Conspiracy or no conspiracy, is that not always the question? Most sensible political observers think that Graham, who has been in the Senate since 2003, is simply ready to "move up or move out."
Three more Republicans enter crowded 2016 race -- we'll tell you their positions on climate change (even if they won't)
We are now, in 2015, being treated to Iraq War 2.0 (or even 3.0 if you include the Gulf War), a re-litigating of the original 2003 decision in the run-up to the presidential election of 2016.
It's hard to conceive of a path for Graham, who is stretching out an announcement until June 1, to win the GOP nomination. It doesn't have anything to do with his qualifications, but with pure, power politics.
Senate hawks like Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirk do not like diplomacy with Iran. Graham has repeatedly threatened war with Iran, whereas Kirk prefers to starve the Iranian people. Yet, given that most Americans do not want another military adventure in the Middle East, the hawks are pivoting.
First the state legislature and the governor implemented new pro-solar policies. And now the local utility has come together with nonprofits, community leaders and private businesses to launch an innovative residential solar program aimed at tripling the amount of solar panels installed in the state.
Reinforcing his pro-lender stance, Senator Graham was the leading opponent of the 2010 legislation that President Obama signed into law regarding the administration of student loans.
The obvious choice for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than America's new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. Lynch was finally confirmed by the Senate in a 56-43 vote.
The Green News Report is also available via... ...
How many other Walter Scotts are there who did not have the benefit of body cameras? This question looms with the history of tensions between police and African Americans in North Charleston, which lean notoriously in the direction of Ferguson.
Leaving aside whether you agree or disagree with any of this criticism (I think the Republican critiques thus far have been vague so far), the administration must realize that there is a very intense sentiment swirling around that Washington not only got swindled, but swindled in a way that will add more tension to its foreign relations.
American foreign policy is controlled by fools. What else can one conclude from the bipartisan demand that the U.S. intervene everywhere all the time, irrespective of consequences? No matter how disastrous the outcome, the War Lobby insists that the idea was sound. Any problems obviously result, it is claimed, from execution, a matter of doing too little: too few troops engaged, too few foreigners killed, too few nations bombed, too few societies transformed, too few countries occupied, too few years involved, too few dollars spent. As new conflicts rage across the Middle East, the interventionist caucus' dismal record has become increasingly embarrassing.
Hillary Clinton accomplished what all public officials want; protection of her privacy without breaking any laws or regulations. As a voter you can determine whether this is a political story or a real issue by how Congress acts to address the problem.
Not only have Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform when it had a real chance of passing, they're now trying yet again to bring up unconstitutional bills to drive their point home.
The revelation that potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State has shown more about the media's open disdain for the Clintons than anything about Hillary herself.
There are strong arguments making the case for the persistence (and indeed the intensification) of U.S. airstrikes against ISIS targets. But equally there are strong arguments, less frequently heard perhaps, for why the United States should not continue, and should certainly not intensify, those airstrikes.