Obama and Graham's immigration spat

Lindsey Graham is one of whiney little Neocon pukes who went to Baghdad with McCain a few weeks back and proclaimed that it was safe there now.

Until the Republican Party rids itself of these partisan Neocon goons they're going to continue to lose elections.

"They exchanged words when Obama tried to weaken one of the most controversial parts of the bill,"

Is this one of the Swamp "love letters" Bruce/Former Leftist/JFK Democrate and John D always complain about. Seems like the author's bias bleeds thru in this line, but it is not proBama. But I won't be lame and attack the messenger. It's facts that I care about, not to what political party I think the reporter may belong.

Obama was wrong. He believes in open borders and free immigration. Many Republicans stuck their heads out to get an immigration bill and Obama put forth his dingy amendment. Just more proof this nation would be in harm's way with a President Obama.

And I see John E woke up today to "cheer up" the world with his usual nonsensical filth. But what will Johnny E do when the GOP wins in 2008?

In the real (not "John E.") world, Republicans have long since written off Lindsey Graham as just a junior version of John McCain.

That being said, Obama falling out with his putative ally, dancing-with-the-Democrats Graham, shows just how flawed this bill was and why the leadership felt they had to rush it through.

"...GOP wins in '08"

Yeah, just like all you nutty neocons said would happen in '06.

Lies and the lieing losers.

John E posted (above):

"Lindsey Graham is one of whiney little Neocon pukes who went to Baghdad with McCain a few weeks back and proclaimed that it was safe there now."

"Until the Republican Party rids itself of these partisan Neocon goons they're going to continue to lose elections."

Dear John E,

It is truly a rare thing indeed, but I must completely agree with you this time. Neo-cons aren't conservatives, and they do not represent anything resembling core American values or traditions. If you read Congressman Ron Paul's speech on the House floor (entitled "Neo-conned!") one would have to conclude they are - dare I say it? - Fascists.

John D posted (above):

"Obama was wrong. He believes in open borders and free immigration. Many Republicans stuck their heads out to get an immigration bill and Obama put forth his dingy amendment. Just more proof this nation would be in harm's way with a President Obama.

And I see John E woke up today to "cheer up" the world with his usual nonsensical filth. But what will Johnny E do when the GOP wins in 2008?"

Dear John D,

You may be right about Obama, but John E is also right about Lindsey Graham and all others in Congress who continue to support this form of immigration "reform." They are a sell out to conservatives and their own country. We can do better with "real" conservatives, and not these marionettes.

John W,

You're (GOP) not going to get rid of them (Neocons) until you lose a few elections and people on the inside of the party (you) excise them.

Goodluck to you and people like you and quit being intimidated by those chickenhawk Neocon frauds.

John W,

I am utterly heartened every time I hear Ron Paul speak. Its been so long since a Republican spoke in coherent and complete sentences, and was willing to state the painfully obvious. I clearly do not agree with his more radical suggestions (gold standard, abolish the IRS...) but in Mr. Paul we finally have a politician who is willing to challenge the conventional wisdom I call Bushism.

Awhile back you optimistically wrote that George Bush is not a true conservative (agreed), and then made the leap that once he leaves office the Republican Party will right itself back towards its roots. I'm still wondering what exactly gives you this optimism.

With the very notable exception of Congressman Paul, the 9 other GOP nominees are all strict adherents to Bushism. Note frontrunner Mayor Giuliani's scathing criticism and demands of a retraction for Paul's statement that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 for our actions, not because of the Bushism that "they hate us for our freedoms." (the 9/11 Commission backs up Ron Paul's assertion, Mr. Giuliani should do some homework) Note his and other candidates incessant fear-mongering (they're trying to kill you they're trying to kill you they're trying to kill you and only I can protect you). Whatever happened to the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?

Note the ongoing efforts to remove Mr. Paul from the debates because he is not a "true" Republican. Note Mitt Romney's suggestion to double the size of Guantanamo, which sounds mighty macho (gag) but not very likely to win any hearts and minds. Note that Ron Paul is the only candidate who refutes the notion of the justice of an American nuclear pre-emptive first strike against a nation that hasn't attacked us. Note the endless "us vs them" mentality, one of the most insidious devices of the Bush Administration. Note the 3 candidates who DENY Darwinian evolution (one is materially unqualified to lead the free world if they cannot accept the scientific communities unanimous acceptance of micro and macro evolution. There are so many important issues facing the country that the idea that the nation wastes even one iota of energy debating evolution is an appalling waste of national energy.)

Who besides Ron Paul is saying what many smart people have been saying all along: the Iraq War was not just a failure of execution (it was also a huge failure of execution) but the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. We could rerun Iraq 100 times and we'd lose out every time, because you can't import democracy at the barrel of a gun (assuming, I would say speciously, that that was really what we were trying to do there), because the lid was kept on Iraq by a brutal murderer who nonetheless served American interests as a strong counterweight to our largest national threat, Iran, because its not the business of the United States to micromanage the affairs of sovereign nations, because Saddam was verifiably not reconstituting a nuclear program and was therefore at best a minor threat to our security, because 9/11 had nothing to do whatsoever with Iraq or Saddam (accept for the connection between US military forces based in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no-fly zone and Bin Laden's original fatwa against America), because the war in Iraq diverted significant blood and treasure from the fight against Al Qaeda, because American intervention in the Middle East has consistently inspired more not less terrorism, etc. etc. etc.

With the exception of Mr. Paul, the GOP party line trumpets the true but incomplete picture that "Bush blew it."

Who, besides Congressman Paul, is making a serious break from Bushism? I hope you are right to be optimistic, John, not because I am a Republican (I'm a progressive) but because a sane Republican party is good for America, whether they win in '08 or not.

Mr. James, In the first snetence of your resport, Sen. Graham of South Carolina is listed as being a Democrat. He is a Republicam. Please have someone make the needed correction ASAP (most Democrats do not wish to be associated with the likes of Sen. Graham, even if he is far from the worst of the Senate Republicans).

Giving points for education is wrong for two reasons: it drains the brains of other countries which contributes to those countries ineffectiveness and which, thereby, makes the U.S. even more inticing to enter illegally; it hurts Americans who want the jobs that will go to foreign workers for less. It's about pay, not ability. We Americans can see that; we're not THAT stupid.

Giving points for family relations is also a bad deal. A fairer way would be on a first come basis that includes a lottery.

Here's how it would work. Potential immigrants apply. The first one thousand names are put into a hat and a name is drawn. The second one thousand names are put in a hat and a name is drawn. And so on. Potential immigrants cannot apply more than once. There is no cost for applying.

Next issue.

P.S. I like Lindsey Graham but he is a sissy. He was against impeachment before he was for it. Then he skipped with McCain into Baghdad. Yeah, I know he served. But he was a lawyer. It's not like he was a tanker.

Go, tankers!

Bud McFarlin,

KC-135s? :)

In relevant part, Bryan wrote (above):

"Awhile back you optimistically wrote that George Bush is not a true conservative (agreed), and then made the leap that once he leaves office the Republican Party will right itself back towards its roots. I'm still wondering what exactly gives you this optimism."

Dear Bryan,

Don't wonder. I'm not basing my optimism on any particular politician or candidate. I base my optimism on the American people and their ability to do the right thing once the truth is brought out into the light of day. More and more conservatives are becoming disaffected by Bush and his neo-con entourage. They feel cheated by Bush’s decidedly un-conservative spending, as well as his un-conservative big government and foreign interventionist policies.

More and more Americans (and not just conservatives) feel threatened by big government and its ability to morph into the machinery of big brother on a moment’s notice. George W. Bush has given us a glimpse of what a real Big Brother can look like, and most do not like what they see.

This is why I see more people voting to reject neo-cons and their decidedly un-American agendum. This is why I believe any politician who seeks to replicate or represent the neo-con ideology is doomed. Either that, or you will see a new political party emerge from the ashes of the Republican Party.

P.S. Using the words “Bushism” and “wisdom” in the same sentence sets up an oxymoron.

Forget histrionics: Where's the fence?

John W,

So are you acknowledging that, short of Ron Paul, the GOP nominee in 2008 is toast?

John W,

So are you acknowledging that, short of Ron Paul, the GOP nominee in 2008 is toast?

Posted by: Bryan | June 8, 2007 5:19 PM

Dear Bryan,

It is way too early to tell. It could turn out that the nominee won't be one of the 10 candidates who took part in the debates. The front runners in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns were no-shows at nomination time. So who can tell the GOP will eventually nominate?

Still, someone like Paul would be nice.

P.S.

Did I use Bushism and wisdom in the same sentence? If so it was surely meant ironically.

Do you think Fred Thompson is the real deal? I'm pretty skeptical that a man known for a lax work ethic would be a wise successor of a president who makes sure to get to bed by 9 o'clock every night.