Some people have asked why I have such a problem with the argument that South Carolina should simply continue the Lindsey Graham legacy in the United States Senate. Here's the history. More than a decade ago, I personally supported a formal resolution calling for Lindsey Graham to be replaced as South Carolina's Senator. The broader Tea Party revolt against Graham became a national political story as conservatives challenged his record on immigration, civil liberties, foreign intervention and the proper limits of federal power. National outlets were covering the fight over Graham and the direction of the Republican Party going into his 2014 reelection. Here is the actual resolution. Don't take my word for it — read the charges here >>> A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE REPLACEMENT OF LINDSEY GRAHAM AS SENATOR FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA - The Times Examiner share.google/Lig2D2SsxeHKRwe… And remember, that resolution was written more than a decade before his Senate career ended. His record already included voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court. Those votes were in 2009 and 2010 — before our 2013 fight — and Graham openly defended the principle of giving presidents substantial deference on judicial nominees. He also joined Chuck Schumer in advocating a biometric Social Security identification system as part of immigration reform — a proposal civil-liberties organizations criticized as effectively creating a biometric national ID. Then came the NSA revelations. When Americans learned about mass government collection of telephone metadata, Graham publicly defended the surveillance. Years later, he supported making FISA Section 702 surveillance authority permanent without the reforms civil-liberties advocates were demanding. In 2024, he was again publicly pushing for FISA reauthorization. That matters to someone like me who believes the Fourth Amendment means something. Then there was military power. The Constitution gives Congress, not an individual President, the power to declare war. Yet Lindsey's career became synonymous with an extraordinarily interventionist foreign policy. In 2013, while much of the country was questioning another Middle Eastern intervention, Graham was advocating attacks on Syrian air bases — and when President Obama's proposed military response was criticized for potentially being too broad, Graham and John McCain worried instead that Obama's planned strikes might not go far enough. And that pattern continued. Ukraine. Syria. Iran. Russia. Iraq. Libya. Military commitments and foreign entanglements around the world became one of the defining characteristics of his political career. AP described Graham's philosophy as one of assertive American military engagement, while Reuters described him as one of Washington's most influential foreign-policy hawks. And I'm not even borrowing the line “Lindsey never saw a war he didn't like” from one of his Tea Party critics. President Donald Trump himself said essentially that at Graham's memorial, calling him “extremely hawkish” and saying he “never saw a war that he didn't like.” Reuters reported the remark while also noting the competing view from Sean Hannity, who argued Graham had been unfairly characterized as a warmonger. As recently as 2025 and 2026, Graham was still advocating a muscular military approach toward Iran and supporting military pressure against Tehran. Then there's the Second Amendment. In 2019 Graham, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, actively promoted federal incentives for states to enact “red flag” gun laws allowing firearms to be removed from people deemed dangerous. Supporters argue these laws can prevent shootings and suicides; constitutional critics — including many gun-rights advocates — raise serious Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process concerns. Graham wasn't merely discussing the subject; his own Senate statement said the hearing was examining how the federal government could incentivize states to create their own red-flag laws. Immigration remained another major disagreement. Graham was one of the architects of the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration bill, which created a pathway to citizenship for millions of people illegally present in the United States. The measure passed the Senate 68-32 but died in the House. And there were repeated constitutional arguments over detention, surveillance and executive power throughout his career. Civil-liberties advocates had objected for years to Graham's support for broad military detention authority for terrorism suspects, including the debate over how far that authority could extend to American citizens. People can agree or disagree with me on every one of those issues. That's America. But what nobody should misunderstand is why I object when I'm told Darline Graham's qualification is that Lindsey trusted her, Lindsey's staff surrounds her, and she can continue Lindsey Graham's legacy. That is precisely the legacy many of us were fighting against. This isn't something I invented because Ralph Norman is running against Darline. I was opposing these policies when Lindsey Graham was alive, powerful, nationally prominent and politically difficult to challenge. And I would be intellectually dishonest to abandon those principles today simply because President Trump or Governor McMaster endorsed his sister. I respect President Trump. I respect Governor McMaster. I also respect them enough to disagree with them. They don't get my vote by proxy. Neither does a political family. Neither does a congressional staff. And neither does the Republican establishment. My vote belongs to me, and I answer to my conscience and the Constitution. That is why I'm supporting Ralph Norman for United States Senate. Not because Ralph is perfect. He isn't. Not because I agree with every vote he has ever cast. I don't. But because between these two choices, I believe Ralph Norman's demonstrated record is substantially closer to the constitutional principles I've spent decades fighting for. Principle over personality. Record over relationships. Liberty over government power. Peace over perpetual intervention. And the Constitution over the political establishment. Read the old resolution. Then look at what happened during the years that followed it. And decide for yourself whether South Carolina needs to continue the Lindsey Graham legacy — or finally turn the page. @fitsnews @ThomasRavenel #SCPolitics #ConstitutionFirst #PrincipleOverParty #PoliticalAccountability #SCGOP