Congress is taking a break, so both Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham will meet with the editorial board
next week — DeMint on Monday, Graham on Tuesday.
Their offices asked for the meetings, so I haven’t thought much yet about what we’ll be talking about — not that there’s ever a shortage of topics on such occasions. I suspect that with DeMint, we’ll be talking (among other things) about his recent work with the new Democratic majority to curtail earmarks, something of which he has reason to be proud. With Graham, 
it’s likely to be Iraq, Iran, North Korea and such. For that matter, DeMint is likely to have something to say on Iraq as well.
Presidential politics will probably be mentioned, with DeMint backing Mitt Romney while Graham, as ever, will be helping his friend and ally John McCain.
It occurs to me y’all might have suggestions for other topics, or particular questions.
As Dr. Frasier Crane might say, I’m listening…
Related Posts
Ask Graham why he submitted a perjured brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here are a couple of relevant links:
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060705.html
Brad,
Tell Senator Graham that my 8th-grade daughter is writing a paper on him as an example of a “statesman.” Ask him what actions he has taken that deserve such high commendation.
Also, ask them both why every developed country in the world except the US has universal health care. Ask them why we should continue to accept a system that costs twice as much per capita than other developed nations, produces mediocre results (we lag behind many other nations in life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) yet leaves over 45 million of our fellow citizens without insurance.
Ask them both whatever happened to Bush’s plan to revamp Social Security. I have never been a fan of GWB.. but had he accomplished that ONE objective, I would have never said another bad thing about him.
Each worker should get a personal account in their name where all contributions (less a small percent to cover widows, orphans, etc.) are held. Can’t touch it until you are 65 years old. Then it’s all yours. If you die before 65, the balance goes to a designated beneficiary. Statistically, black males get reamed by the current process as their life expectancy does not afford them as many years of collecting a check as it does for white males or white females. It’s surprising that the black community has not bought into privatization.
Or let ME control my retirement money. I’ll even give up all claims to any money I have contributed in the past twenty years if you let me drop out now. I can do better with 15% of my salary for the next twenty years than Congress can.
Ask them if they’re ashamed to be serving in Congress with cowards like this. What a disgrace this guy is, sowing defeatism, and failing to love his country enough to support our vital mission in Iraq.
*********************************************
Congressman Patrick Murphy’s Remarks, AS DELIVERED:
Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
I take the floor today not as a Democrat or Republican, but as an Iraq war veteran who was a Captain with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad.
I speak with a heavy heart for my fellow paratrooper Specialist Chad Keith, Specialist James Lambert and 17 other brave men who I served with who never made it home.
I rise to give voice to hundreds of thousands of patriotic Pennsylvanians and veterans across the globe who are deeply troubled by the President’s call to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq.
I served in Baghdad from June of 2003 to January of 2004. Walking in my own combat boots, I saw first hand this Administration’s failed policy in Iraq.
I led convoys up and down “Ambush Alley” in a Humvee without doors – convoys that Americans still run today because too many Iraqis are still sitting on the sidelines.
I served in al-Rashid, Baghdad which, like Philadelphia, is home to 1.5 million people. While there are 7,000 Philadelphia police officers serving like my father in Philadelphia, protecting its citizens, there were only 3,500 of us in al-Rashid, Baghdad.
Mr. Speaker, the time for more troops was four years ago. But this President ignored military experts like General Shinseki & General Zinni, who in 2003, called for several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq.
Now Mr. Speaker, our President again is ignoring military leaders. Patriots like General Colin Powell, like General Abizaid, and members of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group who oppose this escalation
But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, Congresses in the past did not stand up to the President and his policies. But today I stand with my other military veterans some who were just elected – like Sergeant Major Tim Walz, Admiral Joe Sestak, and Commander Chris Carney. We stand together to tell this Administration that we are against this escalation and that Congress will no longer give the President a blank check.
Mr. Speaker, close to my heart is a small park on the corner of 24th and Aspen Streets in Philadelphia. This is the Patrick Ward Memorial Park.
Patrick Ward was a door gunner in the U.S. Army during Vietnam. He was killed serving the country that he loved. He was the type of guy that neighborhoods devote street corners to and parents name their children after – including my parents, Marge and Jack Murphy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you – how many more street-corner memorials are we going to have for this war?
This is what the President’s proposal does – it sends more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war.
Just a month ago Sgt. Jae Moon from my district in Levittown, Bucks County was killed in Iraq.
You know, a few blocks away from this great chamber, when you walk in the snow, is the Vietnam Memorial, where half of the soldiers listed on that wall died after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work.
It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion.
That’s why Mr. Speaker, sending more troops into civil war is the wrong strategy. We need to win the War on Terror and reasonable people may disagree on what to do, but most will agree that it is immoral to send young Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a real strategy for success.
The President’s current course is not resolute, it is reckless.
That is why I will vote to send a message to our President that staying the course is no longer an option.
Mr. Speaker, its time for a new direction in Iraq. From my time serving with the 82d Airborne Division in Iraq, it became clear that in order to succeed there, we must tell the Iraqis that we will not be there forever. Yet, three years now since I have been home, it’s still Americans leading convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi street corners.
We must make Iraqis stand up for Iraq – and set a timeline to start bringing our heroes home.
That’s why I am proud to be an original cosponsor – with Senator Barack Obama and fellow paratrooper, Congressman Mike Thompson – of the Iraq De-Escalation Act – a moderate and responsible plan to start brining our troops home, mandating a surge in diplomacy, and refocusing our efforts on the War on Terror in Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, our country needs a real plan to get our troops out of Iraq, to protect our homeland and secure and refocus our efforts on capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
There are over 130,000 American servicemen and women serving bravely in Iraq. Unfortunately, thousands more are on the way.
Mr. Speaker, an open-ended strategy that ends in more faceless road-side bombs in Baghdad and more street-corner memorials in America, is not one that I will support.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
*******************************************
Ask them why after 6 years in power the Republicans failed to produce a useful energy policy and that we continue to import 60%+ of our oil supplies.
Brad,
Wow! What an opportunity! Thanks for listening. I do like to ask questions:
Currently most Americans don’t understand how they can help to control helath care costs and stay healthy. How can we harness the power of American price- and status-conscious consumerism to address the enormous health care problems facing our country?
American workers — regardless of gender, sexual orientation, beer preference, or political party — can do as they want with their paychecks. What restrictions are appropriate for the United States to employ on the people we wish to do business with overseas? How can we advocate for human rights and also do business?
Dramatically reducing earmarks is a great idea that promotes transparency in government and promotes fair competition. How can we bring South Carolina to a place where we win even more competitions involving jobs and spending? What types of marketing, education, and infrastructure development will work to achieve this goal for South Carolina in both the traditional and the new economies? Where should we focus, and how can our federal leaders, such as yourselves, work with our local leaders such as Mark Sanford, Bill Cotty and Joel Laurie, to help South Carolina in such efforts?
What actions are the Senators performing to help increase the quality of life for citizens of South Carolina, especially the senior citizens, African-Americans, and Hispanics?
Does the fact that the Confederate flag waves from a flagpole on the Statehouse grounds bother them in any way? Shouldn’t we respect that flag by putting it in a museuum? Why don’t we have a big celebration sometime soon (perhaps on Confederate Memorial Day!) where we take that flag down from where it lives on the flagpole and put it prominently in the State Museuum, where we can respect its place in our history?
Finally, the cost in American and Iraqi lives (and in dollars) is extremely expensive. What can we do to complete our nation-building operation in Iraq in a cost-efficient (in every sense of the word) manner? Iraqis need jobs, and US military actions and US government policy can help Iraqis with security, free-enterprise, and government leadership in promoting both security and free-enterprise. How can US citizens and military personnel help fight terrorism, promote democracy, and bring peace to the world?
Thank you Senators for your time and your efforts. And thank you again, Brad, for this opportunity.
Very Truly Yours,
Michael Rodgers, Columbia
Since all the rationalizations for Iraq being a “central front in the war on terrorism” have proven false, why are Americans still dying there?
What conditions in Iraq will prompt them to call for withdrawal of American troops? What will “victory” look like? Are they willing to sacrifice an unlimited number of Americans; spend an unlimited amount of American tax dollars; and, stay an unlimited length of time in order to accomplish “victory?” If not, then what are the limits?
Do they think that any Democratic Senators or Representatives are traitors? If so, who are they and why shouldn’t they be prosecuted?
Does Vice-President Cheney’s coordination of “outing” a secret CIA operative qualify as a “high crime or misdemeanor?” Should he be impeached?
And, oh yes, here’s a good question:
Under what circumstances would the Bush Administration NOT need congressional approval to attack Iran?
====
Brad, are you ready for the U.S. to attack Iran?
Isn’t that the next step in the neo-con plan? Everything’s been going so well, so far.
Ask the senators this:
The Baker/Hamilton Iraq study group has made recommendations concerning an effort to resolve the Iraqi conflict through increasing our diplomatic efforts, especially with regard to the Iranians and Syrians. In spite of the fact that past military efforts have failed why does the Bush Administration and a majority of Republicans in the senate support a continued emphasis on a military solution and reject the Baker/Hamilton diplomatic approach?
Ask Senator Graham why he caved in to the president on the issue of torture.
As Demint if he still supports a national sales tax.
With a vote to renew the president’s trade promotion authority coming before the Senate how each plans to vote on that. I am concerned about how the trade agreements have effected jobs in South Carolina and around the country.
For Mr. DeMarco I am a college student and I think Sen. Graham is a wonderful example of a statesman because he is willing to work across the aisle to solve a problem even in this highly volatile and polarized time. He seeks realistic solutions to problems and disagrees with opposition in a civil manner.
Judy,
I don’t disagree. I voted for Alex Sanders but have been pleasantly surprised by Graham’s ability to buck the party and go his own way. However, his bipartisan ways have raised some hackles as evidenced by bloggers and writers of letters to the editor who have excoriated him as a traitor to the Republican Party.
Ask Graham: Would you debate Col. Janet Karpinski and Rep. Jack Murphy for an hour on HBO in front of an audience if the profits went to help care for vets wounded in the Iraq meat grinder?
RTH, to make it 2 vs. 2 let’s ask Brad to team up with Senator Graham. I’d pay to watch it.
Senator Graham doesn’t strike me as a true statesman. Rather, he’s an opportunist posing as a statesman. His role with the 13 other so-called moderate senators to avoid a democratic filibuster over court nominees essentially gave the president everything he wanted, including his very conservative picks for the courts. I never did understand what the dems got in return.
The same thing happened with the torture bill. Basically the president got what he wanted on that too.
Graham may be a skilled politician, but he’s not statesman. He plays the role of good cop, in the good cop/bad cop game in efforts to push the conservative agenda through the senate. It took me awhile to figure it out but it’s clear now that Senator Graham is certainly no moderate.
C’mon, Brad, are you waiting for the first bombs to drop on Iran before you endorse opening another front on Islamofascism?
Isn’t it time to shake up the Middle East a little more and see if we can’t ignite democracy in Iran with aerial bombardment?
Does it give you pause that the new war will be executed by the same people who’ve screwed up Iraq so well?
Lastly, do you think that Dear Leader needs Congressional approval to attack Iran?
I raise these questions for you rather than the senators because a competent editorial page editor should have ready answers to them.
RTH writes:
************
Does it give you pause that the new war will be executed by the same people who’ve screwed up Iraq so well?
************
Brad, this really is a fair question. Even if you think Iran is a threat, you should think long and hard about allowing the same administration that, by your own admission, has failed badly in Iraq, to start yet another pre-emptive war. So far the evidence is very thin to support much of anything.
It’s certainly a fair question to ask the senators if they think the president has the authority, without additional congressional authorization, to attack Iran.
bud, i doubt that Brad’s name would attract many viewers. And, his television persona as exhibited in the SC Ag Commissioner debate isn’t sharp or insightful. Maybe Lieberman or McCain would be willing to participate.
I’m guessing that the show could raise tens of thousands of dollars for a very worthy cause.
BTW, I see that Ollie North, of all people, is accusing both Lieberman and McCain of lying about the commanders and troops in Iraq supporting the surge. What a surprise.
RTH, I think Bud’s point is not that Warthen’s presence would improve the event as a whole, but just that it would be entertaining to see Warthen try to defend his viewpoint.
“Mary,” the name’s “Brad.” You have my permission to use it. Give it a try. It works for everybody else.
It would be a nice start toward developing the sort of tone that will be necessary if you plan to continue posting to this blog.
Basically, if I see the need to “unpublish” one more of your comments, you’re gone.
Sure, you can come back with another pseudonym, but if that new persona engages the rest of us in a grownup manner, that will be fine. If “he” or “she” writes like Mary, that will be the SECOND name blocked from the blog in its almost two-year history. And so forth.
I would consider such developments to be a personal defeat, a fact which may be of some comfort to you. I had hoped to persuade you to engage the rest of us constructively as a guest on this site. In that, I have utterly failed. For you, no matter what the subject, it seems to be all about your personal hostility.
This is entirely up to you. Either meet the standards that don’t seem that difficult for other people, or go start your own blog. They’re free, you know.
I enjoyed Dr. Demarco’s editorial in today’s paper. Today I had to deal with our medical system. Although today’s incident was minor it seems like there is always something to deal with.
I took my child to the doctor for a bad sore throat. Since he’s prone to strep-throat we usually don’t wait. It wasn’t long before the lady at the desk asks if I have the latest BC/BS card. I didn’t because my son is on my wife’s insurance. So in order to get credited for the money we spent we have to fax or bring by the new card. Apparently the old cards are invalid because they use the SSN as the patient ID number and that is no longer allowable. So the new cards have assigned numbers. And that is what is needed in order to get credit for the money we spent (in order to meet the deductible).
Why can’t we come up with some national health care system that simply does away with all this mess? Private insurance, medicaid, medicare, age limits, income limits, uninsured children, doctors and hospitals go unpaid because people simply can’t pay, counties fund hospitals, states fund medicaid. And try reading those sheets explaining what is covered and what is isn’t. Some things are others aren’t. And on and on.
Can’t we just establish a single payer system that guarantees everyone has at least a minimal amount of coverage? Every other developed nation in the world does that and there are far fewer complications. I think this mess contributes to our lower life expectancy as compared to other developed nations. It has to. And this is what we rejected the Clinton plan for? Give me a break.
It isn’t an issue of dealing with others in a grownup manner. I’m plenty grown up. You can flatter yourself that the problem is me, but it isn’t just me that regards you with growing amusement and contempt.
Look at RTH’s remark above. Does it look to you like he feels that you are an honest and competent journalist?
Look at Bud’s remark above, in light of the history of his comments? Do you think that he wants to see you participate in a debate because of what he sees as your great insight?
Why do so many people behave like “jerks” by failing to unquestioningly accept your own characterizations of your motives? Why did Doug behave like a “jerk”, asking you to say what you’ve done to help bring about your goal of energy independence?
Is there just something wrong with all of us? Are we just a bunch of poor, benighted souls, who simply don’t have the capacity to appreciate your great wisdom? After all, you have 30 years’ experience as a journalist. Why don’t we see the wisdom and insight that those 30 years have produced?
Why do we listen to people like Digby, Glenn Greenwald, Atrios, Kos, Jane Hamsher, Amanda Marcotte, and all the other unwashed bloggers whose only claim on the attention of the public is that the public respects them and sees them as valuable sources of information and insight?
Why do these people, who do not have the journalistic education and experience that you have, get so much more respect than you are? Why do they have thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of readers, while you have about 12?
Why is it that we don’t accept your view of the Iraq war? Why is it that the American public, which has access to the same information that you do, doesn’t accept your view of the Iraq war? Is it because we are “unwilling to shake up the social order”? Is it because we are afraid of profitable enterprises because we see them as “risky”?
Is the problem with us? Are we really the problem? Are you a prophet for whom the world is not ready?
Or might the problem be with you? I mean, good God, who talks about WAR as “shaking up the social order” and as “risky”? Why don’t you characterize war in more concrete terms, to show us that you really understand what you’re talking about, and are willing to face it?
You’re advocating that children be burned to death. That is the inescapable and inevitable effect of the policies you advocate.
Now, who is the deviant? Is it the population of the United States, who doesn’t want children to be burned to death in the absence of a compelling reason? Or is it you, who sees burning children to death as a regrettable sacrifice, justified by the vaguely defined advantage of “shaking things up”?
WHO is wrong? You, who so blithely accept the burning to death of children?
Or us, who recoil in horror from the burning to death of children?
WHO is wrong? We, who keep pointing you to instances where McCain has engaged in shameless pandering?
Or you, who keeps insisting that McCain is an honest, upright, independent straight talker, in the face of the abundant evidence we have shown you demonstrating that this is not the case?
What what, to you, is incivility? More and more, it looks like disagreement with you. You worship Lieberman, seeing independence and public spiritedness in everything he does. I point out disturbing information about Lieberman, and you feel free to launch a personal attack on me, mischaracterizing my discomfiture at Lieberman’s cheering at a war movie as if it were a sporting event by suggesting that I believe we should cheer for the enemy instead – as if those were the only two alternatives!
I brush your silly mischaracterization aside, and you keep deleting it. So as I see it, civility demands that your readers refrain from expressing any view with which you disagree, or any impugning of your motives, but civility does not demand that you refrain from personal attacks on your readers.
Do you really think that I’m the problem? Or might the problem be that you have not done the work you need to do, and conducted yourself the way you need to conduct yourself, if you are to receive the respect that you want.
One place to start might be, if you have ideas, don’t declare the formation of a “party”. Just do research, develop the ideas, and present them in a well-supported way. There doesn’t need to be a “party” with you at the helm.
Well, that didn’t take long, did it?
Goodbye, Mary.
Those were sincere questions, asked in good faith. Why don’t you just try answering them?
That didn’t take long, either. I didn’t think it would.
So now, as I delete the rest of Mary’s comments as they come in, we must all consider the possibility that Mary’s obsession will lead to an eventuality that none of us would like … requiring all comments to be approved before they appear.
This would be a huge inconvenience to everyone. In this situation, Mary would be playing the role of the guy who put the poison in the Tylenol — he ruined it for everybody, forcing us to deal with “childproof” caps for the rest of our lives.
What will be, will be. What won’t be is Mary posting anything on this blog and having the satisfaction of seeing it stay.
The above comment will be the last to endure. As Mary’s comments go, it’s one of the most genteel. Let us remember her so.
Brad,
I appreciate how much effort you are expending in keeping the blog safe for civil dialogue.
Mary,
Brad makes the rules here and we owe him respect for creating and maintaining a useful forum. Since you can’t get with the program why not bow out gracefully? There’s a whole big cyberworld out there for you, babe. Go and find your place in it.
I didn’t mean to post that twice.
Did anyone hear the president trying to answer a question from a reporter who wanted to know why he doesn’t engage in diplomacy with the Iranians? It was hysterical. Mr. Bush was quite simply incoherent. Basically the reporter asked: if Nixon could talk with the Soviets, even though they were very dangerous, why couldn’t the U.S. talk with the Iranians? The most coherent thing Bush said was: “Because I don’t think it will work”. Now that’s leadership.
Actually, if it is directed toward getting the Iranians to stop messing around in Iraq, it wouldn’t work because the Iranian government isn’t doing any of that.
If Bush were willing to accept Iranian assistance in Iraq, diplomacy would work.
I didn’t notice that part of it in particular; what really struck me was that during the whole press conference it looked like he was on drugs or something.
Paul,
Bipartisanship on either side raises the hackles of the bloggers and letters to the editors. Some of these people wish that those they vote for would only do their bidding. I argued with many of these bloggers over the judicial compromise and other things he has done weather I agree with the act or not. I defend it when I see someone attemptin, as Graham does, to work across the aisle. I completely disagree with the use of the word traitor in politics because it has a particular legal meaning that should not be cheapened in order to acchieve the political tarring of one with which you disagree.
bud
Statesman arise when opportunities present themselves. I would call these thirteen institutionalist senators. They completed the deal and Graham signed on the protect the institution of the Senate. As if the Democrat use of the filibuster was not for the exploitation of the agenda they wanted.
The deal gave the Senate a chance to vote on the nominees. BTW, Jim Haynes, whom the President really wanted on the 4th Circuit, was withdrawn because Graham sttod up to the Presidnet on the nomination. The nuclear option, which would have forever changed the rules of the Senate, was not used.
The President did not get everything he wanted on the detainee bill either. He wanted to use all coerced testimony and was limited to that which was obtained in interrogations prior to enactment of the law. He wanted less procedural protections for the detainees in the commissions and the bill provided more. He also fought the administration on interrogation tactics and the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Convention will be followed. I do not agree with all the provisions of the Military Commissions Act, but I believe Sen. Graham got the best he could out of a White House that did not want to relinquish any control.
Graham may be a skilled politician, but he’s not statesman. He plays the role of good cop, in the good cop/bad cop game in efforts to push the conservative agenda through the senate. It took me awhile to figure it out but it’s clear now that Senator Graham is certainly no moderate.
A statesman is often also a skilled politician. Sen. Graham is a statesman because even in advocating for the Conservative agenda he finds places where compromise can be had anf even takes many hits from conservative activists and bloggers. Sen. Graham is not a moderate, and never was, but he is a conservative, trying to work with an administration that is anything but, they are neocons.
Paul,
Bipartisanship on either side raises the hackles of the bloggers and letters to the editors. Some of these people wish that those they vote for would only do their bidding. I argued with many of these bloggers over the judicial compromise and other things he has done weather I agree with the act or not. I defend it when I see someone attemptin, as Graham does, to work across the aisle. I completely disagree with the use of the word traitor in politics because it has a particular legal meaning that should not be cheapened in order to acchieve the political tarring of one with which you disagree.
bud
Statesman arise when opportunities present themselves. I would call these thirteen institutionalist senators. They completed the deal and Graham signed on the protect the institution of the Senate. As if the Democrat use of the filibuster was not for the exploitation of the agenda they wanted.
The deal gave the Senate a chance to vote on the nominees. BTW, Jim Haynes, whom the President really wanted on the 4th Circuit, was withdrawn because Graham sttod up to the Presidnet on the nomination. The nuclear option, which would have forever changed the rules of the Senate, was not used.
The President did not get everything he wanted on the detainee bill either. He wanted to use all coerced testimony and was limited to that which was obtained in interrogations prior to enactment of the law. He wanted less procedural protections for the detainees in the commissions and the bill provided more. He also fought the administration on interrogation tactics and the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Convention will be followed. I do not agree with all the provisions of the Military Commissions Act, but I believe Sen. Graham got the best he could out of a White House that did not want to relinquish any control.
A statesman is often also a skilled politician. Sen. Graham is a statesman because even in advocating for the Conservative agenda he finds places where compromise can be had anf even takes many hits from conservative activists and bloggers. Sen. Graham is not a moderate, and never was, but he is a conservative, trying to work with an administration that is anything but, they are neocons.
Yet another sad story out of Iraq. The secterian violence has led to severe food shortages. Ask the senators what they plan to do about that.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36630
Since Clinton and the UN starved over 1,000,000 Iraqis to death by looting the UN Oil-for-Food program, a few hungry Iraqis today shouldn’t bother the liberals one bit.
I see where Al Gore refused to donate money to help feed the starving in Darfur, but spent over $600,000 lobbying for an Oscar for himself.
Ask them why they continue to wink and businesses violating our immigration laws, and refuse to seal our borders?
Over 5 years after Al Qaeda used Iraqi money to set up bank accounts and credit cards to finance the 9/11 hijackings, Congress has done nothing to stop Bank of America from issuing credit cards to people who have no Social Security Numbers, no birth certificate, no proof of residence or immigration status.
philadelphia
High-performance philadelphia solutions.