The rise of Jim DeMint
He’s always been one of my favorites. Today, WaPo profiles the conservative ascendancy of S.C. GOP Sen. Jim DeMint. Read the whole thing. The article ends with this notable quotable:
“I don’t know that I’m always going to be right, but I do know this: I’m not going to sit on the sidelines again. When we tell people we’re the conservative party … I want to make sure we have people sitting in those seats who really mean it.”
A welcome antidote to McCain Regression Syndrome.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
8 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
18 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
192 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
103 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Categories: Politics
Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?
How does one state send DeMint and Graham to the Senate?
Oh, to the right- Santorum and Fiorina on AmSpecBlog
He just dropped a few notches in my opinion…
Must be nice to be able to vote in a real conservative instead Babs Boxer and Granny Feinstein. (Yes I live in CA)
I sure hope that the People’s Republic of Hawaii can vote in Charles Djou (R) to replace Neil “Berkeley” Abercrombie, who resigned so that he can run for Governor.
He’s been a real pain to the Demoncrats as a city council member.
Latest polls have him at 39.5%, with his two Dem. opponents tied at 25.5%.
I really don’t understand this quote:
Read the proverbial tea leaves GOP. FISCAL conservatism IS a winning strategy and always will be. Where conservative Reps get nailed in a national popularity contest is when they bring RELIGIOUS morality to the table. The media rips them to shreds. That’s not to say you can’t get elected by having morals, it means not overtly courting the religious right for votes.
The entire tea party movement is fiscal conservatism. 60%+ of the public likes it in principle. Ride that wave and govern that way.
For the life of me, I have no idea why these knuckleheads think it’s a losing strategy.
Don’t worry. The purists will find some way to call DeMint a RINO. He probably made a vote on some obscure bill in 2000 as a freshman Congressman that will deem him as unacceptable.
If we had 2 dozen like him…
He’s the man.
I’ll answer two questions at once:
Look at Florida — Nelson and (soon to be) Rubio.
Hearty disagreement. What needs to happen is those of a religious/conservative persuasion need to “be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” In the political arena, that means to live your life according to your profession of faith and profess your politics according to your life. It’s called walking the walk.
Morality in government can indeed coexist with a free society. Government should underscore — not undermine — its citizens.
I agree. There is a little too much finger pointing in the conservative movement. TARP just about had to be done, and in the end it really didn’t cost us much (at least the original concept without GM), and yet people are still finger pointing over those who voted for it as if they were the irresponsible ones. The irresponsibility was backing the system in the first place and providing a huge backstop, NOT backing the system once it was broken after saying you’d back it.
Well, it’ll be interesting to see what Jim D does tomorrow when Lady Lindsey’s Crap N Tax bill comes to the floor. He defended Linseed’s involvement with this on the Glenn Beck radio show a month or so ago and Beck was speechless. When he was finally able to ask DeMint why he was okay with this, DeMint praised Linseed for being a good party member most of the time. Ugh.
Also, where does it put DeMint now that Rubio seems to have done a bait and switch and seems to have thrown in with the Beltway GOP (Jeb Bush and Rove) on AZ immigration law? Note the corresponding drop in Rubio’s poll numbers.
ACHefty….I can’t begin to describe how many people I know who would vote Rep if it weren’t for the religious right. And many of these people are themselves religious, they just don’t like voting for preachers or people who might be controlled by preachers. The American public FEARS that, right or wrong.
So if the GOP muzzled them and ran a fiscal conservative ticket, they’d win. But they are afraid to muzzle the religious right for fear of losing those votes. They don’t get that those people will vote for them anyway. THe GOP would gain more centrist fiscal conservative votes than they’d ever lose religious right/big government GOPers.
Typical RINO comment. Deaf, dumb, blind and arrogant. Totally out to lunch.
BTW, for those of you who don’t speak RINO, “purists” are people who actually expect their party to stand for something.
RINOs have their own language for obfuscating on important issues. Anyone who argues for principles is a an intolerant purist.
The real question is, if Jim DeMint-like candidates supplant the RINO candidates, will the Flyoverman types support them? No. There is no difference between RINOs and liberal Democrats except that the RINOs won’t fight wearing their side’s uniform. They fight us conservatives with the same arguments and hurl the same hypocritical accusations though.
OK. Well, I’m a purist, so I’ll take a look into this guy’s record and see what I can find on him.
Might as well have all the cards on the table …
Be right back.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
ever wonder why patriots like DeMint are never brought to the public’s eye as a possible run for the republican candidate for the presidency…instead we get liberals like McShame. McRomney, da Bush’s. Not a conservative in the lot.
I’d vote for DeMint for president and not think twice about it.
See monad888. My man Phil. Right on time.
Phil, I hate to break this to you, but I am a regsitered Independent. I left the GOP when Bush 41 was in office. So I am afraid you will need to find some other condescending acronym for me. But, I have faith you will come up with one.
Based on your post call me BADD. Works for me.
Is it, though? I think you just supported his point: i.e., anyone who doesn’t hate the Republican Party as much as you do becomes a “RINO” himself.
Glenn Beck refused to endorse Heyworth. Makes him a RINO in your book, no?
Jonah Goldberg wrote recently that “Even William F. Buckley only said that he favored the most electable conservative. In politics, when you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you open the door to something worse.”
But I suppose that for espousing such heresy, both Goldberg and Buckley are RINOs, too…
So why are you RINOs such purists? You only vote Republican as long as they are squishy? If we are going to have a platform as a party, why can’t we have a platform that includes conservatives principles? Why does the GOP insist on being Assistant Democrats? Duh!
I don’t think infighting between social cons and fiscal cons is helpful. We are in an era where the fiscal matters must be dealt with first. The Republicans failed on their fiscal conservative responsibilities last time they had power. The Democrats are doubling/tripling down on those debt levels. I have no quarrel with morality and religiosity, but right now I want candidates will walk the fiscal conservative walk. I see the abortion and gay marriage social issue as wedges that will undermine the ability to restore our government to sanity. If we continue down this path to financial ruin, it won’t matter what the Constitution says about marriage and life, because our Nation will be history.
Another keeper…
Why is RINOs like you are so tolerant of Republicans so long as they represent Democrat ideals like big government, abortion, global warming legislation, and the rest but you have no tolerance whatsoever for conservatives? Why is it when your candidates lose to a conservative, you bolt the party!
Wake up! You are about to lose. It is time for you guys to return to the mother ship, the Democratic Party.
What do Glenn Beck and William F Buckley say about that? Are you capable of making an argument or do you just have a list of quotes you like to throw at people?
Phil,
Let me make this crystal clear, so even you do not fail to understand. If JD Hayworth falls short and we are stuck with McCain for a nominee, AZ citizens will have a choice.
McCain is every bad thing you say about him, but he is rock solid on:
The war in Iraq
The War in Afghanistan
GITMO
The War on Terror
Rights for terrorists
Treatment of terrorists
Support of the troops
58,000 of my comrades have their names written on a Wall in DC. They died in a war we lost because DEMOCRATS, who got them into the war, refused to fight to win, pulled their funding and abandoned our allies in the field after we pledged to help defend them.
I will burn in hell before I let people like you without my resistance put a Democrat in that seat or any other seat in the middle of a war. Not on my watch you won’t.
I hope that was not to “obtuse” for you. Those people out in the field are one h@11 of a lot more important to me than your purity test.
I think the Utah GOP giving Bennett the boot was a sign we can take back the party, because I don’t think we can afford to wait for a viable third party to develop with a communist traitor as president and a revolutionary communist party controlling 2/3rds of the Federal government and 1 death away from owning the entire Federal government, and said communists, as is typical of the amoral, are quite willing to use voter fraud to steal elections.
Mega dittos!!
Oddly enough, his opponents can’t even vote for themselves, since they don’t live in the district.
Here’s my research on Jim DeMint, from a “purist” point of view:
Abortion:
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
As a “purist”, I object to these votes, but on the grounds that these expenditures are illegal programs that NO ONE is eligible for anyway.
Budget & Economy:
Voted YES on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Federal debt should be paid down by rating programs’ legality under the Constitution. Effectiveness really isn’t relevant at this point.
Civil Rights:
Ban openly gay teachers from public schools. (Oct 2004)
There is no Constitutional authorization for the federal government to weigh in on this one way or the other.
Corporations:
Jim appears to be fine here as far as I can tell with the quick reading that I’m doing, though government involvement with business is not a good thing. Jim just doesn’t have enough votes on the matter for me to form a good opinion.
Crime:
Jim is spot on.
Drugs:
Jim is spot on.
Education:
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Prayer is allowed, period. The First Amendment guarantees it. Voting on something like this gives the government credibility where it deserves none.
Energy & Oil:
Jim is spot on.
Environment:
Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Again, the government has no authority to approve or disapprove of any such thing. Voting on the matter gives credibility where none is due.
Families & Children:
Jim is spot on.
Foreign Policy:
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
This is a place we should all disagree with Jim. China is no friend of ours, and yet we are going to normalize trade relations with China PERMANENTLY?!?!
Surely you jest!
Free Trade:
I generally disagree with Jim here. It’s these “free trade agreements” that cause trade deficits and make it difficult to do business in America.
Government Reform:
Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
The government has no authority to regulate domestic donations in any way.
………I’ve been focusing here on where I disagree with Jim, but here is something with which I VERY STRONGLY AGREE, and it is a major part of the “Federalist” Platform that I support:
Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization. (Jun 2009)
Amen to this!
Gun Control:
All five of Jim’s votes I disagree with on the grounds that the government has no authority in the area of guns in the first place.
Healthcare:
Jim has a number of votes that are inappropriate. He is following the Republican model of just pushing for government healthcare that is not coming from the Donks. Why not just stand up against the government illegally inserting itself into the healthcare system?
Homeland Security:
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
The PATRIOT Act is not authorized by the Constitution, and should never have been passed, let alone reauthorized or extended.
Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
Commercial airline pilots are permitted to carry guns per the Second Amendment. No vote should have been necessary.
Immigration:
I have no issues with Jim here.
Jobs:
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
The minimum wage is illegal. This vote is simply a Republican engaging in the signature caving to the Left.
Principles and Values:
No issues here, though voting 83% of the times with Republicans concerns me in that the Republican agenda is so much like the Democrats’.
Socialist Security:
Voted YES on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
How about just doing away with Socialist Security? It’s the legal and right thing to do.
Tax Reform:
Jim’s votes in this area all seem to be in the right direction. I’d love to see him be even tougher though.
Technology:
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
Again, inserting government where it does not belong.
War & Peace:
I’m with Jim here.
Welfare & Poverty:
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Again, TANF is illegal. That should be the stance Jim takes – not pushing for Democrat-lite positions.
There were a lot of votes to go through. Jim hits a positive pretty consistently, and where he’s wrong, it’s usually because he seems to have been casting votes to either interfere with the Dems (guns for airline pilots) or to somehow protect his reputation (raising the minimum wage). Sadly, these kinds of votes are running rampant in Washington, and it seems that those we send there to uphold and defend the Constitution wind up getting wrapped up in these shenanigans, including those who do quite well. I reviewed at least a hundred votes in this research, and this is what I found.
You can do with it as you please. Form your own opinion as is your right, but now that you have the facts (as I have presented them) as pertains to Jim’s “bad” votes, make sure you use them in forming that opinion. For me, the citation of Constitutional authorization is essential to the reestablishment of constitutional law in this country. Jim DeMint has violated that on a number of occasions as noted, but had this provision already been in place, it would have been much more difficult for him to justify these votes.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/jim_demint.htm
In case you’d like to peruse for yourself, which I highly recommend. Ontheissues.org leans left, but is usually pretty reasonable with putting the facts out there and keeping their opinions separate from the votes.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
RWR,
Seriously, I appreciate your research on DeMint. That ook some effort!!!
It was very illuminating. Thanks!
Simple.
That’s what the party brass pushes as the platform. The rest is easy: just convince everyone that the Donks are worse.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You do just that when you elect McCain.
You had better pray HARD for J.D.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Can’t take back what you never had to begin with.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I appreciate your Kudos!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
*Nobody is perfect, but right now Jim is as good as it gets for conservatives; I have been sending him coin and those he is supporting around the country after doing my own research; He is far better and trustworthy than Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney will ever be when it comes to principled conservatism; So many in the GOP are exposing themselves as RINO’s, where as they will play the game to get the votes/support; Sarah Palin has sent PAC money to Lindsey Grahamnesty of all people, and Mitt Romney supported Bennett in Utah, so I am done with those two; I’ll stick with DeMint!
TARP didn’t cost us that much? Over $700 billion authorized? Somewhere between $350 billion and $700 billion spent? How “much” is “much?”
Plus, the TARP money that was spent was NOT spent on what they told us it would and had to be spent on. It was a complete fraud from conception to implementation.
TARP may be the second or third greatest fraud every perpetrated on this nation. And it was conceived by “Republicans!”
Than you’re saying we’re screwed, no hope, give up trying.
That, or its already past time to be taking up arms and fighting the government.
No third party that can pass 100% a constitutional purity test will become able to win a significant number of seats in DC before the Obammunists destroy the US as a Constitutional Republic.
Consider it done, RWR.
I wish him well. I remember him as a Congressman. I was very disappointed when he was defeated. Glad he is back in the ring.
Wonder if ACORN could get me an absentee AZ GOP primary ballot?
RWR, you will not have to convince any combat arms soldier, Marine, combat pilot, or CIA agent of that. They have already learned it the hard way.
What is the acceptable loss rate among those people for the sake of immediate political conservative purity?
If the answer is greater than zero, congratulations you have also become an Assistant Democrat, because they are unconcerned as well.
No.
I’m saying be realistic in your aspirations. Taking back what you once had is FAR EASIER than taking what was never yours.
You have a far bigger task ahead of you than you think. Know it and work accordingly. Succeed and you may get some conservatives back.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Does “Flyoverman” imply you live in the mid-west or that you crewed on a B-52? I’d like to think of you as wrecking havoc on NVA.
Cough Cough – Demint didn’t vote for TARP. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00212
As for the rest, suffice to say that I absolutely do not think that TARP had to be done, and thinking that it really didn’t cost all that much is what got us into this mess.
No one’s looking for political purity.
We’re looking for people who will honor an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Bill Clinton won election in 1992 because enough people were mad at GHWB, who broke promises on tax increases, to vote for Ross Perot.
I’m pretty sure, and I don’t think Clinton is as malevolent as Obama is, or hates America to its core like Obama does, we’d still have been better off with the second term of a center-right squish Republican than Clinton.
Think SCOTUS. Granted, Bush nominated Souter, on advice from Sununu, and Souter, a closet case in more ways than one, was quite a liberal. My understanding is he flat lied to GHWB during their discussions of political and judicial principle.
Clinton knowlingly chose the ACLU’s head abortion lawyer for SCOTUS.
GWB, better than his father but far from perfect, put Roberts and Alito on the court.
McCain, worse than either Bush, probably would not have put the Wise Latina or the Harvard Lesbian who opposes the First Amndment on the Supreme Court.
Yes, it makes me ill that probably half the Republicans in the Senate, who need to be ousted in the primaries when up again, Snowe, Collins and Graham for certain, will vote to confirm her.
But I won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, when the perfect is unachievable.
monad888 said:
Yeah, because ditching the religious right worked for McCain…
RINO says, “Republicans need to focus on fiscal conservatism & stay away from the pro-life position.”
Except the majority of the country is in favor of limiting abortion. Doh!
RINO says, “Stick to fiscal matters, & drop the opposition to gay marriage.”
Except the majority of the country is opposed to gay marriage. Doh!
Yuppers, definitely need to stay away from the religious right’s positions…
I was upset with Sarah Palin when she went to bat for McCain, and then when she went to bat for that gal in Calif. that is running against Boxer (can’t remember her name right at the moment)
If she has given cash to Lindsay Grahamnisty, then I’m done with her. It’s sad, because I really thought she was a conservative,but she has outed herself.
Graham isn’t running this year, is he?
RWR, when you find the first Democrat who has done that (Jim Webb aside, maybe), you let me know.
For all his MANY faults, given what I have listed in prior posts, I think John McCain, USN, Ret. has more than passed the pretest.
Bottom line. When we let a Democrat win in the middle of a war, because of our actions, inaction, or puritanical tunnel vision we are turning our backs on the troops.
You want purity? There it is. Realpolitik
He was re-elected in 2008. Now I think I will go into the bathroom and wretch in the toilet. 4 1/2 more years of him….. heaven help us.
Bottom line: When Americans stop voting for these anti-Constitution dirtbags, we can start the work of saving her.
Until that happens, it doesn’t matter who gets into office – America and her precious Constitution are screwed.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
The list wouldn’t be much shorter than the corresponding list from the Republicans.
Sheesh. Just look at what I was able to dig up on a “good guy” like DeMint. Blinding yourself to the problem doesn’t make it go away.
If Arizonans continue to put the likes of John McCain into office (which I pray they have the wisdom not to do), then they will have to share the blame when the bullets start flying.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Its difficult to be a “Purist” at this point, Very few in government will vote the absolute Conservative position on every issue, if there is any such thing as an agreement on absolutes. No Senator is capable of voting absolute anything, the Senate destroys the “Public Servant” in all of them. It becomes “Personal Power” and infallibility, much like Rock Stars with their adoring fans and entorage. The list of good Senators is very short, DeMint is on that list.
Newt used to be on the list, and look how that worked out. I have high hopes for DeMint.
More examples of the “purists” getting too “pure”. Seriously, every time one of our very best, favorite conservatives says anything the least bit controversial, or even makes a small error, the “purists” decide to complain and tell everyone to cross him/her off the list. This is going to destroy us. Rubio explained what he meant by his statements. Yet everyone ran with his first comments. People, wake up!! We have to stop jumping all over our conservatives every time we disagree with them!! Everyone has their own ideas on what is important for a candidate. But the main things right now are fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, smaller government…we must take back DC and work on those things immediately!! Other things aren’t as important. The “Purists” need to back off or we won’t have ANY candidates at all!!
Sadly, it’s the lack of purists that has gotten us into the mess we’re in, and it’s only an abundance of them that will save us.
A sad state of affairs to be sure.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Proceed as always with caution.
Don’t forget how high the hopes were for Newt.
Of course, I don’t have to tell you that …
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
As far as US Senators go, he’s a good one.
The core of my political view is the need for term limits, balanced budget, very limited government (Congress should meet for weeks, not months). I begin to doubt anyone who has been in DC more than 5 or 6 years.
Jim DeMint does have one crtical positive that I like: He is at least seems earnest in trying to reverse this Repub slide to becoming a complete mirror image of the Dems as they are now. Is Michael Steele trying to do this et al? No.
Nothing is perfect. But where things are imperfect, strive to do and learn better.
Kudos to RWR.
Prediction: Someday, Flyoverman and Pasadena Phil will cease firing at each other, and down some suds together for a couple of hours in a neutral location…
Well said flyman. It’s fun to banter here but the real world doesn’t look much like the planet where phil and RWR seem to live.
Maybe if we breed a master conservative race. The Reagan Youth.
I will volunteer to brew the suds …
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Regan Youth,yeah, yeah……I’ll start designing the uniforms now.
I don’t know if “purity” is the right term. Like Christian theology, there are primary issues that cannot be sacrificed without abandoning Christianity. There are certain core issues that, if abandoned, will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Republic. Some may lead to such an end sooner than others.
The core of the core issues for me would be federalism and limited government. All else flows from that.
You cannot be for open borders if you support federalism and limited government.
You cannot be for the welfare state and national health care if you support federalism and limited government.
You cannot be for “cap and trade” if you support federalism and limited government.
You cannot be for activist federal judges if you support federalism and limited government.
There is wiggle room on issues I care about like the definition of marriage. I would possibly support candidate who differed from my position on these issues as long as they recognized there was no federal role in either issue and that these issues had to be the exclusive domain of the states. If the people of California want to allow “gay marriage” in California I can live with that as long as the people of California don’t foist it on me here in Virginia.
I am not sure I would accept a similar position on abortion. I believe the constitution demands the federal government protect life.
It all comes down to federalism and limited government. If a candidate shares a world view that is built around those issues everything else naturally falls into place. I think Jim DeMint is a person who accepts these two premises as part of his world view. I am sure John McCain does not.
Amen.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Well then you can go ahead and get ready for totalitarianism, because that’s what’s eventually in store for you with your Republicans and Democrats.
Guys like DeMint are the exception, not the rule, and unless some “purists” start getting their way double quick, there won’t be any left to save you from persecution.
Saying Republicans are better than Democrats is like saying Nazis are better than Communists.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
WarEagle82 said:
Marriage is not an issue we can compromise on.
#1. There is no way such a fundamental thing can be contained to a single state. It is just a matter of time.
#2. Denying the natural laws behind traditional marriage, so that they can redefine marriage, is the exact same mindset of “redefining” the Constitution. It says whatever you want it to say. It is the same mindset that allows you to defy other rules of reality – sure we can tax the rich into oblivion, & continue giving ever increasing entitlements to the leeches! Sure we can expand health care coverage, make it better, to millions of more people, all while reducing the deficit! Surrrrrrrrre…
There is nothing more fundamental to the health of a nation than a strong family. That is far more important, far more fundamental to the health of this nation than federalism.
Keep your eye on the horizon WE82 and Trollman. There is a big battle brewing down this road. The “Defense of Marriage Act” passed in ’96 (Before any states had legalized same sex marriages) says:
Seems pretty clear, but also seems to contradict article IV in the Constitution – Section I: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
So far, 39 states have passed their own Defence of Marriage acts. Some bad signs happening already
We need to stay vigilant. SCOTUS “legislated from the bench” our present abortion nightmare while Christians and conservatives were essentially asleep at the wheel.
Apparently you haven’t noticed but “purists” is the RINO version of saying “teabagger”. It is not an argument but a pejorative meant to undermine the RINO cause by introducing specific issues.
According to the RINOs, conservatives have to surrender every single issue to the liberals. If you are pro-life, you are a purist. If you believe in secure borders, you are a purist. If you believe in small government, you are a purist.
RINOs NEVER defend conservatives, only liberals. When is this going to register with you? This is the year to fight this battle but here we are in May and yet when was the last time you heard the current batch of RINOs talk about repealing Obamacare? They get people like you all riled up for a couple of days and return to being the spineless worms that they are.
If McCain and his ilk are still in control of the GOP after November, there are going to be a lot of us not voting Republican in 2012. If you insist on teaming up with the RINOs this year, get used to the endless 3rd party talk that will ensue when your RINOs finish the job that the Democrats started.
If the RINOs care so much about the Republican party, why don’t they throw in their support to the conservative when he beats them in the primaries? Guys like Charlie Crist and Bob Bennett. It only works one way with RINOs.
And even out of office, they never go away. Why are guys like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich still going around endorsing anyone?
You RINOs are going to be apoplectic next year when we Tea Party conservatives start organizing around 3rd party candidates. We won’t cost you RINOs elections, YOU will.
While I share your concern for the state of marriage, I cannot believe anyone who supports limited and constitutional government would take the position that marriage is more important from a government standpoint than federalism.
That’s actually pretty sick.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
DeMint is one of the few good guys in the Senate. I heard him speak 9/12 in D.C. He gets it. Most of the elected GOP would like to see him shut up and go away. He’s rocking the boat, they want to continue the charade of acting like they’re opposing the Democrats while helping them accomplish their agenda. That has been John McCain’s career in politics.
His grandstanding for the liberal media adoration is particularily galling. McCain is not rock solid on Flyoverman’s list, he was one of the first to call for closing Gitmo, he was one of the first to throw accusations of torture of detainees and called for extending them Constitutional rights.
I will never vote for anyone unwilling to uphold the rule of law. Amnesty abandons the rule of law.
Unless we can clean house and take over the GOP, the country will be “fundamentally transformed”. The current GOP are assistant Democrats. They are steering for the same destination, speed of arrival is the only difference.
BTW, Jim Webb is not honoring his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution anymore than John McCain is, they both think we should change the laws to benefit those breaking them.
Amnesty is national suicide.
Personally, I have already given up on the GOP, they are Whigs to me. I believe they rigged the calender and threw Rudy and Fred into the primaries as diversions so McCain could capture the nomination. The GOP has sold its soul to the cheap labor express and cannot turn on their big money donors even if costs them their voters (like me).
rightwingrocker said:
If you think that is sick, then you must be off your rocker.
Case in point, look at what has happened to the black community over the past few decades. You have the total breakdown of marriage & the core family unit in black America. Broken families equals dependence upon government. Welfare state. Voting for waaaaaaay liberal Democrats 90%, even though they are socially conservative.
Strong families = strong nation.
Sick families = sick nation.
I think you missed the point there RW. Federalism is precisely the point. If WE82′s state passes a “Defense of Marriage Act” recognizing only traditional man/woman marriages, neither the Feds or any other state has the right to dictate otherwise. A gay couple married in Hawaii would not and should not be considered married in Virginia.
You have it completely wrong when it comes to the source of the over-dependence on the welfare state. You must look a lot closer at history. Broken families does not equal dependence upon government. Government desire to run these people’s lives does.
I’m not saying any increase in broken families is a good thing, but it’s a sister effect of dependence on government, not an effect of it. Therefore, federalism is the more important thing.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
This seems a bit unclear upon rereading.
What I am saying is that the problems in the family are the result of government intrusion just like welfare is. The relationship between the decline in families and the welfare state is not cause-and-effect, but rather sister-effect.
Again, this makes federalism the main issue.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You go Jim …
A gay couple would be put in stocks in Virginia.
I hope readers are noticing that on a thread about Jim DeMint, you would think we would be celebrating his rise. Instead, the spineless RINOs have hijacted the thread to attack conservatives as “purists”.
Those of you who still can’t accept that conservatives are fighting for the values that most Americans support are buying into the RINO arguement that candidates who give voters what they want are “unelectable”. Case in point, even though Chuck DeVore is leading in the polls in CA, how many articles have you read arguing that Palin did the right thing because we couldn’t risk a loss to Barbara Boxer? But DeVore polls stronger against Boxer than either Fiorina or Campbell!
That is what RINOs are about. They talk conservative but never step up and fight conservative battles, particularly when we are winning.
That is why I am an unaffiliated independent. If you are a conservative, you should not be a Republican. Disaffiliating yourself from the GOP will free your mind to think freely again. Do it today. Besides, “both” parties are concentrating on the independent vote so we should ALL be independents.
Seems cruel and unusual punishment. Do they make them buy GM or AIG stocks?
DeMint is THE man. I wrote and ask him to run for President once. Didn’t get a responce but I’d vote for him in a heart beat.
Trollman,
Let me clarify by stating that I don’t consider marriage unimportant. I consider the sanctity of marriage critical. However, I do believe many things can and ought to be left to states to decide in a federal system.
I believe marriage is and ought to be between one man and one woman.
I do believe that under federalism various states have had different laws and allowed and disallowed certain things as those people saw fit. The people of the different states have wide latitude to govern their affairs as they see fit. This has only recently changed as federalism has been ignored and the central government claimed authority and powers it does not rightfully hold.
I see no federal role for many things that rightfully fall in the sphere of the states. I do not support “gay marriage.” In fact I oppose it for several reasons. And I assure you I would never choose to live in a state that “recognized” the “right” of “gay marriage.” BUT I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY WITHHOLD MY VOTE FROM SOMEONE WHO BELIEVED DIFFERENTLY ON THIS ISSUE AS LONG AS HE OR SHE AGREED THAT THE MATTER RIGHTFULLY FELL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE STATES AND THERE WAS NO FEDERAL ROLE IN THE MATTER.
On the other hand, a person who believed in federalism and limited government would also certainly believe that the “right” to “gay marriage” does not and cannot exist within the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It isn’t there regardless of what a few petty tyrants in robes on the Massachusetts Supreme Court say.
However, if the people of Massachusetts went out of their way to amend their state constitution to permit such unions, I am not sure it is my right to tell them they cannot do so. It might be my obligation to try and explain to them why they ought not do so but that is a different matter.
If I had a choice between two otherwise equally qualified candidates I would choose the one who held my position on this issue.
If you believe otherwise that is okay with me.
The people Obama brougth to the polls to elect him and the other Democrats on the ticket could give a hoot about conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, left, right, center. They don’t even know what all that means.
They can not make sense of how different policies affect the economy, social order, defense of the country. Heck, even the politicians can not figure that out. One says one thing, another says something else, and they both seem somewhat intelligent. Which one is right?
They vote for the good looking guy with a silver tongue who promises to give them stuff.
Please Phil. I and Flyman et al are conservative down to our socks. You just refuse to acknowledge this is not a perfect world. Scott Brown is not an ideal conservative, but is he better than Teddy? Come on man.
DeMint is outstanding, but sadly the exeption rather than the rule. I am volunteering time, calling and fundraising for Crane in Georgia 13th. He’s the most solid conservative in the field. If he doesn’t get the nomination, would I vote for a RINO instead of our present rep David Scott. Believe it. On the horizon now Cap and Tax and open border amnesty must be stopped. That’s the real world.
You can be assured that if DeMint becomes prominent the Obamedia will begin the relentless assault and sliming until he’s a national pariah.
Take it for it’s worth, but IMO the “religious right” has succeeded in killing the hopes of the conservative movement for a generation. They are essentially a ONE ISSUE faction (abortion) and that has not played well with the majority of fiscal conservatives. Back in the 70′s, I supported Wm. F. Buckley’s brother James for Senator. I went to one rally and left when it turned into something resembling a revival meeting. I’m a Christian, but I don’t want religion in my politics. My religious beliefs are a private, separate issue. Until a consensus is reached that the Tea Party and conservative ideals are strictly about less government intrusion in our lives, lowering taxes and eliminating others, and a strong defense of our country – including our borders – we will keep being relegated to a minority party status.
Huckabee for President? Are we kidding ourselves?
Can we vote for the RINO and still send him a message?
Dear RINO,
I voted for the LOTE. You are a POS. I don’t like your BS. LOL, fix yourself ASAP.
Otherwise DLTDHYOTWO
ps. Check with DeMint before voting.
rightwingrocker, WarEagle82, what is more foundational, the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence, or natural law?
Natural law.
If we can deny natural law by claiming marriage is something other than a man & a woman, then everything breaks down. Our founders realized that society stands or falls based upon morality & religion – in other words, God. Gay marriage doesn’t undermine the Constitution, it undermines the foundation of our Constitution.
Bruce said:
You do realize that the majority of the country is closer to the pro-life folks than Obama & the Democrats, right? Right?
So Republicans ought to abandon a position that receives popular support from the public, so they can win more?!
Abortion isn’t solely a religious issue, as people like you would have others believe. It is both a scientific & a moral issue. You don’t need religion to understand that a child in the womb is a child. You don’t need religion to understand that, if we can arbitrarily deny the humanity of some, we can arbitrarily deny the humanity of others, too.
First let me say that I am BOTH a social conservative and a political libertarian. There is no conflict between the two.
RE: Abortion / gay marriage / social issues VS federalism / small govt / etc.
Even secular libertarians should be appalled at these if they support federalism/small govt.
These leftist social issues were accomplished by judicial tyranny in an unconstitutional manner. I say let the people decide on a state by state basis about abortion and what defines marriage.
Social conservatives need to support federalism so they can fight their battles on a local level in their states. This ought to be a cause that small govt libertarians can get behind as long as they truly believe in the Constitution.
Trollman,
Our federal constitution is silent on marriage. I take it for granted that the founding fathers would never have imagined a) “gay marriage” or b) a federal role in defining marriage.
Where the constitution is silent, the authority in such an issue belongs to the state.
Therefore, the issue of “gay marriage” cannot undermine the federal constitution. It certainly does undermine the institutions of marriage and family but if one state insists on doing so I do not believe that the federal constitution forbids them to do so. Other citizens can and should attempt to dissuade them from doing so and should engage in the political process to prevent them from doing so.
I agree that a decision by a state to allow “gay marriage” would be morally wrong and self-destructive but it would be within the rights of the majority of the population to codify such an action in their state constitutions. It is NOT within the purview of a few tyrannical judges to “invent” the “right” and impose it on the people of a state.
People have the right to be sinful, stupid and self-destructive. I have the right to exercise moral suasion to attempt to prevent others from that course. I do not have the right to forbid them to do so.
Also, fiscal conservativism IS a moral issue.
All this tax/spend/borrow/print nonsense is hurting the poor by depressing the economy to the point where they can’t get good jobs and depressing the dollar so the little money they have is worth less.
I don’t know who said it, but I agree with it.
Also, it is hurting our children. The economic pain mentioned above also hurts future generations. The crushing debt that the congress and state govts incur (without personal obligation) must be paid back by our kids, efectively selling them into slavery.
It hurts the poor, it hurts the kids. If that’s not a moral issue, then I don’t know what is.
Bruce,
Good luck separating your system of values from your politics. Ultimately, it can’t be done. Religion is not simply a “private matter.” You really need to read “Total Truth” by Nancy Pearcey to see a good discussion of this topic.
BTW, Pearcey is one of the smartest people you will ever run into.
Agreed!
However, sadly and grimly, there’s a raw truth what Bruce said. If it ever appears that religion is the primary driver of say, Tea Party policies, then it will be taken that it’s trying to ram religious viewpoints down peoples throats and such shall only snowball the socialist agenda by resentment and disaffection. I understand the pro-life passions, but there are cold job and wallet pragmatic realities to grab the horns of first before we can ride the bull. Even Ben Franklin had to ruefully chide John Adams that it wasn’t time to include abolition in the Declaration of Independence if you were trying to get your Southern ducks in a row to forge a nation to start with else have none to issue over abolition. Let’s not cut our own throats splitting our forces over abortion and gay marriage till we’re first in the catbird’s seat to do something about it. Not everyone shares your ardent viewpoint and it’s how most perceive your cool and reason that will determine whether your persausions will live or die. There won’t be a second chance to turn those issues around — if indeed because of past fatal in-fighting there is even one.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
James,
You need to ready Nancy Pearcey’s book too.
WarEagle82 said:
Neither the states nor the feds have the authority to set aside natural law. If they can do that, they can do anything.
jamesgreenidge said:
I’m not saying marriage & abortion should be topic #1 at every campaign stop. Obviously, you deal with people starting with where they are. Jobs & the deficit should be topic #1 in this environment.
What I am saying is that it is pure foolishness to run from marriage & abortion, because #1 we are right, & #2 we are aligned with the majority. We should never miss an opportunity to hammer this home.
Placing limits on abortion is far more popular than Obama’s position of infanticide (leaving babies to die in the dirty linens). Being for traditional marriage is far more popular than gay marriage. Being for border enforcement is far more popular than being for amnesty.
How does the Republican party get defeated? When it doesn’t stand for conservative principles – the very principles that a majority of Americans agree with!
What does Brown have to do with anything I said? That’s the problem with your RINOs. Partly pregnant, sometimes honest but just can’t bother to understand what conservatives like me are saying. You just continue to make straw man arguments. That is why you are an endangered species.
Trollman,
Man will sin. We have thousands of years of empirical evidence to support this.
The best we can do is to seek to minimize that tendency through moral suasion.
No one can set aside natural law. But, man can certainly ignore natural law. And man has done so since the garden. Of course, suffering the consequences of that decision is inevitable.
But, I can’t make an unredeemed man live like a redeemed man. It isn’t possible. (See 2 Cor. 5:14 for one of the reasons why.) Therefore, the unredeemed will choose to ignore natural law and they will continue to reap the consequences.
I don’t dispute this.
My position is that this problem is the result of the lack of federalism, not the other way around.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Nobody on the federalist side of the argument is suggesting they do.
What we are asserting is which power has the authority to enforce it – and it ain’t the fed.
The federal government’s powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Per Amendment X, the States and the People are reserved all others, including this.
THAT is what federalism is all about.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Honestly, I couldn’t give a crap what the majority of Americans agree with. The system was set up to keep the majority from dominating for a reason.
It’s what the Founders would agree with that drives my decisions.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com