Sen. Graham Doesn't Disappoint Me

Response to Mike Reino at SC6.

I started out volunteering for the Presidential campaign of John Edwards two years ago. I went to Iowa and Milwaukee as a volunteer. I cam home from one of these trips and I was watching the Senate on C-SPAN 2 when I happened across a speech by Lindsey Graham, who was the Jr senator from South Carolina at the time. The speech was about trade. I remembering who would dare present the unorthodox position that he did.

I have followed his Senate career for the last two years and have defended him every chance I get because I do plan to pattern myself after him. I like his style of hammering out compromises and tackling current and controversial issues head on without fear.

In spite of the high praise I do sometimes wonder what he is thinking, but it is just a disagreement to me and not a disappointment. There is much wrong with the Senate version of the immigration bill, however, I think his heart is in the right place. There is another problem with this issue besides the agency not being able to handle the influx and that is the executive department’s lax enforcement. Sen. Graham is only trying to assist in fixing a problem that the President could have fixed quickly with an executive order that demanded stepped up enforcement of existing law. The solution is not perfect, but that is why we have a conference committee.

I understand the perils of the immigration issues because I live in Chicago and have a difficult time finding employment because I don’t speak Spanish. I also understand that until we enforce the fines on employers for hiring illegals than we will have the problem.

I do think that Lindsey is caught up in the spirit of compromise as he tends to be because he wants the Senate to work together. It is unfortunate that John McCain and the rest you name are so derided. I do not think that Lindsey should be beat based on the Group of 14 because we still got our judges. Did we really want to destroy to Senate and change forever the way it works? I don’t. I like judicial compromise because it has given good judges positions. Some still won’t make it, but that is the process.

I do not think that the second is as plausible as the first. Lindsey made some of the most passionate and compassionate speeches I saw from anyone on this issue. I am sure he received some contributions from business interests, but so did all the senators. This is not as much the problem as his bleeding heart may be on the issue.

I am and always will be more like Lindsey Graham than Jim DeMint. I am still not a Fair Tax supporter and will remain a compromiser for the overall good.

No Enemies of Jim Haynes, Just people Asking Pertinent Questions

As Paul at PowerLineBlog points out Jim Haynes has his defenders who are also people who worked with him. If there is nothing wrong with him being a plaintiff against Secretary Rumsfeld in a case over abuses with the ACLU and being on the National Veterans for Kerry steering committee, than why mention this because it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the President in an election and was willing to work with the ACLU as a way to tarnish his argument and call it incoherent. He may say there is nothing wrong with this but it is enough to plant doubt in the minds of people who might have been willing to support the argument before that Haynes was unfit. This casts a political question that does not belong. I do not believe that this stuff would have even been mentioned if he had worked with say the ACLJ on a case or the Bush Veterans Committee.

Paul has also spoken with a former co-worker that says good things about Mr. Haynes. However, this alone does not take away the serious and important questions being raised by the retired officers, Sen. Graham, and Sen. McCain about his role in the torture scandal.

Why is it not a good enough reason for him to have been instrumental in writing and approving memos that may have contributed to the environment of the Abu Ghraib situation? To me and others this is enough. He may be a dedicated civil servant with the ability to serve on the court, however, the nomination is derailed not for political reasons, but for reasons of principle. We don;t torture and we should not condone or support it either. The Haynes nomination is a chance for us to make a conclusive statement about torture and the memos. It is no more disgusting that the nomination is held up than if it were a nominee you did not like who had the same background.

Lindsey Graham may have been blocking Haynes’ nomination, but he is doing so for a reason or principle, not because of politics. The Judiciary Committee is the place to stop an undesirable nominee. If you want him out of Committee so bad and believe he is being blocked get a majority of senators to sign discharge papers and move him out of committee without a vote. Lindsey is doing the honorable thing standing up for who the American people are and that we do not stand for torture even of terror suspects. He is not carrying water for John McCain, but standing on his own two feet. This is a risk for their political careers, but I contend that it is one worth taking. I do not live in South Carolina, but I write letters supporting the block because I feel it is the way that we best serve the country and keep the court room a quiet place where everyone can feel that they will receive justice. The block is the honorable course. I think that the good people of South Carolina should lend moral support in his block of the Haynes nomination because of the torture issue. Lindsey is a fine public servant, but he does not support torture. This is his way of telling us that the president is not going to completely get his way and that is correct.

Hayne's Critics Aren't Incoherent

I will listen to retired high ranking military officers who were JAG lawyers; Sen. Graham, a current JAG lawyer, and John McCain before I would listen to conservative activists about the nomination of Jim Haynes. Why? Because all these men have been lawyers who deal with the law of war or in John McCain’s case a former POW.

Lindsey Graham’s block on the Haynes nomination is standing for a principle that we have always stood for; we do not torture. They should be unhappy about his role with regard to the treatment of GITMO detainees and what happened at Abu Ghraib becasue it is contrary to our values as a nation.

Modeled After Sen. Graham

Two years ago when I traveled for the campaign of John Edwards I never dreamed I would be writing about modeling myself after Lindsey Graham because at the time I didn’t know who he was and hadn’t cared much to watch C-SPAN. I began watching C-SPAN during the campaign hoping to see John Edwards give the blockbuster speech on the Senate floor that would set me swooning. However, this never happened because John Edwards was out campaigning.

Discovery of Sen. Graham
One day while listening to the Senate proceedings I heard a refreshingly eager voice. He was talking about trade and jobs. It was enough to make me wonder about the speaker. I turned around and watched as the gentleman spoke and I saw that it was Lindsey Graham. I had just returned from campaigning in Milwaukee at this time. I couldn’t believe that in the middle of a campaign I was getting interested in someone else; on the other side no less. Sen. Graham had captured my attention and I did research to find out more about his life, career, and positions. The more I looked into it the more I admired him and decided that he was the person upon which I wanted to model myself.

Disagreement, Defense, and SupportI disagree with him sometimes and other times I wonder what he is thinking, but this never makes me question his status as my role model.

We tend to question those items we disagree with more than that with which we agree. However, I chose to adopt his idea of compromising and finding a middle ground in order to get something done. The largest example of this is the judicial compromise, which he took flak for, but I found it easy to defend.

I know I have moved slightly left (populist-leaning conservative to populist conservative) over the last two years and appearantly Sen. Graham has also, at least on immigration. He has a populist streak that causes his independent, some would say maverick, actions. I share this streak and the desire to help people. I share the willingness to challenge orthodoxy when necessary, like in supporting a payroll tax cap increase to pay for the transition cost of the Social Security reform.

I do not agree with his support of the Marriage Protection Amendment for Constitutional reasons, but I honor his wish to support it. I will also defend his vote for the nuclear option should it become necessary. I hope this option never returns to the debate and never sees the light of day again.

Conclusion
I choose to model myself after Sen. Graham because of his willingness to compromise and stand for principles, as well as his life being a model of the American Dream.

• Response to Lindsey Graham is Starting to Really Disappoint Me, by Mike Reino at SC6

Haynes Should be Blocked from Being on the Court

In a “Vote that Shouldn’t be Ducked" Paul at PowerLine accuses Sen. Graham of ducking a negative vote on the nomination of Jim Haynes for the Fourth Circuit by blocking the nomination from moving out of the Judiciary Committee. This is based on an article in The Hill newspaper that says Graham is blocking the nomination.

The Hill speculates, as I have, that Lindsey Graham is blocking the nomination of Jim Haynes to the Fourth Circuit, and that Graham’s good friend John McCain may also be involved. The notion is that McCain, who opposes Haynes because as General Counsel of Defense Department Haynes had a role with respect to the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees, would rather not have to vote against Haynes. By preventing Haynes from getting past the Judiciary Committee, Graham relieves his friend from having to cast that vote.

I do not agree that Graham is ducking the vote.He is against the policy of torture which Haynes has endorsed and has refused to answer crucial questions about his documented role in the implementation of the policy. He was an Army JAG and is current General Counsel of the DoD. Graham has also counted the tea leaves and sees that there will be a filibuster on the Senate floor once Haynes is passed out of committee. Rather than being seen as hypocritical he has decided that the better course of action is blocking him in committee. This is the far better course of action because inflaming the debate over GITMO in this context would do much more harm than good.