“The best deal comes with a new president. Hillary Clinton would do better. I think everybody on our side except maybe Rand Paul could do better.”
It is worth noting that Mr. Graham is apparently considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination, which would in turn bring him to contest Rand Paul’s ambitions. Still, though, the “Ouch!” about Palmetto senior senator’s jab is mutivalent. Then again, it is also predictable.
And if for some reason one is so interested in having a chuckle at Mr. Graham’s expense―no, really, we understand if you’re not interested in anything having to do with this once-respected statesman who has lately and so greatly tumbled into tinfoil and hatred―Darren Goode of Politico poses an interesting question: “Lindsey Graham: Too green for the GOP?”
No, really. That’s the headline.
Graham, who bases his climate views as much on Scripture as on science, balked when asked whether the GOP needs a moderating voice — akin to the pro-science, pro-climate-action role that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman played in the 2012 Republican primaries ....
.... And unlike Huntsman, Graham isn’t about to lecture people who disagree with him or aren’t willing to join the cause publicly.
“I’m OK with the science behind climate change. But if you’re not, that’s OK with me,” Graham said. “But what is our position about the emissions? What’s our position about the Clean Air Act? What would we do as Republicans to ensure that the next generation enjoys a healthy environment, being good stewards of God’s green earth?”
And that’s what counts as “too green for the GOP”.
Chris Warren, a spokesman for the Koch-affiliated American Energy Alliance, put it simply: “I don’t think anyone is taking Lindsey Graham’s presidential bid too seriously.” We need not wonder why.
Schneider, Howard and Doina Chiacu. “U.S. Republican Graham says Hillary could have reached better deal on Iran”. Reuters. 5 April 2015.
Goode, Darren. “Lindsey Graham: Too green for the GOP?”. Politico. 5 April 2015.