I was sorry to see this today:
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) threatened to abandon his effort to push a climate and energy bill Saturday, saying he will only continue if Democratic leaders promise to relinquish plans to bring up immigration legislation first.
Graham’s departure, if he follows through on his ultimatum, would likely doom any chance of passing a climate bill this year. He is the sole Republican working with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a compromise proposal which they had planned to unveil Monday.
Kerry and Lieberman will roll out their climate and energy plan Monday in spite of Graham’s absence, aides said.
In a letter to leaders of the effort to enact climate and energy legislation, Graham wrote, “I want to bring to your attention what appears to be a decision by the Obama Administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move immigration instead of energy. Unless their plan substantially changes this weekend, I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time. I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success.”
Since what Graham, Kerry and Lieberman have been working on is the closest thing I’ve seen to a real Energy Party solution, this would be a terrible shame.
The thing is, Graham has also been — at further political risk to himself — working on comprehensive immigration reform. I think it would behoove the majority to consider his counsel on this before chasing away someone who would be key to reaching agreements on both of these hot-button issues.
I’ll be looking to read more about what Graham’s concerns are. I’ll bet his reasoning is good. Given the way he gets beat up over both of these issues, I suspect he has thought it out far more carefully than has anyone in the majority.
Another love tap from Brad… “Tsk, tsk, Lindsey… I’m only going to give you 75 more chances to act like an UnParty star before I put you on double-secret probation.”
It will be funny to watch Lindsey and McCain fight over immigration now that McCain is showing his true colors. McCain will say or do anything to keep his Senate seat. At least Bob Dole knew how to fade gracefully into the sunset.
While I would hope not, it sounds like the Democratic party is responding reflexively to the recently passed Arizona law. They need to back off, and let that fish fry on its own. Immigration is very important, but to try to pass something sane when everyone’s irritated is not a good idea.
According to South Carolina tea party leaders, Graham’s waffling on issues is due to his secret gay agenda.
Brad, haven’t you seen the Greenville Tea Party video of that Gheen man calling out Graham for being secretly gay.
Gheen says Graham is selling out the people of South Carolina.
Certainly you believe in the law right? And illegals are illegals.
Graham wants to give them amnesty.
Most of the real people in South Carolina take issue with Graham on this, for one thing.
Cap and trade is not popular. It’s forcing new taxes on the people. It’s moving people into Bush Sr’s New World Order.
Now maybe you are a proponent of a police state, you may even have supported the Nazi’s, I don’t know.
But Graham’s colors are showing too, not just McCain’s.
These elected elite leaders have been called out on selling out the United States of America.
Please research this and stop supporting Lindsey Graham.
We need to ask him, just like Gheen said, is being a closet gay a secret that someone is holding over your head?????????
“Given the way he gets beat up over both of these issues, I suspect he has thought it out far more carefully than has anyone in the majority.”
Some of the people in the majority have a lot at stake in the immigration debate as well, for themselves, their constituencies, and their party. In any case, Graham having been “beaten up” over the issue guarantees nothing at all about the relative worth of his ideas.
You can be a funny man, Doug. I’ll bet even Brad had to chuckle over “double secret probation”.
I believe Brad is right about the wisdom of seeking Lindsey’s counsel on these issues. But I don’t believe Lindsey “has thought it out far more carefully than has anyone” for the same nonpartisan reasons as Brad would have us believe. A look at his top 5 $$$ contributors lists SCANA & Energy Solutions LLC as #2 & #3. Can’t tell me that doesn’t influence his “reasoning”.
FYI, the other top 3 are Nelson, Mullins etal, Edens & Avant, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
First, Graham would probably have a deeper understanding of these issues than most senators because he’s smarter than most of them. He’s one of the few politicians I’ve met who makes me think, “This guy’s smarter than I am.” I mean, he may not be able to keep up with me at Beatles trivia, but the man has a brain for policy.
Second… to help y’all understand my point about how being beat up over an issue can help you understand it better: Something I learned when I moved from news to editorial is that when you know that you’re going to be putting opinion out there for people to shoot at, you are a LOT more careful about making sure you understand it thoroughly. You study it harder, and think about it a LOT harder.
Third, I wasn’t criticizing Graham on this at all. I was saying what I said — that it would be a shame if, after he’s tried hard to work constructively with the Dems on these difficult issues, things fell apart to where nothing got done.
Lindsey said something last night I’ve heard him say before: That he really wants to solve some of the difficult issues that everyone seems to think our country is too politically dysfunctional to solve. I’m with him on that. And I’d hate to see him throw up his hands on any of them.
Finally, how do you know he’s NOT on double-secret probation? It would be double-secret, you know?
But he isn’t.
Graham has demonstrated a willingness toward bi-partisanship.
Working with Charles Schumer (D-NY) on a law regulating SPAM, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. However, in my IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) opinion, that law legalized SPAM by requiring people to unsubscribe from emails they never subscribed to. CAN-SPAM is a flawed law. But it does provide government authorities ammo to take down spammers. I was involved on the “good side” of the FTC to take down a porn spammer and with US Dept of Justice taking down Robert Soloway. Now, if only SC Atty General, Henry McMaster, would enforce Federal law…
The Gang of Fourteen.
Voting to Confirm Sonia Sotomayor.
Right now, I think that Lindsey Graham is in self-preservation mode where he aligns himself with the Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads.
PS:
As the great philosopher, Pogo, once said: “we have met the enemy and they are us.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comics)#.22We_have_met_the_enemy….22
The prospect of being attacked for a position does concentrate attention. Sometimes it may produce a more thoughtful analysis. Sometimes it may distort that analysis. It can go either way, or even both simultaneously. In this case, it sounds as if Graham is holding the energy bill hostage to get immigration reform shelved. How much of this is his assessment of the public good, and how much is his assessment of what is good for Lindsay Graham, is up in the air. I don’t like reflexive cynicism about the political process and politicians, but I can’t share Brad’s unwavering faith in some of these folks.
O’ Annie–
“And illegals are illegals.”
Yes, but a lot of the cases aren’t as simple as that–children of now-deceased citizens, say, who have never lived anywhere else. People who cannot return to their homeland, but who cannot obtain asylum under our difficult system.
In “Orphan Annie”s response above, she says the folks who disagree with Graham are the “real people of South Carolina.”
So, if you agree with Graham, you’re ….. what? Not a human being?
Lynn, as you say, not everyone would get more thoughtful and careful under stress. But Graham’s the kind who would.
And his beef isn’t that the Dems want immigration reform. It’s that he sees them doing something other than what he had been working on with them, and wanting to do it in a way that is purely advantageous to Democrats rather than something that he believes would solve the problem. THAT’S what I’d like to talk to him about, to get clarification on what he means by that. I tried to find him after the dinner last night to ask about it, but he had already left. So for the moment I’m left to wonder — is he thinking they’re going to put up something that can’t possibly pass and blame the Republicans? I don’t know, but that would be one of the moves (of which both parties are guilty) that might cause one to say what he’s saying.
Part of his beef seems to be the order. He seems to believe that this is the right moment for the bill he and Kerry are working on, and he’s talking like he had an agreement from Reid and them to take it up next. But, for reasons that serve their purposes and not what he sees as the greater good, they’re going to provoke a fight over immigration first.
I’m going to see if I can find out more about what he sees the problem as being on Monday.
@Burl–I’m feeling vaporous…imaginary…
The fight over immigration seems to have been forced by Arizona Republicans…
Someone said on Twitter the other day, maybe they should just cut to the chase and change their name to “No Mexico.”
It’s amazing to me–I heard a very thoughtful speech (on NPR) on immigration reform by Janet Napolitano when she was governor. She did one of those great speeches where she acknowledges sincerely that both sides have merit, and she charted a well-reasoned course through the middle. Unfortunately, I cannot recall what the bottom line for her was….
You know, if Arizona wants it’s law to be absolutely fair, all they have to do is require everyone to carry proof of citizenship, and require police to ask for it every time they stop some one. Somehow, I doubt that will fly (I also doubt that their police will be looking very hard for illegal Canadian, English, or European immigrants).
Carrying proof of citizenship, folks, in case you were wondering, means taking your passport–everywhere you go. Jogging, to the store, out drinking….and probable cause fro a stop could not be “having darker skin or speaking Spanish.”
I’ve said it before on the blog, but no one seems up in arms about illegal Irish nannies–they proliferate around Boston and Cape Cod. Wonder why that is?
The NYTimes reports speculation that Graham’s motive in delaying consideration of the immigration bill is to avoid having the national immigration debate adversely affect his friend John McCain’s very difficult primary fight in Arizona. If this is true, and it does sound credible, I don’t think that is a good enough reason to delay public debate on an important issue. It certainly isn’t especially impressive as a moral stance or as an objective evaluation of the merits of the immigration bill. However, I realize that similar things happen every day in politics.
The only NYT story I saw indicating that PART of Graham’s motivation is taking heat off McCain was this one, which also hinted at some good news, with Rahm Emanuel indicating the importance of retaining Graham’s help, expressing sympathy for the situation he finds himself in in his own party…
… seems to me that could indicate the White House not wanting Reid to force the immigration issue right now, but I could be wrong about that.
As for John McCain, y’all know my position: I wish he’d stop trying so hard to win renomination, and just rest on his considerable laurels. He’s earned it, and every tack he makes to try to appeal to the extreme wackos trying to take over his party takes away from the way posterity will remember him. His “I am not a maverick” desperation is unseemly, and beneath him.
@ Kathryn, right you are! Of course, no loyal citizen would mind doing that to rid this country of them furriners, would he/she?
I’m going to a convention in Phoenix this summer. I’m tempted to carry no ID at all and speak only German.
Let’s just microchip everybody!
(Kidding!)
Ja wohl, Herr Burlingame. Sie sind sichtlich fremd, nicht wahr?
Deine Papiere, bitte…
In Arizona, waren die Polizei immer hoffentlich (wenn man wie Burl ist). “Ihre Papiere, bitte!”
Take a moment and ask yourselves a few questions.
What is the definition of an illegal alien?
Is it against the law of the land to be in this country illegally?
Is it not a right of each state to enact laws on their own?
If the federal government does not enforce the existing law, does the inaction prohibit states from doing so?
Did Arizona pass a law that would create a Nazi state or did Arizona pass a law that helps protect the state from the massive influx of illegals crossing in from Mexico and the drug trafficers who operate with impunity?
My brother lived in Tucson and Phoenix for over 30 years and has first hand knowledge of the problem. He had to deal with it on a regular basis, especially out where he lived.
So, understanding Burl’s propensity for satire and an occasional touch of sarcasm, where in the law does it suggest employing Nazi or Storm trooper tactics?
Simple solution. If the law is so objectionable, then Obama, Graham, and amnesty supporters should introduce legislation immediately allowing open borders and remove check points. Let the flow begin and damn the consequences. This way, we will have an unlimited supply of cheap labor, drug traffic will be unfettered, and everyone can relax and enjoy the good feelings that will abound for the humanity of the law. We must never forget, feeling good is the most important aspect of any legislation. After all, our state and federal treasury are bottomless pits and the taxpayers are a never ending source of revenue.
Exactly, Bart. Well said.
It’s not about racism. It’s about the rule of law and the significant impact allowing unfettered access to limited public resources is having on state economies.
Bart, I could be wrong, but I think Burl was trying to suggest that it’s very unlikely that he would be stopped and asked to provide proof that he was legally in the country, even if he spoke only a foreign language. That would point very directly toward racial profiling being used as the means of determining whom to question. Yesterday (I think) I was listening to a show on NPR. A naturalized US citizen of German descent who lives in Arizona was defending the law. She said that before she became a citizen she carried papers proving that she was in the US legally. She did not see what the problem was with the law. What she did not realize, was that, her German accent could provide probable cause for her to be asked to provide proof of legal residence in this country every time a policeman heard her speak–unless, of course, they’re only looking for dark skinned people with Spanish accents. However, that would be racial profiling, and illegal.
How about if someone is stopped for a traffic violation? Is that a reasonable occasion to ask for proof of identification?
And if the person is found to have broken the law and entered the U.S. illegally, what should be done?
That’s the key issue that the pro-amnesty crowd doesn’t want to touch because it kills their “moral outrage”. If you are here illegally, do you get to stay? If so, then just come out and say it like Bart said — you want open borders with all the consequences that go along with that.
Saw a statistic today that while the U.S. economy was shedding 5 million jobs last year, we also allowed 1.3 million immigrants INTO the country legally (and how many more illegals??).
If the rising tide lifts all boats, a lowered border is going to sink us all.
They had another guy on NPR yesterday afternoon from AZ who was struggling to explain how probable cause for a search would not be just stopping someone Hispanic for speeding, but if the person was Hispanic and had a carload of people near a known border hotspot, well. The moderator asked if this was actually in the law, and the guy had no sensible answer.
The law is likely to be found either overly broad or vague. Unreasonable searches and seizures are patently unconstitutional-you have to have more than a “rational basis” for making them.
The discussion arose in part because the Nazis were notorious for making “race”-based searches and seizures. In addition, the Aryans among us never seem to have to fear such searches.
@Kathryn,
I understood the point Burl was trying to make. (actually, I appreciate some of his comments. He has a sarcastic nature that parallels mine at times-right Burl? HSSSSSSSSSS) My ultimate reference about the Nazi tactics that may be employed by the fearful was based on comments already out there. You know, the usual ad hominem comments about jack booted SS officers, holding innocent(?) people at gunpoint, forcing them to confess at the threat of death.
Like any other law, it has its flaws and there will be some abuses. Inevitable.
……”Unreasonable searches and seizures are patently unconstitutional-you have to have more than a “rational basis” for making them.”……
What constitutes more than a “rational basis” in this instance. Like it or not, in Arizona, authorities are not likely to be on the lookout for “Irish” nannies or carpenters. They are on the lookout for Hispanic illegals. See, I do pay attention to what you post.
Would it be unreasonable to go to the usual suspect places of employment and ask for green cards or other proof of being in the country legally? If a car load of Hispanics are seen close to the border and they act in a suspicious manner, are enforcement officers to ignore their actions? It is a truthful statement that not all Hispanics are illegals, it is also a truthful statement that most illegals coming across the Mexican border are Hispanics or Mexicans, whichever you prefer. It is also truthful that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is a truthful statement that almost all terrorists are Muslims. So, where do you begin and what are the rules of engagement and enforcement for officers of the law to follow?
Serious question. How would you handle the problem in Arizona? Consider the fact that almost 1/2 million illegals occupy the state and at the same time remember that Arizona is not a highly populated state, somewhere around 6.5 million. The percentage of illegals is approximately 7.5%. Compare the number to SC whose population is just over 4 million and an estimated 75k illegals or 1.8%. The numbers are growing each day.
The pressure on resources is tremendous when you consider the newly enacted health care bill, pending legislation on several fronts that will further burden our financial resources, all on top of a crippling recession we are still experiencing.
I am just as compassionate as the next person and want everyone to have the best life possible but at some point, we must take a stand and say, enough is enough. We cannot be everything to everyone who choses to come to our country illegally, breaking the law of the land.
Kathryn, you are an attorney. If I am correct, you are considered an officer of the court in South Carolina and required to uphold the law. If you had an illegal immigrant as a client and knew it to be a fact, what would your sworn duty be? Would it be to your client first or to uphold the law of the land and act accordingly? If your work for the client had nothing to do with status, would it be legal for you to ignore his or her unlawful residence in this country? Don’t mean to put you in an uncomfortable spot, but I am very interested in your response.