Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Jim DeMint bucks party (again), endorses Marlin Stutzman in Indiana

Sen. Jim DeMint (R) announced his support for state Sen. Marlin Stutzman in Indiana's Senate race this morning, the latest in a series of endorsements by the South Carolina Republican that have run counter to the wishes of his party establishment.

DeMint praised Stutzman as a "conservative outsider" and "exactly the kind of leader Americans are looking for this year" in a statement announcing his support.

DeMint's endorsement of Stutzman comes just days after he waded into the Colorado Senate race to back Weld County prosecutor Ken Buck against establishment favorite Jane Norton, a former lieutenant governor.

DeMint has also endorsed in three other Senate races: conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in California, former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in Florida and former Rep. Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

Those choices have led to considerable unhappiness toward DeMint within some GOP circles as well as some speculation that he building out a conservative stable of candidates advance of a 2012 run. (The Wall Street Journal detailed DeMint's willingness to cross party leaders -- including National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn -- in a piece today.)

Stutzman is one of five Republicans running in the May 4 primary for the seat being vacated by Sen. Evan Bayh (D) this fall. National GOP officials recruited former Sen. Dan Coats into the race -- prior to Bayh's surprise retirement -- believing that he represented the party's best chance of putting the swing state in play in the fall.

Coats' campaign has struggled, however. He was battered by Democrats over a series of stories regarding his pledge to move to North Carolina when he retired and his past work as a lobbyist. Coats did himself no favors in his first three months of fundraising, bringing in a relatively meager $379,000 between Jan. 1 and March 31.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Stutzman, a little known state senator, has been gaining some national traction in recent days as conservatives, unhappy with the party establishment picks around the country, look for a candidate of their own in the Hoosier State; American Conservative Union president David Keene endorsed Stutzman on Monday.

It's not yet clear how viable Stutzman can be as he raised just $125,000 in the first three months of the year. DeMint's endorsement should give Stutzman's fundraising a boost -- how large or small remains to be seen -- and Stutzman is now on television with ads touting his status as a "constitutional conservative" and lambasting Coats as well as former Rep. John Hostettler for their ties to Washington.

Hostettler may be the biggest complicating factor in Stutzman's rise. The former southern Indiana Congressman has been trying to rally the Tea Party crowd behind his candidacy -- he won the endorsement of Texas Rep. Ron Paul recently -- and his name identification built up over his 12 years in Congress makes him a potentially more viable alternative for Indiana conservatives not willing to vote for Coats.

Democrats are set to pick Rep. Brad Ellsworth as their party's nominee, a choice that will be made by the state party's executive committee after the May 4 primary. (Bayh's retirement announcement came so close to the filing deadline that no Democrat was able to qualify for the Senate ballot.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 20, 2010; 9:20 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  | Tags: Evan Bayh, Jim DeMint, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican, South Carolina, United States Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Republicans tout new poll showing Pa. special election competitive
Next: Rahm Emanuel's next (political) step


Hoser, the truth will set 37th free!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 21, 2010 6:29 AM | Report abuse

DeMentos bucks brains. Turns out 37th&O is the address in N.Y. for Belleview Hospital. Is it OK that I let that leak 37?

Posted by: hoser3 | April 20, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

These attitudes sure did NOT get cleared by the sensitivity training department.




This is all Hate Speech.

You guys have done a fantastic job of constructing a POSTRACIAL WORLD.

Im sure you will run health care just fine.... if you get the chance.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Mr. DeMint did not buck the Party, he bucked the PERSON!

Posted by: Kansasgirl | April 20, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the commies are @#%$# their pants.

Posted by: Kansasgirl | April 20, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The other day someone posted about how timid Romney's endorsement are -- they come so late and they always back the poll leader. It's laughable. Then you get DeMint -- crazy as a March Hare and letting it hang out. But he's pleasing himself and not cowering from the possible slap-down so many politicians live in fear of. So, on one level, you've got to admire him. >shudder<

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 20, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

ahduth writes
"Why are there two people making 90% of the comments here? It isn't interesting."

because our hosts are more interested in pageviews / hits than dialogue. As long as they can sell advertising, what happens on the page is irrelevant.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 20, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

BB: Well, he did post one that was on-topic. I was hoping a little positive reinforcement to that might encourage more dialogue and less pamphleteering.

Margaret: If we want to go a bit further with that horribly fascinating (or fascinatingly horrible) concept, we could contemplate a DeMint-Palin ticket in 2012. :)

Posted by: Gallenod | April 20, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Why are there two people making 90% of the comments here? It isn't interesting.

Posted by: ahduth | April 20, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

DeMint seems to be intent on destroying the Republican party establishment. I wish him luck with it.

Posted by: drindl | April 20, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

@ Gallenod - It's best to ignore the 37th collective. You'll just get the same cross-post repeated without any response to your comment.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 20, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Regime" was only appropriate for President Dubya. Cheney and his Puppet President were using the Constitution for toilet paper.

"Regime" could not be applied to Bush Sr. It could not be applied to Reagan, nor could it be applied to Clinton.

You only apply it to Obama because you're angry that a Democrat won the election.

Posted by: dognabbit | April 20, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I find DeMint fascinating. Horrible and fascinating. B@lls like church bells, as they say.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | April 20, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Chairman Zero's mainstream media fluffers — especially Chris Matthews who is on his seventh or eighth pair of presidential knee-pads — were apoplectic when Rush Limbaugh began referring to "the Obama Regime."

Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. "I've never seen language like this in the American press," he said, "referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election — we will have another one in November, we'll have another one for president in a couple years — fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, 'regime.' It was used by George Bush, 'regime change.' You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They're juntas. They're military coups. The use of the word 'regime' in American political parlance is unacceptable.
Glenn Beck did a little fact-checking. How often did the press refer to "the Bush Regime?" Oh, only somewhere north of 6,000 times.

"The term "regime" was used 6,500 times to refer to the Bush Administration since January 20, 2001. The host (Joe Klein) was talking to (Chris Matthews) used the term "regime" to describe Bush and Heilemann himself used regime to describe the Obama Administration at least four times. So, I'm trying to figure out how they can use the word regime and it's not a problem and Rush uses it."

Byron York did a count and claims the actual number is 6,729.

The media seem to be playing this childish little game that no one ever criticized a president until Obama was elected and the only people that play hardball politics are Republicans. The detachment from reality is phenomenal, but that's what happens when you stop being a news organization and start being a PR firm for the Democrat party; a party that is only concerned about "civility" when they are the ones in power.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

37th: Your 11:21 post isn't really original. You've been spamming variations of it for quite a while. It's not topical, either. You can do better.

dognabbit: I don't see DeMint splitting the Rs at the moment, but he is apparently trying to get more like-minded comrades in the Senate to increase his personal influence.

If a split comes, it will be because the Rs fail to regain control of Congress prior to 2016 and lose the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. I've predicted before that if Obama wins reelection in 2012 that Sam Brownback will be the R nominee in 2016, as he's one candidate who could definitively unite the social, neo-con and business wings of the party. But if for some reason the Rs fall short, look for the internal schisms to radically reshape the Republicans after 2016. Any significant electoral success, on the other hand, will help maintain the various competing interests within the Rs as a group, and with them the current internal structural stresses.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 20, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Let's cut Dear Leader a little slack on this one, shall we? So what if our esteemed president chose to take those suspended flights due to the Icelandic volcano as an opportunity to hit the links for the 32nd time in his presidency? Besides, feigning interest in the well-being of former Eastern European countries is so jejune. They're so much more useful as pawns to offer up to Moscow, as the United States kowtows its way into oblivion as an economic and military superpower.

Working on manning up that swing is probably the one thing with which Chairman Zero should be spending even more time. As observed by a Washington Examiner OpEd writer:

My regular foursome gives Obama a double bogey on policy but is happy to see him on the links. They point to the moral lessons offered by the royal and ancient game.
As former California Gov. George Deukmejian observed, "The difference between golf and government is that in golf you can't improve your lie."
Another positive: the longer Obama is hacking away at balls, the less he's hacking away at the underpinnings of our nation.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Here at The Fix, these righties do get angry. And they stay angry. They spew and spew and spew. Vicious. Unsympathetic.

These righties think everyone's out to get them. They think it's "Us vs. Them."

And they only try to hurt. They are the jocks who bully the geeks. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.

They are mean, mean, mean. Never a nice word to say.

Ask yourself, who really enjoys reading the rantings of angry, clouded minds?

Posted by: dognabbit | April 20, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Libs in the dark, as usual.

There are two specific problems with the Senate approach to “reform.”

First, this legislation would create a new $50-billion bailout slush fund controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Very big banks and other “eligible financial companies” would be taxed by the FDIC to build up this fund. As with any tax, though, it’s consumers--you and me–who would eventually pay this levy.

The Obama Administration this weekend requested that the $50 billion pre-funded bailout money be removed from the bill. But according to, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner advocated last year that any bailout funding should be addressed post bailout through a tax on big Wall Street firms. If Senate Democrats only take out the $50 billion slush fund and leave the bailout authority intact, then the taxpayers will still be on the hook for any future bailouts.

Another problem with this bill is that it would bail out the creditors of companies and wouldn’t require any creditor to take a loss after a company starts to fail. If the bailout slush fund is tapped, the FDIC would have the power to reimburse creditors. That could allow the FDIC to pay creditors more than they invested (pursuant to Section 210 of the Dodd bill).

Think about that. If creditors know they aren’t likely take a loss, and risk has been eliminated from an investment, its taxpayers who are assuming all the risk. Of course, taxpayers get none of the rewards if the investments pay off–we would simply be on the hook if they fail. Taxpayers could expect no reward for having insured transactions and protected wealthy investors from any risk. The AIG bailout is a great example of this model.

If the strong-arm tactics used in the passage of ObamaCare are any lesson to Americans, we should get ready for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) to block all amendments in an attempt to jam a bad bill through the Senate. The Senate bill has many problems, but the multiple bailouts in the bill should raise the eyebrows of Tea Partiers nationwide and taxpayers who are concerned about becoming the insurer of last resort for Wall Street gamblers.

Brian Darling

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"If there were moderation, old goat, the dimwitted and hopelessly unemployed dribbl would be among the first to go."

no, actually I think it would be you -- again.

Posted by: drindl | April 20, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

If there were moderation, old goat, the dimwitted and hopelessly unemployed dribbl would be among the first to go.

We regret that every single poster doesn't share your fundie love for The One and the mutual leftist loon admiration society.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

For all those Democrats hoping that the Republican Party will split irreparably into two or more factions, I don't think you're going to get your wish any time soon. The two big establishment parties have always been entrenched enough to withstand insurgencies. I don't think this will stop the Tea Partiers from trying, though. Alas, Know Nothings come and Know Nothings go.

Posted by: dognabbit | April 20, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

this place has become a sewer.

nothing but zouk and 37.

this is what happens when you don't have moderation, Chris.

Posted by: drindl | April 20, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Our current leaders in Washington operate as if they can just set arbitrary goals, whether “affordable housing” or “universal health care” or anything else — and not concern themselves with the repercussions — since they have the power to simply force individuals, businesses, doctors, or anyone else to knuckle under and follow their dictates.

Friedrich Hayek called this mindset “the road to serfdom.” But, even under serfdom and slavery, experience forced those with power to recognize the limits of their power. What this administration — and especially the president — does not have is experience.

Barack Obama has had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming president of the United States. He can believe that his heady new power is the answer to all things.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to rush the bill to the floor before the American people have a chance to understand that it contains a hidden, permanent bailout fund."

In other words, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama are on the side of facts, reality and the responsible use of taxpayers' dollars. The proposed bill does not have a hidden, permanent bailout fund. It has an industry-funded trust fund that is designed after the same mechanism the FDIC uses when a bank goes under. This fund is designed to be used for the orderly dismemberment of formerly 'too big to fail' financial institutions when they fail. This fund is created through contributions collected from those institutions. In other words, it is not a taxpayer funded 'bailout' fund. The GOP, of course, wants more time before voting so they can misrepresent the bills contents to the public in order to protect their wall street buddies from being regulated & cut off from the socialized risks they've enjoyed thus far.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 20, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

No wonder DeMint has beaucoup $$$. He's carrying the water for Wall St. They reward their servants well.

37thandOSt needs to realize the good guys won the War of Southern Treason. Hey, BOY, how many Americans did Jeff Davis kill compared to Osama bin Laden? Step and fetch the answer.

Posted by: Garak | April 20, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I suppose you could say that I saw Obama's color as a consolation prize. His political philosophy of bigger government, more taxes, closing of Guantánamo Bay, Miranda rights for terrorists, etc. is an example of the type of liberal orthodoxy that has weakened the U.S. for more than a generation. However, it felt good to know that we had proven to the world that we are truly a melting pot.

Alas, that sentiment was short-lived. When the president insinuated last year that a black Harvard professor's arrest by a white police officer was racially motivated, it became clear that he wasn't interested in leading the country toward a colorblind society. Furthermore, Democrats have become more creative about finding racism in everyone who opposes this president. When the grassroots efforts of the Tea Party movement began to gain national attention, it became a target for accusations of racism. It's a typical red herring intended to divert attention from the president's massive power-grab known as ObamaCare, which will, in addition to destroying the best health care system on the planet, put an unsustainable debt burden on future generations. Does any rational person really believe that the majority of our citizens would be in favor of that medical monstrosity if it had been proposed by a white president?

Nancy Pelosi, the most arrogant and polarizing Speaker in the history of the House, dismissed the Tea Party as nothing more than "disheartened Republicans and racists, who could not accept a bi-racial man as president." Similarly, the mainstream media and Democrat activists, evidently taking their orders from the Speaker's office, tried to portray the health care debate as being based solely on President Obama's race rather than on the policies of an overreaching government. Therefore, we are in the bizarre position of having the first black POTUS, while being constantly scolded for being racist. Every word, gesture, and nuance is being parsed and magnified in a cynical attempt to scare non-blacks into a state of reticent acquiescence.


Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse


All of this is original - and I wrote it all this morning - hardly pre-fabricated.

The Obama attack machine continues to attack whites -

This is pre-judice at it worst - whites are being INTIMIDATED FROM EXERCISING THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

This is a Civil Rights Violation -

If blacks were intimidated from voting like this, there would be all sorts of an outcry.

Colbert King - he jumped into as a part of this attack machine - and instead of taking and listening to the comments -

Colbert King wrote a second piece - tried to mock people who disagreed with him - called millions of people RACIST AGAIN - and then proceeded to insists that the Tea Party was the second coming of George Wallace.

This proves the RACIAL PREJUDICE OF COLBERT KING - no one else.

Eugene Robinson jumped in TODAY - and insisted that the there were racists in the Tea Party Movement -

I guess Mr. Robinson knows these people personally and can certify that they hold those views.

Otherwise, Mr. Robinson is RACIALLY PREJUDICE AS WELL -

Mr. Robinson is PRE - JUDGING these people based on the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN and their exercise of Freedom of Speech.


Obama's people continue the FALSE STORYLINE in the comments section.

This is not based on seeking any racial harmony - but is all politically motivated.

Obama has done nothing about it - Obama condones it - and if after condoning these attacks FOR A MONTH NOW, Obama comes out against them, it would be hypocrisy at its greatest.




No one will trust black candidates again.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) crafted the Senate version of so-called “Financial Reform” with the support of the President. The procedure used to date resembles the non-transparent and secretive tactics used to pass ObamaCare. The Senate Banking
Committee marked up the bill in 22 minutes, with no amendments offered and no debate allowed. Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to rush the bill to the floor before the American people have a chance to understand that it contains a hidden, permanent bailout fund.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Clap harder, Chris. The repulican party is fracturing and melting down into utter chaos.

Posted by: drindl | April 20, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

All 41 Senate Republicans have joined forces against what they call the “endless taxpayer bailouts” allowed under the current version of a financial regulatory bill that is awaiting a Senate vote. In a letter signed by the entire GOP Senate contingent and sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Republicans said they are “united in our opposition” to the bill because it imposes too much regulation and allows for “endless” bailouts.

more utter useless berry. are the links open today?

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans' chances are increasing by the day -

So far the democrats have done the wrong thing time after time.

From this point of view, the democratic bumbling will continue.

Calling people who do not agree with you racist does NOT help the situation either - it only makes it more difficult for democratic candidates.

Ask anyone - compared to January - are you more certain or less certain that they would vote for a democrat ??? Everyone I have spoken to are even more angry now - and that makes the democrats' task at getting voters even harder.

These FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM are Obama's legacy - no one will ever forget - that instead of being Post-Racial - Obama decided to allow a racially-charged atmosphere to go on.


Instead of acting to heal racial divisions, Obama's attack machine is setting back race relations decades.


Talk about destroying all the progress that has been made.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse


37th, I responded to your 10:28 post because you were topical and made arguments relevant relevant to the discussion at hand.

However, all the pre-fabricated propaganda spam posted since does you no credit and dilutes your contribution to the actual discussion to the point of insignificance. If you want to be taken more seriously, you should write more original material like your 10:28 post.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Iran: A leaked memo from the defense secretary reveals the administration has no alternatives to stop Iran's nuclear push if "soft power" fails. This should be a wake-up call, but we continue snoozing toward Armageddon. President Obama campaigned on the notion that not talking to tyrants was not an option or a workable policy. He said he'd be willing to talk with anybody anywhere to bring peace and relieve tensions. Unlike President Theodore Roosevelt, however, he has been talking softly but forgetting about the big stick.

Posted by: Comrade_Zero | April 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

OK, TP'ers. Show us what you've got.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 20, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Well, 2 out of the 5 DeMint endorsements are now establishment favorites as well: Toomey and Rubio. Ken Buck has won the endorsement of the Colorodo Republican party, as Norton is petitioning her way onto the primary. Chuck DeVore in Cali. has not done very well, however. Polling sometimes in single digits behind Fiorina and Campbell. Stutzman will be helped, fundraising wise, by DeMint. DeMint clearly has aspirations in senate leadership, so he's endorsing candidates he hopes can win and support him in leadership. He must, however, answer the question of how having 30 senators who agree with him on everything is better than 60 Republican's who don't.

Posted by: reason5 | April 20, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Obama's personal anger deserves close examination - few people in this country have been handed more affirmative action programs - pushed ahead - and in return been asked so little of in terms of job performance.

Take a serious look at Obama's resume - at no point does his job performance justify the vast opportunities and positions given to him.

Instead, each affirmative action program appears to propel Obama based solely on the color of his skin - including the Presidential election of 2008 - too many people were voting for "racial harmony" instead of an actual evaluation


Yes - this is the point - at every point in Obama's resume, Obama looked NOT towards job performance for his next promotion - INSTEAD OBAMA LOOKED FOR THE NEXT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM.

Obama's entire career has been based on ADVANTAGES GIVEN TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.

So - DOES IT NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW - that Obama would now look to RACE as a way to get out of his present political difficulties ???

Obama has seen his race throughout his life as a way to game the system - to get an advantage - to get a promotion - AND no where is performance involved.


This attitude is vile.

Obama is Jason Blair - he has turned everything around -

Affirmative Action has destroyed itself - the goals of affirmative action have been shredded by the very actions of the people given advantages in the system.

EVEN WORSE, affirmative action has changed the criteria it takes - merit is significantly diminished as a criteria for advancement -


Again, not something we want in our democracy - the whole thing is essentially unAmerican.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

37th: Well, the undercurrents of the Civil War started decades earlier. But the war didn't start until shots were fired, which DeMint is now doing.

Obama has Ds who are unhappy with him, but not because he's a fringe lefty. He's got some relatively conservative old Democratic bulls to his right that are trying to hold their seats in R-leaning states and a slightly larger group off on the left fringe who aren't happy because he hasn't delivered the Progressive Promised Land. But within the Democratic spectrum he's pretty much in the center of his party and shifts slightly in either direction depending on the issue. He's not facing the same kind of revolution among Democrats going on the Republican part at the moment.

Support groups like organized labor or the Club for Growth bucking a party establishment are not the same thing as politicians within the party trying to wrest control from each other.

Obama achieved that within the Democratic party in 2008 and will nominally be the boss until he either leaves office or the bulk of his party loses confidence in him (as happened with Bush after the electoral debacle in 2006).

DeMint might be making a similar move for 2012. We'll see how it plays out.

Posted by: Gallenod | April 20, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Clearly this nation has some serious problems right now - the liberals are throwing around the word "racist" like it is water - and it is being applied to people who simply do not agree with them - not just to actual racists.

Obama has allowed this to happen - Obama is in charge of the democratic attack machine - and Obama is personally responsible.

The truth of the matter is this: this is exactly what Obama did not want to happen - the name-calling of racism runs completely counter to Obama's interests.

First - Obama's mandate was to bring people together - to be bipartisan. For Obama to have charges of racism fly around as they have for the past month poisons the atmosphere - and it prevents Obama from claiming any progress on precisely what his mandate is.

Second - The liberals calling people racist just super-charges the partisan atmosphere - this can not be good for Obama.

Most importantly - Obama is the first black to hold a prominent national position - and he is spoiling his own term - It is exactly in Obama's interests to have the least amount of racial tension in his term of office.

The least amount of racial tension is in everyone's interest - Obama, the parties, the country.

Instead, Obama apparently has directed his attack machine to super-charge the racial atmosphere. Obama has driven directly into the storm.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Most importantly - Obama is the first black to hold a prominent national position - and he is spoiling his own term - It is exactly in Obama's interests to have the least amount of racial tension in his term of office.

The least amount of racial tension is in everyone's interest - Obama, the parties, the country.

Instead, Obama apparently has directed his attack machine to super-charge the racial atmosphere. Obama has driven directly into the storm.

This decision is not based on what is best for Obama or even experience.

This decision is based on Obama's personal inexperience, obsession with his limited Jim Crow-era life and on Obama's personality flaws.

A public official is given the public trust to discharge his or her duties for the good of the country - not to lash out personal anger.

Obama's personal anger deserves close examination - few people in this country have been handed more affirmative action programs - pushed ahead - and in return been asked so little of in terms of job performance.

Take a serious look at Obama's resume - at no point does his job performance justify the vast opportunities and positions given to him.

Instead, each affirmative action program appears to propel Obama based solely on the color of his skin - including the Presidential election of 2008 - too many people were voting for "racial harmony" instead of an actual evaluation of experience or job performance of the candidates.

At no point in American History has a person with less experience been elected.

Even Obama's tenure in the US Senate was interrupted with a book tour and a Presidential campaign - turning his three years and nine months of experience down even further probably closer to one year of actual service.

Who in American history with that little experience has ever been elected - clearly Obama's race figured into his votes.

Which goes directly to Obama's mandate - racial harmony - exactly the opposition of what the Obama attack machine has been doing for the past month.

Obama is still relatively new in office - and his attack machine is campaigning to increase racial tensions ???

This is bad for the country.

It is really bad for Obama.

It is horrible for future black candidates who now have to overcome the doubt that their terms in office might be marked by heightened racial tensions.

This guy Obama is bad news. He is showing bad judgement like no other person to ever hold his position.

The country will be better off when he is out of office.

Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

as long as demint and his "free market" buddies keep mandating that the usps sudsidize junk mail the national direct mail association (or its latest camfouflage rebranding) will have plenty of money to insure they remain corporate welfare recipients on a massive scale. free market apparently means free ride for demint and his friends.

Posted by: george32 | April 20, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse


I would say yea - however I would add a few things - this situation within the Republican party has been going on for a long long time.

Next I would point out that the democrats are in the same situation - the moderates have had a war with the far-left - and in part that played out in the Hillary-Obama primary fight.

It is clear the moderates are being told to leave. Obama just purged the moderates in his party - or made it so difficult for them to win re-election in November that they will be gone.

Both parties are headed toward the extremes.

This makes the territory difficult for everyone - and any candidate who tries to win a general election in November by reaching to the middle might find themselves in extreme difficulty.

Look what labor just did to three democratic Congressmen in North Carolina.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

At the risk of sounding overly dramatic...

The Republican Civil War has begun. How fitting that a South Carolina senator has begun firing the first official shots at the Republican leadership in the battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

The only thing that would make it more historically ironic would be if he'd announced his endorsements at Fort Sumpter.

(And if the Rs actually had a leader like Lincoln, or even a recognized leader, to take shots at.)

If any significant number of DeMint's candidates are nominiated (regardless of whether they win in the general election), look for DeMint to make a serious move in 2012.

If not, he can just claim he's trying to hold the line for conservatism, which will play well in SC.

Though his activism will exasperate the establishment/business wing of the party, the Rs won't punish him. He represents the opinions of a large part of their base and if he's read the tea leaves correctly he could make a strong run for their presidential nomination in 2012.

Besides, it's not like he voted for or supported anything Democrat-related (unlike Charlie Christ or Arlen Spector).

Posted by: Gallenod | April 20, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Typical Republican obstructionism:

Posted by: Bondosan | April 20, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I dont' think the GOP senators can discipline Demint like that. They would only do something like that if Demint was found to break some ethics rules. To punish him for a purely political move would be uncalled for I think.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 20, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse


Is Rev. Wright a racist?

If Obama brought his children to learn the teachings of Rev. Wright for years, does that make Obama a racist ???


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse


Obviously I did not do that.


Posted by: 37thand0street | April 20, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon it beats me.

I said a while ago that I though Demint was making the moves to run in 2012 as the extreme conservative. I think his endorsement won't mean as much in Indiana, but it does symbolize the problems the GOP has with so many prominent members going rogue (Palin, Demint, etc). It is time for the GOP to ditch Steele and get a strong armed leader in the RNC asap, or they are going to implode over the next four months and squander their chances of taking back the house.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 20, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I think the Republican senators should discipline DeMint by demoting him to some meaningless Senate sub committee and let him enjoy that vantage point. He is a complete buffoon and embarrassment to the party. You wonder how people of SC could elect such a wingnut as this guy. What a disaster to SC and GOP. He is why the party has the negative impressions with the general public.

Posted by: jnorow | April 20, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

At last!

On the last thread, 37thand0street FINALLY admitted that he's a racist.

I guess he found it soul-cleansing to just come out and admit it.

37: I believe there are some support groups and 12-step programs that might be able to help you.

Posted by: Bondosan | April 20, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

What are the Republicans campaigning on again? And, whatever it is, is still alleged to lead to a sea change election?

I'm having my doubts.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 20, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company