The only way our representatives know our desires is for us to inform them. If he gets a boatload of mail/emails, perhaps he'll start listening to his constituency. While he may have strong support here in SC, he is not invincible. The sad part is that he was just re-elected to another 6 years.

February 11, 2009, 01:45 PM
Grahamnasty is a blight on SC, he is also proamnesty for all the Illegal aliens in this Country. He has his nose so far up Obammy's behind you no longer have to wonder if he and Mcain are an item ;););). It is well known im Republican circles in SC that he is a Closet Ahhhmmmmm. The problem in SC is once their in, you can't hardly get them out.

Our best bet would have been Mcain winning, then Grahamnasty would have become the new AG. It was a done deal if only Mcain had won.

February 26, 2009, 10:08 AM
FWIW, I've known Lindsey Graham since the eighties, though I no longer have contact with him. He's a smart and principled man. It's fine to disagree with him, but I believe he really does attempt to do what he believes is right. The name-calling is, at least in this case, out of line.

February 26, 2009, 12:31 PM
MisterMike, since you no longer have contact with him how can you know he's still a fine upstanding person? As he is my Senator and not yours, I will continue to call Grahamnasty the RINO weasel he is. :barf:

Heck even his staffers are left wondering why he constantly votes against the wishes of the people of SC.

In High Road fashion I will agree to disagree with you, on what a fine fellow he is.

February 26, 2009, 12:46 PM
Your perogative. I'm just not so sure that name-calling accomplishes much . . . it seems better to me to call him out on his policies and debate the merits. Heck, if you have specific criticisms, I'd be more than willing to listen to your opinions.

I served with him in the Air Force, and we continue to have mutual friends who believe he's a man of integrity. While I may not share each of his viewpoints, I believe he acts in what he thinks are the best interests of the country.

One of my great faults may be that I'm a little different than a lot of people who swear allegiance to a political party. I am fairly conservative, but I refuse to sign on to the full platform of any party. My view is that they are a corrupting influence and exist primarily for the purpose of perpetuating the power of a a select few. I'd rather be represented by someone who votes his conscience in a principled fashion, rather than by someone who toes the party line. When someone tells me they're a Republican or a Democrat, my gut reaction is to be distrustful of their ability to reason independently. I can understand why a politician would call himself a Democrat or a Republican--it's really a matter of necessity--but I've seen enough hijinks in both parties to make me wonder why, as a voter, I'd ever sell my soul to either.

Like I said, I acknowledge this may be a personal shortcoming. Obviously a lot of smart people swear allegiance to a political party. I just can't do it.

February 26, 2009, 01:33 PM
Don't worry I am extremely vocal in my dissatisfaction with the job he is doing. I send regular fax's, email's and phone calls to his office. I even spoke to him on the phone once because of my stance on his voting for amnesty for all the Illegals in this country.

Your friend has drank the waters of the Potomac, and has lost his morals. He sold out SC ,by selling his vote on amnesty in exchange for the AG post that Holden now has. How principled is that? Once it became clear that Mcain was not likely to win, Grahamnasty reversed his stance on amnesty just in time to get re-elected.

Now that he is safely back in office, he's right back to supporting amnesty for the illegals, and Obamas agenda.

In a conversation early last year with a staffer in DC, we talked about the path he was on and the Staffer said " we cannot understand his stance on this issue. We are getting hundreds of emails,faxes and calls from people back home telling him to stop supporting amnesty. But he keeps on pushing it." When I told him it was because he had been offered the AG position if Mcain won. The staffer said " yup' he'd commit Political Suicide at home, for that".

He may have been a fine person while in the Air Force 20 years ago, but he has since changed his ways, and would sell his soul to the Devil if it would keep him in politics.

February 26, 2009, 03:03 PM
Thanks for your reply. I understand where you're coming from.

Just out of curiosity, what has his stance been on Second Amendment issues?

If you enjoyed reading about "Graham Supported Holder" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!