Republican leaders in a South Carolina county have censured their own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate bill and other legislation.

The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.

The State adds:

County chairwoman Lin Bennett said the unanimous voice vote of 50 of 104 executive members "is an effort to get his attention. They (party leaders) are just fed up, and they want him to know they're fed up.

The resolution reads, in part:

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham -- in the name of bipartisanship -- continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.

Note well: The brand comes first, followed by freedom and the rule of law. Don't you forget it, Lindsey!

This unhinged response is reflected in the conservative blogosphere, where Graham has been called a "fake Republican," "RINO" (Republican in name only), a "traitor," "disgrace," "asshat," "democrat in drag," and a "wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy."

Graham received such rough treatment at one of his own townhalls on Tuesday that he was driven to tell his audience, regarding his vision for how the Republican party should move forward, that "if you don't like it, you can leave." That in turn, prompted Glenn Beck to devote a segment of his show on Wednesday to Graham:

Listen to the arrogance of Lindsey Graham: And if you don't like it, you can leave. Well, Lindsey, I think they have. I think they have. He says they're not going to become the party of angry white men. Oh, well, that's not too racist. What do you mean you are not going to be the party of angry white men? Do you know why the white men, white women, black men, black women, Hispanics, doesn't matter, do you know why Americans are angry? Because of attitudes like yours! If you don't like it, you can leave. Excuse me? Who works for who? You work for me, you little weasel. I've been paying your stinkin' salary! I have been paying I'm paying for your pension until the day you die! Are you excuse me? I want to say, "Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?"

Glenn Beck channeling "Taxi Driver's" psychotic would-be assassin Travis Bickle. Why am I not surprised?

But what is truly baffling about this whole outbreak of puritanical hardcore Republicanism, is that in his now notorious New York Times op-ed, co-written with John Kerry, Lindsey Graham makes it clear that his support of a climate change bill is predicated on expanding government support for nuclear power and clean coal. From a liberal environmentalist point of view, Graham is a conservative. But from the Republican base perspective, he's a foul traitor to all that is good and holy. To me, he's the closest thing to sane in the South Carolina GOP.

Obama dwelled on similar themes -- healthcare, the economy, race -- in all the interviews and made a somewhat surprising admission, saying that the healthcare debate had "humbled" him. He conceded that he has had problems "breaking through" and expressing to Americans why healthcare reform is so vital to the country. "I think there have been times where I have said I've got to step up my game in terms of talking to the American people about issues like health care," Obama said on George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week." The president added, however, that he will push forward with healthcare reform, “Because I — I really think it’s the right thing to do for the country.”

He dismissed the notion that mandating that all Americans have health insurance would increase taxes, and sounded almost Reaganesque in doing so, stating in the ABC interviews, "What I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that ... For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.”

Throughout all the interviews, Obama maintained a cool demeanor. While on CBS' "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked Obama about whether his healthcare reform ideas were too ambitious. Obama replied, "I don't think I've promised too much at all ... Everyone recognizes this is a problem. Everyone recognizes the current path we're on is unsustainable ...We know that standing still is not an option."

And Obama insisted on Univision that he has not given up on the public option that many progressives believe is essential to reform because it would challenge private insurers to lower their costs to compete with a government-backed insurance option. "I absolutely do not believe that [the public option is] dead," Obama said on Univision, a Spanish-language channel. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort."

When questioned about the economy, Obama painted a grim picture,  telling CNN's John King that "The jobs picture is not going to improve considerably, and it could even get a little bit worse, over the next couple of months ... And we're probably not going to start seeing enough job creation to deal with the rising population until some time next year."

He cleverly sidestepped discussions of race, in part, by blaming the media.  On NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama told host David Gregory that racial issues are "catnip" to the media. The president distanced himself from the recent claims by former President Jimmy Carter and others that the majority of the opposition to his presidency stems from racism. Instead, Obama blamed the media for fanning the flames of racial tension in the U.S.

“The media loves to have a conversation about race,” Obama said on NBC. “This is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” As The Plum Line's Greg Sargent pointed out, Obama made these comments after Gregory attempted to get the president to condemn Carter's recent statements.

In his ABC interview, Obama sought to formulate a nuanced position on the race issue. He in no way embraced the idea that racism is driving opposition to his presidency. Stephanopoulos asked him, "Does it frustrate you when your own supporters see racism when you don’t think it exists." To which, Obama replied:

Look I think that race is such a volatile issue in this society, always has been that, uh, it becomes hard for people to separate out race being a sort of part of the backdrop of American society versus race being a predominant factor in any given debate ... The overwhelming part of the American population, I think, is right now following this debate and they are trying to figure out, is this gonna help me. Is health care going to make me better off? Now there are some who are, setting aside the issue of race, actually I think are more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. And I think that that’s probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol.

What are others saying about the Obama-thon?

Obama appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Univision. But he did not go on Fox News. Writing in the New York Times, TV critic Alessandra Stanley wrote that this apparent snub made Obama appear petty and that it was a tit-for-tat response to Fox's decision not to broadcast Obama's speech on healthcare before a joint session of Congress on September 9. "That omission was not as tactical as it was telling: a rare sign of frustration, and payback, by a White House that prides itself on diplomacy and an even keel," wrote Stanley. "Mr. Obama sought on Sunday to bring a little order and civility to a debate that grows ever more heated and shrill. But by boycotting, the White House seemed to be getting caught up in the kind of hostilities that increasingly divide Fox News Channel from its rivals."

Fox's Chris Wallace made sure that the station's audience heard all about Obama's decision not to give an interview on the network. “The White House made it clear they had no interest in talking to us,” said Wallace, who is the host of “Fox News Sunday." “Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?” Wallace said, adding, "[The White House aides] are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."

For their part, the Obama administration fired back. According to Stanley, a White House deputy press secretary laid into Fox, telling ABC, “We figured Fox would rather show ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform ... Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”

The Republican response to Obama was predictable. Republicans repeatedly alleged that the president was overexposed and asserted that Americans had rejected his healthcare reform ideas. “The president is selling something that people quite frankly aren’t buying,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said. “He’s been on everything but the Food Channel.” Republican consultant Alex Castellanos reiterated this meme. "Actually, he has broken through. People don't like what he is selling ... This is not a communications problem," Castellanos said. Following Obama on CBS, Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, called the interviews ineffectual. "The president said a lot without saying anything," Steele said. "There was nothing that moved the needle on this debate."

But Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan probably wins the award for the most affected reaction to Obama's media deluge. While on a Sunday talk show herself, ABC's "This Week," she asserted that "The media environment allows a modern leader to be something subtly damaging, and that is boorish. They get their face in your face every day all the time. It's boorish and it makes people not lean toward you but lean away from you, no matter what the merits of the issue."

Looking sharp in their dress blue uniforms, the firefighters, Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas, had a sympathetic story to tell; Republicans must have been praying the Democrats on the committee would attack the two of them in the course of defending Sotomayor. But the majority side didn't take the bait -- they knew they'd already won, so why bother? They made nice instead. "I personally want to thank you for being here," Sen. Ben Cardin, of Maryland, told Ricci and Vargas. "You put a face on the issues ... you have really added to today's hearing by your personal stories." With even Jeff Sessions, the leading Republican on the panel, conceding that the GOP won't try to stop Sotomayor's confirmation, there was no reason for administration officials to tell Democrats to play hardball with the witnesses.

Of course, that only underscored the extent to which their presence at the witness table was a cheap political stunt. Ricci and Vargas made up a panel with New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights CEO Wade Henderson, as well as two other GOP witnesses, Peter Kirsanow -- a member of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission -- and Linda Chavez, an anti-affirmative action activist. The crowded panel made for a disjointed question-and-answer session (made worse because Bloomberg strolled in late, interrupting things), and it was immediately clear that Ricci and Vargas were mostly being used as props. Even the Republicans barely asked them any questions.

In the end, only one senator, Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat, even attempted to raise the one question that would have actually explained their presence. "Do you have any reason to think that Judge Sotomayor acted in anything other than good faith in trying to reach a fair decision in the case?" Specter asked Ricci.

Ricci -- finally given the chance to stick it to the "wise Latina" judge who, in the GOP's feverish imagination, at least, had tried to ruin his life -- took a pass. "That's beyond my legal expertise," he said, without hesitating. "I am not an attorney or a legal scholar. I simply welcome an invitation by the United States Senate to come here today." For the most part, Ricci didn't try to make any sweeping claims about justice, or about race. Some of his opening statement sounded like it was meant for a different hearing, one on federal grants to local first responders: "The structures we respond to today are more dangerous, constructed with lightweight components that are prone to early collapse, and we face fires that can double in size every 30 to 60 seconds."

But just because Ricci and Vargas didn't get beaten up by Democrats at all didn't mean they escaped the hearings unscathed. After a whole week of uncomfortable, resentment-ridden discussion of race in America, the GOP still had a little bit of awkwardness left. "I just want you to know if the country that we're probably one generation removed to where no matter how hard you study, based on your last name or the color of your skin, you'd have no shot," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told Ricci. "And we're trying to find some balance ... please don't lose sight of the fact not so very long ago, the test was rigged a different way."

That was a fair point, and a lot closer to a defense of affirmative action than anyone on the Democratic side offered Ricci. But then Graham turned to Vargas, who joined Ricci's lawsuit even though he is, himself, Puerto Rican. Vargas had testified that he wanted to help prove that opportunity truly is equal; he had passed the New Haven promotion exam, even if some other minority applicants hadn't, and he wanted to be dealt with as an individual, not a "racial statistic." Graham, apparently, didn't entirely see it that way.

"Mr. Vargas, you're one generation removed from where your last name would have been [enough to deny him the job]. Do you understand that?" Graham asked. He pushed further, asking what happened when Vargas joined the lawsuit. "Did people call you an Uncle Tom? People thought you were disloyal to the Hispanic community?" Vargas answered yes, sounding a little uncomfortable, and Graham kept going. "Quite frankly, my friend, I think you've done a lot for American-Hispanic community," Graham said. "My hat's off to you."

The rest of the panel offered pretty much exactly what you might expect. Chavez, who's made a career out of insisting -- against all available evidence -- that America really is the colorblind paradise Republicans say they want, dredged up Sotomayor's college thesis to build a case against her; it was the sort of stuff people threw against Michelle Obama during last year's campaign. "It is clear from [Sotomayor's] record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics," Chavez warned. "I know a lot about that well, and I can tell you that it is dark and poisonous."

But as with Ricci and Vargas, almost no one took the bait. Any energy and drama that had been left in the hearing room were finally spent. By the time the hearing rolled past 6 p.m. Eastern, the crowd had dwindled, and there were hardly any reporters or members of the public left to listen to even less controversial GOP witnesses as they tried everything from guns to abortion to French law to fear of crime to ignite the culture wars again. This fight has been over since before it began; President Obama had stacked the deck too neatly. Four days of hearings demonstrated what everyone already knew about Sotomayor: She's obviously qualified, she's not remotely the radical activist the right says she is, and her appointment as the first Latina justice truly will make history. The only question left by the end of the day Thursday was exactly when the Senate would get around to making her confirmation official. 

GRAHAM: One thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the almanac of the federal judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament. And here's what they said about you: She's a terror on the bench. She's temperamental, excitable, she seems angry. She's overall aggressive, not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament. She abuses lawyers. She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts. She's nasty to lawyers. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like. She can be a bit of a bully.

When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the Second Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

SOTOMAYOR: I do ask tough questions at oral arguments.

GRAHAM: Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments?

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. No, not at all. I can only explain what I'm doing which is when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right. I do know that, in the Second Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral argument each, that the processes in the second circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country. And that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court generally, is described as a hot bench, it's a term that lawyers use. It means that they're peppered with questions. Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the second circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

GRAHAM: If I may interject, judge, they find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues.

From there, some of the senator's questioning got a bit bizarre -- he went into a digression about rule of law in Muslim countries, asked Sotomayor her feelings on the attacks of 9/11, he somewhat jokingly asked her to recite her infamous "wise Latina" quote (smartly, she didn't). At times, he was condescending; at others, he appeared willfully obtuse. It was quite the performance to watch -- and if you do want to watch it, the full video is below.