RINO Lindsey Graham votes with Democrats on Sotomayor

Sandra Crosnoe - Finding Gems & Sharing Them

Breaking news:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to send the Sotomayor recomendation for Supreme Court to the full Senate for a vote.  Surprise, surprise instead of standing on principle and the facts of the case, Lindsey Graham votes with the Democrats in a 13 to 6 vote.  Does anyone really think that helps anyone?  Why do you think this occurs?  Can anyone say principle and backbone here?

Will Republicans publicly chastise him for this vote?  I just did.  He should not receive party support or endorsement of funding in any future election.  This should be the absolute proverbial nail in the coffin for a confirmed RINO (Republican in name only).  I am sending a pink slip in the form of this post, but everyone in South Carolina should send him one in the mail today.

If you need a copy of one to print see StubbornFacts post here.

Please pray for South Carolina to rise to the task of finding better leadership for their wonderful state.  My prayers are with them and I thank God for my online friend Southern Avenger SA@Takimag (@southernavenger on twitter) who I am sure will have something to say on this topic soon.

For Life and Liberty,

Sandie

PS  It is not over on Sotomayor.  It goes to the full Senate now and everyone in on notice that a vote for Sotomayor will be a determining vote in grassroots support in 2010.  DRIPUSA is in progress.  More on this topic soon!

Our List of Confirmed RINOS based on Sotomayor vote is below and will be updated:
(I believe that all of these folks voted for the bailout also – will confirm and update – comments and links pertinent are welcomed!)

Collins – RINO from Maine
Graham – RINO from South Carolina
Lugar – RINO from Indiana
Martinez – RINO from Florida
Snowe – RINO from Maine

Advertisements

5 Responses to “RINO Lindsey Graham votes with Democrats on Sotomayor”

  1. Twitted by AZgrassroots Says:

    […] This post was Twitted by AZgrassroots […]

  2. Bette Noir Says:

    So, I’m interested in the definition of a non-RINO. Is it someone who votes the party line rather than his/her conscience? Last time I checked there were still at least two sides to every issue. Too bad we can’t just be Americans and drop the paranoia, envy and knee-jerk partisan politics.

    Oh well . . .

    • Sandra Crosnoe Says:

      Bette,

      A very good question and a wonderful thought you present!

      In the country as a whole we require an understanding and an assent to support and defend the Constitution in order to hold elected office. So anyone not doing that with votes or rhetoric is an oath breaker.

      In the Republican party, we have a platform. Many ignore it, but I believe that if you receive party money and time and support that you should stand on the platform as well. I realize that not all of us agree on everything, but it is worth noting that we are generally a party of fiscal restraint and limited government.

      Therefore if you claim that you are a Republican and vote for a bailout or a supreme court nominee who doesn’t support the constitution, then you are without a doubt a RINO or a Republican in Name Only. This particular nominee practically disavows the entire Bill of Rights. Boggles my mind how anyone in either party can vote for her, but since I am a Republican, I can at least demand accountability for the R’s.

      Blessings,
      Sandie

    • Sandra Crosnoe Says:

      RINO is Republican In Name Only – one has only to look at the platform to determine what a non-RINO would be (someone who actually agrees with the party platform)! Pretty easy really. Trying to remember if Sen Graham could check off anything in the party platform that he does agree with . . .

  3. Bette Noir Says:

    Clear enough, but I would like to play “devil’s advocate” so to speak.

    Point #1: As you point out and as we all know, public officeholders in the U.S. are sworn to “support and defend the Constitution in order to hold elected office. So anyone not doing that with votes or rhetoric is an oath breaker.”

    I posit that: In order to make the determination that an elected official is not “supporting and defending the Constitution” in accordance with the “oath of office,” one must be intellectually capable and educationally prepared to interpret the Constitution and to provide irrefutable, factual evidence that an oath has been broken. Breaking an oath is a very serious charge, not something that should be bandied about whenever an elected official does something that we don’t agree with. Otherwise, the value of the oath itself is seriously diminished. “Oath breaking” cannot be a casual emotional or rhetorical allegation, it must be factual. So what I am asking for, here, is the facts that support your personal (rather cavalier, I might add) allegation, on your blog (which is essentially a public forum), that Sen. Lindsey Graham is a “so-called” RINO because of his vote for a SC justice’s confirmation.

    Point #2: You state that “we are generally a party of fiscal restraint and limited government.”
    If that is so, I would like to better understand how it was in keeping with those principles that the last Republican administration waged not one, but two undeclared wars that spent trillions of taxpayer dollars for years and required the future commitment of billions more, beyond that administration’s tenure, to extract the U.S. from those wars.

    How do you explain a “limited government” in light of facts that prove that the last Republican administration saw fit to spy on private citizens for years, spending those taxpayers’ own money to do it.

    Point#3: You allege that Judge Sotomayor is “a supreme court nominee who doesn’t support the constitution” and a “nominee (who) practically disavows the entire Bill of Rights.” Show me the FACTS please, and maybe I’ll agree with you. However, I really doubt that you can do that because for an entire week the “best” legal minds in the Republican part tried, assiduously, to prove just those points and couldn’t score a single one.

    I’ll tell you what “boggles” my mind: the fact that people, like yourself, who are of above average intelligence can be so brainwashed by fearmongers and demagogues. To the extent that such people will believe the wildest, most melodramatic political fantasies and actually further, support and donate to the furtherance of such adolescent rot. It would be a wonderful thing if all of that divisive energy could be channeled into working together to make this country a better place to live. A place where the U.S. Constitution ensures that we are all EQUAL, no matter what our beliefs or politics.

    Can you truthfully say that you believe in that Constitution?
    What are you so afraid of?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: