CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION
May 1, 2009 – 8:08 p.m.
DeMint Pushes Conservative Purity in Senate
By Alan K. Ota, CQ Staff
In the Senate Reading Room behind the rostrum, Jim DeMint wanted a word with Arlen Specter during a vote April 23.
As DeMint, R-S.C., tells it, he and Specter were standing between pillars and a pair of mirrors when he got to the point: “Arlen, it pains me to tell you this. I’m going to be supporting Pat Toomey in the primary.”
DeMint recalled that Specter gave him no time to explain why he was backing the Pennsylvanian’s newly announced rival in the state’s 2010 GOP primary, former Rep. Patrick J. Toomey (1999-2005), who until recently headed the conservative anti-tax group Club for Growth.
“I’ve heard enough,” DeMint said Specter told him before moving away.
That terse exchange — five days before Specter announced that he was changing his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat — provided a showcase for the new, tougher brand of party discipline that DeMint wants to promote in coming weeks as the leader of his party’s conservative faction, the Republican Steering Committee.
Specter deflected questions about his encounter with DeMint and their relationship. “It happened in the cloakroom and not on the floor,” he said simply.
DeMint found himself at odds with some of Specter’s centrist defenders, such as Olympia J. Snowe , R-Maine, who blamed the Pennsylvanian’s defection on intolerance. “You often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe,” Snowe wrote April 28 in a New York Times opinion piece.
DeMint dismissed such concerns. He said centrists would remain welcome at the Steering Committee lunch he hosts every Wednesday under a portrait of the pipe-smoking former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont. (1953-77).
But he added that he hoped all Republicans soon would vow to support a short list of conservative themes.
“We don’t have to be purists . . . but there have to be core principles, or there’s no way for us to be a party,” DeMint said. “Maybe we could sign a pledge or something. Limited government, free markets and personal freedom.”
Specter, 79, said last week that he had decided to switch parties because his prospects for winning a GOP primary next year appeared “bleak,” and because he didn’t want his 29-year record judged by the “Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.” He blasted the Republican Party for not doing more for moderates such as former Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-Md. (1991-2009), defeated in a 2008 primary after the Club for Growth targeted him; and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. (1999-2007), who survived a bruising primary but lost the general election in 2006.
For moderates such as Snowe, Specter’s move recalled that of Sen. James M. Jeffords of Vermont (1989-2007), who left the GOP in 2001 to become an independent who caucused with the Democrats. That move gave Democrats control of the Senate during the 107th Congress.
Now facing an emboldened Democratic majority with 59 seats — and one still-undecided race likely to give them 60 — Republicans disagree on the best survival strategy. While DeMint argues for unity, Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine argue for more independence and appeals to swing voters.
“I don’t understand the Club for Growth approach. They would rather have us be in Democratic hands than have a moderate Republican,” Collins said. “That’s doesn’t make sense.”
The genial DeMint, who is completing his first term in the Senate after serving in the House from 1999 to 2005, pushed back against the idea that demanding more adherence to conservative principles would hurt the party. “I’ve been criticized for saying I’d rather have 30 Republicans that believe in something than 60 who don’t believe in anything,” DeMint said. “My point is, the only way we’ll get a majority is to have Republicans who are here stand up for something.”
Violating the ‘11th Commandment’?
As a House member in 2004, DeMint backed Toomey in his first primary bid against Specter, who narrowly won. DeMint said he had promised in March to back Toomey again in 2010.
On April 14, the day after Toomey left his job at the Club for Growth to pursue a campaign, the club endorsed the 2010 re-election bid of DeMint, who received a 100 percent rating last year from the group. The club also endorsed Toomey.
DeMint’s tactics drew a muted response from colleagues.
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the Senate Republican Conference chairman, said he likes President Ronald Reagan’s so-called 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
“It’s still a good commandment,” Alexander said. But he stopped short of criticizing DeMint. “I’m not going to make rules for other Republicans,” he said.
DeMint defended his break with Senate tradition: “These are desperate times. The party . . . needs for senators to stand up for principles and speak out.”
But the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, John Cornyn of Texas, had vowed not to follow DeMint’s lead in backing primary challengers to sitting Republicans.
For now, DeMint says he has no plans to support other challengers to Republican colleagues. He said he raised $1 million for the GOP in the last cycle, and backed all incumbents, including Collins in Maine.
“It’s a last resort for me to not support an incumbent,” DeMint said. But he also said he would work with conservative groups such as the Club for Growth.
Himself a former marketing research executive who once sold fuel additives and beer, DeMint argues that the GOP needs a stronger message. “We want to do things . . . with outside groups,” he said. “We want to get engaged with all Americans, not just conservatives.”
Comments
Figures.... DeMint is going to be, shortly, very lonely. The right-wing still does not get it. The country has changed and we are sick and tired of the drivel that the Republicans have fed us for years. The party of "NO" is still, philosophically, back in the 1980's. De Mint is a perfect example of why the Republicans are marginalizing themselves. South Carolina (and the rest of the South) is not exactly a mirror of the rest of the USA.
If DeMint thinks that Specter's move had anything to do with 'Limited government, free markets and personal freedom' then it might be time for him to pick up a newspaper once in a while.
Toomey ran against Spector when Bush was President and GW supported Spector. When DeMint says that he is not pushing for idealogical purity in the GOP, he is simply telling us that black is white. DeMint embodies the conservative's tendency to say one thing while DOING THE OPPOSITE. Too many prominent conservatives speak with forked tongue.
"Maybe we could sign a pledge or something. Limited government, free markets and personal freedom." Personal freedom? Anti-gay. Anti-lesbian. Anti-bisexual. Anti-transsexual. Anti-abortion. Anti-free speech. Anti-non-white-male-conservative-evangelical. Anti-personal privacy. Anti-immigration..... I'm curious, what is DeMint's definition of personal freedom?
How can DeMint engage with a broad spectrum of the American public when his views are irrelevant or negative for most Americans. It is hard to convince me that they have my best interests at heart . Outreach is not just talking to poor people about the evils of the welfare state, it is proposing an alternative that involves dignity and opportunity. Haven't heard that yet.
In March, Toomey was still saying he was running for governor, not senator. But it makes no matter: 300,000 Pennsylvania Republicans have become Democrats in the last 2 years, and Toomey can win all the primaries he wants and never be elected to anything, not even his old congressional seat.
All these folks who have no interest in the success of the Republican Party sure have a lot to say about what will make the party successful. If they think the "party of No" and "anti-" everything is walking off the end of the pier, why don't they keep silent and let them? Perhaps it is because they know that a) when Republicans try to be moderates and act like Democrats, they lose, but b) when Republicans stay close to their conservative principles, they win. It seems to me Senator DeMint is asking for nothing more than the party discipline that Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi take for granted. All are welcome in the Republican Party, but they are expected to be loyal to the party.
As a South Carolinian I dispise DeMint's brand of conservatism...but we can't seem to get a serious Democratic challenger. DSCC are you listening?? We can oust DeMint if you'd give us some serious support and not write off SC as unwinable for the Democrats!
Please, please, please let the Republican party follow the "DeMint" philosophy. As a South Carolinian I can't wait for DeMint and the entire Republican party to disappear under their cloak of immaculate adherence to low taxes (even though we're going broke as a country,) anti-immigration (even though these immigrants add to the overall economy,) anti-gay (even though 60%+ of the country is ready for gay marriage,) anti-science (creationism? Really....?) and big military (do we really need to spend more than the rest of the world?) We already have three parties: yellow dogs, blue dogs and the soon to be dead dogs. We can get by with just the two.
What a pleasure it'll be to see "the genial DeMint" get his Johnny Reb keister kicked for the rest of his career.
I couldn't agree with DeMint more.
The GOP strategy is simple and perhaps necessary in the short to medium term (i.e. what your average politician deals with professionally). As moderates, the Republican Party probably cannot defeat Obama-led Democrats under current conditions. If they DID support some Administration policies and compromise on others, incumbents would be outflanked on the right by challengers in conservative areas and the GOP probably would not gain new seats in moderate and liberal districts and states. So moving to the middle is a loser for them in the short term. That only leaves them with the option of gliding to the right and praying (or working) for opportunities to launch an I-Told-You-So campaign. The Democrats faced a similar situation at the start of the Iraq War. They chose the moderate course of tentatively supporting the war. Therefore, when the war effort failed, few were in a position to capitalize on the GOP weakness. Of course, it's more difficult to oppose an issue like war, where American soldiers are dying. But in some ways it's the equivalent of turning down federal aid based on "principal," even as workers in your state are facing unemployment. It's a gutsy strategy, betting AGAINST your country's short-term success ... arguing that Obama's fixes would wreck the nation in the long run. It's the same argument used against FDR, and plenty of conservatives still believe it's true. I just hope the less-reputable politicians don't go too far in undermining the recovery efforts, just so they CAN say "I told you so..."
Four things: 1. The extreme right block of the Senate that are not in leadership roles (DeMint, Vitter, Coburn, Sessions, Inhofe) will NEVER back anyone ProLife - meaning no Tom Ridge and will not get behind anyone but Toomey in the Primary. There is going to be a big divide between Collins and Snowe v. the five senators above. This is going to give Cornyn (who will unconvincingly (since he is very idealogically close to DeMint, Vitter et.al.) try (if they are able) to get Ridge to run (think Kay Bailey Hutchison's interview with Morning Joe the morning Sarah Palin got tapped for the VP Nomination) 2. Sestak is going to run for Senate and primary Specter. 3. Pennsylvania's Senate Race is hands down going to be the most interesting race in the country of any kind in 2010 and make a soap opera look boring in comparison. 4. This means that the Democratic Party (who is used to managing and battling tug-of-wars) will win the seat handily since Republicans tend to shy away from Conflict and Drama.
"We want to get engaged with all Americans, not just conservatives." I don't believe that Mr. DeMint really understands the implications of what he said. To get engaged with all Americans, you have to provide the things they want and need. Among these are such things as: 1. Regulations on corporations, especially the financial sector, to prevent them from bleeding people dry. 2. A real health policy that people can afford and that actually provides them with medical care. 3. Accessible education which includes affordability 4. Personal freedom from government control, i.e., warrantless taps on emails, phone calls, surveillance because of membership in some ethnic group or religious group (Quakers) 5. A safety net like unemployment compensation for when things go wrong such as the present downturn. 6. Clean water, air and food ... There is no way that conservative "principles" as they are now defined by the rightwing will allow any of the above. Their so-called principles that they feel they have to return to are written by and for the wealthy elite who have no intention of relinquishing their position by allowing the hoi polloi to somehow have a decent life.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: