E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C – Sen. Jim DeMint, the Tea Party favorite whose endorsement remains one of the most coveted in South Carolina (even though he insists he won’t get behind anyone), said today that he thinks that fragmentation in the electorate is not a bad thing.
Speaking to a group of reporters after a speech at the Tea Party Convention here, DeMint said that when he talks to Tea Party supporters across the state, “they’re supporting all of the candidates. They’re pretty divided and I think that’s a good thing because there are good things about all the candidates.”
When pressed on why he thinks division is a good idea, DeMint chuckled, saying, “In my Senate primary I got 22 percent.”
During his speech to about 150 Tea Party supporters here, DeMint praised, by name, all candidates – even a few who dropped out – except Mitt Romney, on whom he lavished praise earlier this week, and Rick Perry.
DeMint said South Carolinians wanted a candidate with “the courage of a Michele Bachmann or the simplicity of the proposals of Herman Cain. You look at Newt Gingrich’s great ideas and Santorum’s strong on social issues.”
He even praised Ron Paul, who has wide Tea Party support but whose views on foreign policy make him unacceptable to a large swath of the Republican electorate.
“Look at Ron Paul,” DeMint started. “If [Republicans] don’t listen to the problems of the unaccountable and out-of-control of the federal reserve, then our party is not going to be a governing majority.”
While he mentioned those candidates, he suggested he wouldn’t be picking one out of the group because depending on whom he supported, he might get pushback from all Tea Partiers who didn’t also like that candidate.
“I know there are probably a lot of folks in this room that feel strongly a lot of different ways and that’s why I am not involved,” he said as the audience laughed.
Leave a Comment:
"I can't figure out whom to support" is not a philosophy that bodes well for the GOP.
At this point in 2008, the democrats were the same way. It's the way of the primary system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
BREAKING NEWS ALERT:NBC NEWS Jon Huntsman to withdraw from GOP race.
DeMint thinks a fragmented electorate is a good thing?
He is right: it is a good thing-- for the other side. :)
We need our elected officials to have at least enough intelligence to tie their shoes. I hope Senator DimWit's constituency wakes up to his lack of common sense and votes him out of office.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
KB - Learn some history and read the Federalist papers. Our founding fathers also saw the importance of having different factions.
Colorado, some definitions for you, fresh from the dictionary:
Fragment: a part broken off or detached; an isolated, unfinished, or incomplete part.
Faction: a group or clique within a larger group, party, government, organization, or the like.
Of course it's important to have different "factions" in government.
Senator DimWit used the word "fragmented"... should we assume he meant something else? I make no such assumptions.
When our founding fathers recognized the importance of having different factions I think they had the two party system in mind. Somehow I don't think that they meant one party with everyone all over the place.
What purpose would that serve?
Right now, JR, it's serving my purposes just fine! :)
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Yup, the divide and conquer technique works best to retain the status quo. Newsvine is simply another vehicle for media to judge whether the propaganda they continue to disburse is working.
While the many issues our country faces are left by the wayside, relentless coverage of an election process that started over a year in advance of the election dominates all media outlets. Never has the coverage been so overwhelming. Allowing for endless chatter that encourages division, whether right or left leaning, republican or democrat, black or white, rich or poor, keeping the nation divided is attributable (...or the fault of) the corporate-owned and controlled media as it is to the politicians who create the division.
Americans are the least informed citizens in the civilized world. And it will remain that way as long as we allow ourselves to be convinced we are well-informed.
The forefathers wanted a number of politcal parties greater than Two. What happened in the early years is that fragments break off when they dissagreed and would join together in a new coalitions. The last time this happened in a major way was 1856 when multiple fragments from the Democratic party reunited as the New Republican party.
first there was the Federalists and then the Anti-Federalists who broke away from the Federalist party which became the Democratic-Republican ( the name tells the story - there was the Democratic faction and the Republican faction. After the Federalists collapsed some fragments of the Federaists joined with disgruntled Democratic-Republicans with the National Republican party when in-fighting broke the Democratic-Republican Party to split into the National Republicans and the Democratic Parties.
The National Republican Party joined with another group of dissatisfied Democrats and disolved into the Whigs. The Whigs main focus was to resist the Jacksonian Democrats, and when he retired the Whigs began to fall apart. Meanwhile the Democratic party became the Champion of Slavery causing more people to leave the Democratic party and Join in alliance with the Whigs to become the New Republican party.
There have been other parties formed, but they have been far narrower that Democratic and Republican parties.
The Bull Moose Party, and the Reformed party are two of the more notable parties, but there have been quite a number.
Of course Jim DeMint wants a divided electorate.
People who want "Whites only" on this side, and everyone else on the other.
How else are you going to get away with a government that serves only the richest 1%?
Da Mints' SC GOPers like their candidates with "simplicity". Well the Bachmann campaign really missed out here. Fortunately the current line up has no shortage of "simplicity". Simply Greedy, Simply a Zealot, Simply two faced, Simply unfaithful, and simply gross.
I think a fragmented party at this stage is great - it shows that individual voters are thinking for themselves, and not just supporting the mainstream candidate. In the 80's the Democrats were also fragmented, and I thought it was a good thing then also.
If everyone is wholeheartedly supporting "their party's candidate", it really means they are not thinking for themselves. Unfortunately, that has been in the case for a majority of the electorate the past 10 to 15 years...hopefully this is changing now.
Curious as to why DeMint hasn't endorsed anyone yet?
Jimmy likes to believe he is some sort of 'king-maker' amongst the mixed nuts currently competing - yet still hasn't put his $$$ where his mouth is...
He is just like the rest of the idiots who are waiting to be led to the slaughter... lol
My guess is it's because he knows none of Culture Warriors will prevail, but backing Romney is an admission that the tea drinkers really are a fringe element.
"Fragmented electorate?" Fragminted Senator is my guess....... Demented should work more for the citizens of South Carolina and less for his political ambitions....
Another possible reason is that the Senator wants to maintain the aura of relevance. If he picks the wrong person to endorse, he becomes an elephant who's (Warning -- Marx Brothers reference!) irrelevant. When there's one person clearly out front, DeMint will then be in back of him, following the model of Field-Grade officers by leading from the rear.
Or he might be waiting for the $$$ incentive. It seems many of our politicians are motivated by power and greed. Assuming our politicians are in office to "serve the people" is somewhat altruistic.
The best thing that could happen in America right now is for the Republican/Tea Party to become a very,very small governing minority.
Not only can we hope for that outcome, we can actually make it happen. The sooner the American people wake up to the fact that the Republican/Tea Party is a disease that is killing our democracy the sooner they will vote these GOP extremist out of ANY position of power. It doesn't matter if it's local, state or federal any office the Republican/Tea Party gets their greedy paws on will be abused. The Republican Party no longer serves the American people they only represent their rich benefactors and themselves.
DeMint did give us one piece of good news and reason for hope; he only got 22% in the last primary. Maybe we'll be rid of his arrogance and destructive influence after the next senatorial election?
Demint isn't outrightly desiring a cabinet position. To endorse one or another would mean a minus if he picks the wrong one. My guess would be he likes the one best that he sees as the most conservative - and that pick is not likely to win.
Demented and Nine Nine Nine can fight it out for the Secretary of Defense job...... Lord save us.......
I do believe Senator DeMint wants to be courted. Makes him feel all powerful. Yet, wasn't the Wizard of OZ supposed to be all powerful until somone looked behind the curtain?
Actually, that was Obama.
We got change, all right. Just wasn't what people hoped for- more like the aftermath of a train wreck.
It's pretty sad that his supporters can't figure out what's wrong with this administration- even worse, OBAMA can't figure it out. He blames his predecessors, a congress that gave him every single thing he asked for for the first two years of his presidency, the weather, an electorate too dumb to realize how wonderful he is.. . .
Everything an anybody but himself- and his failed policies.
Well, he's a young enough guy. After he gets defeated this year, he will have YEARS to run around giving speeches about how none of it was his fault.
I wonder- how long will he keep getting paid to make them?
Ummm, yep, just looked back at the top. This was a thread about Senator DeMint and the fact he hasn't endorsed anyone.
Nojo,
Why do you think he hasn't endorsed anyone?
If he is a 'Tea Party favorite' then I think he prefers Paul but doesn't want to get pummeled by the media and GOP for a formal endorsement.
Because he does not want to have undue influence on the outcome of the race.
Look, it's highly unusual for any governor of my state to endorse anyone this early- let alone as early as Christie did- because of our status as "last in the nation" in the primaries.
There are many politicians who do not believe that they should weigh in early, and therefore, influence the vote.
Sometimes- and here I'm thinking of Hillary Clinton- they garner endorsements that get pulled back. Sometimes, those endorsements, and again, I'm thinking of Hillary Clinton- are from "super delegates". Pretty bad form to rescind that endorsement. Ask Madame Secretary how much that smarts when it happens.
I'm pretty sure that, we're I in a position to matter, I'd follow DeMint, rather than Christie. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd make that one of my claims to fame- that I never endorsed before the convention.
That's really the only time it matters.
DeMint is a interesting man. Remember his race for reelection. Some nobody who lived in his parents basement beat a established candidate. Allot of questions came up about this but none were answered. DeMint is a professional politician. He wants to go places keep a eye on him it's going to be a interesting watch. He's going to use the tea bag party to his advantage. So tea baggers watch your backs.
no joe he's a senator. Not a Governor
That makes a lot of sense. On my side of the aisle, Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania went "all in" on Hillary in 2008. It does make it hard if your candidate doesn't garner the nomination.
[In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd make that one of my claims to fame...]
Looking to retire the claim to fame that you're nothing but a moonbat?
...ain't gonna happen, sweetcheeks...
I only brought up the Christie endorsement because it's so unusual. I'm well aware that he's a governor- he's MY governor, and probably the front runner for the vp spot if Romney succeeds, (as I believe he will), in locking up the nomination.
The question was about endorsements- or the lack thereof. Not about which office is held by whom.
nojo,
Actually I was thinking if Romney gets the nod, he is going to need help in the south. So maybe Bentley from Alabama as a running mate.
The South isn't going for Obama- his margin of 14,000 votes in North Carolina? Swamped by the turn out against him this time out.
He has no chance in Virginia this time- and trying to take South Carolina? Good luck with that.
It's about taking Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and maybe Connecticut.
It's about retaking Florida- pretty easy, I'm sure- and picking up Michigan. Ohio learned its lesson- it will go red this time. So will Indiana.
Obama can pretty much kiss Nevada goddbye, and, judging by the turn out for him in Iowa- where he hoped to demonstrate the strength of his ground game, there's a good chance Iowa goes red.
He's already lost New Hampshire. I have to wonder is Massachusetts will go Romney. I'd think so- then again, it is Massachusetts, so it's an open question.
The economic issues of the South revolve around Obama's greatest failures. He hasn't won any friends, lost the people who voted for a democrat for the first time, and has dispelled any hope for his success from the people who didn't vote for him last time out. Take a look at his early approval polls- he did not win 70% of the popular vote. He drove his poll numbers down because he is driven by ego, and is an unrepentant ideologue.
Those are votes that are not coming back- mostly, because Obama does not have a clue how to get them back. So, he will continue to rail against corporate junkets to resorts- never realizing for a moment that the people who staff those resorts- the cooks, the desk clerks, the housekeeping staff, the bartenders- rely on those "corporate fat cats" coming to those resorts to feed their families.
He had one good idea- one- to help the housing market, and he allowed it to expire and never even hinted that he wanted it extended. Instead, he decries those who buy second homes. This does not help an area of the country that has an economy dependent on the real estate market driven by second home owners.
So, "southern strategy" is not the same as it has been. That is not to say it should be ignored- far from it. This election, however, is about the economy, and a government grown so large that most people find it ominous. It is about debt so large that most people are terrified for themselves and their children. These issues dominate, and it will be necessary to have a running mate who has credibly addressed them.
Christie can do that. I'm sure there are others- but I'm pretty sure Joe Biden needs to worry about facing him in debates.
Joe, if you think Obama is driven by ego then the word has no meaning. If anything he needs MORE ego to respond to the current repug no campaign. He has 45-47% approval ratings which are monstrous compared to asshats like Romney or Gingrich. And if Christie is your golden boy I suspect you'll be disappointed, he really DOES have an ego and is guaranteed to say godawful things on a regular basis.
No Joe... are you out of your mind? Connecticut will go to Mittsie because of Christie... Read my lips.... No Republican wins in the states last 2010 election including the Governor... Dream on!
who is the man
If he is a 'Tea Party favorite' then I think he prefers Paul
You would fan big time on that one. Although there is a faction of the Tea Party supporting him it is a small contingent, most of his support is from Libertarians. If you think the Tea Party is dead, think again. They are mostly staying out of the race right now rather than totally burning out. They will be back in the Fall from what I'm hearing.
dont worry demint. Senator Tom Davis the 2nd most important tea party of the state just endorsed RON PAUL the only true conservative. Things are finally looking up in the united states.
Ron Paul Receives Pivotal Endorsement of South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis:
Is that kinda like asshats approving each other? Oooff!
Demint just wants attention. One thing is true is that the Tea Party is made up of people of all ilk each with their own agendas and own reqirements and so it makes sense that they aren't all for the same candidate quite yet. They will eventually support extremist candidate Ron Paul who will split the Republican electorate enough to give Obama a clear victory without much effort. Of course Obama will campaign hard because it is expected of him no matter how much of a cake walk it will be for him.
You're right about that. Even after saying he won't run again, there are stories about his fundraising efforts. And yesterday, the news says he held a gang-bang with Tim Scott and Joe "you lie" Wilson about Sharia Law. Fear mongering to try to keep the TP in SC alive!
Sorry Bald Eagle - the bulk of the Tea party will not support Ron Paul, unless his is the republican Nominee. Looking forward to the next 5 or 6 races Paul is only really competitive in Nevada at 13% Everywhere else he is less that 8% on average.
So who is really surprised - that they manage their own party exactly like they practice their form of governing.
He's a smart man.
He is sitting back laughing because he sees the stupidity of the electoral process, and is watching it tear itself apart.
He is also not participating because he knows that the electoral determines a president and not any popular vote.
You want a real president?
Abolish the electoral, and let the popular vote rule.
And all the crap about "vote" balance?
That is bullsh!t.
If you don't like the "balance" of your state, MOVE.
There isn't enough room in California, Illinois, New York, and Texas to hold the entire population of the country in the style to which we are accustomed to living.
The Founders understood the problem, and set up the electoral college.
You don't like it? I suggest you move. You should be pretty happy with the outcome of the popular vote in, oh, say, Egypt, right?
Not to mention Iran.
Yeah, spine him Chuckles!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the Electoral College votes– enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
An alternative to eliminating the Electoral College in favor of straight popular vote would be to allow apportioning of each states electoral college based on the percentage of the votes each received. Every candidate would then have to campaign in every state, or risk giving away even a few uncontested votes. This could be done at the state level without any constitutional amendment. No more Red State-Blue State polarization. Welcome back to the United States of America!
National Popular Vote preserves the Electoral College, without amending the Constitution. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the Electoral College votes-- enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
I believe that if when you refer to a tea party,it usually refers to a bunch of eldery old maids that spend their time talking about everybodys buisness. The more I see or hear about Senator Demint that assumption is right on. He comes off as big blabber mouth politician that just yaks about anything and everything and accomplishes the same Nothing.Only rebels like South Carolina would fall for the garbage he utters most of the time.That is why he lives there.
James DeMint is nothing but a poser. He fancies himself a kingmaker when all he really wants to do is continue to pickup a fat federal paycheck while he rails against the federal government. He offers no solutions, only one blocking maneuver after another - a favorite of technique of Republican senators. Check out his voting record:
Senator "Nay", like his buddies McConnell, Thune, McCain, Cornyn, Hatch, Graham, Inhofe et al.
Jim DeMint needs to be treated with Preparation H.
Demented. Has the spine of a jelly fish. Truth is, it's too early for him to support someone because most or all of them will wither on the vine like the rest already have. Then he would look even more stupid.
Like a fart in a windstorm...
I decided to get involved and follow politics in 2008, and my friends and I decided we would stay engaged. I must admit that I am getting board with following these candidates.
Well I do not know a lot about Huntsman, but he seems like a honest man. I do not know a lot about Mitt Romney but he seems FAKE, very FAKE.
I do not know a lot about Ron Paul, but I must say that my friends and myself like some of the policies that he wants to put forward. I must say that a lot of people my age are very impressed with some of his bold polices that he would like to see become law! So with that I say GO Ron Paul, but I must say that the majority of his policies I totally disagree with, and I think maybe he is rather old but to be such a old man he has a lot of ideas that excite young voters like myself.
Most people my age, I think we are looking for someone who wants 2 unite and be a President who recognizes all Americans and govern more from the middle or even left of the middle.
We already had one recent president with Alzheimer's, do we want to risk another? A four year term would put Congressman Paul into his 80s. I write this as an old fart.
Jim DeMint represents the state where the first shots of the Civil War were fired and the state that had sesquicentennial celebrations of that act of treason last year. One of the reasons for the failure of the Confederacy was its insistence on having a weak central government, reverting to form of the Articles of Confederation, that pre-Constitution failure. If a division was effective in helping to destroy the Confederacy and if the Confederacy itself attempted to divide the Union electorate in 1864, what passes for thought processes in DeMint's statements? He is a person who accepts a Federal paycheck yet works against effective Federal governance. If someone else accepted a Federal paycheck and worked against delivery of services yet carried a union card, DeMint would call for his or her firing.
Well said. In many ways the entire Conservative Movement in its current, radical form is a southern attempt to re-litigate the "war of northern aggression."
anothermick,
You have it absolutely right. Even Jefferson Davis is on record as having envied Lincoln for his ability to mobilize all the resources of the North, while he had to negotiate with all the DeMints of his day. The outcome proved the wisdom of the founders (especially, Washington and Hamilton) when they discarded the failed experiment of the Articles of Confederation in favor of a system that created a nation out of a bunch of states (E Pluribus Unum).
No doubt DeMint is the offspring of Palin and his South Carolina teabag constituent who suffers from Non-Involuntary Tourettes Syndrome (NITS) ... a growing epidemic in the United States and is characterized by non-subconscious outbursts of slurs and epithets ... *You Lie* Joe Wilson.
How can Jim MeMint see a fragmented electorate a a good thing, especially within the GOP right now? That will only result in the splitting of much needed votes, and make it harder for the GOP to achieve a majority. The lack of enthusiasm for the GOP presidential candidates certainly doesn't help their cause, plus the fact that there are desirable persons who refused to run, yet he sees that as a good thing?
Not even the Tea Party can save the GOP in 2012, since their popularity is even less than that of Congress! The GOP needs to come together otherwise Obama will sail to reelection easily, and they could possibly lose control of the House of Representatives.
Yep...it IS a good thing...for Obama. One, perhaps two of the remaining losers will run on an alternate ticket, sealing it for the Dems.
I guess he has to make some kind of excuse for the Republican Primates
There is always a bright side but i tell you, no candidate has the needed total package. Mormons don't believe colored people can be leaders. 7 are too many children. 7B people-today; 300B-2090. One cannot remember things. Another is soooo old; resting in a 24/7 world.
Demented is living proof that ignorance runs rampant in SC...he wins his primary with 22% and then becaswe he is the white republican candidate he wins the senate...this is in response to the turdmuffin who claimed all dems n SC were black...all republicans must therefore be white...why do white people in SC only support republicans?
to whom it may concern; msnbc has failed to alert the American people that Tom Davis, sen, S.C. has endorsed Ron Paul for the Presidency; this took place last night around 8 p.m...so ..much for breaking news
Davis is a State Legislature Senator. Not exactly front page news. Stop being so paranoid about Ron Paul.
Who cares
Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat".
The 11th Commandant of the Republican Party used to be "Speak no evil against another Republican."
Democrats, as Rogers said, have never been organized which is why they always seem to be arguing over the meaning of the instructions about how to operate a fire engine while the building burns down.
Republicans could always be depended upon to walk in lock step even if they secretly knew they were walking over a cliff.
With all of the attacks on such democratic institutions as Medicare, Social Security, voters' rights and many others, the Democrats should be coming together, but they apparetnly don't know how. Meanwhile, the Republicans are becoming more and more fragmented by social issues, tax cuts forever, and the Tea Party.
So today, no group in America is as organized and focused as the true capitalists. No taxes. No regulations. Trickle down will, in fact, work. The middle class is disappearing because those people are lazy. Same as the unemployed. The business of government is business.
Yes, for some a fragmented electorate is a very good thing, but it is not you and me.
DeMint is a Senate "Would-Be King Maker." Loves being the "power behind the throne." Thinks of himself as the Leader of the Tea Party Movemement in the Senate.
Sen. DeMint is an extremist. Not endorsing a candidate, the coward. He is a perfect example of someone drunk with power.
...kinda like everyone else in government that can garner media attention...?
I'm no supporter of the extremist faction of the Republican party. It was a mistake for the members of the Republican party not to have taken a closer look at Jon Huntsman. The extreme right of the Republican party that these candidates have been pandered to are not representative of the entire nation just as the far left of the Democratic party are not representative of the entire nation. The majority of us are in the middle of the two extremes. For a myriad of reasons the GOP will not win the White House or keep control of the House. Members of the Republican party like the Kansas Speaker of the House have been outed as racists. The Republican party has alienated and offended to many groups and segments of the country to win the White House. Because of their lack of productivity members of Congress that belong to the extremist the Tea party have angered their constituents that they will not be returning to Washington. Other Republican members of Congress because of their support for obstructionist agenda of Sen. McConnell, Rep. Cantor and Speaker Boehner will also not be returning to Washington.