Saturday, November 15, 2008

Jim DeMint doesn't get it, either

Jim DeMint, in case you've never heard of him, is an ultra-conservative senator from South Carolina.

At the moment, Senator DeMint is pissed off. He has publicly chastised his fellow senator, John McCain, for blowing the election by blowing off and "betraying conservative principles." The Republican Party should, according to de candy man, DeMint, "represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government."

"Religious values?" Does this clown have a clue? Whose religious values? How about Muslim religious values? Or Hindu religious values? Or Wiccan religious values? Or the values of the Cult of Death?

Anyway, de candy man held up a laundry list of McCain's failings at a speech in Myrtle Beach. And these, he said, were what brought down the party of god, religious values and freedom:

"McCain, who is a proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations ... His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn't fit the label, but he was our package."

Poor John. Day after day he's gonna look out over the Senate floor and there he'll see the candy man, all glum and crochety, glaring at the "loser."

DeMint, who sometimes doesn't know the difference between Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens, could not be more wrong. McCain didn't lose because he betrayed conservative principles, but because he didn't have any principles.

Peter Beinart has an article in the latest issue of Time, titled "The New Liberal Order." A couple of paragraphs in that article summed things up rather well, even though his assumptions regarding the "liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s" may be a bit out of whack.

"Starting in the 1990s, average Americans began deciding that the conservative agenda was a bit like the liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s: less liberating than frightening. When the Gingrich Republicans tried to slash Medicare, the public turned on them en masse. A decade later, when George W. Bush tried to partially privatize Social Security, Americans rebelled once again. In 2005 a Pew Research Center survey identified a new group of voters that it called 'pro-government conservatives.' They were culturally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy, and they overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004. But by large majorities, they endorsed government regulation and government spending. They didn't want to unleash the free market; they wanted to rein it in.

But here's where I think Beinart is really on target:

"Those voters were a time bomb in the Republican coalition, which detonated on Nov. 4. John McCain's promises to cut taxes, cut spending and get government out of the way left them cold. Among the almost half of voters who said they were 'very worried' that the economic crisis would hurt their family, Obama beat McCain by 26 points.

"The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order--to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas--and they don't much care whose heads Washington has to bash to do it."

The candy man is blowing in the wind. I mentioned McCain didn't have any principles -- that was hyperbole. He and his sidekick, Palin, ran precisely on the Republican "principles" that DeMint claims they abandoned: "freedom, religious-based values, and limited government."

DeMint doesn't get it, either, just like the other religious neanderthals in the Repugnican Party. I also said he was pissed off, but it very well may be that the reason he's angry with McCain is not that McCain abandoned conservative principles for he did not. It may be that de candy man is mad because McCain didn't choose him to be the vice presidential candidate. I mean his name did float above the Republican coffin for a brief period. And I'm sure DeMint thinks he would have done a much better job than that lying hockey mom from Alaska.

It's kinda fun to see the Repugs implode, though!

Watch de candy man in action in 2007 with McCain at his side. He praises McCain as a champion of reform and he derides earmarks such as the "Bridge to Nowhere." It's hilarious!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The people that voted him in need an education of sorts. He represents them. We have the problem of voters that t disagree with us. Some are simply ignorant of issues and procedures. Others are sincere and believe God is on their side and tells them what is needed. They are citizens too. Somehow we have to find a way to get more people interested in listening to all sides and making wiser decision based on some facts. Listening to talk radio, I am amazed at the stupidity and one sided arguments endorsed by people that never consider an opposing view. Both sides can be right on many issues but there are ways to meet in the middle sometimes. The very least we should expect is to listen to both sides.
Bob Poris

opinions powered by