McCain Wants Lindsey Graham to Run for President

john-mccain-lindsey-graham

Some questions arise.

1. Huh

2. What? Why?

3. No seriously? Why?

Sure we’ve got a Republican field led by Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Rand Paul so conservatism clearly isn’t a desirable value, but you would think that one Muslim Brotherhood/amnesty for illegal aliens administration would be enough.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is getting encouragement from a close colleague and friend, Sen. John McCain, to run for President.

“I think he is looking at it, and I am strongly encouraging him to take a look at it,” McCain, an Arizona Republican, told ABC News in a story published Monday. “I know of no one who is better versed and more important on national security policy and defense than Lindsey Graham, and I don’t think these challenges to our security are going away.”

Graham floated the possibility of a run in an interview with the Weekly Standard last month, telling the magazine he’d be interested in running to guide the conversation on national security.

“If I get through my general election, if nobody steps up in the presidential mix, if nobody’s out there talking — me and McCain have been talking — I may just jump in to get to make these arguments,” Graham said.

While Graham and McCain are not bad on national security in some areas, they went completely off the road during the Arab Spring. Not to mention we’ve got Graham bemoaning that Congress didn’t pass amnesty.

If we’re going to have a novelty candidate to push national security themes, John Bolton is still around and he looks roughly 250 percent more presidential than Graham does on his best day.

I would guess that Graham would make a very good debater given a confrontational forum, but his ideas on national security can currently be boiled down to supporting some terrorists and fighting other terrorists.

  • 4arepublic

    McLame and Grahamnesty need to retire at the end of their terms, or sooner.

  • timpottorff

    These are the typical RINO faces that are dooming the Republican Party. They both feel the need for bigger government and they are typical elitist ‘country-club’ Republicans.
    We need honest conservatives that want smaller government like Cruz, Lee, Walker, Pence. I wish Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin would run.

    • JR Kipling

      Not Scott Walker. He is NOT a conservative.

      • Demopublicrat

        ACT 10 is the only thing that floats him along.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Thank you. I’ve taken a lot of heat over on NRO for repeatedly pointing that out.

      • Erudite Mavin

        Scott Walker is not only a Conservative Republican along with taking on the Liberal Unions and demonstrators who took over the capitol a few years ago and won the recall election the Liberals pushed .
        The non conservatives are the Rand Paul crowd who are actually libertarians who share more in common with the left including pro amnesty and enablers of Iran

        • Russell Lissuzzo

          Agreed. But you must correct communist/stalinist thug peoples workers party.

    • Demopublicrat

      A fine host of neocons. Levin is dangerous with his “Constitutional Convention” talk, then there is the way he handled Ron Paul – no facts, no debate, just asinine name-calling. I have neither the time nor the inclination to cover the rest, but you could start with Cruz and his wife.

      • timpottorff

        ‘Levin is dangerous with his “Constitutional Convention” talk’….really? The Framers inserted this ‘dangerous talk’ into the Constitution for the very reason of halting a dangerous, over-reaching, non-representational government. Levin hasn’t proposed anything illegal or dangerous. It may be forgotten by most voters today but it is completely legal according to the Constitution. It also may be the only way we could have a chance of getting back to a true Republic that represents the people’s choices and not the wishes of the Leviathan State.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        I don’t see anything dangerous about talk of a Constitutional Convention. The fact is the Democratic Left has been running roughshod over the Constitution for a long time, and I’m not sure how we can fix that other than be inserting more and more specific prohibitions into the Constitution whose plain meaning even a Lefty judge can’t deny.

        For example, “Neither Congress nor the several states shall pass any law restricting the ownership of firearms by the people except during a time of confinement for an offense whereof the guilty party shall have been duly convicted, or the right to bear arms on public rights-of-way, or restrict removable magazine capacity, or require registration of any type of arm…” etc. We also need to strengthen some of the other amendments, restrict Congress’ power to tax and spend, and remove its power to redistribute property. That is the only coherent long-term goal for Conservatives I can think of.

        • Demopublicrat

          The problem is that you don’t see period. Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an example of what will happen, we were lucky liberty minded people gave us the Constitution we have, with the people we have today, you can bet your life we won’t be so lucky. The wording of the Constitution is already quite clear and they ignore it, if we get a new Constitution however, they will follow that to the letter.

          While I don’t agree with everything on this site, this article is pretty good: http://www.thenewamerican.Com/usnews/constitution/item/17610-article-v-convention-dangerous-precedent-dangerous-loyalties Cut and paste the link.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            The Convention can be limited in nature; for example, confined to discussing ways to reduce the powers of Congress. Or it could be done once secession has been announced as a distinct possibility – the price the blue states must pay if they want us to remain in the same union with them. There are many possibilities.

            The question of whether the Constitution has too many loopholes or whether it’s just that it isn’t followed could be debated at great length. My point is that experience has shown the anti-Federalists were correct and that a Bill of Rights was needed. What’s needed now is an expanded Bill of Rights that really puts the Progressive project out of business.

          • Demopublicrat

            Once the Con Con is in motion, there would be no constraints, we would be at the mercy of those delegated to it.

            “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.” – Chief Justice Burger Retired

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Well, without another convention I see no way of chaining down an out-of-control government. Just winning elections, even if still possible, obviously isn’t good enough – history shows that. Congress plainly cannot be trusted to propose the right amendments – they won’t even propose one that forbids their power from being delegated to administrative agencies.

          • Demopublicrat

            The convention will only legalize the out-of-control government. Just winning elections – that is a fallacy, if Romney would have won, there would still be an out of control government, we the people need to start holding the ones we have accountable not taking a snooze when “our guy” gets elected. The easy way out is never the best way.

          • Russell Lissuzzo

            I do. Knock it all down; Rebuild. We can’t survive with one of the main evils-government bureaucratic agencies run by generational parasitic/socialist apparatchiks.

          • Russell Lissuzzo

            Excellent. Well said.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Thank you.

  • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

    to make our heads explode

  • unmergood

    Holy crap Batman! One loser to another. I think they should elope and leave the rest of us alone. The longer they stay in power the more ridiculous they become!

  • Pete

    McCain lives in his own world.

    McCain thinks one of the Gang of 8 running on the Republican ticket will somehow be better than “My Friends” McCain or milquetoast Romney.

    Romney almost had it, but there was not enough fire in his belly, when Candy Crowley lied and Romney did not refute her lie.

    Lindsey Graham would bomb worse than McCain or Romney. On the bright side he would never make it out of the primaries unless the fix was in.

    “Speaking after the debate, Crowley said on CNN that Romney was correct “in the main” that the administration was slow to acknowledge the deadly assault was a coordinated terrorist attack.

    Said Crowley: “Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t. So he [Romney] was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.””

    • Demopublicrat

      Romney is a flaming leftist – government healthcare, gay marriage, tax funded abortion and all.

  • USARetired

    We need candidates who choose issues first and politics last, this does not include anyone McCain is supporting!

  • Demopublicrat

    No thanks.

  • JR Kipling

    Why of course Admiral…..now eat your prunes and we will make poo-poo after rest hour okay?

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      God that’s funny! Not nice, but funny.

  • Hi there

    Bolton is the only one I would vote for. I didn’t know he was a contender? I hope he runs- and wins.

  • Mick60

    McCain and his wife have a bedroom in their Arizona home for Lindsey Graham. They’re always seen together.
    Graham, to my knowledge, isn’t married nor does he date.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    McCain is intellectually incoherent, being basically Progressive but at the same time anti-abortion. His views on national security can be summarized as “Establish no-fly zones everywhere”. He’s also nasty. Graham is McCain without the nastiness – pure incoherence.

  • Ghost Writer

    It would be terrible if Graham were to be the Republican nominee for president. It would ensure a Democrat winning the election. I think Graham is in the wrong party. I also think that McCain is feckless i.e. incompetent.

  • catherineinpvb

    As long as we are in South Carolina. ..why not, Trey Gowdy. . .or perhaps, he is reccommending him for ‘House Leadershiip’. . .though I suspect not.

  • joe kulak

    President Goober. Third RINO is the charm? Yeah, right.

  • ROMEBURNS

    Translation: McCain wants Democrats to perpetually control the presidency. It’s time for Arizona to put this dope out to pasture.

  • John Pallyswine

    This proves that the system itself and those behind it are to blame for the pathetic state of America and the world

  • Russell Lissuzzo

    The strength and courage of McCain can never be forgotten; but the modern day McCain is lost in a fog. I wouldn’t trust his opinion about anything or anybody. graham!? He is a loser POS!!