Who recently said this? "It’s been easier working with the Democrats:"
- George W. Bush
- Nancy Pelosi
- Lindsey Graham
- Osama bin Laden
The answer? None of the above.
One of the great ironies of the November elections is that the outcome proved empowering for Sen. Jim DeMint, previously known — to the extent he was known, in the shadow of the more bipartisan Lindsey Graham (with whom we’ll meet today) — as a toe-the-line GOP loyalist.
He’s still certainly a Republican, but he has found that the fact places fewer constraints on him in the new Congress. Democrats are in charge, and he feels freer to go ahead and just get things done, rather than having to carry water for his own leadership.
This has had its most dramatic effects so far in the bipartisan effort to curtail earmarks, but our junior senator sees other possibilities as well. See for yourself…
Related Posts
Time for the villagers to break out the torches and pitchforks!
Neat trick of rhetoric– blaming the Dems for having a “bad attitude” after getting consistently frozen out of any participation by DeMint & Co.
Kinda like the kid who kills both his parents and pleads for mercy from the judge as an orphan.
Good for Senator DeMint. Brad, I’m afraid nobody is terribly interested in the earmark issue right now. Iraq just sucks the air right out of the room. The announcement of the British withdrawal signals a new benchmark in this quagmire. We’re pretty much alone now. So how does the Decider view this?
Blair and President Bush talked early yesterday, and Bush views the cutback as “a sign of success” in Iraq, said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
Talk about beign in a state of denial. If the Brits are pulling out and we’re putting troops in the net result is basically zero. How does that add up to a “sign of success”? If Basra is a peaceful sector why not just shift the British troops to the areas where we’re sending in more troops? Obviously the British have had enough of this mess.
Anyone here who posted within the last few months about European, possibly Scandanavian or Swedish voters, who “VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT” thereby in effect having term limits?
Well, Brad, did you ask the two senators any of our questions?
I asked DeMint about trade authority, as Judy Kratochvil had asked, and I questioned him fairly closely about his health care proposals, in keeping with the concerns of Paul and others.
The trade authority stuff was pretty much what you’d expect. I’ve got video on that; it’s just not quite as good as the stuff I’m posting first. For instance, right now I’m editing video from BOTH senators on the nonbinding resolutions about Iraq — which of course, a lot of you were interested in.
On health care, I was particularly concerned about his unwillingness even to consider single-payer, and we went on about that for a while. I don’t know how much of that got recorded; I’ll have to review what I have. It was frustrating, but not newsmaking. He’s where he’s always been on that, except for one thing — a slight willingness to move in Democrats’ direction on it. But I don’t think either side of the aisle has the guts to do what ought to be done.
Most of both meetings — especially the Graham one — were about Iraq. In Lindsey’s case, I’ve heard his whole Iraq speech — it’s posted on this blog, in seven pieces, as a phone interview. But I didn’t want to change the subject because it was important that the other board members — particularly our publisher who had never met either senator — to hear that statement of a fundamental position taken by our senators on such a critical issue.
I hope y’all aren’t disappointed that I didn’t get to more of your questions. If I gave the impression I was going to go in there with a list, I’m sorry. I just don’t do that. I go in with things on my mind, and once I’m in the meeting, I remain flexible on what seems to be the most production line of questioning and discussion, and that’s what I go with — even if it means spending the whole hour on a single point.
I’ve sat in on interviews conducting via list. I don’t like them. Cindi Scoppe, now she’s into lists. She’s obsessive about them, and doesn’t like my loose approach. But mine is what works for me.
Your suggestions were helpful; I looked to them mainly to see ideas I might not have thought of and that might not come up otherwise. Judy’s trade authority question was one, and that was quite helpful. Neither DeMint nor I would have brought it up, most likely. I appreciate it.
I still cannot believe that Sen. DeMint is the replacement for Sen. Hollings, truly one of this state’s greatest statesmen (in a state that many of them). But if he is showing some independence from the Bush/Cheney/Frist agenda maybe there is hope. I doubt it but “while I breathe, I hope”.
Tell me that you at least asked whether they thought Dear Leader needed additional authority to attack Iran.
Or, do you seriously believe that little bit of international aggression isn’t in the offing?
I’d sure like to see Cindi’s list that you think is so “stifling.”
Really Brad, Trade Authority Legislation? Is that really a hot topic to discuss with the Senators? I follow politics somewhat closely but I haven’t seen this as a big controversial issue. What’s really of utmost urgency is the question RTH raised regarding the president’s authority to attack Iran. Nothing personal, but if you didn’t ask that then I’m extremely disappointed in you.
Mary does have a very good point. Why didn’t DeMint try to get the job done (with earmarks) while his party was in the majority? I think Brad gives too much credit for doing so now. Apparently working with his party while they were in the majority was politically comfortable, but since they’ve suffered an election defeat the politically expediate thing to do is distance one’s self from that same party. Maybe I’m just cynical but it sounds like politics as usual to me.
That’s right, bud. I asked a question (trade authority) I would not otherwise have asked, as a result of having solicited questions from readers.
Pretty much everything else people were interested in came up naturally.
The Iran “question” did not. I was not aware that the Senate had such an issue before it. I also forgot to ask whether they think the president has stopped beating his wife. Sorry.
Also sorry that bud’s last post is now a non sequitur, since I deleted Mary’s comment to which he was referring.
As to bud’s point, two things make DeMint’s actions remarkable in this case:
— As you say, he didn’t get this or much else done in the two years before Democrats took over. That he’s getting something done now is interesting, newsworthy, ironic, even surprising. It’s probably the first time since he ran for the Senate that I’ve had any praise at all for anything DeMint has done — that’s how surprising it is.
— It most certainly is NOT politics as usual. Politics as usual is to say, “Hey, I’m in the minority now. I can sit back here and throw rhetorical bombs and swear off all responsibility for actually getting anything done, and then I can run for re-election on the fact that the majority is an obstacle.” That’s the usual partisan pattern. DeMint is such a partisan guy, such a water-carrier for the administration, that for him to do something for which the Democratic leadership can rightfully take credit is remarkable, and uncharacteristic. Nothing usual about it. You can possibly think of some other examples of this happening, but it’s rare.
Too rare. But it’s good — which is why I call attention to it. I hope to encourage more of the same.
LOT-
DeMint has never been strictly to the Bush etc. team. He has always been conservative first, and Republican second.
OK, I’m revising your professional grade due to lack of effort and attention, Brad. A 65 is way too generous.INVADE Iran. Get it, Brad? We won’t I-N-V-A-D-E. That leaves dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles, strafing with flying artillery, shooting VW-size explosives from naval units… Heck, with Darth Cheney lurking around even tactical nukes are a possibility.
Uhm, lessee, maybe a 45 will wake you up.
-Knock-Knock-Knock… Anybody home, Brad?
Jeez, how many carrier task forces do we have in the Persian Gulf, right now? When was the last one dispatched? D’ya think that it had ANYTHING to do with the simultaneous propaganda offensive linking Iran with weapons in Iraq “killing our soldiers?” Several senators and representatives have publicly and explicitly warned Bush not to expand the war to Iran. Warned that “The Decider” wasn’t authorized under the original resolution.
But, YOU think that the freakin’ TRADE AGREEMENT is a more pressing issue! YOU don’t think that the issue is “before the senate.”
There’s more. That’s just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Now, here’s one last free clue: the administration has only denied that they’ll
Aww, why bother. Even if this blog thing had a drawing function you wouldn’t get the picture– even with the con artists in the WH running the exact play book they used before attacking Iraq.
I can’t decide whether you’re a dissembling, closet neo-con or truly just a clueless blockhead.
Oh, yes, as bud said, “Nothing personal.”
Thanks for reposting,Mary.There was no reason whatsoever for it’s deletion,other than that your analysis was so insightful(and we don’t want anything like “insight” on this blog).I’m glad I got to read it before “Montag” torches it again.
Brad,
I believe DeMint when he says he isn’t so much partisan as he is policy oriented. He admits that it was a mistake not to force the vote on earmarks earlier. In my opinion that might have done more to help the GOP. Why do you still label him as “such a partisan guy”?
In what ways does DeMint “carry the administration’s water”. You are making the assumption that he philosophically disagrees with the administration on some issue and yets votes with it.
On illegal immigration he strongly opposed the President’s preferred solution, while Graham supported it. You’ve never accused him of carrying Bush’s water.
Where does your bias against DeMint come from?
I’m going to add “trade authority” to my list of hot topic issues to watch. Maybe that’s one of those back-burner issues that will eventually be of some minor importance. But for now it really is very inconsequential.
But the Iran thing. WOW. That is a true block buster issue. Brad how in the world could you not discuss that with the Senators. It is simply beyond the pale.
Aww, bud, you’re such a worrier! The trade bill is obviously more urgent.
Take Brad’s attitude: “Don’t worry, be happy!”
Iraq and Afghanistan are going swell. The Taliban are on the run. The armed forces are well rested and equipped. Attacking Iran probably would only quadruple the cost of oil and send Iraq into full-on conflagration.
US ‘Iran attack plans’ revealed
USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack – if ordered – would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon – which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
…but, really, there’s no bill coming up in the senate…
Mary, my “scoring” was tongue-in-cheek, of course.
When my kids bring home anything below a “B” I ask them: “Would you want your heart surgeon to have a ‘C’ average if that meant he/she only learned 75% of the course work?”
Likewise, with Brad. Perhaps, most especially in a benighted state like SC, the leading newspaper should have a knowledgeable editorial page editor.
Instead, we get Brad.
I see that Tony Blair is also worried that Dear Leader will attack Iran, according to the Times of London. Who would know better Bush’s frat-boy impatience with diplomacy and cowboy affection for solving problems with force? Blair may not have a constitution to follow but he’s sharp enough to understand Bush’s disdain for ANY check or balance on his imperial power.
But, hey, there’s NO bill in front of the senate so Brad doesn’t worry.
Brad, what did the senators have to say about trade authority? Is there legislation pending? What are the issues involved? I must confess I’m ignorant on this one. If it really is important enough to ask the senators about let’s discuss it here.