Flip-Flop Lyndsey Graham and the GOP are out to stop anything Obama.

Translation: You expect Congress to actually do anything? During a Democratic administration? What are you, nuts? That aside, as a loyal Republican, I can't allow that!

I believe it says; "blah, blah, blah-blahbitty blah. My Lindsanese is rusty, so it may not be a direct translation. But, it's VERY close.

More seriously, he's saying that everyone wants better border security, but no one wants to be seen helping legitimize illegals. But since dealing with that issue is a vital part of reform, he doesn't think there's hope for the bill. Sadly, he may well be right.

Less seriously again: "I care equally about immigration and climate change. ... By which I mean I'm not going to support either one. (It would kill my chances at reelection, you know.)"

This is a classic example of why conservatism cannot and will not change things for the better. There is always a reason not to change things -- to deliberately not try for something better, even to obstruct something that would be obviously better.

It is likely that Lindsey Graham would have invented just about any reason to not go through with his climate change bill. In his heart he does not believe in anything but keeping the status quo.

I read the whole interview. What I came away with was how Sen. Grahm is all about CYA. Much more concerned with being "hung out to dry" than with growing a pair for his constituents. It really seems to be what these "7-year-olds" are doing these days...playing playground with America.

Rachel -- I'm a language teacher. I think I've got it. When Sen. Graham says in the same breath he "cares equally about immigration and climate change" then says they are mutually exclusive as debate topics, he is using bastardized doublespeak. But does he see his own faux pas? If he can say one thing and mean another simultaneously, why can't we debate immigration and climate simultaneously? This wide veer off the vernacular is common among career lawmakers. Roughly translated, he is saying, "talking to or about either issue at all, much less at the same time, is bad for the GOP in upcoming elections." You're welcome.

I think they're waiting for a response from the Tea Party people, what would they say? Well Libertarian Party for the AZ Gov race,Bruce Olson, praises Gov. Brewer for Immigration crack-down ... to me they are hoping the events in AZ result in slowing the Latino voting population. For them to actually think this is going to work goes against the poll the states the intellect of the members of the Tea Party. Your seeing a rise in the polls for Gov. Brewer's opponent Goddard, and where I live in TX...Gov.Rick Perry is having second thoughts to follow suit with the AZ Gov. for fear of his poll numbers including former Mayor of Houston Bill White.

The Rep leaders don't mind the status quo because it means cheap labor. The Rep masses will support efforts to keep "the others" out, but reject any pathway to citizenship for them. If there is a debate, the Rep leaders will have to change the status quo, either by providing legal means for "the others" to be in this country (pathway to citizenship or guest worker programs), which will be rejected by their base, or by racheting up the sanctions against the presence of others in this country, which will drive them in to the waiting arms of the Dems. The debate is a "lose-lose" for the Reps, IMHO

If employers were correctly held accountable, rather than prosecuting undocumented workers, the jobs that illegals come here for, would dry up. The illegal immigration problem would probably be halved. The remaining half could be fast-tracked to citizenship.

We have existing law that will make the problem manageable. How about a biometric ID card for the needed seasonal workers? We already have laws that will mitigate the problem. What's so bad about enforcing them?

This makes perfect sense to me, and frankly, he's right. It's smart in the context of the election to try to do immigration reform right now, since Republicans railing against it in their home districts will make them look racist (see the Republican primary debates in Iowa district 3 for great examples), but in terms of policy it's idiotic. If we try to do immigration reform in an election year, we're going to eat a s*** sandwich in terms of policy.

Graham is saying that he can't be seen supporting what will be labeled as "amnesty" and what will be labeled as a "gas tax" in the same year, in the heat of a midterm election, and still act in good faith on both. It's petty and political, and he's doing nothing more than covering his own ass, but he's still right. As a Republican, in this climate, he's sticking his neck out a lot to be cooperating COLLABORATING!!!1 with Dems at all.

Immigration was a can of worms neither party wanted to address before the election. Climate Change is something that can get support not only from the Senate, but from the electorate as well.

The Dems see Immigration Reform as a politically advantageous issue. Since nobody has been working on this hot-button topic in the Senate, then LG is saying that what would come out of the Senate would be a knee-jerk reaction to the AZ law.

Some of that logic is solid, some of it is flawed. The Senate has been working to get SOMETHING regarding Climate Change together for several months, that is just how the Senate works...Where Nancy Pelosi has the House in order (and will probably go down as one of the greatest Speakers in history, with good reason), and can whip the votes together on legislation, the Senate is like herding cats. So the logic on not wanting a knee-jerk reaction bill is valid. Where it breaks down is his insistence of opposing Climate Change if Immigration is put on the table.

He already faced the ire of the Tea Baggers (just can't call them the Tea Party) and the right-wing crazies for being a 'moderate' Repub, to support this now with the addition of Immigration Reform on the docket, would be political suicide.

Is it right? Hardly. Can I understand it (specifically in his case)? Somewhat. Lindsay Graham is part of a smaller and smaller contingent of Repubs that will actually WORK with the Dems. The word 'WORK' is subjective of course, but what other Repub Senator has co-sponsored a bill of any consequence in the last year?

I can't think of one.

This deft political move is known as the Lindsey Hop. He fakes left, hops right and sashays around the issue with jazz hands and snapping fingers.

While it doesn't do much to move a bill forward, it can provide hours of entertainment in an otherwise frustrating sausage making process.

This deft political move is known as the Lindsey Hop. He fakes left, hops right and sashays around the issue with jazz hands and snapping fingers.

Translation: Don't you dare expect me to walk and chew gum.

I actually do understand Graham's dilemma. And I even agree that immagration reform is likely to fail in an election year. But the likelyhood of failure is not a good enough reason not to move on it now. The Democrats are taking heavy flak from its latino constituates for not moving on this issue til now. The Dem's need to keep its promises to the Latin community on  matter that needs to be addressed. Graham just needs to man-up, and do what is right.

I think Lindsey agreed to be the sacrificial lamb of the GOP to work on climate change (he's not up til 2014). That would get the bill started all 'bipartisanish', making the GOP look good, but then the GOP strategy would be to stall, baby, stall it past the midterms. The GOP would then go into full smear campaign against the bill, the truth of climate change, and the Democrats... in about August... turning their 'townhalls' into drill, baby, drill brawls hoping that the tactic incites the rushbeckteapartiers to the polls.

But much to the GOP's horror...the Democrats have thrown their whole plan on its head...Immigration is something the Democrats will win on...they will not be bamboozled by the stall, lie, smear, GOP tactic they could use on climage change. That is why Lindsey is so mad she can't talk straight.

Thanks to AZ the GOP/TParty is split on immigration and the Democrats can take it all the way to the midterms...Everybody will be excited to get out and vote.

Translation? Sure?

"We in congress love the immigration situation the way it is. The labor intensive business who contribute heavily our campaigns get plenty of low cost labor. Many of those laborers have taxes, FICA and social security taken from their wages with no hope of ever seeing a refund or benefit. They can't apply for government services, and when they get medical care from the nations emergency rooms, it's paid for by insurance companies, e.g., out of higher premiums for those who have legal jobs. So the federal government gets money for nothing and their (low cost employee) chicks for free. Who would want to mess with a sweet deal like that."

And the gigantic fraud of the oxymoronic gop "leadership" goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I wonder what spin(s) McConnell, Boehner, Gregg and the rest of the superhero group "The Malfeasant Liars" will take on this.

It'll also be interesting to see the GrOuPies talking points as they're vomited out by the Faux News crowd.

Lindsay Graham is a politician. He is reasonable when it is to his political advantage. Someone sometime said, "Every senator thinks he/she should be president". That's the point that needs to be kept in mind. 'Principle' is a 4-letter word to Graham (and most/all other senators). I know that sounds cynical...

Graham is a Republican and wants to keep immigration off the radar because he knows it will cost the party BIG time. From what I can figure, Obama wanted to keep the issue until 2012. That doesn't seem to be in the cards. In my opinion, it should be addressed this fall.

I can't tell if Congress has a one-track mind or if it's the media that does. I would think that with 535 members they could handle both financial reform and immigration reform at the same time. It may be the media that can't handle two topics at the same time.

After consulting with a business adviser, a semiotics expert, and a PhD in pure mathematics (who used to write the ratings computations used to get approval from bond rating agencies for Collateralized Debt Obligations), the following decryption is offered for Mr. Graham's explanation:

I took money from "client A" promising that my new legislation would not effect his businesses. And I took money from "client B" with a guaranty no new legislation threatening his businesses would be written at all this year.

The mayor in the next town over from client B just signed a local law that can effect his businesses, and now he wants me to do something about it or give him his money back. I told client B this is not possible without introducing legislation that he wants me to block in the first place.

Now, The lawyer for Client A is telling me this local law somehow greatly impacts his client as well, and he wants me to rewrite my new legislation with articles that protect his client or give him his money back.

I've already spent the money from both clients, and I can't go forth in rewriting and pushing my new legislation for client A while writing a piece of legislation for client B that blocks said legislation from effecting client B until I have a chance to figure out where in the text the law effects client A.

Bunch of frigging cry babies. If they don't get their own way they will take their vote and go home. Grow up Congress people!

I am one of the 41 who just say no.

Dan Stein. After seeing your attempted interview with him I went out and bought bought double bolt locks for my doors and windows. Very scary dude. There should be a law that all racists must announce themselves publicly when entering a room so we can avoid being contaminated with their ooze.

What he said.