Jim Demint: You Aren't a "Fiscal Conservative" Unless You're a Social Conservative

|

Did you think for a second that he believed in evolution?

One doesn't expect excessive amounts of wisdom from Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC), the troglodyte who recently told an audience, according to the Spartanburg Herald, that "if someone is openly homosexual or if an unmarried woman sleeps with her boyfriend, then that person shouldn't be allowed in the classroom," but this is a new level of stupid. When asked to comment on Gov. Mitch Daniels' suggestion that it's time for détente in the culture war, Demint tells Fox News that one "can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative." Check out the video here, via Allahpundit (skip about 3 minutes in).

Now you know why pornography expert and local sociopath Alvin Green got 362,000 votes (without campaigning or managing to put together a coherent sentence) in his race against Demint. Who knew South Carolina had so many gay and/or cohabitating teachers.

In related news, Greene is considering a run for the White House.

NEXT: The Beatrice Webb of Baseball

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First? Oh yeah, and Demint’s a fucking idiot

    1. I’m not sure he’s an idiot.

      I think he’s just a little…

      Deminted.

      1. Every time you make a bad pun God kills a kitten.

        1. What do I have to do to get her to kill a polar bear?

        2. There is no such thing as a good pun.

      2. YEEEEAAAAAH.

      3. @phoenix

        Nice….

  2. The stupid.it burns.

  3. Evidence of troglodytism.

    1. I love the photo. Standing at a lectern with “Discovery Institute” written on it definitely speaks more than a thousand words.

  4. Maybe Demint can answer the question of whether you can be a social conservative and not be a fiscal conservative. Because his party seems full of those.

    1. This.

      In fact, I would argue that one can’t be a social conservative and a fiscal conservative.

      If you feel it is appropriate to have the government instill/uphold a particular moral code (War on Drugs, gay marriage, etc), you are not a fiscal conservative, and even furthermore, you are an authoritarian statist.

      1. If you feel it is appropriate to have the government instill/uphold a particular moral code

        Like no subsidies for unwed mothers?

        1. No morality there unless you do want subsidies for wed mothers.

          Then you’re just wrong all around.

        2. Not upholding anything = upholding a moral code, it seems.

      2. Being libertarian and socially conservative aren’t mutually exclusive. Being a tee-toaler in Saudi Arabia is easy, a real social conservative could withstand temptation in Tiajuana.

        In context, it seems DeMint’s point is that one either relies on God or on government. Social conservatives believe charity and moral instruction are dispensed by God. Social liberals expect charity and moral instruction to be dispensed by Government. It’s an over-generalization, but there’s some truth in it.

        I think the most charitable explanaiton for DeMint is that he’s generalizing his understanding of the links between social and fiscal conservatism, and projecting it on everyone else.

        1. insofar as both can argue for withdrawing gov’t support for certain social causes. but this alliance breaks down once social conservatives argue for their preferred gov’t crackdowns, I mean solutions.

        2. “”In context, it seems DeMint’s point is that one either relies on God or on government.””

          And God can’t build a road, or redistribute your tax dollars. So government it is.

      3. If you feel it is appropriate to have the government instill/uphold a particular moral code…

        Here, you expose the essence of modern politics.

        To describe the political continuum in terms of right <-> left is to be pathetically imprecise; more accurately, the relationship is one of right authoritarian <-> left authoritarian. Each position is considered, from the proponent’s point of view, as being the inherently moral one, and this ultimately serves to re-cast its fundamentally authoritarian nature in more palatable terms, i.e. in terms of justice.

        Once this logical framework has been established, it then becomes the case that one may (a) support the use of any and all strategies to further its implementation, and (b) demonize one’s opponents as being, by definition, against justice.

        1. The “essence” of modern politics is binary thinking, because that’s the essence of most of the modern electorate.

  5. This is why I don’t support social conservatives. Especially the ones who do the Demint “must be both kinds” tapdance.

    Cue one of our resident liberals to tell us the eeeeevils of fiscal conservativism in 3…2…

    1. oh, that’s too easy!

      1. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!

      2. I haven’t received my pony yet.

    2. Externalities!

    3. The spoofs will do it for them.

  6. Haha!

    You know what’s really funny?
    Jim DeMint is , based on his voting record, the “most libertarian” sitting Senator! Yup 99 of them are “more statist” than the junior senator from South Carolina.

    1. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    2. He clearly just needs to shut the hell up.

      He would be a much more attractive candidate if he kept his stupid mouth closed, and just made libertarian votes in the Senate.

      1. But would he win elections in South Carolina if he did so?

        While there obviously are some fiscal conservative socially liberal voters, there’s a near absence of such politicians, at least winning politicians outside of Gary Johnson. Every “socially moderate” Republican ends up being a big spender, maybe not as bad as the average Democrat, but still. If it were possible to win elections on a libertarian platform, surely there would be more winning politicians. It’s not *that* hard to take over a local party and primary.

        Ron Paul is a social conservative.

        A fair number of Republicans thread the needle by throwing out lots of “culturally conservative” red meat, but don’t actually vote for most of the statist socially conservative legislation. Sen. DeMint actually mostly falls in this category.

        It obviously pisses people off with libertarian policy preferences but culturally liberal leanings (whatever precisely that means), but it seems to win more votes than it loses.

        1. I agree with John Thacker’s observ’ns, with the adjustment that Ron Paul’s social conservatism is of a kind that, when it comes to the votes or prominent statements, doesn’t much rankle libertarians.

          Like it or not, libertarians in the USA and probably at least some other democracies need the help of traditionalists to put together winning campaigns and coalitions.

          1. This is why “conservative” has the meaning it currently does. It is generally understood as some combination of or compromise between libertarianism and traditionalism.

  7. We liberals ought to resort to violence over… uh, whatever this is about.

    1. but only Christ-fag right-wingers commit violence!

  8. Two words for the gentleman from South Carolina: Wrong, motherfucker.

  9. FWIW, IIRC, Allahpundit is the “conservative blogger” who wanted Obama to “stimulate” the economy by forgiving his (and all other) student loans.

    1. Which makes me wonder, how many fiscal cons support shrinking government because it means greater freedom for its own sake and how many support it simply as a means of moving people over to a different security blanket that they prefer?

      Were God to force taxpayers at lightning-bolt point to repay Allahpundit’s student loans he might get on board with “social conservatism”.

  10. And thus it begins.

    With a little more effort Demint and his ilk can guarantee the Big O a second term.

    Idiot.

    1. Or Demint and his ilk can guarantee the ascendancy of Bush 3: Bush with a Vengeance. I can’t wait until Jeb starts a war with the Moon for fuck of it.

      Let’s face it, most social conservatives prefer the iron ass-raping fist of their beloved Nixonian fantasy government to anything we live and let live types would prefer.

  11. “Now you know why pornography expert and local sociopath Alvin Green got 362,000 votes (without campaigning or managing to put together a coherent sentence) in his race against Demint.”

    Could it be because a significant portion of the electorate will automatically vote for the party with which they identify?

    1. Does this count as racist?

      I’d love to give you the benefit of the doubt, but on behalf of our left-leaning brethren…

      RACIST!!!

      1. Objection; what I said goes for Republicans too, and it’s well-known that any derogatory statement against Republicans cannot be racist.

        1. Oh, well now that you put it in context.

          Aw, hell. You still potentially talked negative about The One or his glorious achievements. In this day and age, that still counts as RACISM.

          Now if you’d just talk negatively about Clarence Thomas, then we could sit around the proverbial campfire at Kos or HuffPo and tell each other how enlightened we are for calling him a bootlicking Uncle Tom who even married a white woman.

          1. I submit to the judgement of the court.

    2. Or automatically vote against the party with which they anti-identify. Or against a candidate they anti-identify with. By voting for the major opponent of either.

      1. I actually went a little cross-eyed reading this^.

    3. I’d’ve voted for Greene for the hilarity factor.

      Greene/Marceaux.com in 2012!

  12. You Aren’t a “Fiscal Conservative” Unless You’re a Social Conservative

    May he be fisc-ed by Barney Frank.

    1. OOOOH! Dead kitten!

      1. On most of the rest of the Internet, the “God kills a kitten” thing is a reference to what happens when you masturbate, and in that context your reply to Aresen’s Barney Frank comment is… troubling.

        1. “God kills a kitten” thing is a reference to what happens when you masturbate,/em>

          Good to know that H&Rer;’s are keeping the feline population in check with some winnowing of the herd.

          God knows I’ve done my part.

  13. Back in 1858, the South’s solution to everything was all about putting people’s basic rights up to a vote? And nothing’s really changed about that.

    They’re Democrats. That’s what Barack Obama is all about too! It’s just that Barack Obama wants to put other things up for a vote–like my gun rights and how much of my paycheck I get to keep…

    These Southern Democrats have only called themselves “Republicans” since they were invited into the Reagan Coalition in the ’80s–and they’ve totally overstayed their welcome…

    George W. Bush was one of them. Really, it’s time for fake conservatives like him to go back to being the Democrats they were before.

    It’s been a long time comin’, but you Southern Democrats in Republican clothing have been shitting the Republican Party’s bed for far too long.

    If you want to put other people’s rights* up to a vote? Go Be A Democrat. Go join Obama’s Revolution–that’s what he’s all about.

    Leave us fiscal conservatives alone.

    *No, you can’t vote my gun rights away. …and that’s what being a “Republican” is all about!

    1. These Southern Democrats have only called themselves “Republicans” since they were invited into the Reagan Coalition in the ’80s–and they’ve totally overstayed their welcome…

      Ron Paul is a southern Republican you ass.

      1. Originally, he’s from Pennsylvania.

        1. Yeah, but if you take that argument, then George W. Bush is neither Southern nor before a Democrat.

        2. Ah, that explains Rand Paul’s accent, which had seemed incongruous to me for a while; I’d forgotten he lived in PA until his was 8 or so.

          I find Philly Boy Roy hilarious and thus have an ear attuned to that sort of accent.

      2. Ron Paul is pretty much the only Southern Republican that actually stands for liberty. Flake does not count as he’s not part of the South.

  14. In some sense, it’s true. If you’re a “fiscal conservative” but not a “social conservative”, you’re not a conservative, you’re a libertarian.

    It’s clearly not how he intended it, but what he intended was to stupid to be contemplated without the possibility of serious injury.

    1. Arrrgh, it’s supposed to be “to stupid too be contemplated”

      1. Nope, still wrong. “Too stupid to be contemplated.”

    2. If you’re a “fiscal conservative” but not a “social conservative”, you’re not a conservativeRepublican, you’re a libertarian.

      FTFY.

    3. “In some sense, it’s true. If you’re a “fiscal conservative” but not a “social conservative”, you’re not a conservative, you’re a libertarian.

      Ronald Reagan disagrees with you.

      1. Would I say something like that without a quote?

        Have I ever?!

        Here’s Ronald Regan in Reason Magazine from 1975.

        “REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

        REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

        https://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

        So, as far as Jim DeMint speaking for conservatives and what conservatism is…?

        “Demint tells Fox News that one “can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”

        Ronald Reagan says Jim Demint is a jackass!

      2. Are you talking about the same Ronald Reagan who escalated the War on Drugs and gave us mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses?

        1. He never could’ve done it w/o Tip O’ Neil.

        2. I didn’t say he was perfect or a real libertarian.

          But he was sure as hell a conservative.

          I didn’t say he was perfect.

          He didn’t exactly rule by decree. He had to work with the Congress he had…

          All I said was that he was a real conservative. George Bush the Greater was a conservative too–unlike his son, but Ronald Reagan was the last real conservative we had as president.

          And if Ronald Reagan says stuff like that? Then Jim Demint is a phony conservative.

          Since World War II, “conservative” has been about opposition to the New Deal (and its ugly step children) domestically and realist foreign policy. Reagan had to pick and choose his battles–but he was both about as conservative and libertarian a president as we’ve seen in decades…

          George W. Bush and the rest of the phony conservatives who came to the Republican Party by way of Reagan’s coalition…? It’s really interesting actually, because their solution to everything, from the rights of immigrants to foreign policy, is pretty much, “Let’s take a vote!” Got problems in Iraq? That’s ’cause they can’t vote!

          Sounds just like Stephen Douglas, doesn’t it? Sounds just like FDR and Obama too! Your rights depend on Congress, becasue the people voted! So, they get to decide your health care policy, whether banks can give you a home loan and anything else they decide to fiddle with too…

          Incidentally, that’s why I hate California’s referendum system. Once they get to put other people’s rights on a ballot to vote on–how do conservatives express their disgust with the whole premise? My right to do whatever depends on how 50.1% of the people vote?

          Why?

          Going back to Goldwater–at least–conservatism has been about opposition to that kind of thing. My rights exist despite 99.9% of everyone voting against them–or they don’t really exist at all. People who agree with that premise have called themselves “conservative” going way back…

          Reagan was right in that answer up yonder. There were conservatives who opposed the Bill of Rights on the basis that it seemed to give the government the right to grant rights and take them away–which is exactly why they insisted on including the 9th Amendment…

          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          My rights aren’t the government’s to give and take away–there have been Americans who insisted on that premise who called themselves “conservative” since 1789. …right up to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan–that’s what they were all about. Reagan called it ”

          The opposition since before the Civil War has defined itself as being those who think majority rule is what America is all about.

          If Demint thinks he should have some say over other people’s individual liberties because he’s an elected politician? Then he has no business calling himself a “conservative”.

          He’s Obama with a different aesthetic. …and nothing more, just like Obama, apart from the aesthetics, isn’t really much different from George W. Bush.

          Reagan was very different from Obama and Dubya though. He may not have been a libertarian–but he was sure as hell conservative. …and there isn’t much to point at to say he was a cultural conservative either.

          He had imperfections…no doubt. But that doesn’t mean he was the same as the rest. He wasn’t.

          If only Obama had as few imperfections as Reagan! If only we had a real conservative to rally behind–instead of fake “conservatives” like Demint making himself a buffoon.

          P.S. RLY!

          1. I never thought of Bush Sr. as a “conservative”, but as a moderate with maybe a slight “conservative” leaning. Bush Jr. campaigned to the “right” of his father, but governed to his “left”, both as governor and prez.

          2. “If Demint thinks he should have some say over other people’s individual liberties because he’s an elected politician? Then he has no business calling himself a “conservative”.
            1. He’s Obama with a different aesthetic. …and nothing more, just like Obama, apart from the aesthetics, isn’t really much different from George W. Bush.”

            Nice, high five spot on.

        3. “‘Are you talking about the same Ronald Reagan who escalated the War on Drugs and gave us mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses?””

          But he liked amnesty for illegal aliens!

  15. If you can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative, then Mike Huckabee must be an anarcho-capitalist.

    1. No. The Huckster just shows you can be a social conservative w/o being a fiscal conservative.

      So you cosmos have never met socon libertarians or socon anarchists?
      Dixie is full of ’em. Half or more of the LP voters down here are social conservatives.

      1. A socially conservative libertarian is a contradiction in terms. You can’t truly support a libertarian philosophy if you want to give the state the power to regulate your non-economic private conduct.

        1. No to defend socons, but I assume some of them (probably a minority) do not want to use the government to enforce their views. They’d rather be left alone to be their racist, sexually repressed, patriarchal, spaghetti-monster worshipping selves and more power to them (Disclaimer: these traits attributed to social conservatives are a grab bag of the most extreme I’ve witnessed, and are not entirely representive of socons). Being a Libertarian, I couldn’t give two shits about a bunch of nutjobs two states over who complain about fags and black people. Complain all you want, but start pointing guns at people because you don’t like who they fuck or how they pronounce birthday and you’ve crossed a line.

          Sadly, this group of live and let live socons is probably small to nonexistent. Regardless, people should be allowed to act as repugnant as they want.

          1. Sadly, this group of live and let live socons is probably small to nonexistent.

            Actually, there’s a ton of them in the rural South. They’re live and let live because they don’t really have to worry about their neighbors or anything else.

            1. Yeah I was just hedging my bets with that statement John, having (unfortunately) met living social conservative authoritarian stereotypes. Now the Mormons I have met, to some extent, are some of the nicest people on the planet (Even though I could tell they thought I was going to burn in hell).

              1. “”(Even though I could tell they thought I was going to burn in hell).
                “”

                No. They just know you’re not going to the same level of heaven. 😉

                1. Unless he sinned against the Holy Ghost; then it’s off to the outer darkness for him.

        2. A socially conservative libertarian is a contradiction in terms. You can’t truly support a libertarian philosophy if you want to give the state the power to regulate your non-economic private conduct.

          Perhaps people should use the term culturally conservative. But I’m really not sure that you could describe Ron Paul socially or culturally as anything other than conservative.

          It reminds me of the farming or transportation debates. There are people with libertarian leanings (or who at least say they hate subsidies), but they’ll end up just plain hating people who also oppose subsidies but disagree about what would happen if the subsidies were removed.

          The “subsidies promote factory farming” people against the “subsidies promote small inefficient farms” people. Or the “subsidies are responsible for our use roads” versus “subsidies sustain useless trains and transit, without subsidies we would use roads even more.”

          Yes, theoretically libertarians should be perfectly equanimous about what happens after the subsidies are removed. In practice, including here, people are not and want to argue about it a lot.

        3. A socially conservative libertarian is a contradiction in terms.

          No, because in today’s complicated world there’s enough ambiguity and breadth in short identifiers like that that there are plenty of people who could be described that way.

          The “socially conservative” side of many issues on today’s agenda is often at least arguably the libertarian side as well, and often they’re issues on which there isn’t really an easily distinguishable libertarian or authoritarian side.

          For prominent examples of the latter, whether to have traditional religious content in gov’t programs such as gov’t schools, parks, etc. A libertarian if given just the choice of whether to have or forbid such content could just as easily take either the traditionalist (socially “conservative”) or anti-trad socially “liberal” side.

          View that fact in the light that one doesn’t need to have a so-con position on every conceivable so-con issue, and voila the socially “conservative” libertarian.

  16. I think you guys are making too much of this. Social issues are mainly talking points. He’s the most fiscally conservative Senator we have now and I’m rooting for him.

    1. He wants to require a religious test for public office — President — and that’s unconstitutional. And dumb. If you don’t agree with DeMint that a bearded meatball should rain hellfire on gay people or ban promiscuous women from teaching, you’re unfit for office.

      1. I disagree vehemently with DeMint’s social conservative views. But, can you cite where he’s said he wants a religious test for public office?

      2. bearded meatball

        Are you referring to God here? Seriously, I think the atheists among us cause our side to lose some credibility with the team red and team blue people by being so smug in mocking God. I also think it drives freedom-loving religious people away in droves.

        I believe in God and I am a libertarian. They aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. You labeling God as a “bearded meatball” is akin to the proselytizing assholes who smugly tell atheists they are going to hell.

        Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.

        1. As an atheist, I say +1. Agreed, sloopy.

        2. How dare you, sir!

          My God happens to literally be a bearded meatball. Jeff B. was merely describing the beliefs of Meatballianity. Calling those beliefs “mockery” is extremely offensive.

          1. Heller, you are damned apostate who believes that the Book of Ground Beef is up to “interpretation”. This is wrong.

            While written by a human hand The Book is clearly the word of Ball! Your cafeteria Meatballism where one gets to pick and choose the doctrine he likes to follow is no better than some hippie’s secular humanism.

            You’re heresies will end with you spending an eternity in The Sauce!

            1. Oh, and I am offended as well.

            2. you spelled Ba’al wrong

        3. Hell, I’m a libertarian SKEPTIC and I choose to believe in God. You know – “Let a thousand flowers bloom”. I think it’s called “freedom of Conscience”

        4. I think God’s on the table, but I’m just too lazy to get up to go to church after waking up in my own filth surorunded by 5 track-marked hookers (3 living, 2 dead), a half-eaten wedding cake, a depleted tub of absinthe, a gorilla stolen from the Denver Zoo (2000 miles from me), 40 used acid stamps, a kidnapped George Lucas, and Ron Howard’s creepy brother wearing a tuxedo shirt and MC Hammer’s parachute pants. Let’s just say, I’m a little too busy for it.

          1. You know, you could go to evening Mass. That’s how I usually get around my prior commitments.

            Oh, and too much sugar from that wedding cake will end up causing diabeetus. You should be careful.

            1. Considering the 40 acid tabs, I have a feeling these nightmare benders of mine eat up weeks at a time. As a result, my perception of time is non-existent. It’s 1997 right?

              Moreover, I can’t fill my camino with hookers at night if I’m at Church.

              1. Are you getting a message asking you if your browser supports frames?

        5. Another atheist here.
          And while I have been know to throw out the occasional “sky-fairy”, or other such term, they really are just as offensive as the thumpers. I try to limit it to when one of the thumpers is actually there and on my case. then mostly just to watch them turn purple and sputter.

          1. As you should. Trust me, I am sickened by the co-opting of God by assholes who want to create their version of paradise here on earth. It’s just another power grab by fuckers who can’t stand free will.

            That said, you know who else were atheists, right? Just sayin’….

    2. “Social issues are mainly talking points.”

      This is generally how i look at it. As much as I hate shit like this, in the end it doesnt really mean much. I’d much rather have someone who talks about meaningless “family values” and then votes against nationalizing healthcare than the other way around.

      1. That’s why I still considered Christine O’Donnell to be a more qualified candidate than Castle or Coons.

        I’d rather vote for the crazy person who’s right about the real stuff than an enlightened nanny-statist who thinks Liberty is just a small SUV.

        1. Again, I question why the comedy vote didn’t come out for O’Donnell. The fix was in?

  17. I think it’s wierd that Moynihan told readers to fast forward past the announcer reading highlights Demint’s voting record which is superb. Afraid it would take the wind out of your sails Moyni?

    1. God bless Jim DeMint. If only we had 59+ more just like him. It would be almost as sweet as 5+ Clarence Thomas’ on the Supreme Court!

      1. Ibufuckinprofen!

  18. I hate when people say the government needs to create jobs (or help create jobs) or needs to do a better job on the economy. I want the government no where near the economy and avoiding all attempts to “create” jobs.

  19. There is no such thing as a fiscally conservative person who is not also socially conservative. They don’t exist.

    Join me and all other progressives in saying they do not exist ad nauseum and then it will become true. Sure, we progs pride ourselves in viewing issues in a more nuanced way, but we will stubbornly refuse to admit there are fiscally conservative and socially liberal people.

    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
    You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

    Is it true yet?

    1. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

    2. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

    3. I am glad that democrats and republicans now can agree us libertarians do not exist….

      Being as how we do not exist maybe they will stop blaming us whenever they completely fuck up the county.

      1. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha… ha … HA HA HA HA ha ha

        We’ll find a way. We’ve never failed due to being full of shit.

      2. “I am glad that democrats and republicans now can agree us libertarians do not exist….”

        Huh, I know how you feel to some extent.

    4. “There is no such thing as a fiscally conservative person who is not also socially conservative. They don’t exist.”

      I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal (you know, libertarian).

      Troll on!

  20. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

    1. You are still alive? I thought, you know, you died. There was a wake, a funeral service and everything. Damn rude of you to show up after we paid the catering bill.

      1. It’s a type of wealth transfer.

  21. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

  22. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

  23. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

    1. I like your style.

  24. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

    1. HEY!!!

      1. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

        1. Where is shrike to tell us that we are all fagot social conservatives?

          1. You can not be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.

  25. It has become so.

    1. Irrefutably.

  26. welcome to when the republicans implode.

    Luckily an implosion will still be able to deliver the much needed gridlock that we all have been hoping for.

    1. You can’t implode if you have no structure to begin with. They are a mess and will continue to be so.

      Gridlock is good, tho.

  27. I say the Culture War could use more casualties. Many, many more. When the forces of the SocCons and the Life Style Marxist have weakened, we go in like Mao after a battle between the Japanese and the Nationalist, and kill the winners.

    1. You know who else let their enemies beat up on each other first?

      1. The Normans?

        1. Winston Churchill

      2. Isn’t it bad enough I used the worst mass murderer in human history as an example to emulate?

        1. I must have missed that. Where did you mention Bush in your post?

  28. Apparently DeMint’s attention was wandering in high school in the math classes that taught Venn diagrams.

    Or logic.

    1. True logic cannot be taught. It can only be learned.

    2. He was the thinking hard about the evils of the hot sweet sin of man lovin.

      1. That’s why I failed caclulus.

    3. No, read his explanation. It may not be true, but it is logical.

  29. People like Jim Demint are the reason I won’t vote Republican. No matter how good they talk up smaller government, they always come back to social issues.

    1. Well you’re sitting there thinking about the mountains of treasury bonds, stacked into the sky like skyscrapers – small business owners spending their nights filling out government forms – swat teams smashing down Grandma’s door and firing randomly —
      THEN SUDDENLY –
      SODOMY pops into your mind.

    2. Except that he has an amazingly libertarian record insofar as his actual votes–as opposed to what he says.

  30. Oh, cue up the apologists.

    Lemme see, what excuses are there?

    1) “Let’s not overlook his good points.”

    2) “There’s nobody better right now to support, so sadly, we must compromise.”

    3) “I’m a Tea Partier and I’m not anti-gay! It’s not fair to say that social conservatism is part of the Teatard movement, despite the fact that every single one of our candidates is to the right of Atilla the Hun.”

    Feel free to add additional excuses as they either pop up or you think of them. I’m sure we’ll get to hear them all by the time this tragicomic “Republican revolution” has run its course in 18 to 24 months.

    1. Ron Paul is to the right of Atilla?

      1. Well, Ron Paul is social conservative. At least if voting to ban partial-birth abortion, against using federal research money on embryos, to ban gay adoptions in DC, supporting a school prayer Constitution Amendment (but against it without an Amendment), yes on building a fence alongside Mexico, yes on amending the constitution to end birthright citizenship,

        You don’t get rated 76% by the Christian Coalition, 100% by FAIR (anti immigration group), 83% by USBC (sealed borders group), 17% by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc. for nothing.

        1. So, just so I understand:
          1) You are pro-choice even if it means sucking the brain out of a viable human being, and because of it’s location (teh uterus) it has no human rights.
          2) You want my tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research? Do you also want it to fund farm subsidies, welfare, turtle tunnels or are you just being a hypocrite on this one thing they should fund?
          3) As far as the fence, I’m for it as well. I view it as part of a national defense. I am also for an open immigration policy.
          4) On the gay adoption thing, he’s just downright wrong, so I’ll give you that one.
          5) On the other issues, he wants to campaign and have a Constitutional Amendment passed that are in line with his beliefs. As much as I disagree with his desire, I applaud that he wants to follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution as opposed to sneaking it through some other way. Give the man credit for trying to convince people in his beliefs through the ballot box as opposed to down the barrel of a gun.

          1. Hang on sloopy, you’re wrong when you’re assuming things about me. I wasn’t stating my preferences, simply saying that all of those things make Ron Paul a social conservative.

            You don’t understand, I’m not pro-choice on abortion.

            2) actually is a point of controversy among libertarians– there are certainly those who think that once we’ve agreed on a dollar figure for government spending, that it politicizes science and violates separation of church and state to refuse to fund certain things on moral grounds. Not me, though, again I agree with Rep. Paul.

            Simply because some libertarians can hold these views doesn’t mean that they aren’t “social conservative” views. They are views that the Christian Coalition and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State find important.

            If Ron Paul isn’t a social conservative for the way he votes, then the Christian Coalition isn’t socially conservative.

            1. My points 1 and 2 were meant to be questions as opposed to statements. Sorry for the confusion.

              I guess social conservative seems like such a dirty term that I equate it mostly to bible-thumpers who want to impose their will.

              The term has been so convoluted by the media that it’s meaning changes from day to day, usually to something they are trying to marginalize for their statist progressive agenda. (If that sounds a little tin-fiolly, I’m sorry.)

      2. Ron Paul is a social conservative who lets his opinion of what the Constitution allows the Federal Government to do and his opinion of the wisdom of federalism restrict what he votes for. However, culturally and in his sympathies, he is certainly a social conservative, and he absolutely votes “socially conservative” on most issues where he believes that the Federal Government has the authority to act, and in some cases approves of Amendments to give the government that power.

        I say most because one exception is that he’s pretty pro marijuana.

      3. Ron Paul is not a Tea Partier. In fact, those fuckers sent THREE candidates to the primary to try and defeat him.

        heh, we know how that went.

        1. Whether he’s a Tea Partier or not– and considering the success Tea Parties had in other districts, if the Tea Party supporters really didn’t like Ron Paul they would have held to less than 80% of the vote– he’s certainly a socon.

    2. Might as well apologize for social conservatives Ron Paul and Jeff Flake while you’re at it.

      1. I don’t apologize for social conservatives (including Saint Ron Paul, whose accolades are largely undeserved, IMO).

  31. Kiss my lily white ass, Mr. DeMint

  32. A fair number of Republicans thread the needle by throwing out lots of “culturally conservative” red meat, but don’t actually vote for most of the statist socially conservative legislation.

    I’d argue that you should change fair to most.

    The Republicans have been milking the socially conservative (that does not include the Westboro bunch and their ilk – they are just plain fucked, not conservative) for donations for years. The Democrats, as has been recently demonstrated with DADT, have been doing the same with the Gay vote too.

    1. (that does not include the Westboro bunch and their ilk – they are just plain fucked, not conservative)

      Westboro Baptist are registered Democrats who ran Al Gore’s 1988 Presidential campaign in Kansas.

  33. Now you know why pornography expert and local sociopath Alvin Green got 362,000 votes

    That’s quite a leap. Most people don’t make the effort to go to a polling place to vote against a candidate.

  34. one “can’t be a fiscal compassionate conservative and not be a social fiscal conservative.”

    Makes more sense and explains the Bush years.

  35. I say we take all those gay teachers and make them Catholic priests. What could happen?

  36. I’m an alter boy; Choose me!

  37. I do not know if the two attributes portivesc at 100%. I think this is a guy who knows what to do and act as they should. I wish them success.
    piese auto import vw

    1. See, this is why I like Privacy Bot. Its comments are usually coherent and on point. Plus it’s programmed to actually be able to properly embed a link.

  38. Even Ronald Reagan — more than 30 years ago — came out in support of gay teachers. This jackass hasn’t even reached the level of a troglodyte.

    By the way, why does he only mention unmarried female teachers sleeping with their boyfriends? What about unmarried male teachers sleeping with their girlfriends? Is this okay with him?

    Alvin Greene should demand a recount.

    1. You spelled your own name wrong, Colon.

  39. Without socons, the first amendment would have been thrown out the window a long time ago. I appreciate them for that. Although I would love Daniels’ detente to be what happens, I will still be damned happy if Demint uses a little religious rhetoric to advance his freedom agenda.

  40. In other South Carolina news, Mark Sanford has a higher approval rating in the state than Obama or Lindsey Graham. Sanford never ran on family values much, either, but I’m sure he has some socon votes and rhetoric somewhere.

    He does win an afford for one of the most “normal and romantic” political affairs

    1. Ya had to go and mention Lindsey Fucking Graham. There goes my breakfast, in a technicolor ballistic trajectory.

  41. Now you know why pornography expert and local sociopath Alvin Green got 362,000 votes (without campaigning or managing to put together a coherent sentence) in his race against Demint.

    I do, but it has nothing to do with what you wrote here. Its because Alvin Greene is black and any black candidate who has a pulse will get a supermajority of black votes if in a contest against only non-black candidates.

    1. No, I’m pretty sure that Michael Steele managed not to do that against Ben Cardin, after Cardin had squeaked by Kweisi Mfume in the Democratic Primary.

      Of course, this was in Maryland.

  42. You can’t be a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. Supporting massive state intrusion into private sex lives of citizens and a massive prison-industrial complex and militarized police force to conduct prohibition does not ring true with fiscal conservatism.

  43. When asked to comment on Gov. Mitch Daniels’ suggestion that it’s time for d?tente in the culture war, Demint tells Fox News that one “can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative.”

    I don’t understand how being against state-sponsored theft has to go hand-in-hand with being in favor of state-imposed blue codes. I don’t get it…

    1. Listen to his explan’n. You have to extrapolate a bit from it to get the answer you seek, however.

  44. Let’s start calling social conservatives what they really are…
    SOCIALISTS

  45. Hey, DeMint, perhaps you should study the words of “Mr. Conservative” Barry Goldwater:

    I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
    And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

  46. The more socially conservative you are, the more tax money you’re going to need to finance surveillance, arresting and jailing people, write laws banning things, and enforce all those laws. That’s a pretty clear logical point. So the reverse of DeMint’s statement is true — you can’t be both.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.