Will Common Sense Prevail in the House on the Debt Ceiling Vote?

Senator DeMint has finally proven to many Republicans that he has a lot rhetoric but never offers a plan of his own.   His threats against those in the House voting for Boehner plan were not something I would expect out of a US Senator.  Asked a good friend what other Senator would do this and he came up with LBJ and maybe John Kerry.  That's not someone a Republican Senator would want to be compared with IMHO.  DeMint telling House Members if they vote for the Boehner plan to raise the debt ceiling, they will be out of power for years is totally irresponsible.  He called a Tea Party Rally for yesterday and maybe 100 showed up to protest the Boehner bill -- they seemed to be as many reporters as Tea Party people for his rally:

Today's (7/28/11) Tea Party rally outside the Senate -- the "Hold the Line" rally -- attracted a few dozen activists, and about as many reporters. Here's a shot of Jim DeMint addressing the crowd, more members of which were in the shade to the right. 

Could this poor turnout along with the irresponsible Republican Study Committee's emails urging conservative groups to turn out their people to call Congress to tell them to defeat the Boehner bill have turned the tide in support of the Boehner bill?  Have some members of Congress finally realized that all these threats from DeMint and the National Tea Party leaders mean nothing in the long run.  What means something is that the United States does not default.

When DeMint steps up to the plate with a plan, I might listen but until then he needs to stop grandstanding and interfering in the business of the House.  With some of the candidates he and the Tea Party Express pushed in 2010, it kept us from having more votes in the Senate.  Do you realize how bad it was to have a DeMint Tea Party candidate defeated in AK with a write-in?  Looks like we are on the same page as The Wall Street Journal who seems to have their 'groove' back in their articles:

Strangely, some Republicans and conservative activists are condemning this as a fiscal sellout. Senator Jim DeMint put out a statement raking the Speaker for seeking "a better political debt deal, instead of a debt solution" (emphasis, needless to say, his). The usually sensible Club for Growth and Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, are scoring a vote for the Boehner plan as negative on similar grounds.If the Boehner plan fails in the House, the advantage shifts to Harry Reid's Senate plan. (my emphasis)

But what none of these critics have is an alternative strategy for achieving anything nearly as fiscally or politically beneficial as Mr. Boehner's plan. The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. 

Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. (my emphasis) The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout. 

Read that paragraph from the WSJ  and wanted to start applauding the Journal for telling the truth.  Two of the worst candidates that Republicans have ever nominated came courtesy of DeMint and the Tea Party Express.

Quit Club for Growth yesterday for several reasons one being they have way overreached compared to when Senator Toomey was in charge, and their aligning with Sen DeMint left me no choice because I don't share his political ideology of 'my way or no way' so I asked for no more emails and no more of their snail mail newsletters which are a waste a lot of money.  One person quitting is not going to make a difference, but I wanted them to know that at least one person stood on their own principles and realizes that sometimes you have to compromise whether you like it or not.  That is something that the DeMint crowd cannot get through their heads as they truly believe only they have all the answers, but have no plan to present.  Kind of like all the rhetoric surrounding the Senate budget -- lot of talk and no substance.

Speaker Boehner has not been shy in saying this plan is far from perfect but once it passes the House, then its the democrats on the hook.  That should be clear to anyone with the least bit of political savvy which is missing in this 'my way or no way' culture among some members of Congress.  As for the National Tea Party Leaders, their voices have far less clout then they had a year ago before they started with the threats against Republicans.  Get that Republicans not Democrats.  Never have witnessed anything like it and the head of Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips, who is being sued for breach of contract by a Las Vegas hotel, is calling for Speaker Boehner to step down.  Who is going to listen to him?

When article after article starts talking about facing reality, it is telling Republicans in Congress to get to get their act together and as Eric Cantor said "Quit whining and vote."

Reading this article from the WSJ has me sitting me nodding my head in agreement starting at the very beginning of Republicans opposing the Boehner bill playing into the hands of Obama.  They nailed the article right there by stating the truth.  Sometime today, we will know the truth if common sense prevails in the House versus the 'my way or no way' ideology.

• JULY 27, 2011

The GOP's Reality Test
Republicans who oppose Boehner's debt deal are playing into Obama's hands. 

The debt-limit debate is heading toward a culmination, with President Obama reduced to pleading for the public to support a tax increase and Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid releasing competing plans that are the next-to-last realistic options. The question now is whether House Republicans are going to help Mr. Boehner achieve significant progress, or, in the name of the unachievable, hand Mr. Obama a victory. 

Mr. Obama recognizes these stakes, threatening yesterday to veto the Boehner plan in a tactical move to block any Democratic support. The White House is afraid that it will pass the House and then become the only debt-ceiling vehicle if Mr. Reid can't get 60 votes for his own proposal in the Senate. This would short-circuit Mr. Obama's plan to blame the GOP for a U.S. credit downgrade, any market turmoil, a possible default, and the lousy economy too.
***
Under the two-phase Boehner plan, Congress would authorize $1 trillion in new debt in return for $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade. Most of that will come from caps on domestic discretionary spending over 10 years—the Pentagon and homeland security are exempt—with automatic spending cuts if the caps are breached. While one Congress cannot bind another, the proposal would at least guarantee real reductions in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

In the second stage, the House and Senate would convene a 12-member joint select committee with a deficit reduction goal of $1.8 trillion by November. The majority and minority of both chambers would each make three assignments, and any plan that secured seven votes or more would get an up-or-down vote in both chambers with no amendments. 

The danger for the GOP is that the committee could end up proposing tax increases, since the committee's only remit is the deficit, not the larger fiscal landscape or the size of government. A poorly chosen Republican nominee could defect, and any structural change to entitlements almost certainly can't pass the Senate. 

Then again, unless the plan passed, Mr. Obama couldn't request the additional $1.6 trillion debt ceiling increase that he would soon need. The political incentive is for a reasonable package, and many Senate Democrats also don't want to vote for tax increases before 2012. 

The debt-limit debate is heading toward a culmination, with President Obama reduced to pleading for the public to support a tax increase and Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid releasing competing plans that are the next-to-last realistic options. The question now is whether House Republicans are going to help Mr. Boehner achieve significant progress, or, in the name of the unachievable, hand Mr. Obama a victory. 

Mr. Obama recognizes these stakes, threatening yesterday to veto the Boehner plan in a tactical move to block any Democratic support. The White House is afraid that it will pass the House and then become the only debt-ceiling vehicle if Mr. Reid can't get 60 votes for his own proposal in the Senate. This would short-circuit Mr. Obama's plan to blame the GOP for a U.S. credit downgrade, any market turmoil, a possible default, and the lousy economy too. 

 (snip)

It's true that the Boehner plan doesn't solve the long-term debt problem, but Mr. Obama won't agree to anything that does. The GOP plan also may not prevent a U.S. national credit downgrade, but it has a better chance of doing so than Mr. Reid's. The Boehner plan is the most credible proposal with a chance of becoming law before the 2012 election.   

(snip) 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Wall Street Journal 

Social Conservatives Attack Republican Leadership and Consultants on Behalf of Sen DeMint

Since this blog experienced what happens if you go after Senator DeMint with criticism, we take the stand that these people are sounding more like the left by the day with their threats. The ringleader where this pablam is published isn't even a Republican, Richard Viguerie, but is the same person who wanted Reagan not to seek a second term. He has been causing problems ever since and took over the Libertarian Party which is why we got some of the Libertarians back in the Republican Party. Wondered why all of a sudden they had a social agenda when they never did before. The answer is Richard Viguerie. Anyone who has followed him knows he is a grand stander whose ideas are far outside the mainstream of America. Most of these people we don't recognize their names as well. The few I do, they don't speak for me even a little.

Common Sense tells you that you support candidates from your ideology whether right or left who can win in the general. To choose the most conservative who cannot win is throwing in the towel on your agenda. William F. Buckley was right then and his words still ring true today.

This group of malcontents will never understand that they are criticizing all of us but we are not to criticize their 'leader' is not going over well among those of us conservatives who have common sense and believe you get in politics to win and advance your agenda. Losing is not an option to most of us, and we take it hard when our candidates lose. It makes it worse when your realize this group of malcontents will stay home or trash our candidates for their self-serving benefit, it makes it worse. Who died and made them king of all conservatives?

We have no idea if Senator DeMint supports this but it is causing a rift in not only in the Senate, but among consultants and Republican Conservatives who believe in the Republican Party and are being attacked by these people. Is that these small amount of people want? Threats will never get people to fall in line and in fact, are more likely to backfire.

The backfire has started as Common Sense Republican Conservatives have had it with the far right and the continual threats of the 'my way or no way' crowd. What is the difference between what some of the leftists Democrats did for Obama calling every criticism racist and this? Shutting up people's right to criticize because you don't like what they say is taking away my freedom and that of others.

Anyone with an ounce of brain knows we had some bad candidates that didn't get vetted who DeMint poured money into the races. We also didn't agree with some of the NRSC funding but in the end we won back six seats and should be grateful for that. Not sure some of the seats we lost that money would have made a difference.

With this fight breaking out maybe it is time for Common Sense Conservatives to step forward and tell the people that keep threatening to carry through. The threats and intimidation are using leftist tactics whether they want to admit it or not. Personally know a lot of people that became Independents because of the malcontents on the far right. Can understand why with this example before us, but them and the people who support them are not going to drive us out of the party.   They can take that to the bank!

DeMint Fanbois Unite!

Yeah, like I could let this go without comment. Several social conservatives (I'm assuming; I only recognize a handful of names on the list) are peeved at what they think is unfair criticism of Senator DeMint in the wake of the election.

To be honest with you, I think they're trying to seize a bit of victimhood away from Sarah Palin on behalf of DeMint. There was coverage in the papers and the cable news networks about the possibility that Palin cost the GOP some pick-ups in the House and Senate. Oh, and here at the HQ too, I guess. You know what I didn't see? People saying that it was Jim DeMint's fault. [Update: Commenters point me to this Politico piece wherein Lila Munkovski criticizes DeMint. Compared to the wall-to-wall "analysis" on TV, blogs, and newspapers that Palin was subjected to, this is weak sauce.]

Nevertheless, several social conservatives, eager to seize credit...or, um, blame on behalf of DeMint have issued the following fatwa pronouncement:

[1]We do not expect or advocate for ideological purity in the Republican Party, but we do expect the Party’s leadership to rein in those who unfairly attack Senator DeMint, who instead should be given credit for what he has done, and done with such class, honor, humility, dignity and patriotism.

[2]Since Republicans in and affiliated with the Senate who have attacked Senator Jim DeMint have an agenda, and may not heed calls to reason from the Republican leadership, let it be known that continued attacks, whether indirectly or anonymously, will result in conservatives’ responding in word and deed.

[3]Conservatives will not only challenge and beat more Republican senators in Republican primaries, but conservatives will stop funding and volunteering for the NRSC and the RNC. Instead, conservatives will send their money to, and volunteer for, Senator DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund and the candidates Senator DeMint supports. In fact, it would be our goal for the Senate Conservatives Fund to raise more money than the NRSC.

[4]Conservatives will also work to defeat in Republican primaries those Republicans who retain consultants who criticize or try to undermine Senator DeMint.

There's a bit of preamble, but it contains such awkward (and in a few cases just plain wrong) English, that I won't inflict it on you. (Seriously, to whoever wrote this, go look up the word "unilateral" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it does.) Definitely click over to see who signed on, though. You'll recognize a few names.

But I want to give a bit of advice to these would-be defenders of Senator Dear Leader (not to be confused with President Dear Leader, the other fellow with an apparent cult following these days).

First, and most importantly, it does no good to threaten the "Party leadership" that they better shape up or else (statement [1]) while simultaneously vowing that no matter what they do (statement [2]) you still plan to defund their organizations and vote them out of office (statements [3] and [4]). Y'see, since you've already declared war, your apparent enemies (?) have little reason to give in to your demands. You showed your cards. Since you obviously have no intention of doing anything other than flipping out on the GOP, there's no point in adopting a policy of appeasement.

Second, I will be astonished if you guys manage to respond "in word and deed" to "indirect and anonymous" attacks on Senator Dear Leader. Right off the bat I'm wondering: how does one meaningfully respond in word and deed to an attack made anonymously? How would you even know at whom to make a response? Or are you saying that anonymous attacks will be met with, err...defunding the NRC and the NRSC and voting against GOP senators in primaries? Because we get that part. Frankly, I just don't think you'll be all that good at it.

Third, a whole bunch of conservatives are now pissed at you for childishly seizing the name "conservative" and purporting to speak for all of them. It's a tone thing. Don't be that guy. It provokes an indignant response: just who the hell are you? Oh, I see you're those people who signed your names to the bottom. I get that. But, again, I don't know most of you folks from Adam. And several of the organizations that appear associated with this pronouncement haven't been all that noteworthy in conservative circles for a few years. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have you on board. But don't you dare try and throw our folks overboard. They're in this too, thank you very much.

In short, grow up. The GOP just made massive gains in the House and Senate. Instead of pulling together to kick the shit out of Obama and the Democrats during the lame duck, you want to beat up your fellow conservatives and Republicans for imaginary slights to your Senator Dear Leader. Trust me when I say that Jim DeMint and his putative place within the "movement that is the successor to Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and other great progenitors of the conservative movement" is less on the minds of the average GOP voter than you think.

Source: Ace of Spades HQ

DeMint: "I don't think people realize that we're borrowing money to pay back debt that is coming due."

Want to go on the record that arrogance is not limited to Obama and Pelosi as Republicans have their own share. What is needed in DC is a dose of humility from the White House and Members of the Congress.

Republicans backed by the movement lost in some key Senate races, including Sharron Angle who failed to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

Analysts have said Republicans would have had a stronger chance of capturing the Senate with more established candidates. But DeMint has offered no apologies.

"There's not one Republican senator who would have been elected without Tea Party support," he said.

"This is make-or-break time for Republicans in our country. We have to pull our country back from a precipice," DeMint said.

"I don't think people realize that we're borrowing money to pay back debt that is coming due. China and other countries are chiding our mishandling of our currency."(Reuters)

Most Americans are not as dumb as DeMint thinks we are as we know we owe a huge debt to China that is coming due. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Doesn't he realize that the Tea Party movement started by the Ron Paul and his people was about that debt and how Congress was spending much more than we take into the US Treasury and selling the debt overseas to places like China. The headlines were everywhere that China was rapidly buying up our debt which led to the backlash. Never met anyone who didn't understand we had to pay China back someday.  Some of you may question my saying Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement like he claims, but it is a fact to most of us who follow politics in Middle America:

Sarah Palin may be the face of the Tea Party movement today, but it started with Ron Paul in 2007. That December, on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul's presidential campaign supporters participated in a "money bomb," a one-day online fundraising blitz that raked in $6 million from 40,000 people nationwide, and drew upon the 1773 protest's anti-tax sentiments. (Ron Paul Helped Inspire the Tea Party Movement)

In addition Mr. DeMint says that every Republican candidate elected was because of the Tea Party. That is a flat out lie and he has to know it.  Is DeMint trying to tell Oklahomans that Dr. Tom Coburn would not have been reelected without the Tea Party when he won over 70% of the vote and the people working his campaign were the same grassroots Republicans who worked his campaign in 2004.  Made tons of calls in 2004 and made more this time as a member of the Oklahoma grassroots.  Give me a break! Who does DeMint think makes up the largest share of the Tea Party? Grassroots Republicans in most states where I have connections!

Bet John McCain would not agree with DeMint's statement when you realize the Tea Party leaning people of Arizona worked for his opponent in the primary (didn't bother to vet his opponent either but blindly followed the radio pundits and posters on line) and the grassroots establishment Republicans worked for McCain's re-election. Same people who worked for his Presidential campaign in 2008.  Anyone who follows this blog knows I wrote a lot about that primary and what a bad candidate Hayworth was.  Then it finally came out he had done informercials touting free money.  Where were the pundits then -- still supporting Hayworth despite the facts.

We held every Republican Senate seat that was up for election in the Senate and now DeMint tries to take credit for all the incumbents winning because of the Tea Party? Even Ken Buck in Colorado who DeMint had close ties with said his campaign was made up of the Colorado grassroots Republicans and the Tea Party was only a small portion.

In Florida, the County Chairs were some of the first Flordians to go Marco Rubio over Crist. If DeMint thinks that Rubio would have won in such a resounding manner without the Florida grassroots Republicans think again. We have now been branded the establishment by DeMint and Palin even thought most of us have been part of the grassroots Republican movement for years all because we didn't join a Tea Party movement.

How many members of the Tea Party are also grassroots Republicans who belong to County parties and attend State Conventions? I bet the number is very high in a lot of states. We have noticed that a lot of the outspoken Tea Party people come from the Tea Party Express who for the most part doesn't even understand how Government or elections work especially the FEC rules.

Now let's look at the flip side since DeMint thinks every Republican candidate was elected by the Tea Party. Using that flawed analysis then Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Dino Rossie, John Raese, and Ken Buck should be US Senator-Elect as they were heavily favored by the Tea Party. Outside the Tea Party Express who are these people who are organized enough to swing elections? They are not my neighbors who are members of the Republican party. An activist in NM has never met a Tea Party person nor have people I know in Florida except for the senior citizens Tea Party people who got out and worked campaigns as grassroots conservatives long before the Tea Party.

Guess DeMint has not been getting around too many campaigns in other states as he does not recognize the people working campaigns for Republicans in most areas of the Country come from the Republican grassroots not the Tea Party. Here in Oklahoma we took great pride as the grassroots Republicans in sending Dr. Coburn to the Senate in 2004. He was the best candidate even if Denny Hastert and others in DC worked against him but he won big. His race was one that a lot of campaigns have looked at with their campaigns to see how it was done. His funding in DC was cut off but Senator-Elect Pat Toomey's Club for Growth stepped in and along with the grassroots we funded his campaign with him winning a 3-way race in primary with no runoff and winning the general going away. Back in 2004, where was no Tea Party.

Don't think there is one member of the Republican grassroots that doesn't believe in the ideals that started the Tea Party movement, but we have been going to Town Halls for years as members of the grassroots. The ones who attended were mostly senior citizens who have been Republicans for years here and elsewhere. The ones who did make the most noise at the Town Halls were Ron Paul supporters or Libertarians.

Just don't get it and have to wonder why a real poll on how many people consider themselves in favor of the Tea Party ideals are the Republican grassroots who work the campaigns and are already activitists. Others are independents, libertarians, or Democrats who were fed up with DC. Most of the new people who claim to be Tea Party did not work in campaigns in many states but who DeMint says are the ones who got every Republican Senator elected.

In some states like Colorado and Nevada we keep hearing that Republicans may have had better candidates in the primary who were defeated but we see it more as the candidates who won the primary being naive about running a general election race where you have to move to the center to win the independent votes needed for victory.  The winners of the primary were also establishment candidates by definition.   Sharron Angle was a member of the Republican Executive Committee of her county for years and a State Representative. Ken Buck was a county district attorney. Dino Rossi had run statewide before and same with John Raese. They were all good people who probably should have listened more to some people who had run close races like Dr. Coburn than other people who had not won a tough race.  Tea Party Express should have stayed out of NV as it cost votes and didn't help Angle win.

Do not believe NRSC should get involved in primary campaigns period -- look at Florida where they endorsed Crist. Bad move! Let the states decide and that goes for people from out of state like Tea Party Express getting involved on the ground in primaries when they don't live in the state. It is one thing to donate money, but the Express was on the ground in Delaware, Nevada, Arizona, and other states.

Tea Party Express went all out for our two worst candidates -- O'Donnell and Miller. So did the pundits. Do these people not vet candidates as it wouldn't take much to realize these people should not have been running. Read the Anchorage Daily and have learned a tremendous amount about the Miller campaign. Trying to throw out a ballot with the 'L' in cursive and the rest printed correctly is not 'count every vote.' More like Al Gore.

Miller is a disgrace in this write-in counting that is in progress. Yet pundits and posters are still defending him and blaming the media for cherry picking ballots to show that he tried to throw out because an 'r' looked like a 'v' and things like that. He tried to keep records sealed because he lied in 2008 and quit before being fired. He should have never been the candidate but Palin and DeMint went for him because he was the anti-Murkowski candidate. BTW, Palin donated $5,000 to the Lisa Murkowski campaign last year for the person she dislikes.

Murkowski ran a louzy primary and it bit her but like her or not, she has run a masterful write-in campaign. One thing she has shown is that because you win the primary doesn't mean you will win the general.

Think the media with the help of people like DeMint and Palin have over hyped all of this Tea Party movement for stories and now they are believing their own hype. There are a lot of people who were brought into the process especially in the northeastern states but in Middle America where we have a strong grassroots who make up a large portion of the Tea Party movement it was ignored by the media led by Fox News.  Having grassroots Republicans as part of the Tea Party doesn't fit the narrative.

DeMint in the Reuters article went over the top again and yet he thinks he can run for President and find all these Tea Party people supporting him. They will be supporting Ron Paul for the most part as a large portion of the Tea Party is made up of his supporters and Libertarians who will never support someone like DeMint in the Presidential race.

It goes back to the Paulbots saying throw every incumbent out of Congress on the websites which was ludicrous since they were supporters of Ron Paul who is a member of the House. Just who is the establishment they love to demonize? Dr. Coburn of Oklahoma? How about Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Eric Cantor of Virginia? They love to go after John Boehner who by the way is not going to be using the Pelosi plane but commercial instead to fly back to Cincinnati. Why not throw in Jeff Sessions of Alabama? If we elected men and women near the caliber of any of the these people (we did this time for the most part), we would have a conservative House and Senate with a load of Common Sense. Most of the more moderate Republicans from conservative states didn't survive 2006, 2008, or the primaries in 2010. Some of those like in Utah were not ousted as much for their votes as they didn't do anything.

This whole deal trying to pit the Tea Party against the grassroots has to end including the threats if you don't do what I say, then I are going to bolt the party. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. As Ron Paul will tell you that running without GOP support does not have a happy ending. Does DeMint honestly think with roughly 55 million registered Republicans they are all going to follow someone from South Carolina who grandstands? There are roughly 72 million Democrats and 42 million registered independents who the vast majority would never vote for someone like Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin for President.

We need a candidate for President in 2012 who can appeal to a wide range of people. Note to people like DeMint and others: We cannot win without Independents being on board so that means you move to the middle not the right. American people are mostly center right and don't want someone from either party who is unappeaseable and refuses to listen to common sense. That applies to both parties -- the far left of the Democrats and the far right of Republicans. The 'my way or no way' crowd is not going to get elected in a lot of states including my State of Oklahoma where in the primary the person who was far right lost big to a Conservative with Common Sense Mary Fallin who has more of a backbone and who will stand up against Obamacare and other bad bills coming out of DC more than most men I know.

DeMint has some good ideas but it is being overshadowed with his continual grandstanding while trying to get support for running for President.  He has lost all common sense and is believing the media that he is the 'kingmaker' of the last election.  His final total if you take out grassroots candidates who won with heavy grassroots support is not very good which is why he wants you to believe that all Republicans who won were Tea Party candidates.  With that scenario that would include Ron Kirk of Illinois who is definitely not a Tea Party candidate.  County Chairs who are now considered establishment were responsible in a lot of areas for getting out the vote and the support.  Where were the organized Tea Party members in many states in Middle America and the south who made the telephone calls or worked campaigns?  Does he honestly think that Independents and Democrats who are members of the Tea Party movement are going to make calls for Republican campaigns?  Not going to happen in most states outside the northeast. 

Nice to know as part of the grassroots we are now part of the Establishment because we are not a member of the Tea Party movement so we are no longer a conservative and not needed.  Only the Tea Party people are the conservatives now in some people's worlds.   Two of us go back to the days of passing out literature for Goldwater as teenagers and have been conservative since then.  We have been part of the grassroots helping Republican candidates for years but we are not part of the 'real' or 'pure' conservatives as touted by the far right so we don't count.  The good thing is that most candidates love to have us and others helping out their campaign because we believe in winning seats not standing on principle for bad candidates and losing. 

Any person who stays home or supports a candidate that cannot win in the general, might as well vote for the Democrat that they agree with 0% of the time because the candidate they chose not to support that they agree with 80% of the time is going to lose with that ideology.  If you don't win seats, your agenda goes down the drain as witnessed in 2006 and 2008.  We would have thought they learned a lesson but with the arrogance we are seeing along with the threats, we do not think so.  This is one time we would love to be proved wrong. 

Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

The statement comes around the 3-minute mark




My jaw dropped last night when I saw this on Hot Air with the commentary by Allahpundit:

That’s the money line from tonight’s Fox News “12 in ’12″ presidential profile; skip ahead to 3:00 if you don’t want to watch it all. He made this same point, albeit in a more elaborate way, at the Values Voter Summit in September. Let me gently suggest that this bumper-sticker version is doing him no favors, since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it....

Originally, I thought this message was just something DeMint was pitching at Christian conservatives to convince them that the tea party’s libertarianism is overblown, that they’re still a cherished constituency despite the reordering of conservative priorities to favor spending over “values.” But now I think he means it, which makes me wonder. For instance, last I checked, Glenn Beck’s a fiscal conservative (and notably a fan of the idea of Americans turning back to God) but also … fine with gay marriage....

That is so presumptuous of DeMint to even say that. I am one of many fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party that do not consider themselves a social conservative along with most of my friends. Never have and never will.

You can put me in the State's Rights camp for social issues and other issues that should never have been at the federal level. Until a person walks in another person's shoes, they should think twice before condemning others on lifestyle choices. That is between the person and God -- no individual has the right to become the judge and jury on social issues IMHO. Still think Gay Marriage is pushed by the trial lawyers who do divorces as they see their pockets being lined with dollars.

If you leave it up to the state, a person has a choice to live in that state or not. There is one exception I make to the State Right's issue and that is Partial Birth Abortion which is abhorrent to almost every American where a baby is murdered who could survive. With modern technology there are no exceptions and frankly should be considered murder IMO.  Never will understand how any person could give their support to Partial Birth Abortion like Obama did in the Illinois Senate. Would never support a candidate who supported Partial Birth Abortion.   That crosses the line from a social issue into a criminal issue.

Believe you have to change the hearts and minds on other types of abortion, but also believe strongly in the exceptions and encouraging adoption. This falls in my category of not walking in someone shoes at the time the decision is made.

Part of the trouble in this election cycle is that some of the candidates won the primary where their stances on social issues were too extreme for the general election in their states. A good example is Buck in Colorado who came out and said no exceptions on abortion in a state that is not very conservative. This idea where you elect the most conservative in the primary who is going to have a hard time winning or no chance to win is self defeating for the conservative agenda. You need to vote for the candidate who can win in the general or your agenda goes no where.

The other part is the 'my way or no way' crowd who will stay home if they don't have a candidate on the ballot that reflects their views has never made any sense.  With that mentality you are going to get someone very liberal who you don't agree with 100% of time versus the person you agree with 80% of the time.  That is one reason you will never find me in the social conservative camp because that is usually who comes up with the idea to stay home to teach the rest of us a lesson.

Now to have a Senator who says they are running for President tell all of us that if we are a fiscal conservative we are also a social conservative makes him unelectable in most states. Not sure that would fly with a lot of voters in Oklahoma except the far right.  Beginning to see more and more reasons there are Senators who want nothing to do with him. DeMint along with Palin didn't do the Senate a lot of favors with some of their endorsements and support along with the Tea Party Express in the primaries and it showed in the general election.

Just put me down as a Common Sense Conservative Republican who believes in candidates with integrity and ethics who support less taxes, smaller government, strong defense and homeland security, state's rights, and strict constructionists judges. That is all I ask from any candidate running for federal office including President.

What Does the State Department Not Want Us to Know about Honduras?

This is a question a lot of Americans are asking. When Sen Kerry tried to keep Sen DeMint and others from making this trip, the red flag went up. Thanks to Sen Mitch McConnell they were able to make their trip. It has made no sense from Day One as the Honduran Government followed their Constitution and Obama/Clinton backed the President trying to get around the Constitution and remain in office against the Constitutiuon.

Will someone explain to us why this Administration keeps ending up on the wrong side of events. They side with our enemies against long time friends. First people said Obama was naive but now we are hearing more that people believe it is HIS agenda at play to weaken the United States and placate our enemies.

One thing has become obvious is that he is backed by a group of radicals both domestic and foreign. How much money did it take to buy the Presidency and the MSM so there would do no investigative journalism into Obama and his past?

Once again the lack of transparency by this Administration is mind boggling!

What Does the State Department Not Want Us to Know about Honduras?
Posted by Ian Vasquez

Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina recently traveled to Honduras and found—no surprise—a peaceful country and broad support for the ouster of President Zelaya among members of civil society, the supreme court, political parties and others. In an op-ed in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, DeMint describes his trip in light of Washington’s continuing support of Zelaya and its condemnation of what it calls a “coup.” U.S. policy is mystifying since the ousted president’s removal from office was a rare example in Latin America of an institutional defense of democracy as envisioned by the constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court that ruled that the president be removed. (For independent opinions on the case, see here and here.)

However, the Senator reports a legal analysis at the State Department prepared by its top lawyer that apparently has informed Washington’s policy but that has not been made public nor even released to DeMint despite his repeated requests. In the interest of democracy and transparency, the State Department should immediately release its legal report. Maybe then we (which includes much of the hemisphere) will be less mystified about what is driving Washington policy toward Honduras. Or at least we’ll have a better insight on the administration’s understanding of democracy.

Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/13/what-does-the-state-department-not-want-us-to-know-about-honduras/