In speaking to David Kirkpatrick for a piece in the New York Times’ ongoing (and going, and going. . .) series “The Long Run,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) contributes to the ever-growing list of leading Republicans’ attempts to dismiss the illegal abuse of detainees at Guatanamo Bay as little more than a mild discomfort or a puckish hazing ritual.

[McCain] likes trading jokes about colleagues with a small group of friends that includes Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. . . . Entertaining guests at his property in Sedona, Ariz., [McCain] invariably drags them for long walks to indulge his passion for bird watching. “If you took all the people at Gitmo, put them in the cabin for the weekend and made them listen to John talk about the birds, they would all spill their guts.” Mr. Graham said.

   
I will agree with Lindsey Graham on one point: listening to John McCain speak is unfailingly tedious—however. . .

Time to hammer this bullshit hard:

The McCain campaign, which has said it doesn't question Obama's patriotism, is now doing something awfully similar: Claiming that Barack Obama and the Democrats are dedicated to losing the war for their own political benefit.

The new accusation was unveiled on a McCain campaign conference call moments ago, with top McCain surrogates making this charge in tandem.

This is absolute shameful bullshit.  If the MSM thought that their twisted version of Wes Clark's comments were bad, claiming that Obama and Democrats WANT the U.S. to lose in Iraq (or anywhere) is the height of slander.  So does that mean that all Democratic war veterans want America to lose -- even those who fought in Iraq?  Does the McCain campaign think that Obama and his supporters are rooting for casualties?

Congress must act now.

Think Progress reports that Karl Rove has left the country just before he was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

Rove skips out.

The Committee voted 7-1 to reject his claim of executive privilege.  Rep. Sanchez indicates that the Committee will take up contempt proceedings no earlier than the end of the month.

I believe that's a mistake.  The Committee, and the full Congress must vote on contempt now.

"...Finally -- and most curiously -- John McCain inexplicably showed up in Colombia around the time of the "rescue."

Officer Barbrady sez... "nothing to see here folks, move along now... Just a Co-Inky-Dink folks !!

and (for MikeTheLiberal)

"Coincidence doesn't just happen." -- Homer Simpson

On Face the Nation yesterday, Senators John Kerry and Lindsay Graham made an appearance, as surrogates for the Obama and McCain campaigns, respectively.  And I have to say, the debate wasn't even close.  Read the transcript and see what I mean.  Graham was reduced to sputtering out tired talking points (yeah, for the umpteenth time we know Obama hasn't attended a dog and pony show in Iraq for two years) while Kerry gave a lesson on the long and complex histories of the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, and ... John McCain.  Although the media is working over time carrying water for their favorite "maverick", Kerry's clear spoken language on what is going on with the Republicans is exactly the right message not only for Barack Obama, but for our Congressional candidates as well.

update: title changed from Stop GOP Oil Mania:National Monument Designation Could Save Ecosystem

A coral ecosystem exists off the southeast coast that is roughly the size of the land area of South Carolina.  

Economically, that ecosystem:

1. Provides food for Millions of Americans

2. Protects our coasts from Hurricanes and Nor'easters(like a winter Hurricane)

3. Protects our ports like Savannah, Wilmington, Morehead City (supports a Marine base) and the nation's most important Hampton Roads where the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay guarding Norfolk Navy Yards, Portsmouth, Newport News and Baltimore.  (Newport News is where the large Navy ships are built like Air Craft carriers)

4. Provides Millions of jobs to American by providing fisheries, deep water ports (including the US Navy's biggest base), tourism nand forestry (much of the USA's pulp wood is grown in the coastal Southeast).

Why even worry about protecting something so important to the well being of the United States of America.  Surely NO USA CITIZEN would threaten such a valuable National Treasure.

Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC). We know him very well, don't we? Well, I happened upon his senate web-site today to see what the old Bush neocon enabler was up to, and low and behold, he was in full attack mode against our presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. Grab a bag of popcorn and a cream pie(or cowpie) and follow me under the fold. You're going to love this one folks.

I'm watching the Russert-less "Meet The Press," and I am sorely disappointed that Brian Williams isn't showing a bit of objectivity so far.  Fulfilling my sig line, Williams hasn't laid a glove on McCain so far, while beating Obama's surrogate Sen. Joe Biden over the head with quotes from Liz Sidoti and David Brooks.  Following up, the Harwood-Mitchell "press" group is continuing to pass on their line that "it's tight, Obama should be doing better, blah blah blah." That's not my biggest problem, though.

It's Sen. Lindsey Huckleberry Graham.

Huckleberry Graham said, and I quote, "I want a president who doesn't try to unilaterally tell his neighbors what to do."

Oh? Really? That's what you believe? That's your position?

Let the fun begin after the jump....

Just announced at the end of this week's broadcast. Brokaw will host through this year's election. I assume this means that during this time the management at NBC will look for the permanent new host.

And on this week's edition, Lindsey Graham was such a tool for McCain. He kept calling Obama jello because he was all over the place. I guess Graham was inspired in metaphors by McCain's green screen speech on the night Obama clinched.

I wanted to yell at Biden for not hammering Graham on the campaign finance "flip-flop". Biden never mentioned that Obama stopped all PAC/lobbyist contributions to the DNC.

Our prayers and condolences go out to the family and staff of MSNBC's Tim Russert, host of "Meet The Press." Tim's passing on June 13 shocked us, and he will be missed.  

For those of you who don't already know, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams will fill in as host of "Meet The Press" until a permanent host is announced.

Tune in this Sunday, June 22, as he interviews former Democratic presidential candidate, and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joe Biden, and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Topics will include the Iraq war, the U.S. economy and rising gas prices.

No one can fill Tim Russert's shoes, but as they say in show biz, "the show must go on."  We'll keep our fingers crossed that whoever MSNBC chooses to replace Mr. Russert will maintain the trademark "tough but fair" interview style.

Tim, we will miss you.  God bless.

"Vlad" Gingrich is molesting the Constitution in the name of national security again.  This time he's on a tirade about the recent Supreme Court decision that grants prisoners held at young Mr. Bush's pleasure in Guantanamo the right to a habeas corpus hearing.  

"This court decision is a disaster and it could cost us a city," Newt said on Face the Nation.  Land o' Goshen.  The only way this court decision could cost us a city is if it makes Newt's head explode.  Driving Newt's noodle to critical mass would be the kind of disaster we need, but it would force us to make some difficult decisions.  Losing New York City or Washington D.C. might be too high a price to pay to be permanently rid of Newt, but if we're talking, say, Minot, North Dakota, well...

I take that back.  Minot's a lovely city and we have a strategically significant military base there.  We'll blow Newt's noggin to smithereens in that chancre sore on the Potomac.  Let's just make sure all the politicians are in town when we push the plunger.

   I looked but I did not see a diary up yet on this hearing. If there is one please let me know and I will delete. This one is important. Let's focus on what we hear today. What pose will Lieberman take? Will Lindsey Graham try to cover for them? Will Hillary be back?

What does a 5-4 decision in a case like Boumediene v. Bush mean?

In Republicanland, it means everything the Supreme Court has told them they've been wrong about for the past 7 years is one vote away from being suddenly right. And staying that way forever.

One more vote, and torture isn't unconstitutional.

One more vote, and indefinite detention on the president's say-so isn't unconstitutional.

One more vote, and warrantless wiretapping isn't unconstitutional.

And do we really need to follow the implications in other arenas? Surely no executive branch official could be forced to testify at Congressional oversight hearings. And don't even ask about reproductive rights. John McCain (for whom at least a very few a very few Hillary Clinton holdouts insist they will vote in November, presumably as punishment for Democrats who failed to grasp their wisdom) could not be more overt about his desire to eliminate them:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

One vote away.

One more vote, and everything you thought you understood innately about the nature of our system of government can change, and the insane right-wing trolls who've astounded you with their seemingly otherworldly interpretations of constitutional law will be right, and will claim they've always been right, but for the interference of "liberal, activist judges."

And they will laugh in your face.

But in the meantime, they'll be spitting in it. Like Sen. Lindsey Graham does, when he says he's so sure the Court is wrong in Boumediene that he's willing to amend the Constitution to prove it:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that, "if necessary," he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.

These are the Republicans with whom -- if we're to believe the buzzwords -- we're supposedly obligated to seek "bipartisan compromise."

There's no such thing as "compromise" with people who believe that you and your "correct" understanding of the Constitution, what it says, and what it means is more properly viewed as being merely "pre-wrong."

On the stump in New Jersey today, John McCain launched a thundering two-pronged assault on yesterday's Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus rights for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.  Again raising the specter of "unaccountable judges," McCain picked up on his earlier, right-wing handbook assault against so-called judicial activism.  Then turning to fear-mongering, McCain proclaimed "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" will lead to more attacks against the American people.  But lost in McCain's red-faced response is his effort to whitewash his own past role in undermining both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

Yesterday, Lindsey Graham, who wants a constitutional amendment to remove habeas corpus from people on American soil, said this:

...he is concerned that detainees will shop for sympathetic judges while challenging issues including their treatment, food and lodging.

"I thought habeas corpus was just the right to demand to know why you're in jail," my dad said to me after reading that article.

"Yup."

"So why is he saying this stuff about demanding better food?"

I know, I know...it's not likely, but a brother can dream can't he?

Following up on my post from yesterday and incorporating some of the suggestions/corrections from the comments made there, let's take a look at our best case scenario in the November Senate elections.

Right now, we're at 49 Ds, 49 Rs and 2 I's.  When the smoke clears on election night in November we'll be at 62 Ds, 37 Rs and 1 I.
Here's how it's going to happen....

[From the Frog Pond]

A strange thing is happening in the South.  When Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers won their special elections in, respectively, Louisiana and Mississippi, the Republicans complained that they they ran as Republicans.  This wasn't strictly true.  They ran as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration candidates.  That made them seem like Republicans.  But they also ran against the war and they ran against corporate welfare, and they ran against free trade agreements.  They ran on increasing federal funding on infrastructure and education, and they ran on nixing No Child Left Behind.  On many issues they were fully in line with the Democratic Party, and on some they were more in line with the Progressives than the Blue Dogs.  

Below is the direct release from Sen. Lindsey Graham's office regarding the small beam of sanity penetrating SCOTUS these days.