Home » RIP Lindsey Graham

Comments

RIP Lindsey Graham — 12 Comments

  1. Last thing I’d read is that he died of aortic dissection, for which he has most of the risk factors. It’s usually sudden and often moves too quickly to be treated.

    Timing of his visit to Kiev has of course provoked conspiracy mongering.

  2. Remember what president Harry Truman said. “An honest public servant can’t become rich in politics.”

  3. Thanks for the tribute.

    I would say a net worth of $1.5 million for a single person at his age after a career such as his probably represents zero abuse of his position to gain wealth. Of course I don’t know exactly what Graham owned, but if he purchased a home early in career and invested a decent portion of his salary jusidiciously over the years, $1.5 million sounds conservative, actually.

  4. Sen. Graham consistently struck me as a man honestly passionate for justice, steadfastly seeking to do justice for others and to avoid (farther than usually evident in career politicans) doing injustice to anyone — and all that right alongside his persistent impish love of humor. Through this passion and on account of it, I think, he came into a position of greater power than many people have imagined him to possess; some of these may be rueing the lack of him sooner than they realize today.

  5. There was a period when I was not a fan of Senator Graham; but in retrospect I think he embodied what we need in a national leader. I believe that he was true to his principles; and he will be missed.

  6. I would not judge the honesty of a politician solely by the value of his assets at death, considering what they have access to. Also considering that they can use their positions to enrich friends and family, or perhaps just for enjoyment of power. And then there’s how they may have spent their money: if they blew all their ill-gotten gains on coke and strippers, they might not leave much in assets but still be far from “honest”.

    I am not accusing Lindsey Graham of anything, he may well have been an unusually clean exemplar, just saying. For those who don’t read links, a description of one example of the kind of thing I’m talking about:

    Ninety-two percent of lawmakers have leadership PACs, which are separate from their campaign accounts and aren’t subject to the same restrictions on how donors’ money can be spent.

    The report found that in the 116th Congress, 120 leadership PACs spent less than 50 percent of their money on politics, with the rest going to things like meals at upscale restaurants and stays at elite resorts. Those PACs together spent more than $2 million at hotels and resorts, $220,000 at sporting events and concerts, $190,000 at ski resorts and $150,000 at steakhouses.

    The figures suggest that a large number of lawmakers are not using leadership PACs for their stated purpose — to raise money for their party and their fellow lawmakers seeking reelection — and instead are using them to live large on their donors’ dime…

    A large chunk of leadership PACs’ fundraising comes from corporate PACs, which are controlled by company lobbyists seeking to influence lawmakers. In many cases, those donations directly fund politicians’ lavish lifestyles.

    Politicians have defended their leadership PAC spending, stating that their stays at pricey hotels and resorts are used to facilitate fundraisers with big-dollar campaign donors who expect a luxurious venue.

    Lawmakers are prohibited by law from using campaign funds to enrich themselves or bankroll their personal vacations. However, the Federal Election Commission has not said that the “personal use” rule applies to leadership PACs.

    One Republican and one Democrat are named and shamed in the linked article, but there’s plenty more.

  7. $1.5 million is tiny, tiny, tiny. It means acquisition of wealth was not a driver for him. Did I mention this is paltry, petite in fact.

  8. @Ray:Remember what president Harry Truman said.

    Lol, he would know, wouldn’t he?

    Using recently released and until now unexamined archival evidence, this Article demonstrates that, in a complete contravention of the existing standard historical record, Harry Truman was, as a direct result of being president, a very wealthy man on the day he left the White House, with an estimated net worth, in relative economic terms, of approximately $58 million in 2021 dollars. The Article reveals that this wealth was a result of both Truman’s enormous presidential salary — several times larger, in real terms, than the current salary for the office — and, more problematically, of the evident fact that Truman misappropriated essentially all of the multi-million dollar — in 2021 terms — presidential expense account that was set up for him by Congress at the beginning of his second term.

    The Article also reveals that, again contrary to the current historical understanding, Truman made another fortune after he left the presidency, by doing precisely what he claimed he was not doing, that is, exploiting his status as a former president to maximum economic advantage. Indeed, by the time Congress passed the FPA in response to Truman’s various claims that he was at least teetering on the brink of potential financial distress, Truman’s net worth was, in relative economic terms, approximately $72 million in 2021 dollars.

    In a precise inversion of the meaning ascribed to it by the standard historical narrative, Harry Truman’s actual financial biography illustrates exactly why the Former Presidents Act has always been a bad law, that has never had any reasonable justification in public policy.

  9. A net worth of less than $1.5 million?? Who would have thought such a powerful senator could be living so close to the poverty line? No wonder he never had a wife—he couldn’t afford one.

  10. Graham was always a mixed bag. At heart, he was an Establishment Republican, and he embodied several of their virtues (yes, they have some) and their vices. Business interests were dear to his heart. I suspect John McCain was also a bad influence.

    Limbaugh used to refer to him as ‘Lindsey Grahamnesty’, and for good reason. He was a major supporter of all the amnesty bills that they tried to ram through in the 00s and 10s. He would probably have been happier in a world where Jeb Bush became President instead of Trump.

    He also had a bad habit of constantly threatening hearings and investigations of various Dem malfeasances that usually failed to materialize.

    But he stood up for Kavanaugh, and he worked with Trump rather than sulk in a snit after 2016. If he wasn’t the best he was far from the worst.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Web Analytics