A President Needs Foreign Policy Experience
To say otherwise is just naive
By Senator Lindsey Graham Posted in 2008 — Comments (127) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The next president of the United States will face some of the most monumental foreign policy challenges in our nation’s history. Because of this, I believe foreign policy experience matters. For Governor Romney to say otherwise is simply naive
Because experience does matter, I encourage you to support John McCain for President.
Our national security challenges include: combating radical Islamic extremism, commanding US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting allies surrounded by hostile regimes, and dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a volatile Pakistan, Putinism in Russia, a rising China with a growing military capability, and … well, you get my point.
Our nation has been blessed to have the right leader at the most crucial times. John McCain is the right leader for our time.
Please read on . . .
For the last decade as a member of the House and now as U.S. Senator from South Carolina, I have had the honor and privilege of working with Senator McCain. We have literally traveled the world together with our colleagues going from one hotspot to the next. These trips are affectionately known as “march or die” tours, because of the schedule that John sets. As a result, I’ve seen first-hand how world leaders receive John with both respect and admiration.
John McCain has been involved in every significant national security issue of the last 20 years. He stood strong in the Reagan revolution when freedom prevailed over communist tyranny. This vast experience has equipped him – uniquely among this year’s presidential candidates – with the knowledge and experience necessary to lead our country through treacherous times. John McCain knows the major policy makers throughout the world and most importantly they know him.
This past July on our return from a tour of Iraq, we stopped to visit the new French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who possesses a refreshing attitude toward our nation and the world. As a candidate, Sarkozy visited John in Washington to receive his counsel on a variety of issues facing our two nations. When we met in July It was evident that Sarkozy very much liked and admired John, and that these two talented men could form a strong alliance between our nations.
Because of John’s concern about the direction Russia has taken under Putin, he constantly visits and talks with the new young leaders emerging from former Soviet satellite states. Whether from the Ukraine, Georgia, Central Europe or the Balkan states; the leaders of these nations know that John McCain is freedom’s friend and ally.
For over twenty years John McCain has led the American Congressional delegation to the International Security Conference held in Munich, Germany. The attendees include foreign ministers, defense ministers and heads of states, from all of the major powers throughout the globe. John’s keynote address, where he discusses his vision of a secure and democratic world, is one of the most widely attended and discussed events.
Whether listening to John McCain discuss the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people with Prime Minister Abbas or reassuring our Israeli allies of his staunch and unwavering support, I find in John a man uniquely qualified to meet the challenges of our times. The experience he possesses best explains why Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Al Haig, four prominent former Secretaries of State, have endorsed John McCain for president. They know John McCain and have confidence that he is the right man to lead our nation in these difficult times.
We need a strong leader. Someone is not afraid to stand up to those who would do us harm and work hand-in-hand with allies who share our love of freedom and liberty. In that regard, it is hard to imagine a more prepared candidate for the job of Commander in Chief than John McCain.
During our numerous visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, I continue to be amazed at how our own troops relate to him. Whether meeting with senior military leaders, sergeants, or privates, John McCain understands the challenges facing our military men and women and speaks their language.
Nowhere is this more evident than John McCain’s tough, principled, and enlightened leadership on the issue of Iraq. For almost four years our nation pursued a failed strategy where progress and ultimate victory slipped from our grasp. Before anyone else, John understood this dynamic and the fact we did not have enough troops on the ground to combat a growing insurgency.
He was a lonely voice for change – at odds with the Bush Administration and under fire from some members of our own party. In spite of the polls and opposition, John called for a surge in troops and a real counterinsurgency strategy.
We now know what Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards sarcastically called the ‘McCain Surge’ has worked. They results are obvious and dramatic in terms of improving the security situation in Iraq. We have a long and difficult struggle ahead, but we are finally on the right course – a change in strategy and direction charted by John McCain.
When he says he would rather lose an election than lose a war, I believe him. He’s already proven it. I believe we need a Commander in Chief who knows his core values and will not waver in the face of the prevailing political winds. Voters should choose a candidate who is prepared by a lifetime of experience to lead this nation from day one when he takes the oath of office.
For the sake of our country, you can make sure that our nation continues to be blessed with the right leadership for our time by ensuring that John McCain wins the New Hampshire primary.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Conservatism Wins. Fred Thompson for President — Comments (70) »
A President Needs Foreign Policy Experience 127 Comments (0 topical, 127 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He lost me on McCain-Fiengold, but the amnesty plan just re-enforced it.
and have yet to understand why people think Graham is calling them bigots.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5sEfrFoAIn4
Graham said he was going to tell the "bigots to shut up."
He didn't say opponents of immigration reform were bigots. He didn't say they should shut up. He didn't say Republicans or conservatives who disagreed were bigots and should shut up. He said the BIGOTS should shut up.
Aren't you identifying yourself as a bigot?
Why would he concern himself with a very, very minute portion of the people who have a problem with his amnesty plan? Why talk past the rest of us? Or perhaps, like him, you believe that most of the people who oppose it are bigots?
I could easily say, 'we should tell those socialists to shut up' about my plan to eradicate social security. Do you think it could be interpreted to apply to anybody opposed to my position, not just people who are socialists?
While I will support Senator McCain in the general election if he wins the primary, I won't support him in the primaries. Frankly I don't trust him. His history of pandering to the media leaves me less than satisfied that he's the best man for the job.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I'm with Fred!
Senator, I'd be quick to point out to you that 3 of the last four Presidents were governors, none of which had hardly any foreign policy experience. Principled leadership, combined with foreign policy knowledge has helped guide our current President through these difficult times.
I did not appreciate the immigration bill that you and Senator McCain set before the American people. Instead of enforcing our laws, you chose to give illegal aliens a special path to citizenship. For that, and a host of other reasons, I will not vote for Senator McCain.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
Senator, I'd be quick to point out to you that 3 of the last four Presidents were governors, none of which had hardly any foreign policy experience. Principled leadership, combined with foreign policy knowledge has helped guide our current President through these difficult times.
Actually, it's four of the last five: Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and Bush (W.). Given that McCain (correctly) argued for the surge and Rumsfeld's removal, I only see one name on that list that authored an effective foreign policy. And I see no one in the current crop of candidates who had Reagan's clarity of vision -- aside from McCain.
(I assume that you won't seriously argue that Huckabee or Romney has a clear foreign policy vision in the mold of Reagan. It doesn't even pass the red face test.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
is an honorable man but he is not the man for the job at this time. I appreciate your support for the man and I am grateful for his lifetime of service but now is not McCain's time.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
We might be in the middle of retreat at this point, rather than moving toward victory, if it weren't for the efforts of Sens. Lieberman, McCain, and Graham.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
for what is going on in Iraq.
It was "Bush's war" even though both Sen Clinton and Sen Kerry voted for it (before they were against it).
It was Bush and his adminstration peeling the onion as the effort ebbed and flowed. He got the blame when things didn't go well, and Congress and all the Senators, on both sides, would just cluck and say "I told you so" and never assume any blame for a "Bush administration" war.
And it was President Bush and nobody else who made the decisions to put Patraeus in charge and refine the strategy (which had been the strategy all along, just not executed well enough).
Congress did help - by having the incompetent overreaching by Pelosi and Reid lead to giving Bush and the administration enough time to prove the effectiveness of the Surge. Congressional attempts to micromanage are invariably ham-handed failures so the Congress, at its best, is left to being a gaggle of backseat drivers.
It's important to remember that a President is the chief executive, and every Senator, on either side of the aisle is 1 of 100 gabbers who help make laws and fund the Govt. Big difference.
Thank you President Bush for your steady leadership on Iraq that will ultimately lead to success.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Your endorsement of John McCain reminds why I so strongly oppose him. If he gets your support, he must be opposed.
An endorsement from you should send massive negative vibes to conservatives across the country.
Thanks again for your efforts (which will sabotage McCain's chances). Greatly appreciated.
"Your endorsement of John McCain reminds why I so strongly oppose him. If he gets your support, he must be opposed."
McCain and his RINO Senate cabal managed to destroy the GOP senate majority in 2006 in 3 easy steps:
1. Undercut making the Bush tax cuts permanent in 2005, taking away the tax issue
2. Pushed for amnesty for illegal immigration in the Senate, angering the base and splitting the party on borders and immigration. Not just once - after the 2006 debacle, they failed to learn the lesson and tried it again. Sen Graham's "We'll tell the bigots to shut up" comment explained exactly what they were thinking - they could just shove it down our throats and the MSM would back them up.
3. Went behind Frist's back to make a 'gang of 14' deal on judges that took away the judges issue in 2006 and left many nominees in the lurch
Usual suspects in these RINO acts were Specter, Graham, Collins, Snowe, McCain, Graham, and before 2006 Lincoln Chaffee, who didnt even vote for Bush in 2004.
Substantively, McCain has pushed CFR, and now is pushing CO2 caps.
Like the comment about Dole being the "tax collector for the welfare state", McCain has been that mother hen for the nanny-state RINOs.
Now the excuse for these northeast Senators is that at least they are catering to their electorate - but what the excuse for Lindsay Graham and McCain? These states have conservative enough electorates to send Kyl and DeMint to the US Senate. So why? Pandering to the MSM? And why would any conservative primary GOP voter tolerate someone who does this?
GOP voters who want more of this with McCain must have a 'kick me' sign on their backs.
But personally I prefer my GOP nominee to actually be a full-time Conservative Republican, not part of a "Gang of 14", or a "Keating 5".
As for foreign policy experience, both you and Senator McCain should start with the Mexican Government and securing the Southern Border of the United States.
I can see why you would value Senator McCain's "foreign policy experience" as being his single greatest qualification to be President of the United States. He would undoubtedly need such experience with people from foreign countries if elected President - if only to deal with all the foreigners you and McCain would turn into new U.S. citizens.
Thanks, but no thanks. If we wanted a Democrat sympathizer masquerading as a Republican, we have already have Romney and Rudy.
I'm going to personally refrain from commentary today. Not that I don't have an extremely strong opinion on this matter, and about you yourself.
But when this is all over we all still need to work together. Your endorsement is noted, but I hope (and believe) that you'll work hard with whoever the GOP nominee ends up being.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Little Buddy Gilligan wants us to vote for the Skipper.
No thanks.
McCain-Feingold
McAmnesty
Torture
Global Warming
Gang of 14
Thanks for your support in Iraq.
Unfortunately, many of us have still not forgive you and Senator McCain for your role in the Gang of 14 debacle that prevented so many fine judges from being confirmed such as Miguel Estrada when a vote to defeat judicial filibusters would have done a much better job.
I will support Senator McCain if he wins the primaries, but Senator Thompson and Governor Romney are much better overall candidates.
Thank you, Sen. Graham: You make the case for Sen. McCain with insight and care. You will undoubtably face some ad hominem attacks, as well as off-topic rants on immigration, torture, and McCain-Feingold. You will see such arguments because the posters cannot dispute your points regarding Sen. McCain's foreign policy instincts and experiences.
Sen. McCain is the Republican most likely to win in November. He is head and shoulders above the rest of the field on the most important issue of the day. I have differences with him (e.g., McCain-Feingold) but there is no doubt in my mind that Sen. McCain should be the Republican nominee and, following that, the next President of the United States.
von
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
none of us are trying to dispute McCain's foreign policy experience. However, that is not the only reason you vote for a president. All of the other things you are quick to dismiss are very valid reasons to oppose Senator McCain, and his apprentice, Senator Graham
SENATOR, let these discussions clue you in to what a majority of real conservatives think. You would do yourself good, in the future, to be a little more loyal to the party, and to conservative principles.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Includes protecting our borders. Senator, you and McCain are pro-amnesty, but not for protecting our borders first
There is a marked difference between "being involved" in foreign policy decisions as a senator and having foreign policy experience. Were we to give constructive credit to international meddling and pontificating then we would have to say any senator would make a better president than any governor. There is a significant amount of evidence that this might not be the case. Actually the sine qua non for a presidential candidate under this regime would be Joe Wilson.
Stipulated, John McCain has been on the right side of history in most of his decisions concerning international affairs. So have I. I don't think that qualifies me to be president, as much as I would like the job.
If Senator McCain's critique of the past four years in Iraq is "we did not have enough troops on the ground to combat a growing insurgency" then I'm not sure he understands what Dave Petraeus is doing as the troop levels today are roughly the same as they were during the Iraqi parliamentary elections and constitutional referendum.
While I remain open to a McCain candidacy, I am much more concerned about his hostility to political speech and tepid support for controlling illegal immigration.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Thanks for articulating exactly what I think.
McCain also has a lot of experience in government bailouts from his role in the S&L Scandal, the creation of the RTC, and being one of the exclusive members of the "Keating 5".
McCain's ties to Lincoln Savings in the late 80's might make him a unique target of liberal politicians in the event political pressure was ratcheted up to bail out the sub-prime mortgage situation.
It would be awfully hard for McCain to resist a bail out of the residential mortgage industry, when he was already up to his eyeballs in the bailout of the S&L industry.
That's not the kind of GOP President I want. One who would be accused of double-standards if he didn't go along with a policy that would be exactly the opposite of what most Conservatives believe in, simply by virute of his participation in a similar financial scandal.
Let me indicate what is preventing me from supporting Senator McCain by referring to a question I posed for him in response to Adam C’s request for questions.
Unfortunately for Senator McCain, my problem with coming to respectful terms with his position on this point feeds into my concerns over his temperament, which originates from intuitively projecting the effects of his heroic POW experience
You (Sen. McCain) have said in absolute terms that water-boarding is torture. I am told that you have said that in a ticking time bomb scenario the POTUS should do whatever it takes, including authorizing such torture, and then bear the legal consequences. What are the consequences that you would legislate for the POTUS for water-boarding in this case? And you have also asserted absolutely that torture never ever works, i.e. provides useful information. Are you actually therefore asserting that there would be no use in applying it in a ticking time bomb situation? Are you therefore implying that if you were in charge under such circumstances that you would consider the situation hopeless or is this an exception to the “never” clause in your assertion?
I ask this because I would like to support your campaign, and otherwise would, but as I presently understand your reasoning on this issue and project it in the role of POTUS I feel it would sacrifice the security of real Americans for a misplaced and impractical idealism, a notion of moral superiority that does not weigh practical consequences. President Truman dropped atomic bombs – an act of terror and massacre which shocks our consciences vastly more than water-boarding – to save lives and faced no legal consequences. In my view, providing security for the USA is the moral duty of the POTUS and I presently cannot square that with your campaign to legally proscribe, and prosecute as torture, the use of water-boarding in the GWOT by the POTUS.
after viewing some of the disdainful comments.
Thank you very much Senator Graham for you stahlwart support for victory in Iraq. I appreciate the effectiveness of the case you make. Furthermore, I for one appreciate your work on the comprehensive immigration bill. I sent you a token campaign contribution for that very reason. Peace to you.
He's opposed to routine torture. It's a little surprising that this has become a point of distinction, and it makes me wonder quite a bit about what type of person some of the other candidates must be.
It's ineffective, it's inhumane, and it's illegal.
He doesn't rule it out in a last-ditch effort in the ticking time bomb situation, and he believes that it should have consequences for those who authorize it.
The only constitutionally proscribed consequence for the POTUS is impeachment, and I assume that is what he means by legal consequences. And it's the right consequence -- congress need not convict, or even indict, but they should definitely have to consider it and decide whether it was appropriate.
"It's ineffective" but "He doesn't rule it out in the ticking time bomb situation". I've seen this argument countless times and I just don't get it. So in essence when the chips are down and (possibly) millions of lives are on the line, John McCain won't rule out using "ineffective" measures to keep us safe? Could someone please clear this up for me? I'm not trying to be snide or condescending, this just seems so illogical. It's positions like this that will keep me from voting for McCain in the primaries and why I'll have to plug my nose to vote for him if he's the nominee.
There is nothing more I would love to see in the next few years than to see this shrill of a politician be booted from office. Senator Graham, you labeled Me, and all of us who were against the McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill as bigots and I do Not appreciate that kind of crap one bit out of you people!
You and all the others up there make me sick Senator Graham! You go around and you spout off this nasty rhetoric at your own base and then you get all upset when US, the Voters call you and say NO this is Wrong, instead of listening to the voices of those who decide whether or not you even deserve the job you have you blow us off and vote the way the special interests and our Liberal President Bush tell you to vote. On top of all of that Senator, you have the nerve to come on here and tell Me who is a better candidate to be President on the GOP side.
Politicians like you are a perfect example of why we need Term Limits for Congress in America! It is my hope that one day the voters of South Carolina will wise up and kick you out of office and I will be more than happy to donate my money to the candidate who's doing it too!
You will be doing the nation and South Carolina a huge favor if you don't stand for re-election when your term is up.
Not only did the Senator call us racist's he did it in front of ethno-centric groups....LaRaza etc....for pure political calculation....let us not forget Senator Graham hucking it up with Senator Kennedy and Senator Martinez prior to the vote.
Bigots we are not sir but PATRIOTS we are.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Whether you feel like Sen. Graham insulted you or not, doesn't give you the rationale to respond in kind. He is a member of our party and a sitting U.S. Senator. A little respect for the man and the office please.
Any loss of civility from this point on in this thread will result in immediate, no-questions-asked banning. Period.
But I am unapologetic to any offense I might have incurred upon H.R.H the Sen. One only has to go on Google and YouTube to see the remarks that he made. Politicians are not above criticism or the law.
Dear Senator Graham,
You have my respect for standing up for your beliefs on issues such as torture and comprehensive immigration reform. Any slick politician can pander to an angry base. However, it takes real courage to tell people what you honestly think--especially if you know that they disagree with you. On torture, I agree with you one hundred percent. As far as comprehensive immigration reform goes, I understand what you and Senator McCain where saying--that something, indeed, needs to be done. On the other hand, I can see why some of your constituents might have had reservations with regard to the CIR bill.
I am a former South Carolina resident, and I plan on returning there after medical school to start my residency. Even though I am a Democrat and disagree with you on several issues, I will have absolutely no problem voting for you because you are a man of true integrity.
I was against the initial invasion of Iraq, and I still think that it would have been best if we had never gone in. However, your articulate support of the surge, on Meet the Press, helped to persuade me to support the surge and sold me on the idea that some good could come out of Iraq--despite the mismanagement by Rumsfeld and company.
You make an eloquent case for John McCain. Even though I am a Governor Huckabee supporter, I have always respected Senator McCain, and he is my second choice after Governor Huckabee.
In conclusion, Senator Graham, I think that you are a class act (unlike some of the posters on this blog). Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here. Have a good night.
Sincerely, Susannah
Senator Graham,
For someone who has backed the president's foreign policy from pretty much day one, I find it surprising for you to write this piece. I have certainly been amenable to your distinguished colleague's positions in regards to foreign policy; his surge concept is a clear success so far. But the president campaigned on domestic issues in 2000 and had just about zero foreign policy experience when he assumed office. And yet he has crafted policies and made decisions that you repeatedly support. Clearly then it is a certain worldview and character to stand on principle regardless of the political cost that is most critical, not experience.
I will obviously back Mr. McCain should he win the nomination and he is preferable to Huckabee and Guiliani. But I cannot give him my support in the Florida primary because of his positions on immigration and free speech. Besides, we all know that his shtick as being a "maverick" is just that, shtick. He's as transparent as Senator Hagel in that regard.
----
Proof that not everyone in the mainstream media is a bleeding heart.
Therefore, I really don't know how to express a heartfelt personal insult in your direction. If you actually read RS, please take a moment and think of the most personally insulting thing you can imagine. Then attribute it to me.
I'm looking forward to your retirement.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
Very well said mbecker. Graham has screwed us on multiple occasions. Endorsements like this make me wonder why I would even take a second look at McCain.
And Senator McCain, with the notable exception of his prescient advocacy of the surge in Iraq for which we should ever be grateful, has time and time again displayed a horrible lack of good judgment.
Yes, he was right on the surge, but you know what they say about broken clocks.
In fact, that'd be a good nickname for John McCain - "The Broken Clock of the Senate."
Lindsey Graham - you, for that matter, display equally bad judgment on a more regular basis then even Sen. McCain. So, I don't know what is only right once a day. Whatever it is, you can be THAT of the Senate.
Backing Sen. McCain is yet another instance of your long history of exercising bad judgment as a public official. On a great many issues, you are an abject embarrassment to the Republican Party and your treatment of William Haynes' nomination to the 4th Circuit (which may allow a Democrat to eventually fill the seat) is nothing short of disgraceful.
Your state's other senator, Sen. Jim DeMint, is quite a great study in contrasts. He is a great, sterling conservative whose judgment and opinions have almost always shown him to be a wise man with exceptionally GOOD judgment. And that man, senator, is backing Mitt Romney.
"Your state's other senator, Sen. Jim DeMint, is quite a great study in contrasts. He is a great, sterling conservative whose judgment and opinions have almost always shown him to be a wise man with exceptionally GOOD judgment. And that man, senator, is backing Mitt Romney."
Yes, he's a good Senator.
Senator Jim DeMint would make a good VPOTUS!
Leaves me torn, that thought, because he & Coburn are the freakin' lone rangers of real conservatism in the Senate.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
...a history of exercising good judgment. That is what we need most in a president, and that was Mitt Romney's point. It's not like Mitt Romney has just been sitting around, naive to the world that is moving around him and now that he's running for office has suddenly discovered that there's this thing called "foreign policy." Not only is Mitt a brilliant man who has clearly demonstrated that his intellectual prowess is far superior to that of Sen. McCain's, he is also a worldly man whose international business dealings have brought him in contact with a great many aspects that have a high level of cross-appeal to American foreign policy.
Experience in foreign policy just means that you've been exposed to it a lot, but Sen. McCain has little to no history of being a decision-maker with a track-record that he can really be held accountable for in any area - much less foreign policy.
The Broken Clock of the Senate's leadership on the surge was a rare and notable exception, of course.
and I'm afraid that both you and Senator McCain have acquired a potentially mortal case. I would only vote for him, or you, if the only alternative was voting for a Democrat or staying home. I say that with deep regret in your case especially because you fought the good fight in the Clinton impeachment. But in any event, thank you for taking the time to stop by.
In Vino Veritas
1. Who do you trust more - Sen. Lindsay Graham or Sen. Jim DeMint. That should tell us exactly what kind of Republican you are.
2. Once we've determined what kind of Republican you are, we should consider this: Graham backs McCain, DeMint backs Romney.
If your answer to question number one and it doesn't match up with the endorsements in statement number 2, perhaps you should consider that these men have probably had more interaction with both of these candidates than any of us who don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire will likely ever have. I think that's something that is well worth considering.
Who do you trust more - Sen. Graham or Sen. DeMint?
I don't rust either one to tell me who to vote for. I don't trust anyone that much.
I'm not saying they should "tell you" who to vote for. I'm suggesting that both of their opinions should have some influence and are important, to at least varying degrees, consider.
I would think that they would influence you and inform you in different ways, however.
How a committed small government Conservative can support the Romneybot 2000 is beyond comprehension.
There sure are a lot of small government conservatives who are firmly backing Mitt Romney including Sen. DeMint, Tom Tancredo, the editorial board of The National Review, the president of the American Conservative Union, Robert Bork, and (though not endorsed) even Rush Limbaugh has heaped much praise on Governor Romney.
One would think that after a while you might consider that these distinguished individuals who are no naive shrinking violets and could easily be considered "defenders of the faith" of conservatism, if you will, might not be as easily duped as you suggest.
Perhaps it is you who have been duped, unless you have some particular inside knowledge of the man that is Mitt Romney that none of us or the above-mentioned men is privy to.
How stupid a remark that is you've just made?
I can't stand Mitt Romney and I am a big admirer of Sen DeMint. I don't see Romney as anything but an opportunist and a phony and DeMint is the most consistent and authentic fiscal Conservative in the US Senate.
I guess the paradox gave me a severe brain cramp. I'll try to stay fact-based on non-emotional in the future.
The only Governor who got an A rating from Cato (ranked 1st by the same Cato ranked Romney 15th out of 50 and Huckabee 45th on fiscal conservatism scale).
Guess who Gov Matt Blunt is endorsing for President? Mitt Romney.
" and DeMint is the most consistent and authentic fiscal Conservative in the US Senate."
That's right. There is a simple solution to your paradox. Perhaps your opinion of Romney is too jaded and you are ignoring the many positive attributes Romney brings to the table.
opportunist? Romney (gasp!) wants to be president, but so does everyone running. Romney is the only candidate from either party with serious accomplishments outside of politics - in business - where you can't succeed on fakery; so why charge him as the phony when he's the most genuinely accomplished candidate in either field? It makes more sense to rethink and dig deeper.
South Carolina Republicans should seriously start a draft campaign to get Fmr. Gov. Mark Sanford to run against Grahmnesty here, I think it would be a major loss for this loser and a big win for South Carolina.
...when you think that you can post here without gay-baiting.
Thanks.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Um, Senator, if I recall, we went calling on you for support quite a few times. In 2001, we wanted you to stand up for the First Amendment. You failed to do so. In 2006, we wanted your help with the constitutional option. Our request went unanswered. We wanted you to secure the border. Once again, you let us down. Well, Senator, I find it pretty amusing that after all of that you think you'll find help here. Maybe now you'll start to understand how we feel.
If it's any consolation, though, Senator, your post here will generate some action. Your arrogance has inspired me to contribute to the campaign of your primary opponent, Buddy Witherspoon.
Not only will I not for vote for McCain, I will note vote for you in your re-election campaign.
They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions... but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.~Harper L.
It's not the conservative issues that John McCain supports that bother me. Rather it's his kneejerk, unexpected support for issues that seem antithetical to a principled, conservative statesman. His latest foray into Immigration reform and campaign finance reform come to mind.
I pause whenever the liberal media supports John McCain on any issue - if they're for it, one needs to question the whys and wherefores. So far, they've been some of the best barometers as to the political climate John McCain is currently working in.
The best example of foreign policy leadership and experience John McCain could have exhibited (and you too)during the recent immigration reform fiasco would have been for him to itemize how he would deal with a Mexican government that encourages and supports their counrtymen to cross the border illegally to partake of the social services they refuse to provide to their own citizens.
Personally, the only foreign policy expericence I'm interested in for a candidate to demonstrate is the kind that embraces and fights for American interests first and foremost; does not pander to foreign governments in a deprecating manner so they will "like" us; is devoid of any State Department ideolpgy so prevalent at the Department of State; and one who finally realizes that the United Nations is composed of a vast majority of member nations who do not have the United States interests at heart. Someone cut from a similar cloth that Ronald Reagan or Theodore Roosevelt were cut from would be nice.
It would be good to give us a couple of days (or at least a few hours) notice the next time you plan to post something here. That will give us time to heat up the tar and get some nice chicken feathers.
Thanks for your consideration.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
John McCain is the only candidate with the experience to lead the US during this war. Everyone else requires on the job training. It is a shame that other people commenting don't see the difference between important issues like terrorism, war in iraq and other ones which the vast majority of Americans don't care about (mccain-feingold, gang of 14). McCain is the only candidate that can lead us. Thanks for the post.
IMWITHMCCAIN
"John McCain is the only candidate with the experience to lead the US during this war."
Hogwash. War experience is no substitute for leadership skill and if being in the Senate a long time is a sign of leadership, we should have picked Kerry in 2004. Plenty of presidents had zero real military experience. Wilson had none. GWB was never in a war, Reagan was in Hollywood in WWII, Lincoln did little in uniform, but all led America during war with success. McCain is tempermental and lacks some of the leadership skills we want in a president; McCain during immigration tussle said "F888 you" to Cornyn, well if you know John Cornyn, he's someone who - dare I say - has exactly the balanced temperment that McCain lacks. You'd have to be a hot head to get mad at Cornyn. McCain is.
McCain like Kerry is a good gabber but not an executive leader. He's been a Senator but never a general/admiral for a reason.
Opposing tax cuts, mccain-feingold, gang of 14, McCain's amnesty, for CO2 caps - these are not small items, these are not 'dont care' items, but signature examples of McCain's willingness to oppose the GOP base on key issues. He will do it on those items, and has done it even on national security items. McCain is wrong on waterboarding for example.
McCain is a good man, but saying he's more presidential because he was in 'nam, well ... let's not compromise then, Duncan Hunter for President!
I'd say that he is probably the strongest candidate in that respect. What I do have a serious problem with is his advocacy of amnesty, unconstitutional campaign finance "reform", voting against tax cuts, his embrace of left-wing global warming propaganda, and his perpensity to attack conservatives.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Your interview on Meet the Press before the surge sparked a fire in me that was absent for a long time. When you to told American Patreus was going to be Bush's Grant you were right, when you supported the surge you were right, and when you fought side by side with Senator McCain on the immigration bill, you were right, yet again. Notice those who ruthlessly support shipping illegal aliens and their children back to their own country, show no plan for doing so, or no ideas of where the funding will come from.
I have been an admirer of yours since you were a House manager during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Your willingness to stand for your convictions over and over and over again, time after time, is respected by this conservative even when I do not agree with you. Your opinion matters, I am glad you posted at Redstate, and I hope to see you do so again in the future.
Good luck with your re-election campaign. I look forward to you kicking the holy living crap out of any fringe minority, nut job, primary challenge that comes your way. I am glad some of those who run for office are still willing to put loyalty above their own self interest.
God bless you, sir. Thank you for your service.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
1) The 'ship 'em all out' argument is a strawman; the numbers of illegal immigrants can be reduced through attrition and by targeting employers who promote document fraud to save money by employing near-slave labor.
2) Numerous plans have been put forward, time and again, for how an enforcement-only approach could work on immigration. These are usually ignored by the anti-border crowd.
above self interest? Certainly not loyalty to the party or the conservative movement.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Why should anyone be suprised? I surely hope Graham has strong Republican opposition and is defeated.
Hey Senator. This is what real conservatives think of your recent comments on behalf of McCain.
Paul Mirengoff has it right (as always). Rush Limbaugh does too.
because he makes no pretensions that he is anything more than a left leaning libertarian.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Well I agree with Senator Graham that we need a President with foreign policy experience that is his own not the expereience that he plucked out of some state department employee and for you Mr. Witherspoon to vote against John McCain because Senator Graham is pleding his case is cutting your nose off to spite your face. Not to mention rather childish wouldn't you say? How old are you five going on fifty? I will probably be banned from here tomorrow all of my friends already have been which is a shame because it seems like that anybody that don't agree with what ever this little click here agrees with is banned from blogging here. Which is alright with me but if you are going to be that way you should title this place as a private blogsite instead of allowing the public but only if they agree with your opinion which is biased in itself wouldn't you agree?
probably will give Romney the edge in New Hampshire.Henry Kissinger
Bob Novak predicts a Romney win in Iowa. :-)
I'd be a billionaire.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
I think you meant nickel not nickle.
/Joke
Something wrong with your keyboard?
...you'd have more money than Mitt Romney and have done none of the work. :-)
I've been reading about the imminent breakup of the Republican party because the three core constituencies (nat'l security hawks, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives) may no longer stand together.
I'd held out some hope that maybe there was something to salvage here, but after the savage reception that some have given to Senator Graham I have my doubts that we'll stick together if we can't even support our own.
As an outside observer, I've seen the senator take a strong stance in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. And I have understood that position as one taken because illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be resolved and will require more than a fence (no matter how high and wide we make it).
The solution requires a way to deal with those 20 million or so illegals who are already here and who we can't possibly round up -- at least not without spending a tremendous amount of taxpayer dollars and creating a nightmare for our law enforcement and our courts.
I believe that Senator Graham's rationale for supporting comprehensive immigration reform was based on practical need and the plain facts that this is a more complicated issue than some would like to think it is (I'm sure I'm not alone in my recollection of calls to radio shows saying that this is all as simple as "rounding them up, throwing them in a bus, and sending them back to Mexico"). As well, I believe that whatever immigration deal had been made in this congress and with this president would have been better than the deal that's achieved with stronger Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate after November and, potentially, a Dem in the White House.
We could debate what I've written above, and I'm sure other RS readers will have strong words for me because I'm in the minority here on this issue.
But what I hope we can all agree on is that a United States Senator who has served in our nation's armed services and who has been a strong supporter of our war against Islamic extremists, as well as a reliable conservative on many, many issues, should receive a better reception than what some of you have given today.
Otherwise, the party's over (maybe it is already).
Thank you, Senator Graham, for your words in support of Senator McCain.
P.S. -- Foreign policy experience DOES matter, and McCain DOES have it, which is why he has my vote.
Nobody's attacking his military service, but that most certainly doesn't get him a pass on a whole host of issues on which he has stabbed us in the back. Unlike some other Senators, he claims to be a conservative and represents what is most likely the most conservative state in the Union. Then he betrays us on issue after issue. For most here, the big one seems to be immigration, but there are plenty of others. The Gang of 14 agreement is my biggest complaint, though it has stiff competition. Just because someone has a military record and sometimes votes with you doesn't mean that he gets a pass on everything else.
I believe he blocked a couple of conservative judges from pass in committee.
be blocked in committee. Even if they lose the vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee they can move to the Senate floor -- just with a negative recommendation. At least one nominee with a negative recommendation has been confirmed by the Senate.
Our illustrious lords in the Senate can put an anonymous hold on a candidate and leave them hanging forever. Also, the committee can just refuse to hold hearings and a vote and leave good candidates in limbo forever.
Of course, if they deign to vote, it will go to the floor, but if they decide to drag their feet and refuse to vote, it can stay in committee for years.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
falls to the Chairman. He is the one who schedules hearings and votes on nominees.
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the last session of Congress was Arlen Specter. Now, it's Leahy.
We could probably go back and forth for a long time on the issues you raise, but the one view that I just don't get is how Gang of 14 was such a curse.
That deal got Alito and Roberts confirmed, along with a slew of circuit court judges that had been held up for months. It also set down the rule -- that all senators should live by -- that a senator should only vote against a president's judicial nominee under extraordinary circumstances because, after all, elections matter.
Exercising the constitutional option would have set horrible precedent and would have accomplished nothing except maybe the confirmation of the two or three judges that Gang of 14 didn't agree to not filibuster.
Yes, elections do have consequences, and a majority of Senators were prevented from exercising their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominations. If the Democrats were in the majority at the time and never scheduled a hearing, the advice and consent would've been given. The nominees would not have been confirmed because a majority of Senators were opposed to the nomination, not because a minority of Senators were gumming up the works. And, for the record, the judges who were thrown under the bus were highly qualified and would have been confirmed if they came to the floor.
As to the "extraordinary circumstances" clause, if the circumstances were so extraordinary, the nominees wouldn't enjoy majority support anyway.
Let's not forget that John Murtha and Chuck Hagel also served in our country's military.
As to solving the immigration problem no one is saying we round them all up and deport them. That would be impossible. What is possible is for states such as Oklahoma and Arizona to pass and enforce immigration laws the federal government refuses to do. It's already having an effect. Enforcement is causing the illegals to leave of their own volition from those states.
Rewarding illegal activity with amnesty only moves the goal posts for a short time
Senator Graham and the others did not, as you say simply support a needful comprehensive reform bill. He conspired to cram down our throats a bad bill which would have been defacto amnesty, where enforcement provisions if even tried would have languished in endless court proceedings while the defacto amnesty continued. Furthermore he did it in a hateful way, letting all of us see where his true loyalties lay, with racists organizations like La Raza.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
When Fred Thompson recently posted here, those not agreeing with Fred for the most part stayed away from the blog. The FredHeads fell over themselves to heap love and appreciation on their candidate and each other, which is fine - whatever "floats your boat".
So, it is very interesting and I think telling to look at the boorish behavior seen above. I respect the right to analyze and criticize, but many of these comments are shameful. I don't care if you don't like Graham, I don't care if you don't like McCain, but to come to this post and feel the need to advocate for the defeat of a standing Republican Senator, to resort to name-calling and making ridiculous and outlandish statments - well, I think it speaks volumes about your character.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
the illegal invasion of this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEfrFoAIn4
he has a tin ear if he thinks he will help McCain by comming here and endorsing him.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
too much. The bigots ought to "shut up", and only someone hypersensitive to the title would infer that he was suggesting that anyone opposed to immigration reform was a bigot.
I don't care if you agree or disagree with him, there is such a thing as decency and many of you failed that test today.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
puffing yourself up by attacking other posters. Graham should have known he would not be popular here. He is more of a Hagel-Warner Repub. I think many here think much higher of McCain than they they do of Lindsay.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Sorry Senator, your opinion ceased to matter to me when you called me a bigot for opposing your amnesty plan.