The Rest of the Story...

Over the last few months, there have been rumors, half truths, bogus censures and lies told about US Senator Lindsey Graham.  At times correcting the inconsistencies seemed appropriate but as time went on it became clear many just didn't know any better than to spread gossip and trash. Bless their hearts! Those who proliferated the lies and half truths honestly need to examine themselves, their goals and motives.  It is time for a reality check.   Perhaps the response below to the bogus censure document will teach these gossip mongers to check their facts before they spread lies and diminish their own credibility in an attempt to smear someone with lies.  Many who questioned the validity of this censure have taken the time to review each of  the attacking statements and responded one by one.   Those who compiled this information deserve praise as seekers of the "truth".  As Paul Harvey used to say "Now for the Rest of the Story..."

(Republished from the Horry County Republican Party facebook page.)

Bold indicates part of the censure/ Blue indicates the response

1.Voted to Confirm Obama’s appointment to Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection:

In July of 2013, Senator Graham voted with the Democrats to confirm Richard Cordray, a noted leftist promoter of aggressive economic regulation, as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while Senator Scott voted in opposition.

TRUE, BUT THERE’S MORE.

Senator Graham voted against the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 which led to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Senator Graham has also co-sponsored and supported legislation to Repeal the horrendous Dodd-Frank law. The reality is that the Dodd-Frank Act is now law. Whether we like it the CFPB is up and in operation. Simply delaying or denying confirmation to Mr. Cordray is not going to stop or hinder this agency from harming American businesses and consumers. Senator Graham’s goal, if outright repeal is not achievable in the near term, should be to at least bring this agency under congressional oversight and Mr. Cordray should be accountable to Congress for the agencies actions.

2. Supported arming Al Quaeda / Muslim Brotherhood Revolutionaries in Syria:

 In June of 2013, Senator Graham called for supplying American arms to known affiliates of Al Quaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and assistance in the form of a “no-fly zone” and bombing of Syrian airfields.

FALSE.

Bringing stability to the Middle East is one of Senator Graham’s top foreign policy priorities. A civil war in Syria empowers Iranian interests, strengthens Hezbollah in Lebanon, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. This directly threatens our own national security and the existence of our close ally, Israel. For over two years, President Obama has allowed the situation in Syria to spiral out of control with over 110,000 dead and the largest use of chemical weapons in 25 years.  Senator Graham has advocated an all-of-the-above approach to prevent chemical weapons from being used or falling into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists. Senator Graham has not supported arming al-Qaeda affiliated forces in Syria, but has called for arming VETTED opposition forces not associated with al-Qaeda.  The key goals are to empower non-al-Qaeda resistance forces and the Syrian people to topple al-Assad, secure Syria’s WMDs so they don’t fall into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, send a strong signal to Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism that the United States will defend herself, and stand with our allies in the region like Israel.

3. Supported amnesty but not border control:

In June of 2013, on the issue of an immigration bill that provides effective amnesty to illegal aliens without taking action to close the border first, Senator Graham joined the Democrats in invoking cloture and supporting the bill while Senator Scott voted in opposition.

FALSE.

Senator Graham has always been a strong supporter of securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system.  The immigration bill that passed the Senate earlier this year is not a pardon, forgiveness, or amnesty. Illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. will have to pay a $2000
fine, go on probation, pay taxes, keep a job, get to the back of the line, and learn to speak English.
Citizenship will have to be earned - over a minimum of 13 years - and will not disadvantage anyone already waiting in line and playing by the rules. That’s tough but fair.  Our current system is de facto amnesty because nothing is being done. It's not fair that American workers are competing against
illegal immigrants who are paid under the table and who are not paying taxes. The immigration bill will help stop this practice by requiring employers across America to follow what employers in South Carolina are already doing in using E-Verify for workplace verification. Additionally, the legislation requires provisional immigrants pay taxes like the rest of us. The immigration bill contained a key Border Surge plan with five triggers that must be fully operational before illegal immigrants can move from probation status to green card status:
 1.) Hiring, training, and deploying an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents on the Southern border.
2.) Building an additional 350 miles of actual fencing.
3.) Implementing a mandatory E-Verify system that requires employers check the legal status of new hires.
 4.) Deploying and implementing an electronic Entry-Exit system at all international air and sea ports of entry within the United States.
5.) The Department of Homeland Security must submit a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy to Congress that includes minimum requirements for each sector along the border as identified by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

 Additionally, to avoid the broken promises of the past and prevent being held hostage by future
Congresses, money was set aside and authorized for border security in the bill. This is significantly different than past legislation that included vague promises to fund border security in the future. With the funding already provided and the triggers in place, the bill ensures the border will be secure
or green cards will not be awarded to the 11 million illegal immigrants. The cloture vote on the immigration bill passed 82-18 (with 28 Republican Senators supporting – including Senators John Cornyn, Deb Fischer, Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio and John Thune).

4. Supported NSA spying on private American citizens:

In June of 2013, Senator Graham displayed a cavalier attitude, as he has done repeatedly, toward Americans’ right to privacy by stating “It does not bother me one bit for the National Security Administration to have my phone number...”

MISLEADING.

Senator Graham voted YES to President Bush’s Patriot Act and supports giving our country the tools necessary to fight, capture, and kill radical Islamic terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. The Patriot Act authorizes the National Security Administration to use data mining techniques to cross-reference billions of phone calls to see who is communicating with terrorists overseas. In order to listen to any of the conversations, the NSA is required by law to get a warrant approved by a judge in a FISA court. (The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that there is no right to privacy for a phone number, so the Court has previously found such data mining techniques to be constitutional.) The NSA data mining system has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. The unlawful disclosure of this and other programs has put American lives at risk and has inarguably weakened our ability to fight terrorism. Senator Graham has said he will listen to recommendations on how to address concerns about NSA program but he refuses to allow the United States to return to a pre-9/11 view of national security.

5. Supported abridging the First Amendment for those who criticize the government:

In June of 2013 Graham displayed a similar cavalier attitude about restricting freedom of speech: "Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves," he said. "Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”

FALSE.

This quote was taken entirely out of context.  Senator Graham strongly believes those who criticize their government are entitled to their Freedom of Speech. What he questions is who should be entitled to the additional and unique protections that are given to members of the media under the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press. For example, should anyone be allowed to leak classified national security information online and then claim to be a member of the press so he can get away with it and protect their source?  The question of “Who is a member of the press?” is more difficult to answer in 2013 due to drastic changes in technology and communication.

6. Supported massive new internet sales tax:

In May of 2013, Graham joined Democrats in voting to pass a massive new internet sales tax with burdensome reporting requirements. Senator Scott and most Republicans opposed the bill.

FALSE.

Under current law, all South Carolinians must pay sales taxes on all purchases whether they are made over the internet or in a brick and mortar store. However, taxes on purchases made on the internet are not uniformly collected. This means it is typically more expensive to make a purchase in a store located down the street than it is online.  Senator Graham supported the Marketplace Fairness Act to bring sales tax collection practices in line with South Carolina’s pre-existing law. Senator Graham also believed it was appropriate that brick and mortar stores and the workers they employ should not be at a competitive disadvantage to online retailers. After all, tax laws should be applied equally across the
board. The bill passed the Senate 69-27 (with half the Republican Senators supporting and half opposing).

7. Supported restrictions on the Second Amendment:

In April of 2013, when he had the opportunity to join fellow Republicans in support of a filibuster against unconstitutional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, Senator Graham voted to invoke closure against those Republicans opposed to the bill.

FALSE.

President Obama wanted three things earlier this year in the gun control debate: to ban assault
weapons, limit magazine sizes, and expand background checks. Fortunately, he lost on all three. 

Here’s how Senator Graham ACTUALLY voted:

- Voted Against the Manchin-Toomey Background Check Amendment (Failed 54-46, required 60 votes) No matter how well-intentioned, the Manchin-Toomey amendment expanded background checks in an unwise way. The internet provisions would have been burdensome and difficult
for citizens to comply with. In addition, it contained provisions making advertising a firearm in a community or church bulletin subject to the same processes as if buying from a licensed dealer.

-Introduced and Voted in Support of the Grassley-Cruz-Graham Substitute Amendment (Failed 52-48, required 60 votes) Senator Graham was very proud that the Grassley-Cruz-Graham
amendment received a majority vote. His legislation focused on ensuring people who have been declared mentally ill by a court are added to the National Instant Criminal Background (NICS) system. The legislation included important provisions for school resource officers, it cracked down on straw purchasing and illegal firearm trafficking, and it held the Department of Justice accountable
for the gun laws they have not enforced. The amendment was supported by the National Rifle Association and provided real-world, practical solutions to the problem of gun violence.

-Voted Against the Feinstein Amendment Banning "Assault Weapons" (Failed 40-60, required 60 votes)The ban on semi-automatic rifles didn't work in the 1990's, and it won't work now. Senator Graham, along with millions of other Americans, owns an AR-15 rifle. Only a fraction of the murders committed in the country involve any type of rifle, and the Feinstein "assault weapons" ban did not address the real problems of gun violence.

-Voted in Support of the Cornyn National Conceal-Carry Reciprocity Legislation (Failed 57-43, required 60 votes) Senator Graham voted for this amendment because it would allow a person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry in other states that do not prohibit concealed-carry.

-Voted Against the Lautenberg-Blumenthal Amendment Limiting Magazine Size (Failed 46-54, required 60 votes) One bullet in the hands of a criminal or homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader - a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta - six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren't going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal.

-Senator Graham voted for cloture (thereby proceeding to the amendments and final vote on the bill) so that every Senator would be on the record supporting or opposing the Second Amendment. He knew that if the Senate debated the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment would win! Democrat Senators from red states did not want to vote at all. Now we have straight up or down votes on the Second Amendment that every Senator will have to explain to their constituents. 

-Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, recently wrote a letter to Senator Graham saying the NRA was “extremely grateful for the leadership role you played in this most recent debate over the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” He said: “When President Obama proposed some of the most restrictive gun control measures in history, you stood firm in opposition. From the very first committee hearings in January to the debate on the Senate floor, you were a stalwart voice for freedom…On the floor of the Senate, your strong support for our Second Amendment rights was especially appreciated. You voted against a ban on commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines, and against criminalizing many private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens…We look forward to continuing to work together to protect the constitutional freedoms we both hold dear.”

Because of Senator Graham’s defense of the Second Amendment, he was recognized as the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Legislator of the Year for 2013.

8. Supported Obama’s drone program against American citizens:

In March of 2013, when Republican Senator Rand Paul bravely stood up to the White House to seek reassurances that drone strikes would not be used on American soil in contravention of the Constitution, Senator Graham stated that he was “disappointed in Senator Paul and that his positions were 'not a Republican view.'

PARTLY TRUE.

Senator Paul posed a hypothetical question as to whether an unarmed American citizen who is not an imminent threat could be targeted by a drone while sipping coffee at a café. Of course not, because that would be murder – plain and simple.  Drones are merely a tool to combat terrorism – just like any other weapon. Senator Graham has supported the use of the drone program abroad as an effective tool in the battle against radical Islamic terrorists, and drones have saved American troops from being deployed in remote regions. The drone program was created under President Bush, and it has been continued under President Obama. Government drones are also in use today patrolling our southern border to help stop illegal border crossings from Mexico.

9. Supported subordinating American sovereignty to the United Nations:

In November of 2012, and in prior years, while Senator DeMint was strongly opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would unconstitutionally cede American sovereignty rights to the United Nations, Senator Graham sided with Democrats and failed to support Senator DeMint.

FALSE.

There has NEVER been a vote in the U.S. Senate on the Law of the Sea Treaty, so it’s a completely baseless allegation that Senator Graham has ceded any sovereignty to the United Nations.

10. Supported giving foreign aid to terrorist governments in the Middle East:

In October of 2012, when Republican Senator Rand Paul began running advertisements attacking Democrats for voting to continue foreign aid to Middle-East countries who are actively anti-American, Senator Graham defended the Democrats.

FALSE.

While the United States cannot be the world’s policeman, numerous military leaders have repeatedly said that America must remain engaged around the world using our political and economic resources to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from gaining a foothold. Senator Graham has consistently stated that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other radical Islamic terrorists would like nothing more than to have
America withdraw from the Middle East, Africa and other regions so they can take over. Senator Paul proposed an amendment that would have cut off economic aid in the Middle East and abandoned Israel, our greatest ally in the region, because it would’ve dissolved the 1978 Camp David Accords between the United States, Israel, and Egypt. Because this amendment would’ve been a catastrophe for our national security and the well-being of our allies, Senator Graham aggressively opposed the amendment and spoke out against all efforts to build support for it. The amendment was overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 81-10 (with 30 Republican Senators supporting – including Senators Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Ron Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Rob Portman, Jeff Sessions, and John Thune).

11. Supported granting members of the Muslim Brotherhood high level positions in the US government:

In July of 2012 when Republican Representative Michele Bachmann suggested that an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be scrutinized due to her connections with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Senator Graham condemned Representative Bachmann for raising the issue.

FALSE.

Suggesting that Senator Graham “supported granting members of the Muslim Brotherhood high level
positions in the US government” is beyond ridiculous. Nothing could be further from the truth and no evidence has ever been brought forward to date proving that the aide to Secretary Clinton was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Graham noted the aide, “She is about as far away from the Muslim Brotherhood view of women and ideology as you possibly could get. She’s a very modern woman in every sense of the word, and people who say these things are really doing her a disservice because they don’t know what they’re talking about.” Ed Rollins, who was National Campaign Chairman for President Ronald Reagan and Governor Mike Huckabee, said this about the accusations in an op-ed for Fox News: “.....unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest.”

12. Supported giving taxpayer money to international organizations:

In March of 2012, on the issue of providing funding for the Export-Import Bank, Senator Jim DeMint voted to uphold the principles of free enterprise and an economy free of government manipulation, while Senator Graham voted opposite Senator DeMint and in violation of those principles.

PARTLY TRUE.

South Carolina manufacturers, like Boeing, rely on loans financed by the U.S. Export-Import Bank to help them to sell products to emerging markets. Ex-Im Bank is one of the means by which Boeing,
General Electric, and our textile companies finance their exports. In 2012, the bank needed reauthorization or it would not be able to grant any new loans. Thousands of jobs in South Carolina would be lost to overseas competitors who would be able to take advantage of growing Ex-Im Banks in countries like China and Canada. On top of the important South Carolina benefits, the Ex-Im bank generates millions of dollars of revenue for the government each year.  Senator Graham refused to unilaterally disarm and allow countries like China to compete unfairly against American manufacturers. Senator Graham led successful bipartisan efforts in the Senate to reauthorize the bank and protect jobs in South Carolina.

Senator Graham said: “Eight out of every ten 787 Dreamliners built by Boeing in North Charleston and one-third of the General Electric gas turbines produced in Greenville are expected to be purchased by customers who use Ex-Im Bank financing. In the case of Boeing and General Electric, the availability of Ex-Im financing is the difference between staying viable in South Carolina or dramatically reducing their business. Thousands of jobs could be lost in South Carolina. Simply put – for South Carolina businesses like these to be successful in the international marketplace, Ex-Im has to be reauthorized.”

“I also respect those who chose a different path and voted against reauthorization. I believe American
companies could compete and thrive in a world without Ex-Im Banks, and this would be the ideal outcome. However, that world does not exist today. Competitor nations have Ex-Im Banks far larger and more aggressive than ours. China’s export bank is larger than many European nations combined. Canada, one-tenth the population of the United States, has an Ex-Im Bank that is three times as large as the United States.”  “Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in ‘Trust but Verify.’ But I see no evidence that competitor nations like China are getting out of the Ex-Im business, and I cannot, in good conscience, support unilateral disarmament. In fact, I know if we unilaterally disarm they would only seek to increase their advantage.”

Prior to a vote on Capitol Hill, the South Carolina House of Representatives passed a unanimous
resolution supporting the re-authorization of the Ex-Im Bank. The South Carolina Senate passed the same resolution urging reauthorization by a vote of 32-2.  The Export-Import Bank Reauthorization
Act passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 78-20 (with 27 Republicans supporting and 19 opposing) and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 330-93 (with 147 Republicans supporting – including SC Congressmen Trey Gowdy, Tim Scott, and Joe Wilson). The legislation overhauled the bank’s operations and helped ensure Ex-Im adheres to sound business practices. From 2007-2012, the bank made more than $3.4 billion for the federal treasury above and beyond the costs of its operations.

 13. Supported giving taxpayer money for excessive foreign aid generally, not just to terrorist governments in the Middle East:

In November of 2011, on the issue of approving a foreign aid budget that was unjustified, Senator DeMint opposed the bill but Senator Graham joined the Democrats in supporting it.

See ANSWER #10

14. Opposed principled application of free trade policies:

In October of 2011, on the issue of granting to the Treasury Department additional power to raise tariffs on international trade with China, Senator DeMint voted against the bill, while
Senator Graham joined the Democrats and voted for it.

TRUE

When a small, medium or large business in South Carolina runs into trouble because they are being
targeted by a foreign country’s cheating or unfair trade practices, they turn to Senator Graham. He’s worked with companies like Alice Manufacturing and Milliken when they are targeted by the Mexican government and Nucor Steel to ensure that products are not illegally dumped in the U.S. by our competitors. He takes great pride in ensuring South Carolina companies are treated fairly and willing to go to bat for them when they aren’t. This is doubly true when it comes to China. For many years, communist China has manipulated its currency and kept it at an artificially low level. The Chinese yuan is generally viewed by economists as being undervalued by as much as 40%. This artificial value creates a huge discount and unfair advantage for Chinese goods versus American-made goods in the U.S. market, which caused a $270 billion trade deficit with China in 2010.  He authored legislation that passed the Senate in 2011 by a vote of 63-35 that would fight China’s currency manipulation.  Senator Graham said: “It is universally accepted that the Chinese ntentionally manipulate their currency to create an advantage for themselves in the marketplace. Manufacturing jobs in South Carolina and across the country are being destroyed because the Chinese continue to defy the rules of international trade.”

“This vote showed we will not be bullied by China when it is clear they are in the wrong. We ignored
their threats and do not apologize for taking this action. I want a good trading relationship with China and think we can have a relationship which is beneficial to both countries. But the current Chinese policy on currency is clearly unfair and designed to benefit them at our expense.”  When it comes to free trade, Senator Graham is proud to support trade agreements that benefit South Carolina (Peru, Panama,Korea, etc.) and work hard to ensure everybody plays by the rules.

15. Supported restricting the First Amendment rights to criticize Islamic radicalism:

In April of 2011, Senator Graham suggested that the free speech rights of Americans should be limited in what they should be able to say in regard to Islam. Senator Graham was reported to have said that Congress might need to explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech, in light of Tennessee pastor Terry Jones’ Quran burning, and how such actions result in enabling U.S. enemies. "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"  Graham told CBS' Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday.

FALSE.
Quote has been taken out of context. Here’s the full quote:  “You know, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.

During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So burning a Quran is a terrible thing, but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing, but it wouldn’t justify murder. But having said that, anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it. ….But General Petraeus understands better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country, and he was right to condemn it. And I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petraeus said.”Senator Graham publicly condemned the burning of a Quran because it caused riots and blowback in Muslim countries that put our troops at risk, but he did not suggest restricting free speech rights legislatively. He also has not introduced any legislation to do so. We must always keep in mind the safety of our armed forces serving in dangerous posts abroad. While we have Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment, we must balance our freedoms with our shared responsibilities to our men and women in uniform protecting us. Burning a Quran may be protected speech under the Constitution, but we should consider how such free speech will likely put our troops at risk.

Similar to what the Apostle Paul wrote to the young church at Corinth: “‘Everything is permissible’
– but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible’ – but not everything is constructive.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)

16. Opposed making Bush tax cuts permanent:

In December of 2010, on the issue of whether to extend the Bush tax cuts in a compromise with Democrats that failed to make the tax cuts permanent, Senator DeMint voted against the bill, while Senator Graham joined the Democrats and voted for it.

FALSE.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lindsey Graham supported the Bush tax cuts in 2001 while
serving in the House of Representatives and 2003 while serving in the Senate. These included cuts in income tax rates, capital gains rates, Alternative Minimum Tax rate, and dividend tax rate. The Bush tax cuts also eliminated the marriage penalty and the death tax for ten years through 2010. Since passage of the Bush tax cuts, Senator Graham repeatedly voted to extend them and make them permanent. The Bush tax cuts had a sunset provision that caused them to expire in December 2010, so all the rates were automatically set to go back to their pre-2001 levels. Democrats, who controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, refused to pass any tax cut extension that included the top 1% income earners. Senator Graham joined with all Republican senators to support an amendment to make the tax cuts permanent for all people, but the vote failed. In the end, there were only two choices: 1.) do nothing (vote no) and allow taxes to automatically go up on EVERYONE or 2.) do something (vote yes) and extend the Bush tax cuts for 99% of Americans. While being far from perfect, Senator Graham supported extending the $858 billion in Bush tax cuts for 99% of Americans by a vote of 81-19 in the Senate (with 37 Republicans supporting and 5 opposing). The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 277-148 (with 138 Republicans supporting and 36 opposing) and was signed into law.

17. Supported Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court:

In July of 2010, on the issue of confirming Elena Kagan, a noted liberal, to the Supreme Court, Senator DeMint joined fellow Republicans to vote against that nomination, while Senator Graham joined the Democrats and only four other Republicans to vote for confirmation.

TRUE, BUT THERE’S MORE.

Senator Graham made the following statement when he supported Justice Kagan:   “First, Ms. Kagan is not someone I would have chosen. I do not agree with her legal or judicial philosophy. Her views are well to the left of me and my views. If I based my vote on the issues where we disagree, then I could come up with a hundred reasons to vote no. But, under both the Constitutional and historical standards of Supreme Court confirmations, my vote is not supposed to be based on whether I, as a Senator, agree with the nominee.  Nobody, outside of John McCain, spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did. But we lost and President Obama won. No one should be surprised he has now chosen a nominee who reflects his views. Elections do have consequences.”   

“One of our most distinguished founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, wrote about the responsibilities of the Senate in dealing with confirmations in Federalist Number 76. He wrote,‘To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, would tend generally to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity.’ "

“Our great Constitution puts a requirement on me, as a senator, to not replace my judgment for the
President’s. I'm not supposed to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody different. It puts upon me a standard that has stood the test of time: Is the person qualified? Are they a person of good character? Are they someone who understands the difference between being a judge and a politician? And, quite frankly, I think she passes those tests. “The role of the Senate in judicial nominations is changing and it is unnerving to me. The court is the most fragile of the three branches. So while it is our responsibility to challenge and scrutinize the court, it is also our obligation to honor elections, respect elections, and protect the court. "

Two great conservative leaders - our own Strom Thurmond and conservative Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm - spoke about the role of the Senate in Supreme Court confirmations.

“In the nomination of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3 in 1993), Senator Thurmond said, ‘I am mindful that Judge Ginsburg is President Clinton’s nominee, and I did not expect to agree with her on all of the issues. Based on her lack of specificity in a number of areas, I cannot be certain as to where we disagree.  Although I have reservations about this nominee, I like to support the President in choosing his nominees when I can. I shall give her the benefit of any doubts I have and shall support her.’"

“And conservative Texas Republican Senator Phil Graham said this in the confirmation of Justice Steven Breyer, another liberal appointee to the Court from President Bill Clinton (confirmed by a vote of 87-9 in 1994).‘So I’m going to vote for this nominee not because I agree with him philosophically, but because I believe he is qualified. I believe he is credible. I believe his views, though they’re different than mine, are within the mainstream of thinking of his political party.  Whether I like it or not – and I do not – I do not – the American people put Bill Clinton into the White House. This nomination is a result of that. I’m not going to stand in the way of it because I differ philosophically with this nominee.  I’m going to vote for him, and that doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice. I’m very pro-life. I’m going to vote for him because I believe that the last election had consequences and this president chose someone who was qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court, who’s in the mainstream of liberal philosophy and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politician.’"

“We must protect the independence of the judiciary, and by making sure that hard-fought elections
have meaning in terms of their results within our Constitution. I can assure you we will fight to ensure the same when a Republican is elected President and selects a Supreme Court nominee. "

“Finally, I was moved by what Miguel Estrada, a talented conservative lawyer nominated by
President Bush but was treated very badly by Democrats during his confirmation process, said of Ms. Kagan. ‘If such a person who has demonstrated great intellect, high accomplishment and upright life is not easily confirmable, I fear we will have reached a point where no capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial service.’"

“And Ms. Kagan, breaking with some of the same Senators who treated Mr. Estrada very badly just a few short years ago said, ‘In my judgment, Miguel would be absolutely superlative in either role, for the Supreme Court or the appellate court. ...He’s an extraordinary lawyer, deeply knowledgeable
about all aspects of our legal system and thoroughly responsible in his legal judgments.’At the end of the day, Ms. Kagan is not someone I would have chosen, but I think under both the constitutional and by the historical standards of the Senate she should be confirmed.”

18. Sided with Democrats on government regulation to combat "climate change":

In October of 2009, on the critical issue of opposition to new regulations to be imposed on the unproven theory of “global warming,” including notorious “cap and trade” proposals, Senator Graham co-authored an editorial with Democrat John Kerry endorsing such legislation, while Senator DeMint opposed it. Graham wrote with Kerry “First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change.”

PARTLY TRUE.

President Obama refuses to present a coherent energy policy for the United States. Instead, he is using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact strict and costly controls on carbon pollution that will damage our economy. In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court ruled carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be regulated as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA used that authority to announce extreme new carbon reduction measures in September 2013 that will have a devastating effect on the coal industry.  America imports nearly $400 billion of oil from around the world – including from many countries that hate us. Our dependency on foreign oil is a threat to our economy and national security. While our tax dollars buy the bullets, airplanes and tanks for our troops, some of the dollars we spend on foreign oil help fund our enemies. In 2009, Senator Graham supported an “all of the above” approach to energy independence that would help us end our unhealthy addiction to foreign oil. He also believed that we should be better stewards of God’s creation, so he supported cleaning up the environment as long as we did it in a business-friendly way.  The bill Senator Graham worked on opened more offshore areas to drilling for oil and natural gas, pre-empted the EPA from issuing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and gave that power to Congress, provided additional loan guarantees for companies to develop nuclear power, created millions of new jobs in alternative energy sectors, and limited carbon pollution through business-friendly measures. The bill was VERY DIFFERENT from the Cap and Trade legislation that passed the Democratic controlled House of Representatives.

Regardless of whether you view climate change as a real threat, a hoax or somewhere in between, carbon pollution will eventually be regulated because of the authority given to the EPA by the Supreme Court. Unless Congress takes that authority away from the EPA, the EPA will use heavy-handed tactics to destroy jobs while not helping in any way to expand nuclear energy or offshore drilling. Senator Graham believed EPA regulation of carbon was the worst possible scenario. While the bipartisan group made significant progress, Senator Graham eventually abandoned the negotiations and did not co-sponsor the final legislation that was proposed. The legislation was never voted on in the Senate.

19. Criticized the South Carolina GOP for defending the Republican platform:

In October of 2009, Senator Graham was publicly quoted making derogatory statements about the South Carolina Republican Party, including "We're not going to be the party of angry white guys.“ Graham vowed to continue working with Democrats in building bipartisan coalitions to address global warming, health care, Afghanistan and other key challenges, and telling Republicans who resisted his policies that "If you don't like it, you can leave."

FALSE.

These quotes are taken out of context and applied to things Senator Graham never suggested. Senator
Graham did not criticize the SCGOP or the Republican platform. At a town hall meeting at Furman University in 2009, Senator Graham addressed how the Republican Party must be able to attract new voters in the future or we’d have a repeat of 2008 when Democrats swept control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. During the town hall meeting, a supporter of Congressman Ron Paul asked if the Senator was going to leave the Republican Party.

Here’s the ACTUAL response as documented by CNN:

"But Graham stressed a mantra he’s repeated many times since his friend John McCain lost the
presidential election last November – that the GOP must reach out to different constituencies, or face extinction. "I'm not going to leave the Republican Party," Graham said when one questioned asked him why he hasn't yet joined the Democrats. "I'm going to grow it. We're not going to be the party of
angry white guys." His comments were met with a salvo of boos and shouts of "Ron Paul!" "I love this party," he responded. "I'm not going to be let it be hijacked by Ron Paul."  Graham emphasized his conservative bona fides - particularly his record of opposing abortion rights and support of gun rights - but said GOP needs to build a broader coalition. Otherwise, he warned, those trying to purify the party will turn Congress over "to the most liberal people in the world because somebody disagrees with you." "I'm going to find people in Maine, Delaware, Illinois and other places that can win," he said. "And I'm going to help them, and we're going to move this party and this country forward. If you don't like it, you can leave."  (see the article here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/13/graham-gop-not-going-to-be-theparty-of-angry-white-guys/)

If we ever hope to win the White House, Republicans must focus on building coalitions that can win
national elections like Ronald Reagan did. If we hope to regain control of the Senate, Republicans must nominate candidates who can win the general election. A Republican candidate who can win in New England will be very different from a Republican who can win in the South or West. Our party must be willing to accept that our candidates won’t agree 100% of the time and might be different from one congressional district to another or a neighboring state.

20. Supported Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court:

In August of 2009, on the issue of confirming Sandra Sotomayor, a noted liberal, to the Supreme Court, Senator DeMint joined thirty fellow Republicans to vote against, while Senator
Graham joined the Democrats and voted for confirmation.

TRUE, BUT THERE’S MORE. See #17.

21. Supported liberal proposal to nationalize banks:

In March of 2009, Senator Graham suggested that consideration should be given to nationalizing the American banking system.

HIGHLY MISLEADING.

The Great Recession was triggered by a collapse in the housing and financial markets. In order to stem the tide of banking collapses, the government began conducting stress tests of the nation’s largest banks in an effort to fix the ailing sector. While many banks failed or were bought by relatively healthier institutions, there was a great fear that the American banking system could be paralyzed similar to Japan in the 1990’s. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other respected economists proposed having the government temporarily take over some of the most troubled institutions. In an effort to stop throwing good taxpayer dollars after bad, Senator Graham said the idea should be considered for the government to temporarily take over the “cannot be allowed to fail” banks that failed the stress test, break them up, and try to resell them to recoup taxpayer money. He said: “First, I support the administration's proposal to stress-test the banks. Then, if a bank fails the test, there are three options that are logical. One option is to let the bank fail. The second is if the bank is under stress but could recover, then more capitalization from the federal government might make sense. The third group would be those banks that fail the stress test but we just can't allow them to fail (as an institution), and government capitalization doesn’t make sense because it would be throwing good money after bad. With them, you take them over, break them up, resell them, and try to get the taxpayers' money back – get in and get out as quickly as possible.” “I
don’t like any of this. Most Americans don’t want the government running things, and neither do I.   I don't like TARP, but I think it's been necessary. One thing I want you to understand: I'm not for nationalizing banks in general. I'm talking about receivership that has limited application, but it should be on the table as an option because it gives flexibility. Do you know what I'm opposed to? Throwing good money after bad, and putting taxpayers at risk unnecessarily. The public's not going to tolerate it if we keep writing checks.”

22. Supported Obama's energy taxes and Cap and Trade:

In August of 2008, Senator Graham joined the so-called “Gang of Ten” working with Obama to develop new taxes on energy use and spending billions of dollars on alternative-fuel vehicles rather than respecting the ability of private industry to resolve the nation's energy problems.

FALSE.

The ‘Gang of 10’ was a bipartisan group of Senators (5 Republicans and 5 Democrats) who came together to jumpstart serious discussions on how to solve America’s energy crisis.  Before Obamacare was passed into law by the Democrats, there was no greater problem facing average Americans and small businesses than rising fuel costs and our dependency on foreign oil. The proposal lifted the ban on off-shore drilling in large parts of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, reenergized our nuclear power industry, promoted new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and required oil companies to pay fair market value on existing leases. Senator Graham was joined in the effort by Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss, John Thune, Johnny Isakson, and Bob Corker. Barak Obama had NOTHING to do with this legislation (it was before he was elected President, and he was not one of the five Democrats in the Senate that helped draft the bill). The ‘Gang of 10’ bill had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Cap and Trade legislation passed by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

23. Supported bailouts for financial institutions (TARP):

In July of 2008, Senator Graham voted for the TARP “big bank bailout” bill which Senator DeMint opposed.

TRUE.

Senator Graham had no choice. He supported President Bush in his effort to prevent the economy from melting down. While certainly not excited at the prospect of bailing out the banks, there was substantial reason to believe that failing to give this aid would cause financial markets to collapse. The financial crisis grew out of an unprecedented housing boom that turned into a housing bust. Much of the lending for housing during the boom was based on asset-backed securities that used the repayment of housing loans as the basis of these securities. As housing prices fell and mortgage defaults increased, these securities became illiquid and fell sharply in value, causing capital losses for firms holding them. Uncertainty about future losses reduced many firms' access to private liquidity, with the loss in liquidity being catastrophic in some cases. September 2008 saw the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and the near collapse of AIG, which was saved only by an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. There was widespread lack of trust in the financial markets as participants were unsure which firms might be holding so-called toxic assets that might now be worth much less than previously estimated, and thus making these firms unreliable counterparties in financial transactions. This prevented firms from accessing credit markets to meet their liquidity needs.  The threat of economic collapse was real and could have cost us trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, and a sharp and lasting drop in the standard of living of all Americans. If government did not act there was a legitimate reason to believe that financial markets would not have recovered which in turn would have made it impossible to obtain loans for any business or personal purpose. When the House of Representatives first voted down TARP on September 29, 2008, the stock market plummeted by nearly 788 points, the most single-day loss ever recorded. Overall budget-cost estimates for TARP have decreased significantly since the passage of EESA, with the latest Congressional Budget Office estimates foreseeing $21 billion in costs and the latest Office of Management and Budget estimates foreseeing $47 billion in costs. Most of these costs are from aid for homeowners, for the insurer AIG, and for U.S. automakers. The assistance to banks is generally showing a gain for the government. Also, it is important to note that there was a second “TARP-like” bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was signed by President Obama in February 2009. Senator Graham voted AGAINST this $787 billion stimulus bill because it overreached into other markets beyond what was necessary to save the financial industry from collapse.  This bill spent taxpayer dollars on increased unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.

24. Supported bailouts for independent mortgage institutions

(Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac): In April of 2008, Senator Graham voted for the unconstitutional bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Senator DeMint opposed.

TRUE.

In 2008, America was faced with the worst recession in the housing market since the Great Depression and millions of Americans were facing foreclosure on their homes. Economists advised taking extraordinary measures to prevent a complete collapse of the housing market and our economy. In an effort to restore confidence in the housing market, the Senate overwhelming passed the Economic Recovery Act by a vote of 84-12 (with 34 Republicans supporting and 12 opposing). The bill, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush, helped 400,000 homeowners facing foreclosure and improved confidence and stability in the financial markets. It also improved oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and infused capital in them to keep them from going bankrupt. As of May 2013, $125 billion of the $189 billion loaned to the institutions has been paid back. The U.S. taxpayers are projected to make billions of dollars in profit over the next 10 years after the loans are repaid.

25. Supported amnesty but not border control - and sided with Ted Kennedy over Jim DeMint:

In August of 2007, in response to a Democratic effort to enact legislation granting amnesty to illegal aliens, Senator DeMint was a leader in opposition, while Senator Graham supported the bill even though it did not prevent new illegal immigration. Graham thanked Ted Kennedy for his work on the immigration bill and stated that he was “going to tell the bigots to shut up.”

FALSE.

Senator Graham worked closely with President George W. Bush on his bill to fix our broken immigration system by securing the border and put a stop once and for all to de facto amnesty. The proposal was NOT amnesty or forgiveness. Illegal immigrants were required to pay a fine,acknowledge they broke the law, learn English, undergo criminal background checks, pass an American civics exam, and get in the back of the line. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, contrary to widespread misinformation, remained unchanged through this bill. It authorized hundreds of miles of additional fencing, more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and cutting-edge technology to secure our border. During the 2007 immigration debate, the Nazi Party presidential candidate, who hailed from Laurens, made national news with some of his comments about illegal immigration. As Fox News reported on February 12, 2007, “Fears over illegal immigration are fueling a resurgence in membership to the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina and across the country, according to Klan officials and organizations that track hate groups.” Both the Nazi Party and KKK were using hateful and inflammatory rhetoric around the immigration bill to recruit new members. These were the openly radical and avowed racists that Senator Graham said should be told to “shut up.”

26. Opposed President Bush's conservative nominee from South Carolina to the Court of Appeals:

In June of 2006, Graham opposed James Haynes, a South Carolina native and conservative lawyer who President George W. Bush had nominated for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,blocking his nomination from receiving a full vote in the Senate, because he disagreed with Haynes’ involvement in enhanced interrogation techniques for enemy combatants.

NOT ACCURATE:

Jim Haynes was not from South Carolina and was not nominated to serve as a South Carolina judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Haynes, whose nomination was supported by lawyers like Cass Sunstein, served as General Counsel for the Department of Defense and was one of the key developers of the Bush Administration’s controversial enhanced interrogation techniques.

Senator Graham, a military lawyer in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, opposed torturing enemy combatants because it put our men and women in uniform at risk if they were captured on the battlefield. Haynes’ nomination never came up in the committee for a vote in committee. While Senator Graham opposed Haynes’ nomination, he DID NOT block him from a vote in the Judiciary Committee. In fact, on July 17, 2006, Graham said, “I understand several Senators on the Judiciary Committee, including the Chairman, have submitted additional questions to Mr. Haynes. It is my belief these questions should be answered in a relatively quick manner by Mr. Haynes. After all relevant information is received and reviewed, I stand ready to vote.”

27. Praised Hillary Clinton’s prospects for higher office:

In April of 2006, Graham wrote an article for Time Magazine praising Hillary Clinton, citing his own common ground with her several programs, and calling her “smart, prepared, serious,” and with an “unlimited” future.

MISLEADING.

Senator Graham has been a leading critic of Hillary Clinton’s handling of the Benghazi debacle and has called for her to be subpoenaed to find out more about her handling of the situation in Benghazi before, during, and after the attack.  While she was in the Senate, Senator Clinton co-sponsored Senator Graham’s bill to expand health care benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserves. The legislation passed the Senate unanimously with all Republicans voting in support and is the law today. Senator Graham’s compliments of Hillary Clinton’s intellect and work ethic should not be misconstrued as supporting her for higher office. If Clinton runs for President, Senator Graham will do everything in his power to help the Republican nominee win.

28. Failed to fight for President Bush's conservative judicial nominees generally:

In May of 2005, Graham was one of the infamous “Gang of 14” who voted with Democrats to prevent Republicans from overriding Democrat blockage of Republican judicial nominees.

FALSE.

Senator Graham has a consistent record of supporting and voting for conservative judges. In the 110th Congress, Graham voted for all of President Bush’s Circuit Court nominees who received a vote: Debra Ann Livingston, Thomas Hardiman, Jennifer Elrod, Catharina Haynes, Leslie Southwick, John Tinder, Norman Smith, and Steven Agee. Graham also voted for confirmation of tremendous conservative judges like Janice Rogers Brown, Pricilla Owen, and William Pryer.  Senator Graham’s role in the Gang of 14 has been widely praised by Republicans, especially now that Democrats control both the White House and the Senate. Had the Senate changed the rules and allowed a judicial nominee to be confirmed with a majority vote instead of the long-standing filibuster threshold of 60 votes, President Obama would be able to ram his judicial nominees through the Senate today without a single Republican vote.

When President George W. Bush visited Columbia in November 2007, he said the following about Senator Graham:  “And finally, I appreciate his work on the Judiciary Committee in the United States Senate. I told the people of South Carolina if I became the President of the United States that I would put people on the bench who would strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ve kept that pledge. I’ve had no stronger supporter in the United States Senate than Lindsey Graham for putting good judges on the bench. The people of this state have got to understand that when I nominated John Roberts and Sam Alito, there was no better ally than Lindsey Graham to see to it that these two good men were confirmed."

29. Opposed medical malpractice tort reform:

In 2004, Graham voted with Democrats who filibustered a tort reform bill backed by Republican Majority Leader William Frist for the purpose of limiting medical malpractice awards against obstetricians and gynecologists.

MISLEADING.

Senator Graham strongly believes in legal reforms that reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits brought which only increase costs for everyone. He does not believe in damage caps due to the negative impact they have on legitimate suits with legitimate damages. Senator Graham believes that reforms to medical malpractice and tort litigation are needed. He is a strong supporter of a “loser pays” system that would act as one of the best devices available to prevent frivolous lawsuits. He also believes medical malpractice liability actions should be accompanied by an affidavit from a qualified specialist attesting to the reasonableness of the filing and the attorney bringing the suit should have to certify that the case is meritorious. These improvements would make people think longer and harder about bringing a questionable case forward. Senator Graham does not support non-economic damage caps. This form of damages is especially important for a plaintiff with economic damages that are hard to quantify into a dollar amount, like stay-at-home parents. He does not believe Congress should cap the only compensation.