Lindsey Graham's empty threats

One rule of thumb in politics is to limit the number of empty threats you make for fear of looking powerless and foolish. But today, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham offers two particularly silly threats on consecutive pages of the New York Times -- is he the new go-to guy for partisan bluster? The Larry Sabato of empty threat-making?

Lindsey Graham, page A13, on Social Security:

Republicans, however, see Mr. Lieberman as a potential partner and say Democrats are resorting to pressure tactics to hold members in line.

"The public is tired of that," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "If this becomes 'You cannot work with Bush to solve Social Security,' then it will be a death blow to the Democratic Party. You will have more Republicans up here than we can handle."

Lindsey Graham, page A14, on judicial nominations:

Republicans say Democrats are badly misreading the political climate. Many Republicans seem more than ready for the confrontation should no compromise be found, pointing to the Senate losses experienced by Democrats in last November's election.

"If the Democrat Party continues this, they are going to pay another price in '06," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Does anyone not elected in a Republican primary think the Democratic Party "paid a price" in '04 for preventing votes on a handful of judicial nominees? Or that Democrats are going to suffer a "death blow" for refusing to work with the President on private accounts?

As Rob Coddry says, "I mean, come on."

Comments

[Expertise]

Brendan, I think they will. I feel the strict party-line adherance within the Democratic Party, even during Clinton's years, have resulted in their losses.

Remember; we both live in a state where a senatorial candidate was beaten TWICE due to the mere mention of Clinton's name. I wouldn't blow off Graham's warning so easily if I was a Democrat, especially if they represent a Southern or Midwestern state.

[BD]

Oh, I think they paid a price - "Tom Daschle" is one name that comes to mind.

There are people who care deeply about obstructionism on judicial nominations, and it cuts against Democrats - while it may not make a difference in most elections, it will in close ones.