Lindsey Graham on possible Trump nominations

Since I haven’t had time to write a real post today, I’ll share this from Lindsey Graham. It might prompt some discussion:

Graham Statements on Possible Trump Cabinet Appointments and Supreme Court

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made these statements today about former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Ø  On Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton as Possible Nominees for Secretary of State:

“The overwhelming majority of Republican senators have the utmost respect for Rudy Giuliani.  He led the nation and New York through 9/11.  He’s a citizen of the world who is eminently qualified to serve as Secretary of State.

“As for John Bolton, he was United Nations Ambassador under President Bush.  He is a reformer who would turn the State Department upside down and make it work better.  He understands who our friends and enemies are.  We see the world in very similar ways.   

“I believe an overwhelming majority of Republican senators would support either candidate and some Democrats would too.  You will never convince me that Giuliani and Bolton are not qualified to serve at this level.”  

Ø  On Senator Rand Paul’s Threat to Filibuster Giuliani or Bolton:

“You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul’s advice on national security in a very small car.  Rand is my friend but he’s a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues.  The fact that Senator Paul opposes Bolton and Giuliani will not keep them from serving.” 

Ø  On South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as Possible Secretary of State:

“She’s done a good job as Governor of South Carolina.  She’s talented, capable and would do a good job in any assignment given to her.  I think Nikki is a traditional Republican when it comes to foreign policy – more like Ronald Reagan than Rand Paul.  I like her a lot.  I would certainly support her.”   

Ø  On Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court:

“We are replacing Justice Scalia, who was probably the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court.  Ted Cruz is a constitutional conservative in the mold of Justice Scalia.  If you are looking for a Scalia-type figure, Ted Cruz fits the bill.  We have had our differences, but even his worst critics cannot say Ted Cruz is not one of the smartest, most gifted lawyers in the country.  If you are looking for someone like Justice Scalia to serve on the Supreme Court, take a look at Ted Cruz.”


16 thoughts on “Lindsey Graham on possible Trump nominations

  1. Jeff Mobley

    Let’s just go ahead and have an all-SC cabinet. Commerce – Haley; AG – McMaster; Defense – Graham; State – Yancey McGill; Interior – Hugh Leatherman. HHS – Gowdy.

    Now, where do we put Andre Bauer?

  2. Phillip

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Trump. The Donald mocked Hillary in the campaign for all the money she made on speeches and said that foreign governments would “own” her. But Giuliani has made millions on speeches worldwide from since leaving the mayor’s office in NYC, has intricate business ties worldwide, but none of this is a problem for the giant feeding trough that the Trump Administration seems to be turning into.

    Then, besides Trump’s ringing-hollow criticism of Hillary’s speechifying and the Clinton Foundation, there’s also his fake outrage in the campaign over Hillary’s Iraq War votes and his trying to distance himself from his support of that war. If Trump nominates either Giuliani or Bolton to State, what he is saying is that his foreign policy is Bush/Cheney redux, —only this time with extra-enthusiastic waterboarding and detention camps, yippee.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Actually, Phillip, there’s little chance of having an administration that is anything like Bush — or Obama, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter, or Nixon, or Johnson, or Kennedy, or Eisenhower, or Truman.

      All over the world, separatists and nationalists, and bullies of all stripes are THRILLED at Trump’s victory. Why? Because they see this as the end of the internationalist consensus that we’ve had since Truman, an unprecedented era of peace among major powers, largely led and guaranteed by an engaged United States.

      Of course, Doug will likely cheer along with them. But it would be nice if my post-Vietnam liberal friends would not join in, too. They will find themselves in some ugly company, as compiled by The Guardian (ironically, a paper that’s done all it could to undermine American leadership in the world)…

  3. Mark Stewart

    It seems almost inevitable that Trump is going to chose (be forced to accept?) a rogues gallery of slightly unhinged characters. The one’s who wouldn’t typically be in it’s to a party – or at least be asked back.

    BTW – almost no talk at all about Gingrich; I assume he was the first to be (silently) cut?

    1. Juan Caruso

      Gingrich had repeatedly stated before the Novembe 8th’s election (obviously before the current selection process had names in play) that he would only be interested in an advisory role rather than a cabinet or operational position.

  4. Lynn Teague

    We have Ivanka Trump sitting in on a meeting with a head of state. Surely we have gone through the looking glass. And, beyond the inherent oddity of this, isn’t she supposed to be one of the people running his “blind trust” (not to be confused with anything that anyone else has ever called a blind trust).

  5. Juan Caruso

    Will Graham’s sudden overtures of support be adequate to insinuate himself back into frequent weekend talk show invitations?

    Perhaps not for very much longer: Having forfeited the greter part of his celebrity he must now scrape to be just a “go along to get along” senator. How times change.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Juan, the surest way for Graham NOT to get invited onto those shows, it seems to me, would be to fade into the background as a “go along to get along” guy.

      That’s not what Graham has been, and not likely to be in the future, as we’ve seen with his stance on Russia. Which means the shows will remain interested.

      At least, I THINK so. I’ve never watched those shows, particularly the Sunday morning ones. I’m either at Mass or getting ready to go then. Also, I just never got into the habit because the last thing I wanted to do on Sunday mornings was work stuff. Even if I were some postmodern heathen without children who spent Sunday morning in bed poring through the feature sections of the Sunday New York Times (think I offended enough people with that description?), I wouldn’t have wanted to watch those shows. 🙂

      If news was made on those shows, even before the Web, the wires always thoroughly covered it. This was an important factor for Monday newspapers, since little else happens on Sundays…

      1. Juan Caruso

        Brad, I concede the senator’s grandstanding on Russia, and only if one expect’s Trump’s military leadership toward Russian aggression to be concessionary might you have a valid point.

        Otherwise, who watches Sunday morning talk shows (I do not) is besides the point. Sen. Graham is well-noted for his frequent appearances in the weekend talk genre. Quite simply, he thrives on the political celebrity such appearances have afforded him.

        Whoever does the actual inviting and watching is likely to notice a marked reduction in Sen. Graham’s appearances. That is, if Trump is more like Reagan than Obama.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *