Posted on 08/29/2010 12:55:46 AM PDT by County Agent Hank Kimball
'I'd rather lose with Pat Toomey than win with Arlen Specter any day." That's South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint defending his Senate Conservatives Fund, a new PAC that has taken Washington by storm.
The fund-raising group has already helped eight underdog Reaganite candidates win Republican Senate primaries this year. In two years, the fund has raised and spent nearly $2 million from nearly 50,000 individual contributors.
Mr. DeMint's mission is to bring more Jim DeMints to the Senatethat is, people with an unfailing antagonism to big government. But his string of victories, often against establishment candidates, has many of his Republican colleagues grumbling. They say Mr. DeMint is pushing candidates through the primaries who are too far to the right to take back vulnerable seats from Democrats in November. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott recently spoke for many in the party when he said it didn't need anymore "Jim DeMint disciples."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Geez, where ya been pal? DeMint started his PAC over a year ago and has been posted about on FR many times. He is the man we need to look to for Senate Leader. If you go to yesterdays WSJ opinion page, he penned an OPED piece that would make any conservative swoon at the possibilities.
As far as supporting him in his race in South Carolina, I would call it safe as the last Rasmussen poll has him leading the Dem Greene at a 63-19 clip.
Are you implying that DeMint is a tofu politician?
I’ll never give to the NRSC or the GOP again, even if Demint is chairman.
My money goes to Conservatives only.
to Resolve the executive order problem congress needs to thin the body of laws. All executive orders are based upon some law already passed by congress.
We now have an accumulated build up of 200 years of laws. so of course the presidency is extremely powerful.
Honestly I think an amendment that puts an automatic ~20 year maximum expiration date on every act of congress is in order.
I’d rather have to have a majority required to maintain a law, then a majority to kill a law.
Just as I would also rather have congress spend much of its time debating the merits of renewing existing laws rather then passing new laws that usurp yet more rights from us.
On this grounds I really don’t care who runs for president of the United States, unless that person was willing to dismiss all Federal employees in unconstitutional non-defense departments, to make enforcement of unconstitutional Federal edicts impossible.
.....Next he says, “we may not be able to repeal ObamaCare, but we can cut off the funding....”
love it....
I read this article online the day it was posted.
The reason I did not post it was because it did not contain anything that we already didnt know.
A good article though.
This article certainly makes it clear why someone would think so.Hey, if they can get one of their senators into the Oval Office, why cant we?
Senators do occasionally get elected POTUS - but not when they're running against a sitting POTUS - and only one (Harding) ever beat a governor in a race for the White House.The example of Cheney notwithstanding, VP is not an executive position. So you cannot use Kennedy's victory over Nixon as a counterexample to the fact that the guy with executive experience wins.
Granted that, as matters presently stand, Obama couldn't defend his seat against a Republican school board member - but two years is a lifetime in politics.
So I say, let's not take a chance. Palin would definitely be good enough - let's not let "better" be the enemy of good enough.I advocate "drafting" Palin because, as the election laws are written (not that I consider them constitutional, but . . .) a movement in that direction appears to be the best way to proceed. And because we have seen how easily the nomination can be obtained by a Senator Dole or a Senator McCain who simply is not gonna win. Lifer senators have a lot of political favors to call in, so they can readily get nominated - but they are sure losers in the POTUS sweepstakes.
Granted that DeMint doesn't strike me as a lifer type, but IMHO if we never nominate another senator, it'll be too soon. Any party which doesn't have a single governor who's a rising star doesn't deserve to win the presidency.
So you cannot use Kennedy's victory over Nixon as a counterexample to the fact that the guy with executive experience wins.Actually, Nixon probably won that election so the example still stands.
Excellent post #29. I agree with everything you said.
The RNC “wonders” why its funding is drying up? Here’s one reason. Why give to the RNC when Lindsey Graham would get part of your donation? Nope, my money (what little I can afford) ALL goes to DeMint’s PAC.
Amen, remember what the RNC and NRSC did with OUR money for Lincoln Chaffee in a PRIMARY?
That was my final straw.
“Trent Lott recently spoke for many in the party when he said it didn’t need anymore “Jim DeMint disciples.”
DeMint/Palin-2012: we sure as heck don’t need anymore like the spineless, gutless fool sellout, Trent Lott, a prime example of the GOP elite ruling class, now entrenched in DC as a lobbyist.
You nailed Cornyn. When first elected to the Senate, I thought he was a conservative; but, he’s more like McCain than anyone else and needs removal from his NRSC postion.
I don’t think he wants to run for leadership. I do think we need him more then ever after the elections to hopefully keep the new Senators that ran on a conservative capaign from being corrupted by the leadership.
Music to my ears
yes.
B T T T
Jim DeMint Ping! |
Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.
Jim is running for reelection this November. If you like his philosophy, consider tossing him some bucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.