You’ll recall Lindsey Graham’s rebuke to his old friend Mark Sanford last week over the governor’s continuing efforts to divide the Republican Party.
As you can see on the video, he was polite and used mild language, but the rebuke was fairly firm nonetheless. Obviously, the Senator had decided it was time for someone to act like a party leader rather than an insurgent.
Well, he’s done it again, this time over the South Carolina reaction to Real ID. This release came in late Monday:
March 31, 2008
Graham on REAL ID and South Carolina
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on South Carolina and REAL ID.
Graham said:
“I am pleased South Carolina has been granted an extension by Secretary Chertoff regarding REAL ID compliance. The decision was more than justified.
“The Governor has done an excellent job in explaining his concerns to federal officials, many of which I share. Our state already meets 16 of the 18 compliance benchmarks – about 90 percent — called for in REAL ID. Governor Sanford’s efforts to reform our state drivers’ license program has made the system more secure and efficient.
“REAL ID grew out of recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission over the need for more secure forms of identification. It was viewed as an effective means of cracking down on the use of fraudulent documents like those used by the 9/11 hijackers. In addition, REAL ID would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain employment by tightening acceptable forms of identification.
“I will do my part to help ensure the federal government addresses the unfunded mandate burden imposed on the states by REAL ID. Governors and state legislatures across the country are rightfully concerned about these requirements.
“However, in this age of international terrorism we must secure the homeland. We need better identification to protect air travel, access to federal buildings, institutions, and other high value terrorist targets.
“I believe we can accommodate the legitimate national security needs of our nation with the concerns raised by Governor Sanford and the state legislature.”#####
As he said, there’s no excuse for unfunded mandates. At the same time, we need a better identification system for citizens, both for national security and immigration control reasons.
He points out that for all the hollering, South Carolina is already most of the way to compliance.
And as he concludes, we can address these important matters without all the ideological posturing and brinksmanship. We just have to act like grownups.
Related Posts
Who is the person not acting like a grownup in this picture – Sanford or Chertoff? The feds tried to blackmail states with a little debated, shadow passed law that was both a blank check and an unfunded mandate. It contained impossible to meet deadlines, was highly hypocritical, and often counterproductive. If caving to black mail like this makes one a child, I would hate to be grownup, which in this context which would mean putting aside what was right and going along to get along. Grownups do that far too much. Anyone who understands REAL ID beyond DHS provided talking points knows that they took a good premise and twisted it 180 degrees.
Who is running against Graham in the primary? I’m looking forward to voting against Graham but I have to do it in the primary because we cannot afford another democrat in the Senate.
Since when did the Senator from Mexico become concerned about good IDs? Does he plan to maybe scatter Real IDs at the border for the illegal aliens to pick up on their way to the welfare office?
Well, as it happens, here in the REAL world instead of the fantasy one concocted by the critics of McCain and Graham, national security was always the motivation behind pushing the comprehensive immigration reform approach. At the outset of the bill’s proposal, I asked WHY McCain thought it so important to pursue the issue at such a time, and that was the answer he kept giving — from the very start: Securing our borders.
On the other side, I’m guessing (and I’ll be happy to proved wrong on this) that there is a high correlation between people who don’t want to do anything about getting a handle on the illegals already here (beyond entertaining the fantasy that they’re all going home, due to heavy enforcement either against them or their employers) and those who don’t like the Real ID proposal. Not exactly the same set of people, but a big overlap between the two.
I bet that was one hell of a slap… as limp wristed as Graham is it probably sounded like a whip crack.
Other than the fact that usually anything mandated by the Federal government winds up being a huge mess costing a bazillion taxpayer bucks…
What are the reasons for opposing the REAL ID? On the surface it sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I have to admit I’ve not followed the arguments pro or con. Enlightenment would be appreciated (and save me time on the search engines…)
Linsey Graham has got some nerve chastising Sanford since he wants to strip search us at airports and throws around “homeland security” but he and McCain leave the back door to the southern border swinging wide open and allow invading hordes from Mexico of all nationalities to simply walk across the border. I just spoke with a lady today in Phoenix and she was disgusted with McCain’s handling of the border especially since they are gushing red ink due to the enormous strain placed upon the budget by the illegals.
Also, remember Lindsey has labeled “bigots” all who opposed the amnesty bill he and McCain supported.
I know I WILL NOT vote for him this time around. Ted Kennedy’s arrogance has rubbed off on him.
Bob, you beat me to it. I was going to say essentially the same thing.
Here we have this charlatan Lindsey Graham daring to lecture Sanford and the rest of us (or at least the three people among us that still listen to his bull$h*t) when HE is the sellout traitor that attempted to push through the amnesty bill last year. I will never forget being called one of the “loud people” during Miss Lindseys’ red-faced snit on the senate floor six months ago.
Richard, I disagree. There is no discernible difference between “republicans” like Gramnesty and democrats anyway. I would much rather have a liberal democrat senator in there whose policies I know and whose actions are predictable, than someone like Graham who is traitorous, sneaky and willing to do whatever he deems necessary to endear himself to the MSM.
As I said in another string, I don’t care who runs against Gramnesty, I will vote for him. Or her. I pray for a conservative to run for this seat, but even if Gramnestys’ only challenger supports gay marriage, banning guns and increasing all taxes I will still vote in for him over Gramnesty. David
I’m floored by all the negativity towards Senator Graham. I confess I’m nonpartisan, and vote either D or R depending on the candidate. I disagree with Lindsay a lot of the time, but I think he has tried to be reasonable and do the responsible thing.
I think most people want solutions to our problems, not republican solutions or democratic solutions– but real solutions that work for everyone. It’s not a war of D’s vs. R’s. It’s about how to move our state and nation forward. I think that’s the mood of the nation, even if it’s not the consensus on this blog.
Graham’s also very close to Sen. McCain, and if McCain should win, that would be a nice advantage for SC.
I’m floored by all the negativity towards Senator Graham. I confess I’m nonpartisan, and vote either D or R depending on the candidate. I disagree with Lindsay a lot of the time, but I think he has tried to be reasonable and do the responsible thing.
I think most people want solutions to our problems, not republican solutions or democratic solutions– but real solutions that work for everyone. It’s not a war of D’s vs. R’s. It’s about how to move our state and nation forward. I think that’s the mood of the nation, even if it’s not the consensus on this blog.
Graham’s also very close to Sen. McCain, and if McCain should win, that would be a nice advantage for SC.
Give Chertoff and the rest of the Department of Homeland Security a break on this one issue; there’s plenty of other stuff to castigate them for. They are simply trying to comply with the law.
Our Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005; neither Bush nor career civil servants made the whole thing up to irritate governors. DHS is simply trying to set up the enforcement mechanism and standards to meet the objectives our elected congresspeoples legislated.
I’m no fan of Graham’s, but he rightly points out that “REAL ID grew out of recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission over the need for more secure forms of identification.” Moreover, DHS has included the states in discussions since the legislation was passed. Here’s a good backgrounder.
While the law is on the books, the DHS rightly has to figure out a way to implement it. But it’s up to the states to convince Congress that the law is onerous if they really don’t want it. Otherwise, folks from non-complying states will have to get passports if they intend to take a plane trip or visit a federal building.
…how hard did she slap him?
…were they fighting over a tanning bed?
Hee hhe! I bet Miss Lindsey slaps like a girl. David
Interesting word choice: Brinkmanship (entered the English language in 1956) was a Cold War coinage of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, criticizing Sec. of State John Foster Dulles for “boasting of his brinkmanship, … the art of bringing us to the edge of the nuclear abyss.” Has it come to that???