Lindsey Graham doesn’t need me to stick up for him as he suffers (yet again) the slings and arrows of the extremists within his own party, but I will. I’ve done it before, and here I go again…
As I said in a column back in 2007, Sen. Graham is a stand-up guy. He has stood up, often against a howling mob in his own party, for rational immigration reform, against torture, for the right course in Iraq (as opposed to the Rumsfeld course), against gridlock in judicial confirmations, and now for a compromise approach on energy and the environment.
Some of my friends here on the blog want be to be indignant toward Lindsey because he was in town fighting to kill the health care reform bill. Well, first of all, maybe this bill should be killed, just because it falls far short of what is needed. That’s not why Sen. Graham — and some others I admire, such as John McCain and Joe Lieberman — opposes it, but you know what? People I respect and admire don’t have to always agree with me. In fact, that’s sort of a central tenet of my UnParty.
If fact, if you just concentrate on when people disagree with you, and fail to praise them when they stand up courageously for the right thing, well then NO politician will ever stand up. They do it so seldom as things are that it is imperative that when they DO stand up, we call attention to it and praise them to the skies. Otherwise, there’s no hope left for our representative democracy.
Lindsey Graham deserves a Profile in Courage standing ovation for coming to town on the day after the GOP apparatus in South Carolina’s most Republican county “censured” him for being a stand-up guy, and standing up yet again rather than backing down. That takes chutzpah.
Yeah, he spoke against health care reform. You can’t have everything. But he also appeared at a climate change conference in Columbia to push his cap-and-trade compromise, the bill he’s been working on with John Kerry (boo, hiss, says the peanut gallery) and the aforementioned Sen. Lieberman.
Here’s the thing about that bill: It is about as pure an expression as you are likely to find in the real world of what my Energy Party stands for. (You know for a guy who hates parties, I sure do start a lot of them. Remember the Grownup Party?) The main principle of the Energy Party is to throw off the shackles of ideology and do whatever works to get us free from foreign oil (and help the planet in the bargain), because just doing what the left wants, or the right wants, won’t get us there. That means encouraging conservation and drilling domestically. It means pushing public transportation, and electric cars — and building nuclear plants to supply the electricity. And while Graham’s bill doesn’t do everything I would do, it does enough of them to distinguish itself for its pragamatism and its willingness to take the best ideas from both sides in the ideology wars.
Lindsey Graham would do these things, and he would do them in tandem with John Kerry in order to get them done. And I just want to say that I for one appreciate him for being a stand-up guy. Again.
Related Posts
It’s fine to break with your party occassionaly to support a bill or principal you believe in. The problem I have with Lindsey is that he’s almost always on the wrong side of the issues. Isn’t it more important to be on the right side of the issue than to blindly support someone because they come across as non-partisan? Seems that way to me.
Your central tenant of the UnParty should be a central tenant of both parties. I feel like I’m yelling into the wind when I say that there are two major parties, and third parties have never been consistently successful (as in, more than one or two election cycles). Therefore, both parties need to be big-tent parties and tolerate dissent from members who may disagree from the majority on this or that issue. I simply don’t understand how people can be so ideologically doctrinaire and expect to win a majority.
“Yeah, he spoke against health care reform. You can’t have everything.”
These are the statements that I find so confusing.
If Jim DeMint is against the health care bill, it’s because he’s a partisan. If Lindsey Graham is equally (in fact, even more publicity seeking) in his opposition to the bill, you just say “Oh well… no big deal”.
It’s not like Lindsey has some nuanced position on the health care bill. He’s dead set against it. He would do everything in his power to make sure you don’t get the insurance you want. But that’s okay because, well, because he’s such a “stand-up guy”.
I’ve posted the data before – Senator Graham has profited greatly from his position. You just can’t bring yourself to consider that he might not be as squeaky clean as your idealistic view wants him to be.
It’s “tenet,” guys, not “tenant.”
Doug, I don’t know why it’s so confusing. Graham is against the health care bill because he’s against the health care bill. DeMint sees it as a chance to deliver Obama to his “Waterloo.” You don’t see the difference there?
And don’t you respect and admire anyone with whom you occasionally disagree (and I mean disagree over some significant issues)? I suspect that you do, unless you don’t respect and admire anyone. The only people who DON’T disagree with people they like are the mindless partisans: Once someone decides that all Democrats are wise and right and true and all Republicans are worthless and evil and stupid, or vice versa, then they never have to flavor their admiration or their scorn with a grain of salt.
But life is much saltier for those of us who think.
And of course, the emotional center of bud’s perpetual disagreement with me is that I see Lindsey as usually being right, and bud sees him as usually being wrong. So he accuses me of liking a guy who’s always wrong just because he rises against partisanship.
This ignores the fact that, as bud very well knows, I actually respect the qualities in Graham that bud despises the most — such as his steadfastness on the war.
Brad, indeed I disrespect Lindsey because he’s wrong on the issues. And I make no appologies for it. He’s not pragmatic and doesn’t seem to care about facts. That’s what bothers me about Lindsey.
But if you just want to evaluate a man based on some type of partisanship litmus test, something I find deplorable, I don’t see Lindsey as one whit more honorable than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Mind you I agreed with Clinton far more often than Bush but both could buck their party at times so based strictly on some litmus test for partisanship the 3 seem pretty much the same. Demint certainly comes across as a pure demogogue but that could just be because he’s completely wrong on virtually all issues.
Graham is also a Republican leader who actually serves in the military instead of avoiding it.
I certainly hope that in your current situation, you have at least asked Lindsey about job openings he knows about
He’s used to this kind of column from you and may not think of you as an actual potential employee.
Brad, I appreciate your comments about Graham and I want to join your Unparty. I was a Republican long before there was any visible RP in SC but today’s RP doesn’t even resemble the old one; they just need to change their name to Libertarian and be done with it. It is possible to be fiscally responsible and still compassionate. It is possible to be patriotic and not sadistic and or cruel. It is possible to have quiet discourse and reach real solutions instead of a shouting match that results in continuing to wallow in a state of chaos. (Eccl. 9:17 Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard rather than the shout of a ruler of fools. NIV) It is NOT possible to be a member of Anything and agree on Everything – to be subjected to such a requirement is a dictatorship. I am prayerfully concerned about the state of politics in our country today, because if it doesn’t change, it will be our downfall.
Uncola, anyone?
He does NOT stand up for his constituents though Brad.
John McCain apparently didn’t get the memo from Brad about putting partisanship aside. Now that he’s running for Senator again and may have a strong opponent in the primary (J.D. Hayworth), he has to go back to being the anti-Obama:
“President Obama is leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America,” McCain says in one of the radio ads his campaign is airing.
“I stand in his way every day,” McCain says. “If I get a bruise or two knocking some sense into heads in Washington, so be it.”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/mccain_vs_obamas_leftwing_crus.html
Sounds like a good campaign slogan:
“John McCain – Stand Up Guy, Standing Up Against Obama Every Day!”
I’m sure Lindsey will be out there in Arizona stumping for McCain on an anti-Obama ticket. But that’s okay – it’s just campaign rhetoric. Let’s not judge him by what he says and does but by what Brad thinks he means.
There’s no question that McCain and Graham are moderate Republicans. They are also partisans. Being a moderate doesn’t exempt you from being a partisan. Of course, I bet it’s easier to find partisans on the far “right” (or “left”). And you can certainly find worse offenders than McCain and Graham. But they’re still partisans.
I respect Graham and McCain for going against their party on issues such as climate change and immigration. But it’s the partisanship (did you see McCain’s campaign ads against Obama) that causes me to dislike these two.
@ David– Olympia Snowe is a moderate Republican. Graham and McCain are (usually) reasonable conservative Republicans.
Oh, cripes. I obviously need a copy editor.
Here’s how another UnParty fave, Joe Lieberman, is doing these days following his grandstanding on health care:
“Lieberman’s overall approval rating is only 25%, with 67% disapproval. Democrats disapprove of him by 14%-81%, Republicans by 39%-48%, and independents by 32%-61%. Only 19% approve of his actions on the health care bill, with Democrats at 8%-80%, Republicans at 26%-55%, and independents at 30%-59%. Among those who support the bill, 84% disapprove of his handling of the issue, and in addition 52% of the people who don’t support the bill also disapprove of Lieberman’s actions.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/poll-lieberman-hated-by-everyone-in-connecticut-after-health-care-debates.php
@ Kathryn
Yes, they could be called moderate. And sure you could easily call them conservative. So I was mistaken and saying “of course” they are moderate Republicans.
But arguing labels is a big freaking waste of time. Words like conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian and so on have such different meanings to people to have any real value.
So nitpick away at the labels I used. I think you still understood what I was trying to say.