See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   “Good work, Lindsay! Keep it up and I’ll give you some C-A-N-D-Y!” “Ah, you know I don’t smoke!”
   - Moe and Larry (LISTEN, JUDGE, 1952)

2. #2
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm, b-cat said:

   Hiding his liberalism behind the cloak of meaningless rhetoric.

   All that really matters, Senator, is how you vote. South Carolina, please take note.

3. #3
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm, tre said:

   How in the world did he get re-elected!?

   Vote him out next time!

4. #4
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

   Smartest thing he’s ever done.

5. #5
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm, sonofdy said:

   Ilovemycountry said: I support racist supreme court nominees.

6. #6
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm, b-cat said:

   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

   Just wait til they come for you.

7. #7
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm, sonofdy said:

   Just wait til they come for you.

   Nah he will be one of the ones trying to do the arresting. He will fail. Just like he does in the rest of his life.

8. #8
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm, xblade said:

   Hopefully, voting for an unqualified, racist supreme court nominee will have consequences too, come election time.

9. #9
   On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm, shooter said:

   Didn’t they get a room?

10. #10
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    as gomer would say…surprise surprise surprise…not…a dimwit at best…grow a backbone Senator!! Try standing with the people rather than against them…

    Listen up voters and hand him his pink slip!!!

11. #11
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm, Flyoverman said:

    gag me!

12. #12
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm, Trop said:

    Like it matters? The GOP is impotent.

13. #13
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm, b-cat said:

    Nah he will be one of the ones trying to do the arresting.

    Unless a Hispanic wants the job.

14. #14
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm, Jeddite said:

    Can white males have “inspiring life stories”? I ask because I’ve never owned slaves, or oppressed women and minorities, or other historical travesties of justice and human rights.

    That’s not to say that I think that my life story is “inspiring” (nor do I think such of Sotomayor’s), just that I’m wondering if life stories are automatically “inspiring” by merit of said person being a female, minority, or female minority.

15. #15
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm, 24Klady said:

    shooter#9 – it’s like teenagers driving with their windows rolled down and blasting music all over the neighborhood, oblivious to the fact they’re the only ones that enjoy it. I’m starting to hope lgm shows up

16. #16
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm, rplatt said:

    If they don’t unload that dolt in the next election that state is in trouble.

17. #17
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm, 24Klady said:

    If Lindsay thinks Sotomayor is a roll model of whatever, perhaps we should all join a minority organization like La Raza or MALdef? Lindsay is truly one of the most dense politicians in D.C..

18. #18
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Smartest thing he’s ever done.

    Don’t tell his wife that.

19. #19
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Whew! I thought you said Lindsay WAGNER was voting for Sotomayor. Now THAT would have been a surprise. And very disappointing. Graham is just another of McCain’s cross-dressing assistant Democrat pals.

    Did the senator giggle when he made his declaration?

20. #20
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Dear Lindsay Grlyman,
    Sonia Sotomayor’s “extraordinary record of academic achievement,” and “great work ethic” will only get you 95% there (according to our illustrious POTUS). It’s those 5% of ‘hard’ cases where she will apply her racist empathy that is the problem. You are correct, however, in that votes have consequences. I’m hoping your vote will as well.

21. #21
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm, Ragspierre said:

    I can’t imagine anyone with integrity voting for Judge Sotomayor.

    She certainly displayed that she has no integrity of her own.

    She amply displayed a truly mediocre legal mind.

    We know, despite her dissembling, that she is a racial bigot and a sexist.

    What possible reason could one find to elevate her to the Supreme Court?

22. #22
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm, Hangfire said:

    I’m surprised that Obama (peace be upon him) doesn’t just declare her a Legal Czar and appoint her to the Supreme Court.

23. #23
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    The Republicans voting for Sotomayor are doing so for political reasons, not because they think she is a good Supreme Court justice. You can point out the facts the them all day long and they’ll still vote for her. If the political landscape was such that they considered voting against her was a better political move, they’d vote against her.

    This is why many in the political class are so disgusting. They aren’t voting based on what’s best for America. They are voting on what they think is best for their own political careers.

    Quite disgusting and quite incestuous.

24. #24
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm, California Red said:

    Elections do have consequences. We are not going to get a conservative appointment from Obama. This nominee has a tolerable record and with 60 Democratic votes in the Senate Republican no votes are irrelevant. Why use all the ammunition on this fight? Why hang the rope of “Republican’s hate Hispanics” around our necks? Ever hear of you picking and choosing your battles?

    I think voting against Sotomayor is a losing proposition for Republicans. Grahams position makes sense to me.

25. #25
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm, Texhoma said:

    The idiots in SC reelected him in 2008 and now the entire country must suffer with his knife stuck in our backs.

26. #26
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “I think voting against Sotomayor is a losing proposition for Republicans. Grahams position makes sense to me.”

    Sorry but it makes sense to only hold on to one’s principles if you are going to win? If you are going to lose, its okay to give up your values?

27. #27
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm, Rorschach said:

    Word is now that Sotomayor may have committed perjury during her confirmation hearings, and may have committed fraud and conspiracy while on the Federal Bench.

28. #28
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm, Durangodarlin said:

    Most likely, it’s all about the money that Graham has received and will receive from La Raza.

29. #29
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm, spaceycakes said:

    “It rubs the lotion on the skin–or else it gets the hose again!”

30. #30
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    You folks are funny – because you pull the victim crap real easy.

    If you don’t like Ameica, go cry in Iran.

31. #31
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm, Flyoverman said:

    I think voting against Sotomayor is a losing proposition for Republicans.

    If you think voting for Sotomayer will prevent Latinos from voting Democrat, you are dreaming.

    So what’s next, vote for open borders, healthcare for illegals, Social Security for illegals? Where does it end? What is the price in principles jsut to win?

    Your logic reminds of the story of the man, who was talking at length to a good looking woman at a cocktail party.

    The man asked, “Theoretically, would you sleep with me for two million dollars?

    The woman thought about it and said, “Two million? I suppose for two million I would.”

    The man responded, “Well, would you sleep with me for two dollars?”

    “TWO DOLLARS!” the woman exclaimed, “WHAT do you THINK I am?”

    The man answered, “You established that when you answered the first question. Now we are just haggling over price.”

32. #32
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

    Its hard to believe we have Demint on one side and Graham on the other. Graham needs to switch parties. Hope we run im out of SC. He is a disgrace!!!

33. #33
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm, Jeddite said:

    We’d better not ever make English the official language – as opposed to the de facto offical language that it is – of this nation; might anger the latino vote

34. #34
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm, Flyoverman said:

    If you don’t like Ameica, go cry in Iran.

    If I do, when I get there I’ll stop by your house and take you out to lunch.

35. #35
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    “Do we want to exclude nominees that are bold? Edgy?”

    Misguided? Racist? Whatever, Sir.

    Grahamnesty strikes again.

36. #36
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm, sonofdy said:

    Ilovemycountry said: I REALLY support racist judges and you are racists for not agreeing with me.

37. #37
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm, 24Klady said:

    ILMC #30
    Are you listening to those voices in your head again, or did your secret decoder ring send out a bogus message?

    Victim, Iran, and Sotomayor? Whew…

38. #38
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm, California Red said:

    What are the principles that Republicans need to adhere to on this issue? The President won the election and has enough Senate support for this nominee to be confirmed.

    Sure, I don’t like the fact that identiy politics dominates the Supreme Court nomination process, but tell me that Republican’s didn’t do the same thing with Harriet Meyers (woman for a woman) and Clarence Thomas (balck for a black).

    How about we just accept that we lost the election and Barack gets his nominee.

    The real battle ain’t in the Senate over Sotomayor, it is in the election booths in 2010 and 2012. What is your strategy to win there?

    Sticking to your principles sometimes means letting go of partisan biases that are not supported by substance.

    The Republican party comes across (is portrayed) an exlcusive club not friendly to minorities. That, my friends, is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I am not advocating pandering or selling out conservative principles. I just think the party does a terrible job of rebuking the ridiculous notion that the Democrats are the party for the disaffected and disadvantaged minoroites in the country. A vote against Sotomayor plays right into that and accomplishes nothing.

39. #39
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm, NC BLUE said:

    This tool supports loser McLame all the time. He just stood up for being a loser too. He was an Air Force Staff Judge Advocate–guess he was deprogrammed when he became a Senator. Adios MF!!!!!

40. #40
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    I think voting against Sotomayor is a losing proposition for Republicans.

    Everything seems to be a losing proposition for Republicans if it means having to stand for something. Why don’t they just get the operation and becoming card-carrying Democrats and have it over with?

41. #41
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm, James Felix said:

    You folks are funny – because you pull the victim crap real easy.

    I don’t see anyone here trying to “pull victim crap”. I see people complaining that Senator is utterly bereft of principles and more interested in pandering than doing his job.

    If you don’t like Ameica, go cry in Iran.

    You say things like this a lot, ILMC, and I have the same answer today that I have every other time: make us. Honestly I’d love to see you try, it would be refreshing to watch a liberal actually fight for something.

42. #42
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm, ScottyDog said:

    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm, California Red said:

    Elections do have consequences. We are not going to get a conservative appointment from Obama. This nominee has a tolerable record and with 60 Democratic votes in the Senate Republican no votes are irrelevant. Why use all the ammunition on this fight? Why hang the rope of “Republican’s hate Hispanics” around our necks? Ever hear of you picking and choosing your battles?

    I think voting against Sotomayor is a losing proposition for Republicans. Grahams position makes sense to me.

    So, if you think voting for Sotomayor makes sense then you would probably vote for David Duke to sit on the court as well..right?

43. #43
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm, bjc said:

    *My gaydar says Grahamnesty would look better in a dress than Sotomayor.
    *Grahamnesty never met a principle he wouldn’t soon abandon; He should set off with the other RINO’s like Colin Powell and start a third party, the Pantywaist Party.

44. #44
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm, traveler49 said:

    My BIG eyeball was opened up on Graham back with McShamnesty. I detest him more than I do Chauncey. Just think, we could have elected his clone (Mc Shame) but for all those undecideds that went for Chauncey. At least with Chauncey, we will get the revolution on instead of dying by the 1000 cuts we get from the likes of our Republican traitors.

    On a positive note, I’ve discovered a squash that beats the heck out the typical summer squashes like zucchini, crookneck etc. It’s called coos coos. I will be stocking up on those seeds for sure.

45. #45
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm, Salt said:

    On July 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm, California Red said:

    What are the principles that Republicans need to adhere to on this issue? The President won the election and has enough Senate support for this nominee to be confirmed.

    Your statement suggests that you believe Sotomayor is qualified for the job. Conservatives here disagree.

    Republican senators should vote on whether or not they believe Sotomayor belongs on the court, not to appease the President because “[he] won”.

    If there is enough Senate support for the candidate, it shouldn’t matter if Republicans vote according to their belief, right? Or is it your contention that with a 60 seat (sort of) majority, the Republicans should just do whatever the President wishes?

    Sure, I don’t like the fact that identiy politics dominates the Supreme Court nomination process, but tell me that Republican’s didn’t do the same thing with Harriet Meyers (woman for a woman) and Clarence Thomas (balck for a black).

    Many here disliked the Harriet Meyers selection. She’s also not on the court, largely because of that. The fact that you believe that Clarence Thomas was nominated because he was black suggests you’ve missed the point.

    How about we just accept that we lost the election and Barack gets his nominee.

    What does this even mean? This is a supreme court justice we’re discussing. On how many other topics should Republicans just bury their heads because President Obama won? Would you ever expect to hear this kind of attitude from the Democrat side?

    The real battle ain’t in the Senate over Sotomayor, it is in the election booths in 2010 and 2012. What is your strategy to win there?

    The strategy shouldn’t include ignoring the politics of today and the SCOTUS seat that will not be a part of either election.

    Sticking to your principles sometimes means letting go of partisan biases that are not supported by substance.

    To which complaints are you referring? Her identity-group jurisprudence? Her reputation for bullying counsel? An undistinguished record with more rulings overturned than upheld by the Supreme Court?

    Those biases?

    The Republican party comes across (is portrayed) an exlcusive club not friendly to minorities. That, my friends, is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

    So, you believe this portrayal is an issue within the party and not at all associated with liberal media constantly suggesting this through misleading or false claims. You suggest that the answer to this is to simply kowtow to whatever President Obama wishes in an effort to be more liked by liberals?

    I am not advocating pandering or selling out conservative principles. I just think the party does a terrible job of rebuking the ridiculous notion that the Democrats are the party for the disaffected and disadvantaged minoroites in the country. A vote against Sotomayor plays right into that and accomplishes nothing.

    A blind vote for Sotomayor underscores that their strategy is working. I doubt you believe there will be less of this in the future if Republicans simply give up.

    Besides which, what purpose does any Republican legislator serve if he’s afraid of Democrat smears. If the Senator cannot vote according to his principles because he’s too afraid of being labeled by the MSM, he’s too timid for the job and shouldn’t be there.

46. #46
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm, traveler49 said:

    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm, California Red said: This nominee has a tolerable record

    Tolerable if you’re not a white firefighter from New Jeresey that is.

47. #47
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm, stillontheroad said:

    bjc said:

    Or Simpering Fop party.

48. #48
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm, traveler49 said:

    Let me rephrase that. Tolerable if you’re not a white man.

49. #49
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    He was an Air Force Staff Judge Advocate

    Staff Judge Advocate = Lawyer
    Need I say more?

50. #50
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm, traveler49 said:

    Actually the only way she would be tolerable is if you were a brown skinned racist.

51. #51
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm, James Felix said:

    What are the principles that Republicans need to adhere to on this issue? The President won the election and has enough Senate support for this nominee to be confirmed.

    The principles to be adhered to here are respect for the Constitution and a race-neutral view of the law, neither of which this nominee has. Just because the President has enough votes to confirm doesn’t obligate us to agree.

    Sure, I don’t like the fact that identiy politics dominates the Supreme Court nomination process, but tell me that Republican’s didn’t do the same thing with Harriet Meyers (woman for a woman) and Clarence Thomas (balck for a black).

    And we successfully opposed Meyers too. That’s what happens when you value a principle, it makes you willing to fight for it against anyone, regardless of party.

    How about we just accept that we lost the election and Barack gets his nominee.

    Again, just because he has the votes doesn’t mean we have to go along with it. And what if we applied your logic to everything? Just because this huckster won are we obligated to let him remake the whole country in his image? Screw that. It’s our country too, and we still get a say, no matter who won the election.

    The real battle ain’t in the Senate over Sotomayor, it is in the election booths in 2010 and 2012. What is your strategy to win there?

    Well, I say we keep on doing what we’re doing. After all, a willingness to meet the Left in the middle and nominate non-conservatives has allowed us to retain the Presidency and all but swept the Democrats out of Congress.

    Oh, wait… that’s not what happened. It turns out that rolling over or, even worse, trying to out-Dem the Dems has only gotten us shoved into the political wilderness.

    The Republican party comes across (is portrayed) an exlcusive club not friendly to minorities. That, my friends, is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I am not advocating pandering or selling out conservative principles.

    It sure sounds like you are.

    I just think the party does a terrible job of rebuking the ridiculous notion that the Democrats are the party for the disaffected and disadvantaged minoroites in the country.

    And do you know why it does such a terrible job? Because of people like you. People who are too afraid to say “This woman is unacceptable because she is a racist, and she judges like a racist. We wouldn’t accept that in a white man, and we won’t accept it here.”

    But instead of making and defending that principled argument you’d rather go along to get along. And where had that gotten us?

    A vote against Sotomayor plays right into that and accomplishes nothing.

    And getting on the Senate floor to spout false platitudes about this terrible nominee accomplishes even less.

52. #52
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm, traveler49 said:

    Or a RINO.

53. #53
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm, Weary Citizen said:

    What a surprise. Senator Grahamnesty supports a “wise latina”. This guy typifies everything that is wrong with the GOP. I still can’t beleive SC re-elected this clown after calling the vast majority of Americans biggots for not supporting amnesty. Please switch parties and be done with it already.

54. #54
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Sticking to your principles sometimes means letting go of partisan biases that are not supported by substance.

    \

    Maybe one of the most nonsensical comments I have ever read…..

55. #55
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    California Red said:
    …A vote against Sotomayor plays right into that and accomplishes nothing.

    IMHO a vote against Sotomayor will have a more positive effect than negative.

    I believe that a republican showing true conservative values and voting against Sotomayor will retain “third party” voters. On the other hand, a republican voting for Sotomayor will lose “third party” voters and very likely gain NO additional Hispanic voters.

    The “republicans are anti-minority” image is a media / academia image that is not supported by facts. Did the republicans gain anything by supporting Alberto Gonzales? Did the democrats loose anything by viciously attacking him?

    Republicans need to stay conservative and become more media savvy.

56. #56
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    California Red: I am not advocating pandering or selling out conservative principles.

    No…you don’t favor selling “selling out conservative principles.” You want to ~give~ them away, you RINO puke.

    (Love your screen name…it is perfect for you.)

57. #57
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    After comments like this from morons like Graham I am convinced that it is not just water that flows out of the drinking fountains in the US Senate.

    Graham is an idiot. He was probably an idiot before he got to the Senate but he is definitely a bigger idiot after being there all this time.

    Georgetown law professor Mike Seidman writes:

    I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …

    http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.30/default.asp

58. #58
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm, California Red said:

    Ha Ha. I am glad that my comments sparked such passionate replies, but I laugh at the insults from people that don’t even know me.

    you RINO puke.

    Last Mass. Conservative, Salt, and James Felix all made convincing rational points without resorting to name calling.

    My point (I guess poorly made) was that regardless of how I feel about this nominee’s qualifications, she will be confirmed. Maybe rather than make hay about it we should simply move on for the sake of not playing into the anti-minority narrative. The most effectinve counter argument to this was made by several who suggested that the media will not give the Republican’s any goodwill coverage for supporting Sotomayor.

    By the way Ignatius Reilly, it is your hostile attitude towards anyone that doesn’t think exactly like you that is puke worthy.

59. #59
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm, MacEamonn said:

    “elections have consequences.”

    It’s time to remind all the Senators and Representatives in Washington that their “votes have consequences” and there will be a reckoning the next time they stand for election. We’ve got to start “throwing the bums out” if we’re ever going to save this country!

60. #60
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Of course Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed. If she came out tomorrow dressed as a man, put on 75 pounds overnight, announced her marriage to another woman and a goat, lit up a joint, snorted a couple lines of coke, announced her meth lab had burned down overnight while she was making pedophile porn flicks staring her adopted white child she would still get confirmed by the bunch of idiots in the Senate.

    Who just said “elections have consequences?” It has never been more true than between 2008 and 2010…

61. #61
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    Good points, California Red.

    I am sure that apologists for Lidsey Graham and advocates of trimming principled positions to suck up to minorities as a political trick don’t deserve to be called RINOs. (sarcasm)

    What is wrong with shouting to the world that Miguel Estrada was our man and the corrupt Dems chose to play race politics and deny him even a vote? But instead, you want to place nice and court favor from the press while cooperating with the Dems’ duplicity? Oh, yea…I understand…right out of the McCain/Graham playbook.

    You ~are~ a RINO puke, judging by your opinions put forward here. Of course, you would be a little befuddled by anyone who calls a spade a spade because that is not the way you worms operate.

62. #62
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    The only thing Sotomayor might do to derail her confirmation would be to confess that she admired Clarence Thomas and considered him a brilliant legal scholar and was hoping to follow in his footsteps on SCOTUS. That or say something nice about Dick Cheney.

    That would be the end of her…

63. #63
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm, California Red said:

    What is wrong with shouting to the world that Miguel Estrada was our man and the corrupt Dems chose to play race politics and deny him even a vote?

    Nothing. That is something I support 100% as evidenced by my original statement:
    

    the party does a terrible job of rebuking the ridiculous notion that the Democrats are the party for the disaffected and disadvantaged minoroites in the country.

64. #64
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm, shooter said:

    Allah’s got the video, in case you need an emetic.

    more likely an ENEMA as deep as this xxxx is…..
    or maybe even both.

65. #65
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 5:44 pm, vickisoup said:

    Well, so much for, “It takes one to know one”.
    “Bold and edgy” sure as heck doesn’t describe Graham!
    More like “scared and whiney”.
    Ew.
    I don’t like that man.
    

66. #66
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm, michele hampton said:

    I told you so a couple of weeks ago on this site; Lindsey Graham is a fraud, he needs to be gone when he comes up for re-election!

67. #67
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Yes, I am sure the truly conservative leaders of the GOP will toss aside Lindsay Grahamnesty and allow a true conservative to run in his place just like they did in Pennsylvania with Arlin Specter. Oh, wait…

68. #68
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm, flaming_o said:

    “Do we want to exclude nominees that are bold? Edgy?”

    On July 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm, b-cat said:

    Hiding his liberalism behind the cloak of meaningless rhetoric.

    Meaningless perfectly describes Lindsay Graham’s spew. “Edgy” is a word I’ve never taken a liking to. It’s the most meaningless, vapid, imprecise adjective anyone can apply to anything. It’s linguistic junk. BLECHHH!!!

    If this is the best Graham can say about this nominee, double-BLECHHH!!!

69. #69
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    you can let the not so good Senator know how you feel via his web site contact form…

    http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham

70. #70
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm, Dimsdale said:

    If Sotomayor is “bold and edgy”, then I guess Graham is limp and wimpy by comparison.

    What a gutless, spineless jerk.

71. #71
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm, symrian said:

    Is it just me, or do the words “elections have consequences”, when spoken by Lindsey Graham, sound an awful lot like “How dare you conservative rubes not vote for us and try to hold us to account? We’re going to do things you don’t like even more than we once did”?

    As for what to do about Graham, the Official Maverick Lapdog? How about we cost his owner, John McCain, his seat in 2010? It will be fun to watch Graham stare blankly at the walls for four years because his only source of thought and action was removed from the Senate.

72. #72
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm, orlandocajun said:

    On July 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm, michele hampton said:

    I told you so a couple of weeks ago on this site; Lindsey Graham is a fraud, he needs to be gone when he comes up for re-election!

    Sorry Michele but Grahamnesty just got re-elected for six more years in November by the good sheeple of South Carolina. Like the morons in Philly re-elected Murtha, there’s no fixing stupid.

73. #73
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 8:51 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    CONSERVATIVES will only win elections when CONSERVATIVES voters vote for CONSERVATIVES candidates.

    We know which candidates aren’t CONSERVATIVES. Stop voting for them and we will win.

    Everybody on this site should go to the link above for Grahamnesty and send him a note to let him know we will be doing what we can to defeat RINOs like him and McCain on the next time around.

    Just sent this to Grahamnesty:

    Your decision to support a radically left-wing nominee like Judge Sotomayor is indefensible. I am a native-born South Carolinian currently living in Virginia and I will be doing everything I can to encourage a truly conservative candidate to run against you in the next primary in South Carolina.

    As long as people like you represent the GOP you will not get a cent or a vote from conservatives like me.

    Do the right thing and vote against this socialist, leftist jurist. Do the right thing and vote in the best interested of the good people of South Carolina.

74. #74
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Got this automated form letter from Graham. He, like all the rest of them, don’t give a DAMN what we think about any given issue.

    Of course, I requested a written reply at the web site. I am sure I will get a similarly worded form letter mailed at taxpayer expense.

    I’d like to know how anything that has been done so far has helped in any way to further the goals he mentioned in the third paragraph of his is form letter. So far, everything done in this Congress has had the opposite effect.

    Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you.

    Due to the large volume of mail I receive, I regret that I am only able to respond personally to inquiries from South Carolinians.

    As we continue our work in the 111th Congress, I look forward to supporting our troops in the War on Terror, repairing our economy and creating jobs, strengthening Social Security, lowering the tax burden on American families, and making the federal government more accountable and efficient.

    If your correspondence pertains to a scheduling request, please fax your request to (202) 224-3808.

    Sincerely,

    Lindsey Graham

75. #75
    On July 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm, Sean said:

    Lindsay Shamnisty has always cared more about the wise latina voters who voted for Obama and will never vote for him no matter how hard is kisses their ass. Lets hope he gets a real primary fight next time he up for re-election.

76. #76
    On July 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 am, karl9000 said:

    For a pantywaist like Graham, “bold” and “edgy” have real squishy meanings…

77. #77
    On July 24th, 2009 at 11:03 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Grahamnesty thinks he can do anything he wants, the people of SC reelected him AFTER he called them bigots for wanting the laws enforced.

    So, I guess he can.