The Spectator Gets it Wrong.

An article in today's American Spectator absolutely reams Sen. Lindsey Graham for his decision to vote for Sotomayor in her confirmation for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Condescending to Sotomayor about her "wise Latina" beliefs, he also ruminated that some of the speeches she has given are "pretty disturbing," and they "blow me away." He wondered aloud "who are we getting" in a Justice Sotomayor, something not unlike guzzling scotch and wondering if there is a connection to perpetual hangovers. [...] Senator Graham is no dummy. To proceed to vote to put someone on the Court who is so obviously devoted to principles he claims to oppose gives new meaning to terms such as cowardly, lily-livered, irresolute, chickenhearted or, in Spanish, no cojones.

As I wrote in a post back a couple weeks ago, Republicans have to pick their battles. And the battle over Sotomayor is the wrong one. Why? Because these battles are less about the nominees and more about who they are replacing. Sotomayor will replace the reliably liberal Justice Souter. It's a wash. Whomever Obama would nominate if Sotomayor was voted down would vote just the same way as she would and as Souter did.

So what is Graham doing by ripping her to shreds and then voting for her confirmation?

He's setting himself up as a voice of reason for the real fight - the fight to replace the Supreme Court's swing voter, Justice Kennedy.

Imagine the way it can be framed, "Graham showed his ability to be reasonable during the Sotomayor debate when he supported the President's nominee despite his obvious reservations."

And with the Kennedy replacement, Graham's voice will be heard much louder when the President attempts to nominate another liberal to fill the spot. The Senator's refusal to support the nominee will be considered more legitimate based on his history of supporting Sotomayor.

It's all a game. Some people just don't understand the rules.