The Humiliation of Lindsey Graham, a Trump Political Prostitute

Lindsey Graham - who willingly sold his soul.

One of the confounding things about Donald Trump sycophants and Republicans trying to outdo each other in give Trump political fellatio is that throughout his tawdry career, Trump has never shown true loyalty to anyone. It is all about Trump 24/7 and those who toss aside integrity and what little shred of honor today's Republicans can claim sooner or later find themselves tossed aside and disposable.  The same holds true in the international realm.  Trust Trump and any believe what he says and it's only a matter of time before the betrayal unfolds.  Ask the Syrian Kurds who allied with the United States only to find Trump summarily decide to withdraw American troops and aid and throw the Kurds to the mercy of Turkey.  Or ask Lindsey Graham who has prostituted himself to Trump more than almost any other congressional Republican in order to (i) remain "relevant" and (ii) stay in the good graces of the racists and Christian extremist in South Carolina that are keys to Trump's base.  A piece in Politico Magazine looks at Graham's self-degradation seemingly for little return.  Here are excerpts:

It was a cri de cœur from Lindsey Graham, the lament of the sycophant scorned.

President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon our Kurdish allies in Syria by leaving them undefended against a Turkish invasion was, Graham tweeted, “a disaster” and a “nightmare.”

As Monday morning wore on, he expanded his indictment. Betraying the Kurds would force them to align with the Assad regime and Iran and would ensure the comeback of ISIS. It would be, he tweeted, “a stain on America’s honor,” and a virtual surrender to the terrorists. . . . “By abandoning the Kurds we have sent the most dangerous signal possible — America is an unreliable ally and it’s just a matter of time before China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea act out in dangerous ways.“ . . . In his cruelest cut of all, he compared Trump with Barack Obama.

Graham’s disappointment was palpable, but understandable, given all that he has given up to avoid this moment.

For the past several years, Graham has transformed himself from one of Trump’s fiercest critics, into one of his most reflexive defenders. Even by the cynical and shape-shifting standards of Washington, Graham’s metamorphosis has been a thing of wonder. The senator once known as John McCain’s best friend in the Senate, transformed himself into Trump’s shinebox, willing to ingratiate himself with rationalizations and praise even as Trump became increasingly erratic.

During the 2016 campaign, Graham had called Trump a “nutjob” and a loser,” as well as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.” He predicted that if the GOP nominated him, “we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”

But as McCain faded from the scene, Graham seemed to shift his affections to the man who so publicly insulted McCain.

In moments of candor, Graham tried to explain the deal he thought he was making. When Mark Leibovich asked him earlier this year what had happened to him, Graham explained:

“Well, OK, from my point of view, if you know anything about me, it’d be odd not to do this,” he said.  I asked what “this” was. “ ‘This,’ ” Graham said, “is to try to be relevant.”

Like many others in his party, staying “relevant” was central to their political calculations. Capitulating to Trump meant that Graham would become a rock star in the increasingly Trumpist party and virtually assured of reelection in South Carolina next year.

He would also have the president’s ear. And this was at the heart of Graham's bargain.

Others made the same calculation, but Graham made the uber-tradeoff, because the stakes were so high. What did it matter if he had to endure temporary embarrassments, abase himself on cable television, or even become a political punchline, if he could stop Trump from impulsive decisions regarding Russia or North Korea? Or Syria?

The world saw Graham as a craven, cringing Uriah Heep. Graham saw himself as someone who could save the world, or at least the Kurds. . . . . He was not simply the adult in the room; he was the adult BFF in the room, who would temper Trump’s worst instincts.

And then came Trump’s decision.

Despite Graham’s compulsive turd-polishing of the past few years, Trump didn’t even consult him before making the decision to abandon the Kurds. Graham, who had given up so much self-respect to prevent just this outcome, was not even in the room. He didn’t even get a text.

This is the thing about Faustian bargains. The price is high and the rewards turn out to be illusory. They end badly.

This week, Lindsey Graham, found that out the hard way. I wonder what they’ll talk about the next time they go golfing together.

Lindsey Graham’s Shamelessness

Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen - a study in hypocrisy.

One of the things that has been illuminating about Donald Trump and his candidacy and toxic and pathologically lying regime is just how morally bankrupt so many Republicans have proven to be.  For reasons I still cannot grasp - other than fear of the increasingly ugly GOP base - those who once pretended to have some basic understanding of both decency and constitutional and legal norms have shown themselves only too eager to prostitute themselves for Trump.  Among the worse is Senator Lindsey Graham who flatly stated the standard for removal of a president from office during the Clinton impeachment debacle.  Indeed, under Graham's own enunciated standard an indictable crime was not a prerequisite for use of impeachment to "cleanse the office" and "restore honor and integrity to the office [of the presidency]."  Now, faced with far more egregious conduct by Trump, Graham has thrown aside his own standard and is only too willing to look the other way and whine a far different song.  A column in the Washington Post looks at Graham's shameless hypocrisy.  Here are highlights: 

One difficulty about a career in politics is that the longer you’re in the business, the longer a track record of quotes and video your opponents can scour to undercut you. It’s something former vice president Joe Biden is contending with as he enters the Democratic primary, and it’s an obstacle his old Senate colleague Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has run into in the wake of the Mueller report.

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Graham spoke to host Margaret Brennan; naturally, much of the interview focused on Attorney General William P. Barr’s planned testimony to Congress this week. As the new chair of the Judiciary Committee, Graham has shown enthusiasm for thoroughly investigating some scandals through to the end, such as the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server. He showed the same enthusiasm during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, when he was one of the House’s prosecutors during Clinton’s trial in the Senate.

But Graham’s doggedness has disappeared when it comes to a Republican White House, replaced by a deliberate ignorance. “From my point of view, I’ve heard all I need to really know,” he told Brennan. He reiterated the sentiment again and again, especially regarding Trump’s ordering then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to fire Mueller. “It doesn’t matter,” he told Brennan. “I don’t care what he said to Don McGahn. … I don’t care what happened between him and Don McGahn. … No, I’m — I’m done.”
 Asked what he wants the Barr hearings to focus on, Graham replied, “Does the report support his summary? Does the report actually indicate there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians?” Graham left out, of course, that Mueller made no finding regarding the nonlegal concept of “collusion,” only one regarding the higher standard of criminal conspiracy. And he left out that there was significant evidence that individuals associated with the Trump campaign conspired with WikiLeaks over the release of stolen Democratic emails.

Democrats are suggesting that a president who orders his staff to obstruct an independent investigation maybe shouldn’t be president — hardly a crazy standard.

Then Graham had to face his past, as Brennan played his words from the Clinton impeachment trial:

The point I am trying to make is you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Thank God you did that, because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

Graham tried to reconcile his hypocrisy. “What President Clinton did was interfere in a lawsuit against him by Paula Jones and others, hide the evidence, encourage people to lie. So, to me, he took the legal system and turned it upside down.”

Note the words “encourage people to lie.” Note that Graham didn’t say, “People lied with his encouragement.” That Clinton allegedly told people to lie was enough for Graham (then and now), regardless of whether the Democratic president’s entreaties were successful. But this president is a Republican, so Graham’s standard changes.

Graham is far from the first hypocritical politician. But the South Carolina senator particularly prides himself on being no-nonsense and on his legal experience. That he has opted for such an obvious double standard is especially shameless.

If Republicans Don’t Get Answers, Democrats Will in 2019

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin is, like myself and other one time Republicans such as David Frum, Joe Scarborough, Michael Smerconish, and a host of others notable now decidedly in the former Republican column.  The stench of the Trump/Pence regime was just too much for them to stomach.  Rubin has joined the chorus calling for Democrats to get to the bottom of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations in 2019 when they will likely regain control the House of Representatives should Republicans rubber stamp Kavanaugh's nomination regardless of what testimony Christine Blasey Ford may offer later this week.  Indeed, Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, has already announced that nothing she can say will convince him to alter his vote.  Of course, the question is whether Graham truly believes this or he is reacting to behind the scenes blackmail threats which once again shows the dangers of closeted Republican elected officials who will sell out principal and decency rather than be "outed."  Sadly, none of the Republicans rushing to confirm Kavanaugh give a rat's ass about the damage that may be done to the Court's legitimacy not to mention the damage to be done if Democrat backed investigations prove reall wrongdoing.  Here are excerpts from Rubin's latest column: 

Whether or not Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will be plenty of serious questions about the confirmation process that require answers. Assuming Kavanaugh appears at a hearing this week, Democrats can interrogate him. Moreover, all of this could be reviewed next year if Democrats win the majority in either house of Congress (and claim the subpoena power). Democrats may be keen to focus on the apparent skullduggery that transpired. If the inquiry takes place next year, conservative lawyer Ed Whelan, Mark Judge and any other witnesses who should have participated in the process may be called. There is plenty to look into.

The questions will include:

·         Who came up with the mistaken-identity scheme?
·         Who was aware of it?
·         Did someone in the White House approve it?
·         Did anyone in the White House or who played any part in the confirmation process discuss the mistaken identity hooey with Kavanaugh?
·         Did Kavanaugh know about, condone and/or agree to the plot to blame someone else for the attack on Christine Blasey Ford?
·         Did anyone in the White House have any concrete evidence someone else was the attacker?
·         Who knew of the intention to falsely identify a classmate of Kavanaugh’s as the perpetrator?
·         Did CRC (Creative Response Concepts), the public relations firm or another third party act as a go-between for Ed Whelan and the White House or staff for the Judiciary Committee?
·         In days and days of “prep” at the White House with Kavanaugh, did anyone discuss the “blame someone else” gambit?
·         Did anyone in the White House, connected to the Senate Judiciary Committee or involved in the confirmation process contact Mark Judge, an alleged witness to the attack, according to Ford?
·         Did anyone suggest he not come forward to discuss his recollections?

Findings of wrongdoing in the confirmation process itself, if serious enough, are grist for impeachment or professional sanctions. (Only one other Supreme Court justice was impeached, Samuel Chase. He escaped removal in 1805.) There may be other crimes (e.g., witness intimidation, obstruction of justice) committed by third parties or Republicans inside the confirmation process. There may be Senate or White House staff whose conduct warrants their termination.

Moreover, what if under oath next year Mark Judge, or someone else, claims Kavanaugh was the perpetrator of the alleged attack, or that they drank to such excess it’s very possible the incident occurred even if they don’t (or choose not to) remember it? What if Ford files charges with Maryland law enforcement who then proceed to investigate a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

If this sounds far-fetched, it is because Republicans took the unbelievable step of pressing forward with a nominee against whom there was a credible claim of sexual assault and decided not to conduct a thorough investigation. What is truly far-fetched is putting Kavanaugh on the court with witnesses out there who haven’t been interviewed and potential avenues to investigate. . . . . This is a recipe for chaos.

All of this points to the damage that may be done to the Supreme Court if Kavanaugh is seated through a rushed, incomplete and biased process. The potential for wrongdoing to be uncovered after Kavanaugh gets on the bench (either relating to the original alleged incident or to the confirmation process addressing Ford’s claim) is real. The injury to the court’s legitimacy would be substantial, and the embarrassment to the partisan hit-men involved in this cockamamie scheme would not be insignificant.

Deputy AG, FBI Director Make Unannounced Visit to Paul Ryan

Rod Rosenstein

As numerous media outlets have reported, GOP Rep. Devin Nunes has done all he can do to sabotage the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation and appears to be colluding with the White House to obstruct the committee's investigation and perhaps that of special counsel Robert Mueller.  Indeed, at some point one has to wonder when Nunes is going to be indicted for obstruction of justice himself.  His sole agenda is to keep the truth about Trump/Russia collusion and possible money laundering from being revealed. It is in this situation that Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray paid an unannounced visit to Speaker Paul Ryan's office.  The focus of the meeting appears to have been about requests from Nunes for sensitive documents that Nunes likely would have turned over to the White House and/or used to further subvert the Russiagate investigation.  Politico looks at Nunes' improper actions:

Nunes (R-Calif) has mounted an aggressive push — with the threat of contempt citations for members of the FBI and Justice Department — to glean more information about how the FBI handled a disputed dossier alleging illicit ties between President Donald Trump and the Kremlin. 

Nunes is seeking details about meetings between FBI officials and those who helped compile the dossier. He also demanded interviews with a slate of top FBI officials. And he's floated the notion of issuing contempt resolutions against Rosenstein and Wray if they fail to comply.

Trump has called the dossier false, even as investigators sought to corroborate some of the allegations within it. But Republicans remain skeptical about whether the FBI used unverified information as it began pursuing its investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia.

It was not immediately clear what Rosenstein and Wray sought from Ryan. But they've been increasingly at odds with Nunes over his demands to produce documents related to the Russia probe and the use of the dossier. Nunes is also leading a subset of GOP members of the intelligence committee to investigate the Justice Department, with an eye on what some Republicans in Congress have characterized as corruption and political in its top ranks.

But that effort itself has divided Republicans, many of whom are allies of the FBI and are concerned that the escalation of a discrepancy over documents — fanned by Trump allies in Congress and media — could result in lasting damage to the perception of the agency as an independent arbiter of the law.

Remember that both the DOJ and FBI are supposed to be independent agencies not under the thumb of either the White House or members of Congress.  The Washington Post looks at what apparently came out of the meeting.  Here are highlights:

The meeting in Ryan’s offices took place just hours before a deadline Wednesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) set for the FBI and DOJ to turn over documents related to how the agencies used information in a now-famous dossier as part of an investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials. Nunes said in a statement Wednesday night, “After speaking to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein this evening, I believe the House Intelligence Committee has reached an agreement with the Department of Justice that will provide the committee with access to all the documents and witnesses we have requested.”
 House and Senate Republicans defensive of the president have pointed to the fact that the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for research that ended up in the dossier as reason to discredit it. Scrutiny of the dossier and the government’s reliance on it are also part of a wider GOP effort to look at whether political bias affected the FBI’s and DOJ’s conduct in a series of Obama-era investigations, including the Clinton email probe. In a letter obtained by Fox News last week, Nunes wrote to Rosenstein that the DOJ’s and FBI’s “intransigence” on those subpoenas “can no longer be tolerated,” accusing both agencies of being “disingenuous at best” with the intelligence committee about the existence of documents they had requested. Other Republicans have criticized Nunes’s past threats to issue contempt citations. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whose panel is investigating whether allegations of bias at the FBI affected the Clinton email probe, said last month that he was “interested in getting access to the information and not the drama” when asked about Nunes’s contempt threats. Gowdy strongly suggested that Ryan was also critical of Nunes’s efforts. On Tuesday, the founders of Fusion GPS penned an op-ed in the New York Times pushing back on accusations that the dossier had prompted the DOJ’s and FBI’s scrutiny of Trump’s alleged Russia ties, and accusing Republicans in Congress of perpetuating “fake investigations” into their activities.

Nunes needs to be removed from his position on the House Intelligence Committee and needs to be under investigation himself.   As for the comments of Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, in the piece - which I have not quoted - I think it is time that the South Carolina LGBT community gets the goods on Graham, "outs" him, and ends Trump's ability to possibly blackmail him. 

The Unspoken Truth Behind GOP Opposition to the Iran Deal

Palmetto Queen condemns Iran deal before even reading it

I've made the case that despite the sabre rattling and shrieks of condemnation of the Iran deal brokered by the Obama administration by Congressional Republicans and would be presidential nominees, other than a war with Iran that America would lose - despite assurance from military leaders who proved 100% wrong in Iraq - the GOP loud mouths have no alternative solution.  None. Zero.  A piece in Talking Points Memo looks at this reality and the dishonesty (and insanity in some cases) of the deal's detractors.  Here are highlights:

Diplomacy—specifically, diplomacy with Iran—has always had its adversaries. Ever since the country was declared part of the Axis of Evil, the bottom line for a vocal minority of folks has been that Iran is simply too evil to deal with. . . . At the end of the day, pretending adversaries don’t exist isn’t how a responsible superpower engages with the world—just as we stared down the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, so we chose to do with a belligerent Iranian regime.

The good news is that this agreement doesn’t require us to trust Iran. We’ve locked Iran’s nuclear program in a box, and now we’re putting a camera on it.

Opponents of negotiation—those who have been trying to derail the talks since they began—aren’t acknowledging these incredible victories, but that’s hardly surprising given their peculiar behavior throughout the process. On March 9, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) led 47 other U.S. Senators in sending a letter addressed to the leadership in Iran condescendingly “explaining” America’s constitutional system and promising to undermine any deal struck with the current American administration.

While that might have been the most outrageous stunt, the rhetoric has been equally absurd. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) compared chief negotiator Wendy Sherman to Neville Chamberlain in an ill-advised historical analogy. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) rushed to CNN yesterday morning to denounce the agreement “as a bad deal, the worst possible outcome”…before admitting he hadn’t read it. Would they have stood in the Senate and decried President Reagan’s arms control agreements and written a letter to Gorbachev?

The volume and the noise isn’t just reflexive partisanship designed to grab the spotlight: it also serves to mask the fact that these Senators have no alternative to this deal. At least, no alternative grounded in reality.

Opponents of negotiation often say additional sanctions will force a better deal with the Iranians. But this is a false choice. The current sanctions regime was effective in forcing the Iranians to the table because it involved many of the world’s major powers. Adding sanctions when a deal was in reach would have upended the sanctions regime, which no amount of American sanctions alone could replace.

The uncomfortable (and unpopular) subtext of many opponents’ public statements is clear: Despite the immense amount of blood and treasure spent in Iraq, some have still not learned the lesson that wars in the Middle East fought in the name of nuclear non-proliferation are best avoided if there is a better option.

In discussing alternatives to negotiation, these folks either tend to avoid questions about the need for military action or make an all too familiar “it-would-be-a-slam-dunk” style argument, suggesting that a few days of air strikes would be more effective . . .  Virtually all of America’s serious military experts believe that surgical air strikes would at best set back Iran’s program by a few years.

[P]ursuing military action that will not actually roll back Iran’s program is plainly a worse option than a robust, enforceable agreement that closes off every Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapon. The two thirds of Americans who support tough negotiations over another unnecessary war can only hope that those prone to knee-jerk reactions in the U.S. Senate stand down in the face of this historic agreement.

And as I asked before, would we be hearing these objects if a white Republican had been in the White House and negotiated this deal instead of a black man?  I suspect not.

Palmetto Queen: GOP Is Getting Creamed By Non-White Voters'

As yet undeclared Republican presidential candidate - and closeted gay - Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, today decried the GOP's inability to attract non-white voters and predicted that the GOP would lose the 2016 presidential election absent serious immigration reform.  Immigration reform, of course, is anathema to the Christofascists/white supremacists who control the base of the Republican Party.  A piece in The Hill looks at the Palmetto Queen's plaintive Cassandra act.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) predicted Thursday Republicans will lose the 2016 presidential election without major immigration reform, saying the party is struggling to win minority voters.

“The only way we lose this election is if we beat ourselves and that is very possible, but we are getting creamed with non-white voters,” Graham, a likely 2016 presidential contender, told host Susan Page on USA Today’s “Capital Download.”

“We’ll lose,” he said, if the party doesn't improve its prospects with minorities.

“I mean, we’ve got a big hole we’ve dug with Hispanics,” he added. “We’ve gone from 44 percent of the Hispanic vote [in the 2004 presidential election] to 27 percent [in 2012].

“You’ll never convince me ... it’s not because of the immigration debate,” said Graham.

Graham said he was “98.6 percent sure” he would seek the Oval Office next year. If he does, the South Carolina lawmaker has made up his mind on immigration reform.

“If I were the president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship,” Graham said.

“You would have a long, hard path to citizenship... but I want to create that path because I don’t like the idea of millions of people living in America for the rest of their lives being the hired help,” he added. “That’s not who we are.”

Graham also lashed out at Republicans who believe a secure border is necessary before tackling citizenship for illegal immigrants.

“That’s not practical,” Graham said of addressing the border before amnesty.

Graham also compared Democratic 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“She’s doing a listening tour from North Korea,” he joked of Clinton’s media availability. “There’s more access to him than I think there is to her."

Graham touted his own credentials for the White House.

It goes without saying that the Palmetto Queen's message on immigration reform will not be well received by the GOP base.  Meanwhile, if he runs for the presidency, I hope Graham gets outed. 

Delusional Graham, a/k/a "Palmetto Queen" Thinks He's what GOP needs in 2016

There are times I truly wonder what mind altering drug is being blended into the water that today's Republicans are drinking.  They seem utterly untethered from objective reality and, while professing a worship of "Christian values," they push an agenda that is the antithesis of the Gospel message.  The latest example id Lindsey Graham, a closeted gay Republican know by some as the "Palmetto Queen," who is insanely talking about running for the 20016 GOP presidential nomination.  The man is either totally insane, on drugs or trying to gain media attention.  Politico looks at Graham's bizarre belief that he's presidential candidate material.  Here are highlights:

Blunt-spoken Lindsey Graham is a vocal supporter of the Iraq War, a deal-cutter on immigration and a backer of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.  And that’s the profile the Republican Party needs in its next presidential nominee, he says.

“My party is center right,” Graham told reporters in the Capitol on Thursday. “There’s an element of the left and the right that I don’t think reflects both parties.”

He added: “For those people who believe we are not hard-ass enough on immigration — that we are losing the Hispanic vote because they think we’ve gone soft on immigration — really don’t understand what’s going on in America. A center-right candidacy can prevail in America.”

Graham, 59, who won a third Senate term in November, made his comments Thursday after announcing the formation of an exploratory committee, called “Security through Strength,” to test the waters for a potential 2016 presidential bid. 

Graham is viewed as a long shot to win the GOP nomination. But with the most wide-open presidential field in years — as many as two dozen potential candidates are exploring bids — Graham believes there’s an opening for his blend of conservatism. Specifically, Graham thinks he can bill himself as a bipartisan problem-solver who can appeal to Hispanic voters.

[John} McCain, who has been talking up Graham’s presidential prospects for weeks, said he would “absolutely” consider transferring his entire 2008 presidential campaign infrastructure to a potential Graham run. If Graham runs, McCain said, he would immediately endorse him.

“He’s the dark horse. And you watch him. He’ll be a lot more formidable than anyone thinks at this moment,” McCain said. “There are many supporters of mine who are more than happy to examine his campaign.”

Nancy Boy: Lindsey Graham Gay-Baited in South Carolina GOP Primary

I certainly have no love for GOP Senator Lindsey Graham who I frequently refer to as the "Palmetto Queen" because he strikes me as a closet case.  Apparently, I am not the only one to get the gay vibes from Graham who is facing a primary challenge from the wingnut far right.  As David Mixner notes, the primary is getting nasty and Graham has been gay-baited and called a "Nancy boy," an old derogatory term applied to gays/effeminate men.  While I do not like Graham, a far right Christofascist/Tea Party backed candidate would be even worse if elected.  Here are some post excerpts:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who faces a tough primary from a number of challengers who believe he is too 'liberal' has been 'gay-baited' by one of his opponents. Rumors have been flying for years about the fifty-eight year old Senator has been a 'confirmed bachelor' all his life.

Nancy Mace called the Republican Senator a 'Nancy boy' in a tweet which she then attempted to quickly delete not knowing that once a tweet is sent out it is out there for the public. She should have consulted with Anthony Weiner!

The rumors of Graham's sexuality had become so strong that in 2010 he had to publicly deny that he was gay.

The Carolina Conservatives United says that Graham is too progressive for the folks of the South. Graham has over six million dollars in the bank and at this moment has a comfortable lead in the polls.

A conservative political action committee outs Graham in this video at a speech in Greenville, South Carolina:

Quote of the Day: The American Government’s Persecution of Its Own Citizens

Senator Chuck Schumer

As noted in a post yesterday, a Senate Committee has vote out a comprehensive immigration bill that removed gay couples from being covered under the new immigration reform.  Those voting for approval so that the bill can proceed before the full U.S. Senate included a number of Democrats (including Chuck Schumer pictured above) who pretend to be LGBT allies.  Actions, of course speak louder than words and many of us now know exactly where we stand with these supposed friends.   Andrew Sullivan is directly on target when sums up the attitude of the U.S. government - and the Democrat senators who betrayed us - towards LGBT citizens.  Here are the key quotes:

We saw the still-enormous gap to overcome yesterday as gay couples were removed from being covered under the new immigration reform. The reform tries to include everyone trapped in immigration hell or limbo (and sometimes, trust me, purgatory), but it explicitly excludes only one group of people: gay and lesbian Americans who have taken up the responsibilities of civil marriage.

These people are not immigrants; they are American citizens forced to choose between their country and their spouse. No heterosexual would see that exclusion as anything other than what it is: the American government’s persecution of its own citizens, even as it seeks to ease the plight of its resident non-citizens. And breaking up families or forcing them to move abroad to stay together is more than discrimination. It’s cruelty. It doesn’t get clearer than that. Gay citizens are regarded as less worthy than straight non-citizens by their own Congress.

The quote of the day was from Lindsey Graham: “You’ve got me on immigration. You don’t have me on marriage. If you want to keep me on immigration, let’s stay on immigration.” There are things I would want to say to Butters that only human decency prevents. I wish he’d treat Americans like my husband with a scintilla of such respect.

 As noted in my response to an e-mail ask for money today from the Democratic Senate Campaign, it will be a cold day in Hell before these folks get another dollar from me.  They want our money and they want are votes, but in the final analysis, they don't give a flying f*ck about us.  We need to never forget this sad reality.

On a different note, in 2009, Obama and the Democrats did little to energize the party base.  The result in Virginia was clean sweep by Republicans.  Here we are in 2013 and I am getting the feeling that the national Democrats may be about to repeat 2009 and hand Virginia to the most extreme GOP slate in the state's history.  It makes m feel physically sick. 

 

GOP Leaders Admit Boston Bombing Suspect Cannot Be Tried In Military Tribunal

A prior post noted how the ever disgusting Palmetto Queen, Senator Lindsey Graham wanted suspected Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tried as an enemy combatant and tried before a military tribunal.   Never mind that doing so would violate federal law which prohibits American citizens from being tried by military tribunals.  Graham's principal concern in proposing a violation of federal law was most likely to pander to the knuckle dragging GOP base (see image above) in his home state where he will be up for reelection in 2014.  Sadly, such behavior is all too typical of the supposed leaders of today's GOP.  When in doubt, engage in demagoguery.  The law?  Well it just doesn't matter if ignoring it excites the foulest elements of the GOP base.  A piece in Think Progress looks at the GOP admission that it cannot do what would gain points with the white supremacists and immigrant haters of the party base.  Here are highlights:

On Friday, while the manhunt for suspected Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev continued, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) published a series of tweets suggesting that he wanted to revive the George W. Bush-era debates about whether terrorism suspects can be denied many constitutional rights and tried by a military tribunal. In a statement Graham released yesterday with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Rep. Pete King (R-NY), however, the four conservatives acknowledge that shunting Tsarnaev into a military commission is not a lawful opinion. Tsarnaev is an American, and federal law does not permit U.S. citizens to be tried under the military commissions system.

On CNN this morning, Graham articulated what now appears to be the conservative position on how Tsarnaev should be treated:

GRAHAM: This man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of, and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. That evidence is used to protect us as a nation. Any time we question him about his guilt or innocence, he’s entitled to his Miranda rights and a lawyer, but we have the right under our law — I’ve been a military lawyer for 30 years — to gather intelligence from enemy combatants. And a citizen can be an enemy combatant.

He is not eligible for military commission trial. I wrote the military commission in 2009. He cannot go to military commission.

Graham’s repeated insistence that Tsarnaev be treated as an “enemy combatant” remains concerning. In his statement with McCain, Ayotte and King, Graham claims that people like Tsarnaev can be “held as enemy combatants” — a view which suggests they could be held indefinitely even if they are not convicted by a court of law. Ultimately, however, the question of what would happen if Tsarnaev were not lawfully convicted by a civilian court is likely to be moot, as the evidence against him is very strong.

[T]here is a price if law enforcement or intelligence agents subject Tsarnaev to further interrogation without reading him his rights or permitting him to invoke his rights to remain silent or to have an attorney present. No information obtained in violation of Miranda can be used against Tsarnaev at his trial. Nevertheless, because the evidence against Tsarnaev is already so strong, even before he is questioned, it is likely that the FBI and CIA will be willing to pay this price in order to question this suspect without an attorney present.

I suspect that Graham accomplished his goal of satiating the extremists in the South Carolina GOP base.   Meanwhile, since I find Graham so whining and nasty in general, I could not resist this image I happened upon via MAD Magazine:

Yuck!!!

Lindsey Graham Gets Possible Challenger: Gay GOProud Tea Party Activist

While not at all in the same league as the Vatican buying the apartment block that houses Europe's largest gay sauna, it is nonetheless entertaining to see that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, may be challenged in a GOP primary by a gay man.  It's a case of the closeted queen being challenged by an out queen, albeit one that's a bit ultra far right, who blogs under the name Gay Patriot.  Given the craziness of the South Carolina electorate who knows how it will all shake out.  Here are excerpts from The New Civil Rights Movement:

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham may get a primary challenge from a gay GOProud Tea Party activist. Bruce Carroll, who writes the little-read blog, GayPatriot, and is known on Twitter by that name, announced today he is resigning from GOProud, where he says he was just elected Vice Chairman, to supposedly consider running for the U.S. Senate as a challenger to the two-term junior Senator from South Carolina.

“Over the next few weeks, I will be studying the resources, time and effort it would take to do my part in holding Lindsey Graham accountable for his voting record and his attitude toward the voters in South Carolina,” Carroll writes at GayPatriot, adding: This is important: I do not make major decisions hastily; I will take adequate time to realistically look at all of the evidence (pro and con) and consult with a diverse group of people that I trust and that also have the best interests of South Carolina at heart as I do. 

Carroll’s article was posted at 10:30 AM ET today. A look at his Twitter account (image, above) at about 11:00 AM today shows his bio reads:

America’s leading gay conservative voice. Snarky & controversial. Love my country, my dogs & country music. The next junior Senator from SC.

Palmetto Queen Lindsey Graham: Sacrifice Obamacare To Avoid Sequester

I won't mince my words - not that I do very often - when it comes to announcing my contempt and dislike for GOP closet case Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen (Graham is from South Carolina, the Palmetto State).  The man is despicable and his whispered about closeted life is the least of them. Now, as the economic saboteurs in the Republican Party are offering a compromise on sequestration: sacrifice the Affordable Health Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare - and millions of Americans in need of healthcare - in exchange for a "deal."   Not to beat a dead horse, but it's yet another example of the GOP's overall feigned religiosity and yet actual absolute utter contempt for the Gospel message.  The two are diametrically opposed, plain and simple.  Here are highlights from a piece in Huffington Post:

To avoid a March 1 sequester, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested on Fox News Sunday that Congress save money by cutting the Affordable Care Act instead.

"Here's my belief: Let's take Obamacare and put it on the table," he said. "People are leaving the private sector because their companies can't afford to offer Obamacare. If you want to look at ways to find $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade, let's look at Obamacare. Let's don't destroy the military and just cut blindly across the board."

The White House recently released a fact sheet detailing the devastating effect a sequester could have on the economy if Congress fails to pass spending cuts by March 1, including a reduction in loan guarantees to small businesses by $900 million. The blame, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace pointed out on Sunday, would likely fall on Republicans, who are digging in their heels to protect tax cuts.
Graham said the blame should fall on President Obama, who "came up with the idea of sequestration." 

Graham, being the lying piece of shit that he is conveniently forgets that Congress, not the White House passed the sequestration legislation.   I personally continue to hope that Graham gets "outed" preferable in a storm involving an under aged boy.  The man is simply despicable.

Palmetto Queen, Lindsey Graham Bashes Gays

The hypocrisy of likely closeted GOP queens seems to have no limits.  A case in point, South Carolina's 57 year old,  totally not-gay, never been married U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham.   Isn't it funny how the loudest homophobes - think former Congressman Ed Schrock, former Senator Larry Craig, and of course Ted Haggard - always seem to be the ones caught soliciting or engaging in gay sex on the down-low or in public rest rooms.  A piece at The New Civil Rights Movement looks at the anti-gay bullshit spouted by the Palmetto Queen yesterday.  Here are highlights:

Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham last night used polygamy and murder to define the boundaries of the “debate” on same-sex marriage, just as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used murder and bestiality to define the area of debate in which same-sex marriage should exist.

Invoking issues like murder, bestiality, and polygamy is offensive and wholly facetious, and ”facile,” as Piers Morgan responded. Senator Graham also blamed the media for the public’s embrace of marriage equality, and — when all was said and done — stated he believes the states should have the right to decide who marries and who does not, especially because in his home state of South Carolina, religion is the reason “we’re not going to change the definition of traditional marriage.”

Graham, who says the media paints LGBT people as funny, charming, and kind” — as if that’s problematic — says he doesn’t “hate,” he just feels “traditional marriage” is “best for society,” and challenged CNN host Piers Morgan to pass a constitutional amendment if he wants same-sex couples to be able to marry. Morgan attacked Senators Graham, McCain, and Lieberman as “unAmerican” for their views on marriage equality.

It’s time for more people to have the good sense to take the tone and approach of Princeton freshman Duncan Hosie, who this week won accolades for personally speaking  up — in the same room — to Scalia for his usage of murder, bestiality, and other inappropriate references when discussing the right of same-sex couple to civil marriage.

One can only hope that like Schrock, Craig and Haggard,  Graham will ultimately be "outed" and his rank hypocrisy exposed for all to see.