Breaking: SC Senator Jim DeMint Leaving Senate For Heritage Foundation

So, Southern Senators Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham are listed as the two most vulnerable to a primary challenge.  Mostly, because those from the TEA Party wish they were more like Jim DeMint.  “If only we had more like Jim DeMint in the Senate…” is often overheard in these groups.

So, as Southerners are considering whether to trade seniority for some more like DeMint…DeMint is leaving the world’s most exclusive club and joins a think tank.  Sure, it’s THE conservative think tank, but it isn’t the US Senate.

I’m confused.  You?


  1. David C says:

    Here’s something that might solve your confusion. Heritage pays their President nearly $1.2 million a year. Guy’s cashing out.

      • James Fannin says:

        Something tells me he did indeed make this decision based on money. Something also tells me there is nothing conservative about breaking your commitments to the people who elected you to serve your full term in the US Senate as promised. Something also tells me there is nothing conservative about imposing an expensive election and running up all the associated costs to the federal government of paying for this unnecessary transition -closing an office -opening another- running a special election. Think of it as the ultimate earmark -a several million dollar personal earmark to benefit himself. DeMint’s decision to quit is self-serving and hardly the conservative, Tea Party thing to do as he is personally enriching himself at the expense of state and federal taxpayers.

  2. Bob Loblaw says:

    Probably was sick of being the TEA Party’s biatch in the U.S. Senate. Tough to make friends in the Senate lobbing bombs all day at your friends. Good riddance.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      You can keep criticizing the Tea Party if you want, but please bear in mind that the types of republicans being voted out of office are mostly the ‘moderate big-spenders’ that you keep suggesting Americans want more of. So, I think the math doesn’t compute with the claim.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        Republican primary voters may want more Murdoch’s than Lugars, but that does not mean that this is in the best interest of the Country or Party. I didn’t suggest Americans want more moderates or big spenders. But Americans showed up in droves on Nov. 6 and suggested they don’t want Johnny-Come-Lately TEA Party freaks in the U.S. Senate. Advantage, Democrats.

        • Daddy Got A Gun says:

          Republican primary voters are pretty tired of disloyal moderates who switch sides when the winds change, eg Colin Powell doing the ad for Obama. Arlen Specter switching parties, Olympia Snowe voting for stimulus, etc. They are nothing but useful idiots.

          • benevolus says:

            Yup, primary voters. Then when you get those candidates into a general, enough voters in the middle are so sick of the team mentality that they lose. Mainstream people want answers and solutions and leadership, not partisan grandstanding and chest thumping. Independent minded- legislators who follow their heart and their mind on the issues rather than interest group pledges or “oppose the other side at all costs” should be a good thing.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          Where did they suggest that? Heck 2 million of the GOPers saw Romney’s name on the ticket and stayed their butts home, lol. Advantage democrats.

          If these republicans thought Romney was ‘radical right’ . . . well, I’m not gonna entertain that thought because it sounds much too rediculous.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Here’s the latest assault on fiscal conservatives by GOP leadership.

            “House committee purge may continue as Boehner tightens grip”


            Walter Jones (NC)
            Tim Huelskamp (KS)
            Justin Amash (MI)
            David Schweikert (AZ)

            Apparently these 4 didn’t vote with leadership 100% of the time so Boehner pulled a Gorbachev on them.

            The steering committee, whose job it is apparently to drive the Republican party into a ditch, is going to infuriate the Tea Party with this move, being referred to as a ‘purge’. The icing on the cake? Many republicans in Congress are saying they haven’t even heard anything about the deal being made between Boehner, Reid, and Obama.

            Wait! What’s that? I hear the distant sound of 2,000,000 less voters voting GOP in 2014.

            • benevolus says:

              Quote from that story: “”This is not golf. This is baseball. You’re part of a team,” he added.”

              I am sure that the constituents of those representatives will be thrilled to learn that their representatives are not actually expected to be leaders, or to think for themselves, or to, uh, represent their district, but that they are supposed to help represent the 8th district of Ohio!

    • Three Jack says:

      Be careful what you wish for Chris, there may come a day when dems want to use the same tactic…they’ve done it before.

  3. xdog says:

    Short of beating his fellow Senators bloody with a cane on the Senate floor, what was the guy going to do next? Now he can get rich and become the next Dick Armey.

  4. Baker says:

    Dear politicians of various stripes,

    In case you are not aware elections cost money. When you retire or “step aside” immediately after an election period, those special elections don’t come with the economies of scale, if you will, that occur with normal elections. I recognize that situations change and what not, and that this spending is but a drop in the bucket, but please, try to make these decisions a bit less earlier.

    P.S. – Seems kind of cowardly of Mssr DeMint. Mitt didn’t win so now he’s “cutting and running” it would seem.

    • peachstealth says:

      There has to be special election for members on the house, not the senate. The governor simply appoints someone to fill the post until the next regular election.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Demint wasn’t due to end his term until 2016 (or 2017, more accurately). A special election has been planned for 2014.

        Looks like SC will be electing both of their senators in 2014.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            (Though it will not cost anything as it will be held at the same time as the rest)

            Sorry, that set out as an attempt to clarify and I actually made it more confusing, I think.

  5. bullFrog says:

    DeMint is an honorable man of his word. When first elected to the House, he said he would not stay more than three terms. After six years there, he ran for the Senate in 2004, and had announced he was not running for a third Senate term.

    He’s doing SC a great favor – a chance to have Governor Haley appoint someone who can get established as an incumbent in the next election. Any number of good people available in the state.

    If only Chambliss and Isakson would just … walk … away!

  6. AMB says:

    About the new SC senator-does it have to be a person with residency in South Carolina? Can she appoint herself? Could she, for instance, appoint Newt Gingrich? (My sister suggested Stephen Colbert.)

    • The U.S Constitution states:

      No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

      She meets all the requirements, thus she could appoint herself. Yes, she could appoint Newt Gingrich, but he would have to “move” to South Carolina. Cheney “moved” to Wyoming to run with W. Hilary Clinton “moved” to New York to be a U.S. Senator.

  7. xdog says:

    “Cheney “moved” to Wyoming to run with W. ”

    That was an end run around the Constitutional ban on candidate for prez and veep living from same state. I think.

    • They were both residents of Texas at the time. The Constitution would have prevented Texas from casting its electoral votes for both W and Cheney, but not the rest of the states, if they were from the same state. Thus, Cheney had to “move.”

    • DavidTC says:

      It’s a common conception that the constitution bans prez and veep from the same state. What the constitution _actually_ bans are electors from a specific state voting for a Prez and Veep both _from their own state_.

      I.e., if two people from Georgia ran as Prez and VP on the same ticket, and won Georgia, the electors _from_ Georgia (And only from Georgia) would have to vote for the ‘wrong’ person for veep. (Or, if they wish, the wrong person for prez. Or alternate, which might be the sanest solution if the vote is close.)

      This raises some interesting questions about states that attempt to make illegal for electors to vote ‘faithlessly’…by law, they’re actually _required_ to vote faithlessly for one candidate if both the guys are from their state, so God knows what would happen in that situation. (Faithless elector laws are probably not constitutional anyway. It’s like a state trying to have their Senator charged with a crime if he didn’t vote a certain way. They…really cannot do that.)

      Anyway, more to the point, it would be entirely reasonable for a president and VP candidate to be from the same state if either a) the election was going to be a blowout anyway, or b) if the state is a state that is going to vote for the other guy anyway, in which case, who cares what the electors from that would have to do, because they won’t be voting anyway.

  8. Ed is Amazing says:

    The SC Dems should recruit Alvin Greene to recreate the magic of 2008.

    If they don’t well…. “THEY’RE THE KNUCKLEHEADS!”

Comments are closed.