Lindsey Graham rips the JSN ideologues new ones...

[PubliusInfinitum]

Lindsey Graham takes on conservatives
By: Manu Raju
July 24, 2009 04:17 AM EST

When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it was a sign that Graham is “unreliable ... as a thinker and a leader.”

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, called it proof that Graham “still lacks courage, statesmanship and an understanding of the Constitution and rule of law.”

“May his antics get the attention they richly deserve.”

The response from Graham: Enjoy life in the minority.

In an interview with POLITICO Thursday, the South Carolina Republican defended his decision to back Sotomayor by laying out a broad critique of conservative activists who push “ideological purity” and refuse to cooperate with a Democratic Congress and White House.

“If we chase this attitude … that you have to say ‘no’ to every Democratic proposal, you can’t help the president ever, you can’t ever reach across the aisle, then I don’t want to be part of the movement because it’s a dead-end movement,” Graham said.

“I have no desire to be up here in an irrelevant status. I’m smart enough to know that this country doesn’t have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology. And those who are ideological-driven to a fault are never going to be able to take this party back into relevancy.”

While a handful of other GOP senators have said they’ll back Sotomayor when her nomination comes to the floor, Graham is the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support her.

He may be the only one. Not all of the Republicans on the committee have announced their views, but the two who would seem mostly likely to defect — Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), two veterans who have voted for every Supreme Court nominee they’ve faced in the Senate — have both expressed reservations about Sotomayor.

Hatch said that he’s “troubled” by her nomination, and Grassley said that “people take things into consideration now that they didn’t used to before.” He added: “So obviously, there are other things to consider than just qualifications.”

Graham said that Sotomayor is not the nominee he would have chosen.

But after questioning her extensively during her confirmation hearing — asking about everything from her views on abortion to the charge that she’s a “bully” on the bench — he said Sotomayor deserves his support because a review of her 17-year record proved she was well-qualified, her confirmation would not upset the ideological balance on the court, and Obama is entitled to some latitude in making his pick because he won the election.

Most of all, he said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees — citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.

More:
Lindsey Graham gives as good as he gets - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Graham is not a leader... he's a follower; always has been.


All the above explanation is, is a tepid endorsement of leftism...

What Graham and the Centrist (read: fascist) gaggle are simply not bright enough to understand is that being in the minority is a function of POOR LEADERSHIP...

The simple fact is that there has not been a CONSERVATIVE advocate in the US federal Executive since Ronald Reagan left office, or in the Federal Legislature since Gingrich left office, having let the Clinton machine roll over him.

Graham believes, which is not to say "thinks", as he's ill-equipped for such, is that being in the majority is somehow beneficial to anyone but those seeking mic-time... or face-time on Television. He wants to be POPULAR... and that's the bottom line.

He doesn't want to be a leader, because being a leader requires one to understand instinctively, the principles involved and to be able to unapologetically articulate those principles in the FACE OF AN OPPOSSING MAJORITY...

So screw his subversive ass...

Graham... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP... We DON'T WANT YOU HERE... Take your yellow stripe to the left side and STAY THERE/ ya spineless little Deniis the Menace looking POS...

Who is "we"?? FASCISTS like you who continue to demand MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?! I think you're terribly confused as to what "fascism" is, pal.

ROFLMNAO... Do you really?

Well I'm prepared to prove that you don't think... much at all... and here's how I will prove it.

I will advance one query, based directly upon the assertion highlighted above... when you fail to provide a lucid, cogent, well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument... YOU will have proven that you, in fact, possess little, if ANY MEANS to think, let alone your actually having engaged in such...

Now to the simple, direct and unambiguous question; a question which I predict you will have absolutely NO MEANS to answer with any discernible level of cogent veracity:

Maggie, what are you basing this assertion upon? Please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow; I am looking for your specific understanding of the word "fascist;" I want to know in unambiguous terms what you think "fascism" is; I would like you to provide a correlation of my SPECIFICALLY STATED position to fascist history... cite an example which for you to reasonably be able to make that assertion would necessarily need to have such a correlation IN YOUR MIND AT THE TIME YOU MADE THE STATEMENT... and how that understanding supports this conclusion... further; I want you to specifically explain whether or not you believe that as an abstract concept: 'my way or the highway' , is an exclusive component of fascism?

Now best of luck with that sis...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

How is Obama "radical"??

Well let's see...

The BOY King 'feels' that a woman who willfully engages in sexual intercourse "...should not be PUNISHED WITH A BABY..."

He has stripped private Corporations of their means to pay their employees beased upon a mutually agreed upon contract; siezed control of large segments of the US Private markets, spent or otherwise obligated the US government to spend TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, which tend towards empoering the ideological left; he's further attempting to hijack the US Healthcare industry, through which he hopes to use that Federal obligation to manipulate the US Culture...

How much more do ya need?

Perhaps you'll define "Radical"

Here's how I define Radical:

rad·i·cal [ráddik'l]
adj
1. basic: relating to or affecting the basic nature or most important features of something
a radical difference between the two

2. pervasive: far-reaching, searching, or thoroughgoing
a radical reorganization of the company

3. favoring major changes: favoring or making economic, political, or social changes of a sweeping or extreme nature

Now those with sufficient intellectual means will notice how the examples I provided correlate with that well established definition.

What this imbecile wants to do, is to REDEFINE the term and to do so using facets of the issue which are wholly irrelevant...

But that's a Leftist for ya... It's deception and that's what leftism is ALL ABOUT!

YAWNnnn...

Is there anyone that would like to argue that the Leftist response is somehow NOT a full blown default concession?

I'd be interested in seeing a basis in reasoning that would hope to sustain that dead rhetorical horse?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the Leftists who have tried to respond to my argument; have unanimously opted to do so by overtly avoiding that argument; and instead trot out the usual fallacious red-herrings common to the sub-intellect...

LOL.. Leftists...

You don't HAVE an argument. All you ever do is rant and rage and take shit out of context to make your lame points. To-wit:

March 29, 2008
"Stop these abortions.”

Out in western Pennsylvania, the issue of abortion can strike a nerve. Democrats there often describe themselves economic liberals and social conservatives who favor gun rights and oppose abortion rights.

So, it was not unusual to see a woman stand near the end of Barack Obama’s town hall meeting in Johnstown, Penn., and offer a hurried, passionate plea for him to "stop these abortions."

The ability of politicians like Obama to thread the needle between their own support of abortion rights and their constituents' opposition can be deteminative in Pennsylvania. And Obama, who supports abortion rights, handled the questioner deftly.

"This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue," he said. "I have two precious daughters — they are miracles."

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."

The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama's earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Now I've said MANY TIMES that the ideological left is one long DECEPTION...

What we have here is nothing but a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of just that... This idiot knows DAMN GOOD AND WELL THAT THE BOY KING DECLARED HE DOESN'T WANT HIS CHILDREN "TO BE PUNISHED WITH A BABY".... and she's come here to CONCEAL THAT TRUTH...

She's a LIAR... and it's no more complex than that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5Frgw0Fww]YouTube - Barack Obama - "Punished with a baby!"[/ame]

"I've got two daughters... if they make a mistake I don't want them punished with a baby..." King Hussein advocating for the use of Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL!

Now understand the deception here... This idiot wants us to believe that this message was NOT about the advocacy of abortion as birth control... Understand what the BOY KING IS SAYING: A baby is the equivilent of an STD... a VERY HAaavaaard thing to say... 'a baby is just another parasite... if you contract one, you do what's necessary to keep from being punished by one...'

Note what he did NOT say... he did NOT say that he is going to do everything in his power to teach his girls NOT TO ENGAGE IN SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO THEY DO NOT INTEND TO JOIN WITH FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES... HE DID NOT SAY; that he intends to teach tem that sexual intercourse is only for two people of opposite genders who are committed to one another in a life long relationship... and who are prepared to nurture and care for the life conceived by that joining...

No... He said he intends to teach them how to prevent BEING PUNISHED BY A BABY AND STDs...

Dispicable...

 

[MaggieMae]

Graham is not a leader... he's a follower; always has been.


All the above explanation is, is a tepid endorsement of leftism...

What Graham and the Centrist (read: fascist) gaggle are simply not bright enough to understand is that being in the minority is a function of POOR LEADERSHIP...

The simple fact is that there has not been a CONSERVATIVE advocate in the US federal Executive since Ronald Reagan left office, or in the Federal Legislature since Gingrich left office, having let the Clinton machine roll over him.

Graham believes, which is not to say "thinks", as he's ill-equipped for such, is that being in the majority is somehow beneficial to anyone but those seeking mic-time... or face-time on Television. He wants to be POPULAR... and that's the bottom line.

He doesn't want to be a leader, because being a leader requires one to understand instinctively, the principles involved and to be able to unapologetically articulate those principles in the FACE OF AN OPPOSSING MAJORITY...

So screw his subversive ass...

Graham... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP... We DON'T WANT YOU HERE... Take your yellow stripe to the left side and STAY THERE/ ya spineless little Deniis the Menace looking POS...

Who is "we"?? FASCISTS like you who continue to demand MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?! I think you're terribly confused as to what "fascism" is, pal.

ROFLMNAO... Do you really?

Well I'm prepared to prove that you don't think... much at all... and here's how I will prove it.

I will advance one query, based directly upon the assertion highlighted above... when you fail to provide a lucid, cogent, well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument... YOU will have proven that you, in fact, possess little, if ANY MEANS to think, let alone your actually having engaged in such...

Now to the simple, direct and unambiguous question; a question which I predict you will have absolutely NO MEANS to answer with any discernible level of cogent veracity:

Maggie, what are you basing this assertion upon? Please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow; I am looking for your specific understanding of the word "fascist;" I want to know in unambiguous terms what you think "fascism" is; I would like you to provide a correlation of my SPECIFICALLY STATED position to fascist history... cite an example which for you to reasonably be able to make that assertion would necessarily need to have such a correlation IN YOUR MIND AT THE TIME YOU MADE THE STATEMENT... and how that understanding supports this conclusion... further; I want you to specifically explain whether or not you believe that as an abstract concept: 'my way or the highway' , is an exclusive component of fascism?

Now best of luck with that sis...

I think you just like to see your shit articulated in print. It took you five paragraphs just to ask me to prove you have a fascist attitude? Good grief, if I did have time to respond (pretty simple to determine at just a glance, however), I'm sure your response to THAT would need to be broken down into three pages.

Sorry, Sis, but you're not worth my time. You're a fringe extremist of the worst kind. Bin Laden recruits people of one mind such as yours.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh dear, looks like I've really got Pubis all riled up. Should I lock my doors?

 

[Father Time]

Aw Pi thinks he can make demands.

Now PI if you're going to respond I want you to post a brief history of nuclear power, then post 2 well thought out palindromic reasons why you aren't making demands.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who is "we"?? FASCISTS like you who continue to demand MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?! I think you're terribly confused as to what "fascism" is, pal.

ROFLMNAO... Do you really?

Well I'm prepared to prove that you don't think... much at all... and here's how I will prove it.

I will advance one query, based directly upon the assertion highlighted above... when you fail to provide a lucid, cogent, well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument... YOU will have proven that you, in fact, possess little, if ANY MEANS to think, let alone your actually having engaged in such...

Now to the simple, direct and unambiguous question; a question which I predict you will have absolutely NO MEANS to answer with any discernible level of cogent veracity:

Maggie, what are you basing this assertion upon? Please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow; I am looking for your specific understanding of the word "fascist;" I want to know in unambiguous terms what you think "fascism" is; I would like you to provide a correlation of my SPECIFICALLY STATED position to fascist history... cite an example which for you to reasonably be able to make that assertion would necessarily need to have such a correlation IN YOUR MIND AT THE TIME YOU MADE THE STATEMENT... and how that understanding supports this conclusion... further; I want you to specifically explain whether or not you believe that as an abstract concept: 'my way or the highway' , is an exclusive component of fascism?

Now best of luck with that sis...

I think you just like to see your shit articulated in print. It took you five paragraphs just to ask me to prove you have a fascist attitude? Good grief, if I did have time to respond (pretty simple to determine at just a glance, however), I'm sure your response to THAT would need to be broken down into three pages.

Sorry, Sis, but you're not worth my time. You're a fringe extremist of the worst kind. Bin Laden recruits people of one mind such as yours.

Thank you Maggie for establishing AS FACT that you do not possess the intellectual means to reason; and that you've absolutely no knowledge of fascism, from its foundational beginnings to the present; and most importantly how, despite your now throughly discredited assertion to the contrary, that anything which I've posted here, might SOMEHOW relate to fascism...

You're a Leftist Maggie... and ironically you espouse precisely that which you otherwise hope to lament... the working traits of a fascist.

ROFL...

Leftists...

 

[garyd]

Father time why are you requesting that PI respond to you with sentences that read the same way forward as backward?

Socialism and fascism are essentially identical in everything except that Fascism sees no inherent contradiction between socialism and nationalism

 

[Father Time]

Father time why are you requesting that PI respond to you with sentences that read the same way forward as backward?

Because I like to joke around.

Now anyway if PI doesn't respond I'll assume he conceded that he knows nothing about nuclear power, or something (argument from silence fallacy be damned).

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Aw Pi thinks he can make demands.

Now PI if you're going to respond I want you to post a brief history of nuclear power, then post 2 well thought out palindromic reasons why you aren't making demands.

PI "Thinks" PERIOD.

Again, the Left comes to defend their inability to defend there OWN STATED POSITIONS...

You see where a Leftist makes an assertion and one simply asks them, in unambiguous terms to simply support their conclusions... THIS IS A DEMAND!

And in response to that... this gal thinks its witty to simply project irrelevance into the equation... but such is a function of dissemblence... its simply a means to avoid the TRUTH; the truth that without regard to what the issue is; without regard to what the Leftist assertion is within that issue... the ideological Leftist is incapable of sustaining THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS in the face of ANY opposition.

And that's about all ya need to know about these clowns... and that is the basis behind the fascist notions of 'THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE'... and other such means to silence the opposition...

Ya see kids, the quieter the opposition is, the easier it is for Leftist to make absurd assertions and maintain some illusion of credibility; distraction... it's the only card they have... so they tend to play it... A LOT!

 

[MaggieMae]

Father time why are you requesting that PI respond to you with sentences that read the same way forward as backward?

Socialism and fascism are essentially identical in everything except that Fascism sees no inherent contradiction between socialism and nationalism

Both characterizations are entirely different as they apply to today's society, because both imply extreme oppression which isn't the case at all. The absurdity of using labels dredged up from World War II archives to twist and spin as the "other party's" tool is explained better here. Two excerpts, and you can read the article at the link.

We are all fascists now. That is true in an empty sort of way I suppose. Unfortunately, it is also true in a more historically accurate way. When I was in college “fascist” meant, “You are to the right of me and therefore bad.” Today, “fascists” in that old fashioned sense have turned the tables on the left. Now, “fascist” may also mean, “Your are to the left of me and therefore bad.” That pretty much covers the ground. By linguistic fiat all Americans are now “fascists.” Nothing could be less important. What matters is the other sense in which we have become, all of us, perfect fascists.

The real original fascism of Benito Mussolini and his followers combined militarism and collectivist economics with the leadership principle. Under Adolph Hitler, Germany’s National Socialist Party (the Nazis) adopted this basic model and turned it into something far worse than Mussolini and his gang of thugs ever dared to imagine. Nevertheless, Italian fascism was pretty nasty stuff. And when the war was going badly for them, they caved in to German pressure to round up the Jews for collective slaughter. No Hitler is rising in the American firmament, nor can we imagine genocide within our shores. But we have come dangerously close to the thuggery of original Italian fascism.

We Are All Fascists Now « ThinkMarkets

 

[editec]

Lindsey Graham takes on conservatives
By: Manu Raju
July 24, 2009 04:17 AM EST

When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it was a sign that Graham is “unreliable ... as a thinker and a leader.”

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, called it proof that Graham “still lacks courage, statesmanship and an understanding of the Constitution and rule of law.”

“May his antics get the attention they richly deserve.”

The response from Graham: Enjoy life in the minority.

In an interview with POLITICO Thursday, the South Carolina Republican defended his decision to back Sotomayor by laying out a broad critique of conservative activists who push “ideological purity” and refuse to cooperate with a Democratic Congress and White House.

“If we chase this attitude … that you have to say ‘no’ to every Democratic proposal, you can’t help the president ever, you can’t ever reach across the aisle, then I don’t want to be part of the movement because it’s a dead-end movement,” Graham said.

“I have no desire to be up here in an irrelevant status. I’m smart enough to know that this country doesn’t have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology. And those who are ideological-driven to a fault are never going to be able to take this party back into relevancy.”

While a handful of other GOP senators have said they’ll back Sotomayor when her nomination comes to the floor, Graham is the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support her.

He may be the only one. Not all of the Republicans on the committee have announced their views, but the two who would seem mostly likely to defect — Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), two veterans who have voted for every Supreme Court nominee they’ve faced in the Senate — have both expressed reservations about Sotomayor.

Hatch said that he’s “troubled” by her nomination, and Grassley said that “people take things into consideration now that they didn’t used to before.” He added: “So obviously, there are other things to consider than just qualifications.”

Graham said that Sotomayor is not the nominee he would have chosen.

But after questioning her extensively during her confirmation hearing — asking about everything from her views on abortion to the charge that she’s a “bully” on the bench — he said Sotomayor deserves his support because a review of her 17-year record proved she was well-qualified, her confirmation would not upset the ideological balance on the court, and Obama is entitled to some latitude in making his pick because he won the election.

Most of all, he said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees — citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.

More:
Lindsey Graham gives as good as he gets - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Graham is not a leader... he's a follower; always has been.


All the above explanation is, is a tepid endorsement of leftism...

What Graham and the Centrist (read: fascist) gaggle are simply not bright enough to understand is that being in the minority is a function of POOR LEADERSHIP...

The simple fact is that there has not been a CONSERVATIVE advocate in the US federal Executive since Ronald Reagan left office, or in the Federal Legislature since Gingrich left office, having let the Clinton machine roll over him.

Graham believes; which is not to say "thinks", as he's ill-equipped for such; that being in the majority is somehow beneficial to someone besides those seeking mic-time... or face-time on Television. He wants to be POPULAR... and that's the bottom line.

He doesn't want to be a leader, because being a leader requires one to understand instinctively, the principles involved and to be able to unapologetically articulate those principles in the FACE OF AN OPPOSSING MAJORITY...

So screw his subversive ass...

Graham... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP... We DON'T WANT YOU HERE... Take your yellow stripe to the left side and STAY THERE/ ya spineless little Deniis the Menace looking POS...

Fascinating to watch people like you systematically denoucing your former heros.

Weren't you one of the first here to declare that Bush II was a socialist or liberal or something?

Well, at least you guys on the far right are getting closer to realizing that these so called opposing parties are not what they seem.

I find that very comforting and it gives me hope for this nation, to be honest.

Surely you must have noticed that not a whole lot Obama is doing is all that much different that what Bush II was doing in most areas of foreign and economic policy, right?

The exception is health care, of course.

But if you look at the current proposal what you'll find is that it's designed not to gore the oxen of the current medical establishment including the HC insurance companies.

I honestly believe that the rants against it aren't so much designed to rally republicans against it, but to rally reluctant dems FOR it. If the Rs hate it it must be good sorta thing, know what I mean?

Yeah, Pubbie, these guys leading the party behind the parties are, in my opinion that smart.

They must have some truly brilliant social psychologists working for them.

They so know how to manipulate public opinion, playing us off each other.

 

[MaggieMae]

Aw Pi thinks he can make demands.

Now PI if you're going to respond I want you to post a brief history of nuclear power, then post 2 well thought out palindromic reasons why you aren't making demands.

PI "Thinks" PERIOD.

Again, the Left comes to defend their inability to defend there OWN STATED POSITIONS...

You see where a Leftist makes an assertion and one simply asks them, in unambiguous terms to simply support their conclusions... THIS IS A DEMAND!

And in response to that... this gal thinks its witty to simply project irrelevance into the equation... but such is a function of dissemblence... its simply a means to avoid the TRUTH; the truth that without regard to what the issue is; without regard to what the Leftist assertion is within that issue... the ideological Leftist is incapable of sustaining THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS in the face of ANY opposition.

And that's about all ya need to know about these clowns... and that is the basis behind the fascist notions of 'THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE'... and other such means to silence the opposition...

Ya see kids, the quieter the opposition is, the easier it is for Leftist to make absurd assertions and maintain some illusion of credibility; distraction... it's the only card they have... so they tend to play it... A LOT!

Ah, I get it now. Your ploy is to say such ridiculously absurd things that no one can believe you actually SAID it, and therefore start IGNORING you, and you can then therefore declare victory!! Yowza. Something tells me you never learned what Mom was trying to tell you when she locked you in your room when you wouldn't shut the fuck up.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Lindsey Graham takes on conservatives
By: Manu Raju
July 24, 2009 04:17 AM EST

When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it was a sign that Graham is “unreliable ... as a thinker and a leader.”

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, called it proof that Graham “still lacks courage, statesmanship and an understanding of the Constitution and rule of law.”

“May his antics get the attention they richly deserve.”

The response from Graham: Enjoy life in the minority.

In an interview with POLITICO Thursday, the South Carolina Republican defended his decision to back Sotomayor by laying out a broad critique of conservative activists who push “ideological purity” and refuse to cooperate with a Democratic Congress and White House.

“If we chase this attitude … that you have to say ‘no’ to every Democratic proposal, you can’t help the president ever, you can’t ever reach across the aisle, then I don’t want to be part of the movement because it’s a dead-end movement,” Graham said.

“I have no desire to be up here in an irrelevant status. I’m smart enough to know that this country doesn’t have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology. And those who are ideological-driven to a fault are never going to be able to take this party back into relevancy.”

While a handful of other GOP senators have said they’ll back Sotomayor when her nomination comes to the floor, Graham is the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support her.

He may be the only one. Not all of the Republicans on the committee have announced their views, but the two who would seem mostly likely to defect — Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), two veterans who have voted for every Supreme Court nominee they’ve faced in the Senate — have both expressed reservations about Sotomayor.

Hatch said that he’s “troubled” by her nomination, and Grassley said that “people take things into consideration now that they didn’t used to before.” He added: “So obviously, there are other things to consider than just qualifications.”

Graham said that Sotomayor is not the nominee he would have chosen.

But after questioning her extensively during her confirmation hearing — asking about everything from her views on abortion to the charge that she’s a “bully” on the bench — he said Sotomayor deserves his support because a review of her 17-year record proved she was well-qualified, her confirmation would not upset the ideological balance on the court, and Obama is entitled to some latitude in making his pick because he won the election.

Most of all, he said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees — citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.

More:
Lindsey Graham gives as good as he gets - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Graham is not a leader... he's a follower; always has been.


All the above explanation is, is a tepid endorsement of leftism...

What Graham and the Centrist (read: fascist) gaggle are simply not bright enough to understand is that being in the minority is a function of POOR LEADERSHIP...

The simple fact is that there has not been a CONSERVATIVE advocate in the US federal Executive since Ronald Reagan left office, or in the Federal Legislature since Gingrich left office, having let the Clinton machine roll over him.

Graham believes; which is not to say "thinks", as he's ill-equipped for such; that being in the majority is somehow beneficial to someone besides those seeking mic-time... or face-time on Television. He wants to be POPULAR... and that's the bottom line.

He doesn't want to be a leader, because being a leader requires one to understand instinctively, the principles involved and to be able to unapologetically articulate those principles in the FACE OF AN OPPOSSING MAJORITY...

So screw his subversive ass...

Graham... GET THE HELL OUT OF THE GOP... We DON'T WANT YOU HERE... Take your yellow stripe to the left side and STAY THERE/ ya spineless little Deniis the Menace looking POS...

Fascinating to watch people like you systematically denoucing your former heros.

Weren't you one of the first here to declare that Bush II was a socialist or liberal or something?

Well, at least you guys on the far right are getting closer to realizing that these so called opposing parties are not what they seem.

I find that very comforting and it gives me hope for this nation, to be honest.

Surely you must have noticed that not a whole lot Obama is doing is all that much different that what Bush II was doing in most areas of foreign and economic policy, right?

The exception is health care, of course.

But if you look at the current proposal what you'll find is that it's designed not to gore the oxen of the current medical establishment including the HC insurance companies.

I honestly believe that the rants against it aren't so much designed to rally republicans against it, but to rally reluctant dems FOR it. If the Rs hate it it must be good sorta thing, know what I mean?

Yeah, Pubbie, these guys leading the party behind the parties are, in my opinion that smart.

They must have some truly brilliant social psychologists working for them.

They so know how to manipulate public opinion, playing us off each other.

Who are those guys?

Can ya name 'em? Specifically?

Now Ed I ask because I don't believe that they exist.

I believe that such manifestations are drawn from the ether to excuse te individuals impotence... or at least what they perceive to be their own impotence.

Now what I mean by that, is that individuals go to the polls and elect these idiots; such as The BOY King... and when they don't do what they said they would do, they are then forced to assume that there's some OZ somewhere pulling their strings. That way they don't have to hold themselves accountable for being a DUMBASS and getting sucked into a line of nonsense, such as "The Audacity to Hope."

But if you'll just produce some evidence that there exist some all powerful OZ whose pulling the strings I'll see what we can do to pop their cork... which of course would be justified; again given incontrovertible evidence that such existed, as they would be overtly subverting the rights of those who elected our government and as such represent a clear and present danger to the entire system; and the culture which is sustained by that system.

Now as bad as things are... and as crooked as the system is, I do not see any evidence that there is someone out there who's sending in plays for the President to call. I think the President is just an imbecile; a common leftist who lacks the sense that the good Lord gave to a Carrot.

But I'm perfectly willing to examine the evidence... assuming its not the tired ass tri-lateral commission or the obligatory nonsense that comes along with it. Seen all that and it's just more BS. The super-rich are influential to be sure; but they're not pulling any strings which I'm aware of; at least no more than would be natural for such infleunce...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Aw Pi thinks he can make demands.

Now PI if you're going to respond I want you to post a brief history of nuclear power, then post 2 well thought out palindromic reasons why you aren't making demands.

PI "Thinks" PERIOD.

Again, the Left comes to defend their inability to defend there OWN STATED POSITIONS...

You see where a Leftist makes an assertion and one simply asks them, in unambiguous terms to simply support their conclusions... THIS IS A DEMAND!

And in response to that... this gal thinks its witty to simply project irrelevance into the equation... but such is a function of dissemblence... its simply a means to avoid the TRUTH; the truth that without regard to what the issue is; without regard to what the Leftist assertion is within that issue... the ideological Leftist is incapable of sustaining THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS in the face of ANY opposition.

And that's about all ya need to know about these clowns... and that is the basis behind the fascist notions of 'THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE'... and other such means to silence the opposition...

Ya see kids, the quieter the opposition is, the easier it is for Leftist to make absurd assertions and maintain some illusion of credibility; distraction... it's the only card they have... so they tend to play it... A LOT!

Ah, I get it now. Your ploy is to say such ridiculously absurd things that no one can believe you actually SAID it, and therefore start IGNORING you, and you can then therefore declare victory!! Yowza. Something tells me you never learned what Mom was trying to tell you when she locked you in your room when you wouldn't shut the fuck up.

ROFLMNAO...

What 'ridiculously absurd things' are ya speakin' of sis? And again, BE AS SPECIFIC AS YOUR INTELLECTUAL LIMITATIONS ALLOW...

Now with regard to victory... it tends to declare itself... and my merely noting that such did so, doesn't change that status...

You made a series of assertions, born from a series of stated conclusions... I simply asked you to support those assertions and to do so my explaining to the board the underlying reasoning on which you rest your conclusions... YOU... failed to support a damn thing ya said... and since that point, all you've managed to do is to run to any number of obfuscations by which you hope to obscure YOUR failure.

These are YOUR PROBLEMS... not mine. Want to be treated with more respect? I would suggest you produce something worthy of respect; ya might try advancing an argument, which rests upon a well reasoned basis.

That way when you're challenged to support your argument you can sustain it through the advancing of that sound reasoning...

You'll find that when you've mastered this, that very few people will consider you an idiot and those that do, are generally limited to those who you left behind when you decided to START THINKING!

Now I hope that helps... and here's HOPING you have only the BEST OF LUCK in working that out.