Those who thought Jim DeMint endorsing Ron Paul is an impossibility...

[LibertyEagle]

I really, really like DeMint. I feel is he is genuinely beginning to rethink some of his positions. I was a neocon, too originally. We can be won over. I feel that stressing the financial burden of wars is a good way to convince them. You need to convince them that non-intervention is an actual conservative position and doesn't come hand-in-hand with socialist propaganda and the hippie culture. It worked for me. Once you can get them to stop supporting wars and military intervention habitually on principle, then you can begin to reel them in. I believe Rand is doing a lot of reeling in DC lately; it's most notable with DeMint, Lee, and (Ron) Johnson.

Demint was never a neocon.

 

[libertythor]

its in DeMint's interest to support Paul , as that would leave the nomination open for 2016. Bachmann would surely seek a 2nd term.

Why wouldn't Paul run again in 2016?

 

[t0rnado]

Demint was never a neocon.

Voting for the PATRIOT Act, supporting both wars, and voting to send billions of our dollars to foreign countries makes DeMint a neocon.

 

[Badger Paul]

"DeMint will endorse Ron if he thinks Ron has a chance. "

There you go.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I can.

In fact, I think one of the things that distinguishes a lot of Ron Paul supporters from the typical Republican is that the typical Republican thinks everything was just fine until all of a sudden Obama got elected and undid everything that the 43 fine upstanding presidents who came before him had faithfully guarded, whereas most Ron Paul supporters see the problems with Obama as just another step in the same basic direction the government has been on for a very long time.

That said, your post is encouraging. If Demint endorsed RP, I'd be very happy.

+1

 

[Austin]

DeMint was just saying that because he knew Ron Paul people were there in force. While what he said was likely truthful, I don't think there is any chance he will endorse Ron.

Voting for the PATRIOT Act, supporting both wars, and voting to send billions of our dollars to foreign countries makes DeMint a neocon.

No.

 

[specsaregood]

No.

Sure sounds like DeMint is a neocon to me. if the definition you quoted doesn't make one a "neocon" what does one have to do to meet the defintion? Prosecute puppies as terrorists?

 

[erowe1]

Sure sounds like DeMint is a neocon to me. if the definition you quoted doesn't make one a "neocon" what does one have to do to meet the defintion? Prosecute puppies as terrorists?

I think, of the things you listed, the only one that's really neoconservative is the Iraq war. But only 6 Republicans voted against it, and I don't think all of those who voted for it based their votes on neoconservative ideas. I think a lot were convinced by the WMD argument, like Dick Armey for example.

The thing about Demint that still makes me suspicious of him is the way he endorsed Stutzman over Hostettler for U.S. Senate in Indiana last year. Before that endorsement Demint sent out a push poll to the SCF membership asking them if they should get involved in that race and wording it with obvious favoritism to Stutzman, and the one complaint he raised against Hostettler was that he opposed the Iraq war. So as of a year ago, Demint, unlike Armey, not only had no regrets about his Iraq war vote, but thought it was a big enough deal to base opposing Hostettler on.

 

[specsaregood]

I think, of the things you listed, the only one that's really neoconservative is the Iraq war. But only 6 Republicans voted against it, and I don't think all of those who voted for it based their votes on neoconservative ideas. I think a lot were convinced by the WMD argument, like Dick Armey for example.

The thing about Demint that still makes me suspicious of him is the way he endorsed Stutzman over Hostettler for U.S. Senate in Indiana last year. Before that endorsement Demint sent out a push poll to the SCF membership asking them if they should get involved in that race and wording it with obvious favoritism to Stutzman, and the one complaint he raised against Hostettler was that he opposed the Iraq war. So as of a year ago, Demint, unlike Armey, not only had no regrets about his Iraq war vote, but thought it was a big enough deal to base opposing Hostettler on.

Exactly, the definition is spot-on. He has supported the wars and contintues to support them. Afghanistan and Iraq hasn't been about bin laden or saddam for quite some time, they are nation building excercises. Hence support for them makes one a neo-con.

 

[AuH20]

Voting for the PATRIOT Act, supporting both wars, and voting to send billions of our dollars to foreign countries makes DeMint a neocon.

There are actual principled folks who place an overemphasis on national security, but they're starting to see the errors of their ways. Secondly, you need a whole lot more than what you outlined to be a neocon. Mainly open borders for cheap labor, no real objection to central planning or the jurisdiction of international bodies in this country. To break down neoconservatism into simply foreign policy is doing the term a great disservice, since it is much more expansive than that. It's an amalgamation of policies seen with TR, FDR and Reagan's cabinet.

 

[AuH20]

Demint was never a neocon.

Some people on this site are misguided calling Demint a neocon. Conversely, there are posters on Hot Air or Free Republic who cruelly lambaste Ron Paul as a leftist with such narrow-minded criteria as well. It's much easier to demean someone with a political pejorative than actually try to understand their stances. I contest their ridiculous assertions as well. Ron is certainly no leftist and DeMint is no neocon. Now if you want to label him a security hawk, that's fair game.

 

[erowe1]

Secondly, you need a whole lot more than what you outlined to be a neocon. Mainly open borders for cheap labor, no real objection to central planning or the jurisdiction of international bodies in this country. To break down neoconservatism into simply foreign policy is doing the term a great disservice, since it is much more expansive than that. It's an amalgamation of policies seen with TR, FDR and Reagan's cabinet.

Where did you get this definition?

 

[AuH20]

Where did you get this definition?

I basically paraphrased what the father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol discussed in his book. Neocons place a heavy emphasis on GDP at all costs, which explains their plundering of foreign resources and their defense of the Federal Reserve & other progressive institutions. To them your rights are secondary to the generation of GDP. They feel that accelerated economic output, augmented by the state if necessary, is the key to maintain civil order in society and advance civilization as a whole worldwide.

They're essentially rogue hyper-capitalists who are simultaneously performing an elaborate social engineering experiment worldwide as well as making themselves and their associates a hefty profit. Replace the mantra of social justice with GDP and you describe the ideological brothers of the left, the Neoconservatives.

 

[kazmlsj]

DeMint's actions certainly comply with Ron Paul's when it comes to the FED:

July 8, 2009
DeMint Amendment to Audit Federal Reserve Blocked by Senate Leadership
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is blocked by Senate Democrat Leadership from having a vote on his amendment to audit the Federal Reserve, based on a bill authored by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the House, H.R.1207, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) in the Senate, S. 604.
http://demint.senate.gov/public/ind...tType_id=57c97336-7688-4d0b-86a3-b5e80bf19840

November 19, 2009
Americans Deserve a Transparent Fed
The Wall Street Journal
Co-authored with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
http://demint.senate.gov/public/ind...tType_id=1b1318b3-cb83-47e4-9ad1-749dd7a5da53

And Rand Paul's (here's just one but they both seem to support the same bills):

February 8, 2011
DeMint Joins Paul to Introduce REINS Act
http://demint.senate.gov/public/ind...tType_id=bf0907bb-57a8-4718-a10a-b2601f161302

 

[Johnca]

It all depends on whether DeMint has the balls to support Dr. Paul. He assurely by this time knows whats going on. I would say to him...get a security detail and come forward my friend. This is an intellectual war and those with the brains to understand it have an obligation to defend our way of life. Dictatorships dont work (these people want a new world order in which they have complete control over everything on the planet). We have made good and bad decisions in this country through the years...slavery-bad, constitution-good, denying women the right to vote-bad, you get the idea. Democracy is good and capitalism is good...so lets oust these bad leaders by not following there orders...we know who they are, and fix the voting process(electoral college), giving us true democracy and get rid of this fiat money system giving these people the power to buy off our leaders. Remember these people only have power over us because we allow it. The more leaders man up and come forward the easier this will be for our children. Blowing this momentum in the libertarian movement is really not even an option. Especially when you consider they are wanting to put RFDI or something like that, microchips in us. The media is slowly warming the public up to this idea....scary. The time to act is now!