If Jim DeMint lived in your state and was running for Senate election/reelection.....

[Fozz]

This is the best post on this thread.

All the neo-cons need to do is be a bit more fiscally conservative and then they'll realize most of us don't care about our foreign empire. That way, they get to stay in power and we think we're moving in the right direction. The same tactic they have used for the past 200 years is now being targeted at us.

And 70% of us have fallen for it.

I don't think Jim Demint fully supports our empire. He once voted against a war spending bill which included a huge amount of money going to the IMF.

How would a true neocon vote on such a bill?

 

[Fozz]

This is the best post on this thread.

All the neo-cons need to do is be a bit more fiscally conservative and then they'll realize most of us don't care about our foreign empire. That way, they get to stay in power and we think we're moving in the right direction. The same tactic they have used for the past 200 years is now being targeted at us.

And 70% of us have fallen for it.

And like I said, I would NOT vote for Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, or other so-called fiscal conservatives who are pro-war.

Jim DeMint is a bit different.

 

[TCE]

And like I said, I would NOT vote for Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, or other so-called fiscal conservatives who are pro-war.

Jim DeMint is a bit different.

How is he different? Sure, he is more fiscally conservative and he likes term limits. But tons of neo-cons go along with term limits. He also loves the budget busting wars. I just fail to see the love of DeMint on this board.

Can I have the bill number? I believe several neo-cons voted against it for that reason. Not because they believed in the principle, but because it was proposed by Obama/Democrats.

 

[Fozz]

Judge Napolitano tells it perfectly. There are is just one Big Government Party with two factions:

One attacks our commercial liberties, taxes us to death, gives us a nanny state where everything is regulated and spends tons of money.

One believes in wars and attacks civil liberties while pushing its will onto us through the drug war. It too spends tons of money enforcing these rules.

DeMint is the second one, although he is a pinch better than your standard Republican, that is all he is. He goes off and endorses Rand, speaks out against the Fed and believes in term limits and all of us are drooling over him.

Guess what? Every Republican in the House co-sponsored Hr 1207, why don't we support them? Newt Gingrich believed in term limits, why don't we like him? Sarah Palin endorsed Rand, so is it cool to like her?

I am not for paying off the wars at all. GET OUT of the countries and then we can talk about paying off the debt. I am not willing to pay higher taxes all while the problem is still going on and we have no plans to leave.

Every Republican in the House cosponsered 1207, but DeMint actively promoted the audit and even tried to attach it to a spending bill, along with C4L talking points.

Gingrich is obviously a fraud, I appreciate Sarah Palin's endorsement of Rand but she has sworn fealty to Israel and she gets all her FP talking points from Kristol. So I would never vote for her.

 

[AuH20]

Lets give DeMint a benefit of a doubt for a minute. Lets assume that DeMint supports an audit of the Fed for unstated support to end the wars. In the mean time he votes to fund the war while as a member of congress he could take a stand for defunding it?

I've heard this agrument DeMint is an non-invertentionalist because he wants to audit the fed, which could end funding to empire building. When the congress vote for $78B emergency funding for the war, Ron Paul was vocally against it. DeMint vote for it. Because of this I can't buy the closet pacifist theory.

Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record: Strongly Favors topic 15
YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill: Favors topic 15
YES on deploying SDI: Favors topic 15
YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan: Strongly Favors topic 15
NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Favors topic 15
NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Favors topic 15

There is vast pressure exerted upon conservative politicians, especially those in the South, due to their long-held close ties to the military branches. Unfortunately, the support of an imperial foreign policy runs parallel to a support of the troops. If we could somehow topple the neocons and fill that philosophical vacuum, we could turn the military moms and social conservatives. There is no doubt in my mind. Many of these republicans carrying the neocon banner are not true believers. It's just something that they've been misled on.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I don't think Jim Demint fully supports our empire. He once voted against a war spending bill which included a huge amount of money going to the IMF.

How would a true neocon vote on such a bill?

The vote was on July 2000. Before 9/11 and the war on terror. Here is a description of the bill:

Vote number 2000-397 $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction
on Jul 13, 2000 regarding bill HR 4811 Amendment sponsored by Waters, D-CA
Results: Amendment adopted: FOR: 216; AGAINST: 211

Vote on an amendment that would transfer $156 million from foreign military financing to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries [HIPC] Trust Fund. The HIPC Trust fund is designed to help debtor countries pay off the money they owe to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

A yes vote would have actually reduced foreign military financing. Is this the offical DeMint fluffer thread?

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Every Republican in the House cosponsered 1207, but DeMint actively promoted the audit QUOTE]

I'll see your DeMint and raise you a Alan Grayson.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

There is vast pressure exerted upon conservative politicians, especially those in the South, due to their long-held close ties to the military branches. Unfortunately, the support of an imperial foreign policy runs parallel to a support of the troops. If we could somehow topple the neocons and fill that philosophical vacuum, we could turn the military moms and social conservatives. There is no doubt in my mind. Many of these republicans carrying the neocon banner are not true believers. It's just something that they've been misled on.

I completely agreed with your post until the last two words. Perhaps I'm cynical but I think congress is corrupt. Not all these neocon want this war in their hearts, but the power and influence wins over their morals. I beleive they know full well the consequences of their actions.

I think the lobbyist have far more influence than the southern voter.

 

[AuH20]

I completely agreed with your post until the last two words. Perhaps I'm cynical but I think congress is corrupt. Not all these neocon want this war in their hearts, but the power and influence wins over their morals. I beleive they know full well the consequences of their actions.

I think the lobbyist have far more influence than the southern voter.

I meant that the mainstream republican voters are misled. Yes, congress is very corrupt, but there was an element of uncertainty regarding the Iraq War with the falsified intelligence. Regarding the re-apportioning of funds to Iraq War with the surge, I actually agreed with the vote on the premise that you cannot leave a country you intentionally destabilized on the brink of chaos. I'm an isolationist, but I disagreed with Ron Paul on this vote, since I thought it to be irresponsible.

Now regarding the forum's defense of Demint, I think it boils down to someone who is making a legitimate effort to take a step towards us and advance our interests. Granted, he'll do stupid things from time to time like endorse Stutzman or speak harshly of homosexuals, but it's highly important to bring an ally of his clout and potential. It has nothing to do with the lesser of two evils, but rather finding someone who we can grow with and possibly liberate from Neocon control.

 

[TCE]

I meant that the mainstream republican voters are misled. Yes, congress is very corrupt, but there was an element of uncertainty regarding the Iraq War with the falsified intelligence. Regarding the re-apportioning of funds to Iraq War with the surge, I actually agreed with the vote on the premise that you cannot leave a country you intentionally destabilized on the brink of chaos. I'm an isolationist, but I disagreed with Ron Paul on this vote, since I thought it to be irresponsible.

Now regarding the forum's defense of Demint, I think it boils down to someone who is making a legitimate effort to take a step towards us and advance our interests. Granted, he'll do stupid things from time to time like endorse Stutzman or speak harshly of homosexuals, but it's highly important to bring an ally of his clout. It has nothing to do with the lesser of two evils, but rather finding someone who we can grow with and possibly liberate from Neocon control.

But again I propose the question: Besides his stance on the Fed (which Grayson and all House Republicans jumped on board with), his love of term limits (Newt Gingrich!), and his fiscal conservatism, how does he differ than your average neo-con?

 

[AuH20]

But again I propose the question: Besides his stance on the Fed (which Grayson and all House Republicans jumped on board with), his love of term limits (Newt Gingrich!), and his fiscal conservatism, how does he differ than your average neo-con?

He's opposed to central planning and big government solutions. He doesn't worship at the altar of GDP, nor would he trade fleeting economic growth for an erosion of national sovereignty. He's diametrically opposed to the model of command-control government and corresponding social welfare net ushered in by the New Deal. Demint in many ways is a throwback. He's not John McCain or Lamar Alexander.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

I'd like anyone here supporting Demint to defend his endorsement of Marlin Stutzman over John Hostettler. Stutzman supports the wars while Hostettler voted against the War in Iraq.

 

[Fozz]

The vote was on July 2000. Before 9/11 and the war on terror. Here is a description of the bill:

Vote number 2000-397 $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction
on Jul 13, 2000 regarding bill HR 4811 Amendment sponsored by Waters, D-CA
Results: Amendment adopted: FOR: 216; AGAINST: 211

Vote on an amendment that would transfer $156 million from foreign military financing to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries [HIPC] Trust Fund. The HIPC Trust fund is designed to help debtor countries pay off the money they owe to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

A yes vote would have actually reduced foreign military financing. Is this the offical DeMint fluffer thread?

No, there was a more recent one last year.

 

[Fozz]

I'll see your DeMint and raise you a Alan Grayson.

If I lived in Alan Grayson's district and his opponent was a hateful neocon, then I could very well vote for Grayson.

 

[Fozz]

I'd like anyone here supporting Demint to defend his endorsement of Marlin Stutzman over John Hostettler. Stutzman supports the wars while Hostettler voted against the War in Iraq.

That was a dumb mistake he made, but I don't think he did it with the intention of getting Coats elected.

 

[Fozz]

Looks almost like a perfect 2:1 vote as of now.

 

[TCE]

Looks almost like a perfect 2:1 vote as of now.

And that truly scares me. All the Neo-Cons need to do is pretend they care about the Fed, act more fiscally conservative, and endorse one of our candidates and we'll vote for them. With this definition, most of the House of Representatives Republicans are actually liberty candidates.

 

[erowe1]

That was a dumb mistake he made, but I don't think he did it with the intention of getting Coats elected.

I don't think he did it with the intention of getting Coats elected. But I do think he did it with the intention of keeping Hostettler from getting elected.

 

[Linus]

And that truly scares me. All the Neo-Cons need to do is pretend they care about the Fed, act more fiscally conservative, and endorse one of our candidates and we'll vote for them. With this definition, most of the House of Representatives Republicans are actually liberty candidates.

They should just change their last name to "Paul" and save the hassle. People here would be lining up to throw rose petals in front of their feet and show unflagging loyalty to independent thinking and libertarianism.

 

[Daamien]

And that truly scares me. All the Neo-Cons need to do is pretend they care about the Fed, act more fiscally conservative, and endorse one of our candidates and we'll vote for them. With this definition, most of the House of Representatives Republicans are actually liberty candidates.

Indeed. We can be pragmatic and work with people like Demint, but to offer support for their candidacy sets a dangerous precedent that undermines our integrity.