Quote of the day from Sen. Jim DeMint

Posted by: ST on April 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm

On Specter’s switch and speculation that the GOP will continue to go nowhere fast if it doesn’t start taking more ‘moderate’ views:

DeMint wouldn’t speculate whether this conversation spurred Specter to switch parties, but the conversation came within hours of the release of a poll showing Toomey leading Specter among primary voters 51 percent to 30 percent. “We knew Pat was going to win the primary,” DeMint said in a Capitol Hill interview Tuesday, minutes after Specter announced his move. “This [party switch] shouldn’t surprise anyone. It was a clever political move.”

DeMint had not yet gone public with his support for Toomey by the time Specter switched.

DeMint said Specter’s switch “shows that there were not principles attaching Arlen to the Republican Party, but the Republican Party was the means to get elected.”

DeMint continued: “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

Can I get a “hell yeah!”?

Oh, and is Senator DeMint reading Sister Toldjah? From a post last week:

If conservatives abandoned their principles on those [core] issues, our party as we know it would cease to exist. In fact, we saw what happened when conservatives in Congress started acting like moderate liberals on spending, for example – it didn’t do us any good. Certainly there are issues that we can find common ground on with the left on, like on card check, supporting our returning veterans, and on regulation/deregulation. At this point, we don’t have a choice, but in the end there are core principles that should never be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Even if it means in the end the party would die out.

Toldjah So … :D

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

16 Responses to “Quote of the day from Sen. Jim DeMint”

Comments

  1. cfm990 says:

    Good riddance.
    knock the horn off a rino and they look a lot like a jackass. Bout time he came out.

  2. Carlos says:

    At this point it was Specter’s only option. Hopefully, the people of Pennsylvania will have the good sense to toss the chameleon from office next year no matter what he chooses to call himself. He has no principles except to get reelected, which is in itself a lack of principle.

  3. As a Center-Righty or “moderate conservative” (whichever you prefer) who’s glad to see Specter gone, I nonetheless don’t think we should be cheering too loudly. Like the Democrats in the wake of 2002 and 2004, we’re still running the danger of a “purity crusade” that will drive away anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with “true conservatism,” whatever that is. I didn’t like Specter, for a long list of reasons ranging from his mistreatment of Bork to his vote on Porkulus, and I wouldn’t cry at this point if Snowe and Collins left, but to return to national prominence, to be something other than a regional rump party, we need to build a coalition that ranges from the Center to the Right, the way Reagan did. And that means being true to your principles in principle, but recognizing the times when we have to compromise in practice.

    Put me down as waving bye to Arlen, but worried about our direction. :-ss

    BTW, DeMint strikes me as one of the good ones.

  4. Larry Sheldon says:

    Hell yeah!

    Amen!

    Arlen Sphincter: Good riddance. Back labeled as a Democrat. Which he he said he was up until the last time he tamed the PA rednecks.

    Truth in Labeling?

    Hell Yeah!

  5. Serfer62 says:

    Well Tony, do you mean like McNasty did?
    .
    The GOP of the USA, not to be confused with the GOP DC, doesn’t buy votes by give aways. It offers goals & ideals that are logical to Americans…

  6. Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET says:

    Right now it is still 59. The clown, Franken, from Minnesota is still in court courtesy of Norm Coleman. But I suppose it is only a matter of time until the new worker’s paradise appears:((
    I for one would move to Texas since they can leave the union under that treaty of 1848. I would loose my retirement but it would be worth it.

  7. Larry Sheldon says:

    Near as I can tell, I’ve lost my retirement no matter what.

  8. Carlos says:

    Anthony (L.A.), it’s not a matter of purging the party of anyone, especially those who consider themselves “centrists” (we’ll leave the discussion of what that means for another day.)

    It is a matter of choosing our own candidates (as opposed to letting the D.C. RINOs and the MSM doing it), candidates who will be reflective of the ideals and platform of the Republican Party. Specter reflected neither, and neither Bush nor McCain were representative of a lot of what the party platform said. They did, however, try to please the donkeys at every turn.

    Of course, during the end of the Clinton period and through the Bush years, most Republican senators and representatives in action didn’t, either, and it cost the party and (IMHO) the country dearly, but those who put spending and paybacks above principle deserved to be eliminated from the gross spending.

    My personal opinion, for whatever it’s worth, is that the tent is big enough for anyone center or right. What I don’t like is the “centrists” bowing to the god of panic and screaming “we’ll lose if we don’t become like them” every time an election is coming up. That don’t cut it for me, nor for a lot of other conservatives.

  9. My personal opinion, for whatever it’s worth, is that the tent is big enough for anyone center or right. What I don’t like is the “centrists” bowing to the god of panic and screaming “we’ll lose if we don’t become like them” every time an election is coming up.

    Actually, I largely agree with you. (David Frum I think is a good example of this.) There’s also the tendency many of us have noted to act as if “compromise” means “give the other guy what he wants and get nothing in return.” Right now what worries me more, however, is the risk that this “family argument” could be one in which everyone digs in their heels, and people who should be natural allies stop talking to each other.

  10. Carlos says:

    The object isn’t to get everything one wants; the object is to get government out of our hip pockets and eliminate programs that don’t work, don’t even have a chance in the real world (something which the left is totally unfamiliar with).

    With that as our objective, details can be hashed out later. The first priority is to elect people who aren’t out to enslave us with rhetoric and keep us on the new plantation. Specter, McCain, Bush, Steele, Snowe and many other of our “leaders” have unfortunately acted like the massa’s lackey in that regard.

  11. TomStPaul says:

    Is the GOP small enough to drown in the bathtub yet? BTW, I like the new site ST! It’s been a while since I’ve dropped by..

  12. Why, Tom? Is the idea of one party rule appealing to you?

  13. Carlos says:

    Michael Steele gave an interview on NPR. I noticed that, with all the normal pap about “the big tent” and how inclusive the party is while retaining its identity (pro-business, individual rights, etc.), he mentioned absolutely nothing about fiscal responsibility.

    Wonder if that has anything to do with why moderate Republicans have been getting blasted from “their” congressional seats the last two elections, while conservatives have for the most part been retaining “theirs”.

    Moderates still don’t get it, do they?

  14. DeMint is wrong and misses the point.

    For one, he’s set up a false choice. While only having 30 true believers is a real choice, having 60(!) “that don’t have a set of beliefs” is silly.

    Realistically, the 60 would be split.

    If you’re at 30 you can talk all you want and get self-righteous about how pure you are but you won’t affect diddly.

    But once you have the magic 51, even if 25 are squishy, you control the agenda because you control the committees. You will at least get your bills to the floor for a vote.

    So while some liberal Republicans do need to go, seeking purity will mean permanent minority status.

  15. Lorica says:

    So while some liberal Republicans do need to go, seeking purity will mean permanent minority status.

    No it doesn’t. Conservative principles are easily agreed upon by the majority. It is when we elect “conservatives” and they start to act like liberals is when this party gets into trouble. As has been said many times, if there is a choice between a Democrat and Democrat lite, why not vote in the real thing, at least you know where they stand. 3 trillion dollar budgets are not a conservative principle, but yet Republicans voted for it. It doesn’t take a super genius to figure this stuff out, stop leaning left once you get to DC, and this party would be fine. Everytime they compromise their principles, it just gets that much easier the next time, and pretty soon they are no better than the liberals, and the people who elected them, just won’t have it. Look at the real reason Specter left the party, his own polling data said he was going to lose next primary, finally the Reps in PA had enough of Specter’s stupidity. – Lorica