no, he is a bachelor. when he was 22, his parents died one year apart from each other and so he adopted his 12 year old sister so that she wouldn't be put into foster care.
Here is a site that will allow you to e-mail Congressional staffers directly, including Sen. Graham's. I am busy calling and e-mail everyone this week, especially Sen. Graham's office. HE MUST GO! Just Google Outsource Congress
Senator Graham is now key to the Amnesty deal going down in Washington and he is politically vulnerable because he has stepped so far out of line with his constituents in this video speech to the racist group La Raza.
I'm confused. Is this a politician with some courage? It's about time they remembered why so many have fought and died. It's the Constitution! Protect it from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! Thank you, sir.
That's the confused part. Apparently congress needs to attend a junior high school civics class, and then they need to ask questions until they understand all the big words.
Shame their tough stance vanished before they could hold out for things like Habeas Corpus.
Wonder why Bush hasn't actually *signed* it yet, after the Rant in the Rose Garden where he actually threatened to stop interrogating *any* terrorists unless it went through immediately...
Seriously, what's the plan? Who's talking about taking the country back? What are the names of the politicians taking a stand for constitutional rights? Why did McCain turn into such a milksop? Where are the articulate politicians with courage? Give me the name of a site that addresses these issues. People once lined up to deck our troops with flowers....my dad was one of those troops in 1944. Is it possible to be that way again?
It's nice to see a GOP member that is rational, intelligent and is actually standing up for principles that are intrinsically American. I guess we won't be seeing Graham getting sucked up to on Fox News any time soon.
Powell could have, and should have, become president after Clinton. Instead he became Bush's dancing monkey sent out to appease the moderates with the administration's trademark lies and contempt. I lost a lot of respect for him then, but you are right. He does deserve better.
I believe that we might be seeing a rare example of reason trumping political manoeuvering. Otoh, I refer to section one section 8 of the constitution, to wit: ...The Congress shall have power...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Why is this ball even in the executive's court?
Very good question, and you're not the first to ask it. One might also wonder what grants the President the power to write "Executive Orders". Such as, oh, lets just pick "13233"...
And when I said that many people on both sides of the aisle have served in the military, it was a general statement, not they have served in the military and will back bush.
I an not so sure about that - but I will more than happily be surprise if I misread Calio's comments. Sadly over the past few years I have become more than jaded. But what is sadder is, I bet she cannot find someone who actually served in combat in the military who has stated they will back Bush on this. They simply do not exist, as we would have heard from them by now.
ooh. I think I'm witnessing a lil misunderstanding here. Maddie's saying that, even though military members from *both* the Dems & Reps are opposed to it, the radio show made it look like *only* Dems were against it. Right?
Ahh! Well, see, that's exactly what she's trying to say. There aren't any former military members, now holding prominent political offices, who are backing Bush on this.
I was just driving home from downtown LA(ewww) and flipped around to see what the morons were saying on talk radio. Basicly it was ALL DEMOCRATS (never mentioning any of these Republicans who actually SERVED in the Military (not sitting on a bar stool playing dress up)who are against this. It's the same old/new Rove talking points: The Dems care more about the rights of the "terrurrrists" then making our country safe. That was Larry Elder - what a tool.
Absolutely. Near the end, he humbly responds to the backlash he's taking from some of his constituents, for taking a moderate stance on a moral issue.
I usually like what he says and he is cute in a strange kind of way. Why is he unmarried?
christy340 3 years ago
no, he is a bachelor. when he was 22, his parents died one year apart from each other and so he adopted his 12 year old sister so that she wouldn't be put into foster care.
lgrf4evr 3 years ago
Rest assured, any "tools" we give the government to fight terror will be used against the American people.
Slippojo 4 years ago
Why is he talking about sausages?????
40172 4 years ago
"There are two things you don't want to see being made - sausage and legislation." - Otto von Bismarck
LazarusWalker 4 years ago 3
Here is a site that will allow you to e-mail Congressional staffers directly, including Sen. Graham's. I am busy calling and e-mail everyone this week, especially Sen. Graham's office. HE MUST GO! Just Google Outsource Congress
Senator Graham is now key to the Amnesty deal going down in Washington and he is politically vulnerable because he has stepped so far out of line with his constituents in this video speech to the racist group La Raza.
TopAssistant 4 years ago
One of the few republicans making sense.
SLYGARR 5 years ago
He would make a fine President.
bobwaters 5 years ago
I'm confused. Is this a politician with some courage? It's about time they remembered why so many have fought and died. It's the Constitution! Protect it from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! Thank you, sir.
barryb83110 5 years ago
Oooh. I guess you don't know about what's happened *since* this clip, then, eh?...
my15minutes 5 years ago
That's the confused part. Apparently congress needs to attend a junior high school civics class, and then they need to ask questions until they understand all the big words.
barryb83110 5 years ago
Ahh. Yes.
Shame their tough stance vanished before they could hold out for things like Habeas Corpus.
Wonder why Bush hasn't actually *signed* it yet, after the Rant in the Rose Garden where he actually threatened to stop interrogating *any* terrorists unless it went through immediately...
my15minutes 5 years ago
Seriously, what's the plan? Who's talking about taking the country back? What are the names of the politicians taking a stand for constitutional rights? Why did McCain turn into such a milksop? Where are the articulate politicians with courage? Give me the name of a site that addresses these issues. People once lined up to deck our troops with flowers....my dad was one of those troops in 1944. Is it possible to be that way again?
barryb83110 5 years ago
It's nice to see a GOP member that is rational, intelligent and is actually standing up for principles that are intrinsically American. I guess we won't be seeing Graham getting sucked up to on Fox News any time soon.
brujaria 5 years ago
Oh, I hope not, bud. The stand that Powell, McCain, and Graham took showed so many of us that some Republicans were still capable of being moderates.
For them to lose that credibility by forgetting the stand they took would really be a shame.
Powell especially. He deserves so much better.
my15minutes 5 years ago
Powell could have, and should have, become president after Clinton. Instead he became Bush's dancing monkey sent out to appease the moderates with the administration's trademark lies and contempt. I lost a lot of respect for him then, but you are right. He does deserve better.
brujaria 5 years ago
yeah, well. writing's on the wall, man.
OlbermannFan 5 years ago
They always have to bring Iran into it, eh? And vice versa.
gratex 5 years ago
I believe that we might be seeing a rare example of reason trumping political manoeuvering. Otoh, I refer to section one section 8 of the constitution, to wit: ...The Congress shall have power...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Why is this ball even in the executive's court?
annarboriter 5 years ago
Very good question, and you're not the first to ask it. One might also wonder what grants the President the power to write "Executive Orders". Such as, oh, lets just pick "13233"...
my15minutes 5 years ago
I was saying that the radio station doesn't have a valid argument.
I agree I couldn't find anyone who has served in the military now in the Senate who will back Bush. And I would be very sad if I could.
calicoangel 5 years ago
And when I said that many people on both sides of the aisle have served in the military, it was a general statement, not they have served in the military and will back bush.
calicoangel 5 years ago
I an not so sure about that - but I will more than happily be surprise if I misread Calio's comments. Sadly over the past few years I have become more than jaded. But what is sadder is, I bet she cannot find someone who actually served in combat in the military who has stated they will back Bush on this. They simply do not exist, as we would have heard from them by now.
Maddie1202 5 years ago
And calico's just agreeing with the invalidity of what the radio show was presenting, just as you were. Right?
my15minutes 5 years ago
ooh. I think I'm witnessing a lil misunderstanding here. Maddie's saying that, even though military members from *both* the Dems & Reps are opposed to it, the radio show made it look like *only* Dems were against it. Right?
my15minutes 5 years ago
correct sir! But I still want to know who Calico can prove as actually served and seen combat other than McCain, Warner, Powell and Graham.
Maddie1202 5 years ago
Ahh! Well, see, that's exactly what she's trying to say. There aren't any former military members, now holding prominent political offices, who are backing Bush on this.
my15minutes 5 years ago
umm name a few. I am not talking deferments, or those like dubya who not only didn't show up, but those who didn't see combat.
Maddie1202 5 years ago
I was just driving home from downtown LA(ewww) and flipped around to see what the morons were saying on talk radio. Basicly it was ALL DEMOCRATS (never mentioning any of these Republicans who actually SERVED in the Military (not sitting on a bar stool playing dress up)who are against this. It's the same old/new Rove talking points: The Dems care more about the rights of the "terrurrrists" then making our country safe. That was Larry Elder - what a tool.
Maddie1202 5 years ago
Many, many people on both sides of the aisle have served in the military. That's an invalid argument.
calicoangel 5 years ago
I am glad that Graham is willing to separate from his party on this. He deserves respect.
calicoangel 5 years ago
Absolutely. Near the end, he humbly responds to the backlash he's taking from some of his constituents, for taking a moderate stance on a moral issue.
my15minutes 5 years ago