FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe has a warning for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other GOP incumbents up for reelection in the 2014: don’t expect Tea Party support just because you’re already in Congress.
“It’s utterly contrary to Republican philosophy, we believe in competition, we believe in open democratic processes and I think that leads to better candidates,” Kibbe tells Top Line.
Kibbe singles Graham out as one of his Super PAC’s major targets in the midterm elections, citing Graham’s criticism of the filibuster over the Obama administration’s drone program led by Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) as a major reason for replacing him.
“The way he lashed out against Rand Paul…he’s begging for a primary,” says Kibbe, who continues on to say that he hopes to replace Graham with someone “who is worthy of that seat.”
Bruce Carroll, outgoing co-founder of gay Republican group GOProud, thinks Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has served in Washington for long enough.
In an open letter posted to Gay Patriot on Monday, Carroll announced his resignation from GOProud, saying he was moving on to weigh his options for challenging Graham:
Last week, speculation grew in South Carolina and on social media outlets about my interest in challenging incumbent US Senator Lindsey Graham who has been in Congress for 18 years.
In the spirit of transparency and honesty, I informed my fellow GOProud board members that I could not dedicate the time to the organization while I seriously considered the effort it will take to challenge Senator Graham in the 2014 Primary.
Whether they’ll cop to it or not, Republicans are currently engaged in a filibuster of Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be Defense secretary.
Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma’s conservative senior senator, has attempted to place a hold on Hagel’s nomination. Lindsey Graham has indicated his willingness to do the same. Generally, such requests are granted as a courtesy by the majority leader, but Harry Reid has opted not to honor them in this case and has gone ahead and filed a cloture motion. Thus, 60 votes will be required for there to be a simple up/down vote on the nomination. As Jonathan Bernstein writes, there is no way to call this anything but a filibuster.
“What a shame,” Reid lamented after filing his motion on Wednesday. “That’s the way it is.”
Reid may simply have been speaking as a White House ally there, but he’s also a Senate institutionalist, one who - to the consternation of many progressives activists - balked at an effort last month to water down the chamber’s filibuster rules. Reid clearly believes in the unique individual prerogatives that the Senate grants its members and is loath to break with tradition and create new procedural rules and precedents - especially if they might come back to bite his party the next time it’s in the minority. From an institutionalist’s standpoint, what’s happening now with the Hagel nomination is very troubling.
Simply put, we’re in uncharted territory. Look at it this way: Hagel is on course to be the first Pentagon nominee and only the third Cabinet nominee ever to face a 60-vote requirement for confirmation. But even that understates it, because the other two - C. William Verity and Dirk Kempthorne - weren’t up against serious filibusters.
Individual senators hold an enormous amount of power in Washington, which is exactly the way they like it. But when that power is abused, as two Republicans are now doing in trying to derail the nomination of a defense secretary, it has to be curtailed.
The two senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, say they will place “holds” on President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to run the Pentagon. A hold is a kind of minifilibuster, preventing unanimous consent to take up a bill or nomination, and preventing an up-or-down vote. Using this power for showboating, as Mr. Graham and Mr. Inhofe are doing, shows how easy it has become for senators to put petty personal demands ahead of the country’s needs.
Lindsey Graham, the man with the portable fainting couch, is worried once again, this time about Chuck Hagel and his “disturbing” performance before the McCarthyite crackpots on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and about the state of the world, which Lindsey finds dark and ominous, with bustling in all the hedgerows, and filled with low growling from the underbrush. To borrow a line from Lawrence Ferlinghetti, give us this day our daily dread, senator.
When asked whether he’d filibuster a Hagel confirmation, Graham said: “I’m going to try to make sure that I get all the information - he made 15 speeches for money, I want to know what he said. I want to get all the information available to us so we can make an informed decision. But I can tell you this, I’ve never seen the world more dangerous than it is now.”
Chuck Rogers over at CFC worries that supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans are signaling a willingness to abandon their pledge not to raise taxes.
While, thankfully, most elected Republicans continue to honor their pledge to Grover Norquist that they will not raise taxes, seven key GOP congressmen and senators have broken ranks: Alan Simpson, Saxby Chambliss, Jeff Flake, Tom Coburn, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, and John McCain have stated that they would consider tax hikes as part of a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.
This is, of course, unacceptable — now more than ever we should be lowering taxes, not raising them. Our government needs to raise revenue, but that’s accomplished by spurring the economy in the form of tax breaks for job creators. In short — if we take care of the job creators, they’ll take care of us.
— Chuck Rogers (@CheckFact) November 26, 2012
The top Republican leading the fight against Susan Rice as the new secretary of State softened his opposition and said Sunday he was open to hearing her explain why she declared the burning of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was part of a protest rather than a terrorist attack.
“I’d give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on the “Fox News Sunday” show. “I’d be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her.”
Also Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a vocal critic of how the administration handled fallout from the Benghazi attack, said President Obama more than Rice is responsible for her television comments claiming the Sept. 11 Libyan attack was a spontaneous eruption from protesters angry over an anti-Islam video.
“I blame the president above all others,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week” program - indicating he is more upset with Obama than Rice.
Lawmakers who came to Washington demanding budget cuts face a tough test now that President Barack Obama and military leaders want to shrink the force, shut down bases and cancel weapons to achieve them.
A new national security strategy reflecting an end to decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan offers the opportunity to reduce defense spending and government deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years - but at a cost of thousands of jobs in lawmakers’ states and districts.
Democrats as well as Republicans are resisting, looking to protect home turf from California, where the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft is built, to Wisconsin, home to speedy Littoral combat ships, to military installations all across the country.
“It’s funny that we want to save money everywhere except when it can bother us,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in an interview. Graham is a member of the Armed Services Committee and one of the few lawmakers who favors another round of domestic base closings.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says in a forthcoming article that the tea party movement is “unsustainable” and will “die out” because it lacks vision.
Graham made the comments to The New York Times as part of a profile in Sunday’s magazine written by Robert Draper.
Graham argues throughout the story that the Republican Party will eventually move away from the fringe and join him closer to the political middle but that, for now, it has shifted too far to the right.
“Everything I’m doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the tea party movement’s at,” Graham says. “The problem with the tea party, I think, is it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.”
Graham later says that the GOP has shifted so far that Ronald Reagan would have trouble getting elected in today’s party.
“We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats,” Graham told the Times. “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”
Graham has had several run-ins with tea party activists in South Carolina, notably getting censured over his support for climate change legislation by the Lexington County Republican Party, whose leadership consists of several tea party activists
VIDEO- Elena Kagan: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. | The Political Carnival
Earlier today, during the Supreme Court hearings, I tweeted a quote from nominee Elena Kagan. Her one-liner broke up the room, and I had to sharer. This is a future SCOTUS judge who clearly has a good sense of humor. Now we have the video, so everyone can laugh along with Elena.
Lindsey Graham asked her a question about the Christmas Day Bomber.