Posts Tagged ‘Lindsey Graham’

Mark Levin and the Establishment

Thursday, March 10th, 2022

Why does Levin sound like the establishment on Ukraine?

I really didn’t see this coming. I was on my way home from another day of work on Wednesday as Levin’s show began.  As he began talking about the events in Ukraine, it came to that moment when he said that he’d be having Lindsey Graham on in his third hour to discuss the Senator’s notion that Putin needs to be taken out, an idea with which Levin heartily agrees.  As I listened to him go on about his disdain for “nationalist-populists” and so on, before too much time had passed, a thought formed in my mind that I simply couldn’t escape.  At first, I thought, and may even have said aloud in answer to the radio: “Mark, you sound just like the establishment against which you always rail.” A commercial came on as I pondered that thought a little longer, and then it struck me.  It’s not that Mark Levin merely sounds like the establishment.  He is the establishment, or at least its errand-boy, perhaps unwittingly.

Do I think Mark Levin is deep within the DC establishment?  No.  On the other hand, he’s in their circle, perhaps loosely, and he’s put himself in a position through which they will attempt to exploit him, and thereby, his audience.  When he speaks, millions listen attentively.  They listen because he offers a view from inside politics, as a former chief of staff to an Attorney General of the United States.  Though his connections into the mechanisms of state are dated and most will have long since retired, that doesn’t mean the existing establishment hasn’t cultivated a connection to him through which they hope to propagandized and manipulate his audience.

Do you need proof?  Every time the Republican establishment needs something from him, he gives it, with few exceptions.  They know there will be some times and some areas of policy on which he will be unapproachable, but they know when election time rolls around, for the most part, they can count on him to carry their water.  He helped give us a whole string of Senators under the vague umbrella of the Tea Party movement, but most of them went on to betray us in varying degrees.  In 2020, he brought his audience Lindsey freaking Graham.  He pushed Lindsey for re-election.  He should have given him a strong kick in the ass and run him off.  Instead, Levin played the good soldier and brought Graham on his show, and while you could almost hear part of Levin holding his nose, he did it nevertheless.  In 2016, when Ted Cruz needed a “constitutional expert” to vouch for his eligibility to run for President, he went immediately to Levin.  In what I regard to be the biggest single betrayal of his audience in the whole of his career on the radio, he cobbled together some nonsensical explanation that “Natural Born Citizen” was “just a citizen.”  It was embarrassingly infantile and nonsensical, and it took a long time for me to get over it.  I had been researching the issue(and continued to for some time before publishing my article) when Levin made this pronouncement, and knew him to be full of piss and wind on the issue that day.

I knew then that Levin would bend things to support his own agenda, and that while it wasn’t perfectly aligned with the establishment, it was nevertheless amenable to them in some instances.  What happens to Levin seems to be that he’s so invested in winning that he’ll make friends with alleged enemies if he thinks it will help him advance his cause, but the problem with this approach is that often, it’s self-defeating, not only to Levin, but also to his audience. As another example, he’s friends with Senator Mike Lee, (R-UT,) a guy who makes many good arguments, but unfortunately also is the Senator from Google.  He’s thoroughly compromised by the funds and lobbying that rolls in the door from that company.  Levin won’t tell you about that. He’s protective of Lee on that issue. It’s as though it doesn’t exist.

Another good example is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, (R-CA,) another establishment stooge and first-rate swampster. Levin brought this stooge to you in 2020 also, just as he did Speaker Paul Ryan(R-WI) in previous election years. On Wednesday evening, Levin bashed McCarthy, after mentioning he was seemingly interested in coming on the show an longer.  Of course not, Mark, he got what he needed from you in 2020, pre-election. Check back in with him this coming Fall!  Ryan is the definition of a swampster, a Republican who’s married into a thoroughgoing Democrat family(and his sister-in-law is the Biden SCOTUS-pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson,) and who spent as little time in Wisconsin as was humanly possible.  In that respect, Ryan was a good deal like another swampster Levin brought you on his show when she was seeking election to the house: Elizabeth “Liz” Cheney(R-WY) spends even less time in Wyoming than Ryan spent in Wisconsin.  Do you see how the Republican establishment exploits him?  How is this possible for an alleged Tea Party guy, a constitutionalist?

I don’t believe Mark Levin is a part of the DC UniParty, but his orbit crosses theirs, whether he’ll admit it or not.  He makes mention from time to time on-air about how they reach out to him, and want to come on the show, but most of the time, if an election is tight, and he thinks he can help a little, he’ll bring them on.  It’s what it is.  Is he an evil guy?  No. Absolutely not.  The problem is that when you get into bed with these people, it’s hard to get away.  I also wouldn’t say he provides strictly establishmentarian propaganda.  He does provide much very good content, but I’m afraid that very often, too many of the wrong people have his ear.  He gets “insider” information from some people who are truly swampy.  How do I know?  I hear it on air.  I can tell what sorts of people within the bureaucracy or in the Congress have his ear. For Pete’s sake, he brought John Bolton(!) to Donald Trump.  He admitted on-air that Bolton had lobbied him strongly to get in on the NSA job with Trump.  Bolton was a catastrophe who spent his whole time in that job undermining Trump’s foreign policy agenda.  Levin admits it now, belatedly.  If I were Trump, I’d never listen seriously to another recommendation from Levin on personnel.  Ever.  Thinking about it, maybe neither should you.

Now Levin is taking information from the same crowd with respect to Ukraine.  He can see the Democrats are a catastrophe, but he can’t see that the information he’s being passed comes from the same sort of corrupt sources that brought Trump a recommendation of John Bolton via Mark Levin.  He remarked the other day that some fan had asked him in public whether he believed anything about it, because the media is so corrupt.  Levin explained to his audience that he’d told the man that the whole of the International Press isn’t corrupt too.  You see, he doesn’t see it.  The politicization of media hasn’t stopped at the water’s edge, any more than politics itself has stopped there.  Levin seems to be having a weird kind of “bromance” with Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, but the problem is that much of that upon which Levin bases his admiration for Zelenskiy has been debunked.  It turns out that Zelenskiy may be just as corrupt as his predecessor, if not quite as wealthy. He’s tied-in with Ihor Kolomoisky, another corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. Somehow, these facts escape Levin, or he’s not mentioning them because of his admiration for the Ukrainian president.  Either way, it’s a dangerous lack of perspective.

Levin has always had his strawmen and his foils.  Lately, he’s been concentrating on the “nationalist-populists,” decrying them as Putinophiles, or something in that vein.  I actually hate when he does this.  Name names, for Heaven’s sake!  In the case of “nationalist-populist,” I’m pretty certain he means Steve Bannon of WarRoom fame.  There seems to be real heartburn there, and Bannon, for his part, doesn’t help when he tosses out phrases like “Neocon” because it seems to trigger Levin’s antisemitism alarms.  Levin needs to get a grip.  Virtually nobody who uses the term “Neocon” means anything to do with Jews, and most of them won’t even know the relationship between “Neocons” and Jews in the purely historical sense.  It’s much like “establishment” in the sense that you might not be able to name an actual “neocon,” but you can identify their policies in action and advocacy when you see them, and while the original description “neocon” may have applied specifically to a particular group of Jews, it’s been clear for some time that their basic set of military and foreign policy issues have been adopted by a wider group of interventionist Republicans, many of whom are clearly not Jews.

It’s maddening. Levin is so close to the truth about Ukraine, but he’s being strung-along by his emotions, his admiration for Zelenskiy, and his cold-war-hardened hatred for all things Russia, particularly Putin. When you add to it what’s being pumped-out in the mainstream narratives, even by Republicans, especially swampsters, he just can’t shake it loose.  I’m afraid that until Levin overcomes these demons, he’s simply incapable of bringing you full and sensible information on Ukraine, and that’s simply the most disappointing development in media in a long, long while.

At the end of his show, in the last hour, Levin had Graham on his show to talk about taking out Putin.  If you listen, you can hear Lindsey Graham ingratiate himself to Levin with the slobbering remarks near the end of his appearance.  One could almost hear Levin’s heart melt.  I could vomit.

Here’s the full podcast(The Graham interview begins at the 1:28:55 mark):


Oh, and Mark? Ronald Reagan never once called for taking-out Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko or Gorbachev. He knew that the last thing a nuclear-armed country run by a totalitarian government needs is any sort of instability of that sort.  Do you think the people who would take out Putin would be any more stable or less dangerous to the United States?  No.  Reagan knew better than nonsensical ideas like that. You should be ashamed of yourself for associating such a foolish idea with the temperament and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

 

Advertisements

Lindsey Graham Gets the Just Recognition He Deserves (Video)

Friday, January 8th, 2021

One More DC Dirt-Bag

I never advocate violence on this site, even when these scumbags in DC really anger me. Given the way the Republican Party has treated Donald Trump over the last four years, misrepresenting us, betraying us, and otherwise sabotaging the President we elected, they should never be permitted to walk down the streets without being shamed for the dirtbags they are. None of them. All of these dirtbag insiders now abandoning the President and otherwise continuing this coup against Donald Trump that’s never stopped over the course of four years, and has always had the nodding support of the Republican establishment must find themselves dealt with by us in a non-violent but aggressively loud manner wherever they go. This goes back to McCain calling the Tea Party “Hobbits” and all the other contempt the McConnell crowd offered to citizens rising up to complain. This includes the consultancy and think-tank class with their bottomless pit of haughty, smarmy, dripping revulsion at we “Deplorables.”

This isn’t about Donald Trump. I have some things to say about him that I will get to in due course, but not now. I’m not going to abandon the man on the field while all of these closet corrupto-crats go scurrying off the ship, damning him as they go. No sir. Instead, from here on out, I’m going to give them the just recognition they deserve, to the extent they deserve it.

That’s almost every Republican in the US Senate, most of the Republican Governors(with just a few noteworthy exception already well-known to you,) and a goodly proportion of the Republicans in the House. There are also all the members of the Federal judiciary who failed to uphold the constitution, many of whom we fought to see seated, who must be similarly treated. This must never end, so long as they remain in office/power. Here is this despicable weasel, Lindsey Graham(R-SC,) escorted by a squad of police for whom WE PAY while mostly blissfully ignoring the protests blooming around him(Explicit Language):

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1347616155394043904

Can anybody tell me why Twitter feels obliged to slap these stupid, dishonest warnings on tweets? At this point, it’s like a CLICK MAGNET.

Of course, this says nothing of our overt enemies. Their time to face our contempt and derision is nigh, too.

It also includes all the media bastards, all of the various local officials, and from this day forward, none of these people need to be able to walk down the street without scorn and derision loudly heaped upon them.

These people think we’ll back down. That’s NOT happening.

To buttress that point, Mr. L(Explicit Language):

 

Cruz Objection Looks Like Political Dodge (Updated)

Sunday, January 3rd, 2021

Real Objection?

Those of you watching the developments over the weekend may be aware that Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) has introduced an effort to raise an objection on January 6th, with the stated objective of creating an emergency audit and commission to examine the election results. Lindsey Graham(R-SC) tweeted about this, and while I never trust Lindsey Graham, because he’s frankly a political dogpile, the truth is that in this assessment, I think he may be correct. He called the Cruz effort a political dodge:

 

While I have no doubt that Graham would just as soon torch President Trump as help him, I think there is also truth in what he says here. If you go on to read the remainder of the tweets in Graham’s thread, he lays out his case in subsequent tweets.  Like Graham, I don’t see much of a chance that Cruz’s effort will succeed, because it would appear to require a majority in both houses of Congress to accomplish. That’s extraordinarily unlikely to succeed, and despite the fact that Cruz has the support of at least ten other senators, that’s a long way from a majority. What’s the point of the effort, if it ostensibly cannot succeed? The answer is pure politics. The people signing on to this effort all wish to avoid the wrath of voters in their states, and all of them wish to likewise avoid the vengeance of Mitch McConnell. They all want to continue to receive cash from the big fund-raisers, but they don’t want to anger the people back home. How do they straddle that particular fence? Naturally, in any such situation, a politician will launch an effort of some sort that is meant to placate voters while accomplishing nothing. Big-money contributors likely know what’s afoot, and indeed, some of the senators may tell them so explicitly, though never in public view. Cruz, who undoubtedly imagines himself as his party’s nominee in 2024, also seeks the notoriety among conservatives for having been seen to “lead” an effort to do something.

One might consider this assessment to be quite cynical, but I think when it comes to politicians, we’re not nearly cynical enough. I also know that Graham hasn’t given up his fantasy of seeking the GOP nomination, but I’ve got news for Graham, and for Cruz, and for the bulk of the others who pursued the GOP nomination in 2016: It isn’t happening. There isn’t a single one among the crowd who I would support for the nomination. Not even one. There is still a large number of CruzCrew people out there who imagine putting the band back together in 2024, although I think that’s a fantasy – one in which Senator Cruz is all too willing to engage. I say this because while Cruz appears to be conservative on many issues, he’s also shown a healthy ability to do in Washington DC that which would not be popular at home in Texas when he thinks Texans aren’t looking. I also think he’s given only half-hearted support to Donald Trump, and while I think after the primary campaign of 2016, that’s at least somewhat understandable, I also know that when he failed to give full, activist support to the president, he was doing so mostly in ways that harmed his own constituents. Most won’t have noticed, but a few of us did.

Among all those being talked about for 2024, the only ones I see as plausible(so far) are Senator Tom Cotton(R-AR,) Governor Ron DeSantis(R-FL,) SecState Mike Pompeo(R-KS,) and Governor Kristi Noem(R-SD.) Vice President Pence is widely seen as a nice guy(are we sure?) but also widely panned as too stiff and too wooden. At present, I see no prospects that any of the competitors of 2016 have even a small chance of winning the nomination, because they’ll all be viewed as retreads at best, who were all soundly demolished by Donald Trump. Cruz, amongst the 2016 also-rans, has the most credible chance to make a comeback, but I think a few of his actions over the past few years and his stunning near-loss to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke in Texas should give you a sense of just how damaged he really is, even in his own state. Senator Cruz has shown a distinct propensity to put on a political show on Capitol hill, but he’s not produced many tangible results, even when Republican still held the House. Why wasn’t he leading significant legislative efforts in support of Donald Trump’s agenda then, when they could have been enacted? He also likes to put on a show in committee hearings, which are mostly opportunities for member grandstanding, and the question of big-tech CEOs, while entertaining, wasn’t followed-up with any significant legislative efforts. It’s easier to fund-raise off of conservative discontent over social media censorship than to actually do anything about it.

This is the problem all Americans face in electoral politics: Most of the people who run or hold office are just playing political games to further their ambitions, to feather their own nests, or both. While this effort by Cruz will get a lot of attention, I also think it was offered as a way to get people to overlook the intended objection by Senator Josh Hawley(R-MO) that focuses specifically on the grounds that the election in at least one of the states was carried out in contravention of that state’s own laws. I also think it was offered as a path to seek cover for Republicans who face angry conservatives at home if they do nothing at all, while permitting senators to avoid signing-on to Hawley’s objection.  Readers will have no idea how thoroughly I hate writing it, but in this case, Lindsey Graham is probably correct in his characterization of the Cruz motive, but indeed, I think we’re being played.

Rather than pursue that line of objection, I think conservatives should insist that their senators sign-on to Hawley’s effort. I think it’s more direct, and doesn’t rely on some commission to absolve legislators of their own duty to use their own judgment in ascertaining the legitimacy of the election. This is another widespread scam: When politicians or other government officials call for a “blue ribbon panel(or commission)” to examine this thing or that, it’s for the explicit purpose of sloughing-off responsibility on others, to get the invariably hot potato out of their hands. It’s almost as bad as the tendency of government bodies to rely on consultants, to whom they pay exorbitant fees, upon which those bodies inevitably shift blame if things go wrong. I think it ought to be a crime for government(s) to hire consultants or appoint commissions. It’s far too easy for the elected set to avoid culpability and the responsibility of definitive judgments.

 

Editors Note: There is no doubt in my mind that this election is being stolen, and that President Donald J. Trump was re-elected in a landslide if only legitimate ballots from properly registered and legally voting citizens are counted. That said, my issue here is with this particular objection and its form as well as the motive driving it. I find it less than forthright, and objectionable on its own. I think members of both houses of Congress should raise serious objections to the legitimacy of this entire #ElectionCoup, and I also think that there is little stomach in the Republican caucus is either house  of Congress to actually do so. We all know Republicans like to be good losers, but they also like to put on a good show for we deplorables and hobbits and flyover people who elect them. Trump is nearly the only elected Republican who actually fights, and it’s disgusting that every last one of them hasn’t rallied to his side.

Update: As if to buttress my point, the following quote from Cruz:

Look, we’ve got to vote on January 6 on certification and every member of Congress faces a dilemma. Frankly, two pretty lousy choices: one, we can vote to certify by not considering any objection. If we do that that will be heard by a lot of Americans as saying, ‘We don’t think voter fraud is a real concern. We don’t think these claims should be investigated thoroughly,

I know that’s not what most of us believe. But, secondly, and I think all of us, rightly, don’t want to be in a position where we’re suggesting setting aside the results of an election just because the candidate that we supported didn’t happen to prevail. That’s not a principled constitutional position,” he continued. “That’s why, in assembling this group of 11 senators, I was looking for a third option, an option that was really moored in the law.(Emphasis added.)

Well, there you have it: Senator Cruz was looking for a political option that permits him to object without the necessity of actually doing what’s needed.

 

 

Let’s Be Blunt: Lindsey Graham is a Liar

Monday, September 30th, 2013

Just a Little Lie

Let’s just get this out in the open: Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is a liar. On Friday, when the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the House continuing resolution, that was the ball-game.  Once the number of Senators needed to amend the bill had been reduced from sixty-one to fifty-one, Reid was free to strip the de-funding language from the bill.  Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) was among the twenty-five Republican sell-outs who voted to permit Harry Reid to do so.  In tweets and in an official news release, Senator Graham subsequently claimed to have voted against funding for Obama-care, when that can be true only if you ignore the first vote for cloture.  The simple truth is that Lindsey Graham enabled Harry Reid to modify the bill.  Now he claims to be for de-funding Obama-care.  This half-truth is really a whole lie, but he will seek cover behind the latter vote.  He’s busily telling his constituents that he’s opposed to Obama-care, and that he voted to de-fund it, but he’s lying through his teeth, using the procedural nuances of the United States Senate as political camouflage.  Graham’s constituents need only ask him one direct question:

“Would Harry Reid have been able to amend the House continuing resolution without the support of Republicans, like you, Senator Graham?”

The true answer, indeed the only answer to this question is “no.”  Anything else is an attempt to obfuscate, evade, and otherwise obscure the truth.

Here had been his tweet, just moments after the vote:

 

Lindsey Graham is a despicable liar.  He’s hoping that the old formulation of being “for it before he was against it” will be enough to get him past his next re-election campaign, but voters of South Carolina should know that he’s lying to them, and that they now have an option.  Graham is being challenged in the primaries, and it’s about time somebody holds his feet to the fire.  What he’s done in the US Senate has been despicable.  His lies, misrepresentations, and his unflagging support of statism have earned him an involuntary early retirement from the US Senate.  It’s now up to the people of South Carolina to deliver it.

Lindsey Graham had hoped to do what twenty-four of his fellow Senate Republicans had hoped to do: Deceive voters with a shell-game.  Vote for cloture, permitting the bill to be amended, followed by a vote against the amendment, as the means by which to pretend he had voted to de-fund Obama-care.  The simple fact is what it is, and lying, duplicitous, back-stabbing politicians hope to trick voters with this sort of thing.  It’s really just a slightly different formulation of John Kerry’s infamous “for it before I was against it” nonsense of the 2004 campaign.  It’s always the same.  Graham isn’t listening to the people of South Carolina, and he’s gambling that most of them aren’t paying much attention, or will be fooled by this procedural dodge.

He may get away with it if the people of South Carolina don’t take the time to examine what he’s done, but he won’t get away with it here: Senator Lindsey Graham is lying when he claims to have voted to de-fund Obama-care as his previous vote enabled Harry Reid to remove the de-funding language.  This sort of behavior has become increasingly common from Senator Graham, who has supported going to war in Libya, and who has remained one of the key drivers in the Senate for the amnesty bill, leading many to refer to him simply as “Grahamnesty.” Whatever else he is, he’s neither honest, nor conservative, and it’s time he was sent home for good.  Most politicians can be found to have told a whopper or two during their careers, but Graham along with the others who are pretending to have voted against funding Obama-care after enabling it to go forward are simply liars.
Editor’s note: Senator Graham is being challenged in the GOP Senate primary by Nancy Mace, who is trying to overcome the Senator in a bid to replace him in the Senate. She may represent exactly what South Carolina needs in order to get beyond Graham’s duplicitous career in which he says one thing before voters in South Carolina, and another thing while in Washington DC. As you might guess, she has a few thoughts on Senator Graham, here.

Note To Senator Lindsey Graham

Monday, January 16th, 2012

What His Opinion Is Worth?

Of all the people in the Republican party who annoy me, none make my stomach turn more violently than Senator Lindsey “Camera-Fiend” Graham, (R-SC.)   Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to him as “Lindesy Grahamnesty,” which is fitting given his support of various forms of amnesty for illegal immigrants. He’s constantly at odds with the conservative base of the party, but he still manages to get elected.   In an article on RealClearPolitics about Romney’s opponents for the GOP nomination seeking to highlight the dishonesty of the “electability” argument, Graham is quoted as having said that a Romney victory in his state would wrap up the nomination:

“I think it should be over,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “I’d hope the party would rally around him,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

I think Graham’s career as a guest on so-called news shows should be over, but I’m not getting my way on that, either.  As usual, Graham is wrong.  Why should three states amount to an end of the process?  It’s not as though they’re large states, and it’s not as though winning would give Romney anything near the number of delegates he needs to clinch the nomination.  Why is Graham in such a rush?  Why is the entire establishment of the GOP in such a rush to hold the coronation for Mitt Romney?  Maybe Graham is just looking for new funding sources.