I am surprised at the one-sidedness of your analysis. I've been reading WUTP since you started (now as a subscriber). I've always appreciated your ability to look at all sides. In this article, however, you don't stay true to your practice. Yes, Senator Graham had many laudable moments. You did not include any of the issues that have created misery for so many (LGBTQ+, immigrants, women). I grew up with the notion of not speaking ill of the departed, but let's show some balance. And by the way, in Trump world, he played it very safe.
Hi Maureen, thanks for writing and for subscribing. For what’s it’s worth, I think the truth is a little more nuanced than to say Graham always played it safe in Trumpworld. Playing it safe probably wouldn’t have meant defending Robert Mueller in the first term. It also wouldn’t have meant sticking his neck out for Ukraine — especially after the Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office, would have been much easier to sit by as Trump’s relationship with Zelensky deteriorated. Instead Graham, animated by specific beliefs about the U.S.’ role in the world, worked to repair the relationship when that could have led to angering Trump. Of course that doesn’t mean Graham *never* played it safe, and I tried to capture that in the piece. But I do think the truth is more complicated. As for other issues, obviously this one piece was not going to be an exhaustive overview of his voting record on every issue — I tried to capture the issues that he played the biggest role on in the Senate. I also wasn’t trying to assign a moral valance to any of the bills mentioned - my point isn’t that Graham had the “right” foreign policy or view on judges, just that these were how he handled those issues. I may not have met those goals, but that’s a bit about what I was trying to do in the piece. Appreciate you reading and sharing your feedback!
Agree with Maureen. I’m really frustrated by the need of DC media to sane wash white men like Graham and Kirk who made lives hell for everyone who wasn’t a straight white man.
At the end of the day Graham’s desire for relevance overtook his principles constantly. He was a sycophant with some moments of clarity, but his final turnabouts from 2016 to now hurt the American people and his constituents. All for Trump who couldn’t honor Graham yesterday without thinking of himself.
Politicians are working for the people and their constituents. It is shameful that Graham and so many politicians more often than not sought relevance and praise from Trump rather than having any sort of backbone.
The media should be quoting South Carolinians whose healthcare, economy, or human rights have been affected by his years of service and votes on behalf of them. It is not relevant what Jeff Flake or Al Franken have to say about him. The media needs to do better.
Gabe, I too usually read and like your balance but I think you are obit-washing a non-deserving quisling sycophant who so desperately wanted to remain in the Trump Club at all costs that he sold his JAG soul; tolerated to his everlasting shame the abject denigration of his lifelong friend and war hero John McCain by a cowardly draft-dodger, and flip-flopped so many times it appears his aorta finally gave way. What does this say about not just an attempt to just be "relevant" but to so desperately need to fill his life with the only thing he had going for himself, the pomp, trappings and TV acclaim of a senator, that he made a fool of himself, dancing for a would-be traitor. The one thing he stood for and on behalf of was Ukraine but that is not sufficient. He followed Trump down so many ratholes and he finally did what cannot be forgiven. He MAGA-washed the impeachment and the insurrection. We have a right to look squarely at who Graham really was. Some might say he was complex, but that does not cut it. Read what beaten and severely injured Capital policeman Michael Fanone wrote When no one was looking and when he could be himself and no one other than Fanone would know, he failed the greatest test of all, being genuinely committed to honoring his oath of office. He failed that 100%.
Thanks for the article. I didn't know that he held so much power and was able to use it to pass (Democrat-supported) bills. In 2003 I was really small, but the idea of a bipartisan cease-fire on social security (or any issue) to me seems wild, and almost unthinkable today, lol.
The Gang of 14, essentially a ceasefire in the partisan war over judges, also unimaginable today — as is any any senator voting for as many judicial nominees from the other party as Graham did
Despite being one of the few powerful Republicans who "knew better," Graham will mostly be remembered for talking out of both sides of his mouth whenever necessary to stay in line w Tr. Not a record to be proud of. Same is the case w McConnell.
I understand murky political dealing to achieve a goal. I liked Graham when he was one of the three amigos, but after his call to Georgia Governor Kemp to 'find' Trump 11,780 votes so Trump could win, crossed a line for me. Maybe he knew it would never fly so felt safe in doing, but I never held him in high regard after that.
I appreciate finally understanding what the hell Graham actually stood for - personal relevance. Seems pretty self centered. What I don't understand - Is that what his constituency was voting for, for Lindsay Graham to simply be "relevant"? As opposed to holding positions one might value, predict and count on? Why??
Lived in South Carolina for 11 years during the Lindsay Graham reign. Used to sort of admire him for his independent streak and intellectual honesty. I lost all respect during the Trump era. This article opened my eyes a bit and has caused me to reconsider my overall judgement of the senator. However, one thing you didn't mention, for which I will never forgive the man, is his promise (" I PROMISE you" he stated emphatically) that if the tables are turned in the future, I will feel the same way regarding Supreme Court nominees when an election is "close" (never defined "close"). Well, he weaseled out of that promise.
I didn't care much for Graham, he was always too hawkish for my taste. In a time where there's a tendency to pigeonhole people he was difficult to categorize. Michael Smerconish said something to the effect that Graham always wanted to be in the room when things were happening. and was willing to do what it took to make that happen.
So you could call him a hypocrite or say he was willing to compromise his own principles to get part of what he wanted instead of nothing. I think he was a moderating influence on Trump on certain topics and lord knows we need more of that.
I generally liked the article and found out some things I didn't know
Rubio was also part of that gang of 6
I believe we should look more at the present than the past. The last 8 years showed he had absolutely no principles. Of course he isn't alone. At one point he said something to the effect if Trump call all the votes he did in SC he was going to follow sui
You would probably know better than me but I tend to think judge nominees got more bipartisan support in the past with some exceptions. Graham's comments about them doing the job rather than following certain ideologies is to the point
I was generally supportive of Kavanaugh because he had the qualifications until the rape came out
Moses in the OT chose Bezaliel to count the contributions for the Temple He wanted to remain above reproach Our jusdge need to have the same quality
Congratulations.. your piece on Lindsey Graham has given me the inspiration.. to unsubscribe from you.. you obviously see a different person than I do and it’s made me look at how totally off base you are about what this guy did.. from a guy who warned the country about Donald Trump to somebody that totally was so far up as you know what… you can see anything good out of that.. I can’t spend the time on reading your pieces anymore
I appreciate your write-up, Gabe! I always leave feeling like I've learned something. ❤️ I found myself this weekend thinking "I know his name, but I don't know WHY I know his name" and this article definitely helped solve that puzzle!
I appreciate this article. It makes me want to read more about our politicians. You might consider occasionally doing this in depth analysis about other politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Senator Graham, first impressed me, when he walked into the Senate, as an Impeachment Manager. Unlike the other six, he was star struck, in awe. He was standing in a place, that it seemed, he had no thoughts about, and it overwhelmed him. From there on, he was on my radar, and enjoyed watching him, listening, and laughing along at times.
A very apt and appropriate obituary for what a Senator could be. Thank You.
I am surprised at the one-sidedness of your analysis. I've been reading WUTP since you started (now as a subscriber). I've always appreciated your ability to look at all sides. In this article, however, you don't stay true to your practice. Yes, Senator Graham had many laudable moments. You did not include any of the issues that have created misery for so many (LGBTQ+, immigrants, women). I grew up with the notion of not speaking ill of the departed, but let's show some balance. And by the way, in Trump world, he played it very safe.
Hi Maureen, thanks for writing and for subscribing. For what’s it’s worth, I think the truth is a little more nuanced than to say Graham always played it safe in Trumpworld. Playing it safe probably wouldn’t have meant defending Robert Mueller in the first term. It also wouldn’t have meant sticking his neck out for Ukraine — especially after the Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office, would have been much easier to sit by as Trump’s relationship with Zelensky deteriorated. Instead Graham, animated by specific beliefs about the U.S.’ role in the world, worked to repair the relationship when that could have led to angering Trump. Of course that doesn’t mean Graham *never* played it safe, and I tried to capture that in the piece. But I do think the truth is more complicated. As for other issues, obviously this one piece was not going to be an exhaustive overview of his voting record on every issue — I tried to capture the issues that he played the biggest role on in the Senate. I also wasn’t trying to assign a moral valance to any of the bills mentioned - my point isn’t that Graham had the “right” foreign policy or view on judges, just that these were how he handled those issues. I may not have met those goals, but that’s a bit about what I was trying to do in the piece. Appreciate you reading and sharing your feedback!
Agree with Maureen. I’m really frustrated by the need of DC media to sane wash white men like Graham and Kirk who made lives hell for everyone who wasn’t a straight white man.
At the end of the day Graham’s desire for relevance overtook his principles constantly. He was a sycophant with some moments of clarity, but his final turnabouts from 2016 to now hurt the American people and his constituents. All for Trump who couldn’t honor Graham yesterday without thinking of himself.
Politicians are working for the people and their constituents. It is shameful that Graham and so many politicians more often than not sought relevance and praise from Trump rather than having any sort of backbone.
The media should be quoting South Carolinians whose healthcare, economy, or human rights have been affected by his years of service and votes on behalf of them. It is not relevant what Jeff Flake or Al Franken have to say about him. The media needs to do better.
Thank you
Gabe, I too usually read and like your balance but I think you are obit-washing a non-deserving quisling sycophant who so desperately wanted to remain in the Trump Club at all costs that he sold his JAG soul; tolerated to his everlasting shame the abject denigration of his lifelong friend and war hero John McCain by a cowardly draft-dodger, and flip-flopped so many times it appears his aorta finally gave way. What does this say about not just an attempt to just be "relevant" but to so desperately need to fill his life with the only thing he had going for himself, the pomp, trappings and TV acclaim of a senator, that he made a fool of himself, dancing for a would-be traitor. The one thing he stood for and on behalf of was Ukraine but that is not sufficient. He followed Trump down so many ratholes and he finally did what cannot be forgiven. He MAGA-washed the impeachment and the insurrection. We have a right to look squarely at who Graham really was. Some might say he was complex, but that does not cut it. Read what beaten and severely injured Capital policeman Michael Fanone wrote When no one was looking and when he could be himself and no one other than Fanone would know, he failed the greatest test of all, being genuinely committed to honoring his oath of office. He failed that 100%.
Rock on !!
Thanks for the article. I didn't know that he held so much power and was able to use it to pass (Democrat-supported) bills. In 2003 I was really small, but the idea of a bipartisan cease-fire on social security (or any issue) to me seems wild, and almost unthinkable today, lol.
The Gang of 14, essentially a ceasefire in the partisan war over judges, also unimaginable today — as is any any senator voting for as many judicial nominees from the other party as Graham did
Despite being one of the few powerful Republicans who "knew better," Graham will mostly be remembered for talking out of both sides of his mouth whenever necessary to stay in line w Tr. Not a record to be proud of. Same is the case w McConnell.
Graham, as others have said, was a weathervane in a suit.
The recent Graham was despicable and that’s all that will be remembered.
I understand murky political dealing to achieve a goal. I liked Graham when he was one of the three amigos, but after his call to Georgia Governor Kemp to 'find' Trump 11,780 votes so Trump could win, crossed a line for me. Maybe he knew it would never fly so felt safe in doing, but I never held him in high regard after that.
I appreciate finally understanding what the hell Graham actually stood for - personal relevance. Seems pretty self centered. What I don't understand - Is that what his constituency was voting for, for Lindsay Graham to simply be "relevant"? As opposed to holding positions one might value, predict and count on? Why??
Lived in South Carolina for 11 years during the Lindsay Graham reign. Used to sort of admire him for his independent streak and intellectual honesty. I lost all respect during the Trump era. This article opened my eyes a bit and has caused me to reconsider my overall judgement of the senator. However, one thing you didn't mention, for which I will never forgive the man, is his promise (" I PROMISE you" he stated emphatically) that if the tables are turned in the future, I will feel the same way regarding Supreme Court nominees when an election is "close" (never defined "close"). Well, he weaseled out of that promise.
I didn't care much for Graham, he was always too hawkish for my taste. In a time where there's a tendency to pigeonhole people he was difficult to categorize. Michael Smerconish said something to the effect that Graham always wanted to be in the room when things were happening. and was willing to do what it took to make that happen.
So you could call him a hypocrite or say he was willing to compromise his own principles to get part of what he wanted instead of nothing. I think he was a moderating influence on Trump on certain topics and lord knows we need more of that.
I generally liked the article and found out some things I didn't know
Rubio was also part of that gang of 6
I believe we should look more at the present than the past. The last 8 years showed he had absolutely no principles. Of course he isn't alone. At one point he said something to the effect if Trump call all the votes he did in SC he was going to follow sui
You would probably know better than me but I tend to think judge nominees got more bipartisan support in the past with some exceptions. Graham's comments about them doing the job rather than following certain ideologies is to the point
I was generally supportive of Kavanaugh because he had the qualifications until the rape came out
Moses in the OT chose Bezaliel to count the contributions for the Temple He wanted to remain above reproach Our jusdge need to have the same quality
Congratulations.. your piece on Lindsey Graham has given me the inspiration.. to unsubscribe from you.. you obviously see a different person than I do and it’s made me look at how totally off base you are about what this guy did.. from a guy who warned the country about Donald Trump to somebody that totally was so far up as you know what… you can see anything good out of that.. I can’t spend the time on reading your pieces anymore
Peace,Jason Miles
I appreciate your write-up, Gabe! I always leave feeling like I've learned something. ❤️ I found myself this weekend thinking "I know his name, but I don't know WHY I know his name" and this article definitely helped solve that puzzle!
I appreciate this article. It makes me want to read more about our politicians. You might consider occasionally doing this in depth analysis about other politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Senator Graham, first impressed me, when he walked into the Senate, as an Impeachment Manager. Unlike the other six, he was star struck, in awe. He was standing in a place, that it seemed, he had no thoughts about, and it overwhelmed him. From there on, he was on my radar, and enjoyed watching him, listening, and laughing along at times.
A very apt and appropriate obituary for what a Senator could be. Thank You.
I am more inclined to agree with Steve Schmitz’s assessment.of his career.