DeMint: RNC memo juvenile and insulting to millions of Voters

On the RNC fundraising memo found recently in Boca Grande, about raising money by fanning fears about Obama and creeping Socialism:”I saw that. … I think the progressive philosophy is taking us towards a socialistic economy. I don’t know what else you call it if the government owns and controls a large part of your economy…
..The way that it was presented as some kind of marketing ploy, I don’t like that, but I think there’s real substance here. I mean you don’t have to put a name on it, but I think it’s gone far beyond anything that’s liberal. Where we are as a country with our level of debt is really staggering…We should not ever say we’re going to go out and fool our donors…I think you can give them the facts. They may want to call it something different from Socialism and that’s fine. But what’s getting millions of people out to tea parties and rallies is this whole idea that government is taking over everything and spending away our future” (Note: DeMint’s staff, apparently concerned he wasn’t adequately briefed and outraged, sent this: “The memo is juvenile and insulting to millions around the nation with sincere concern about the direction of our nation.”)
via Jim DeMint on the RNC fundraising memo and Jeb Bush for prez.

3 Comments

  1. I forgot to add a comparison concerning the Tea Party and what I see to be their possible spoiling effect for the Republicans come 2012. That comparison is to Ross Perot’s movement, which arguably costs the first President Bush a second term in office by vacuuming away an appreciable number of discontented voters who otherwise almost certainly would have voted for President Bush.
    Yes, the Tea Party is upset with quite a few Republicans standing for re-election this coming Silly Season. But I would suppose even a suspicious-seeming Republican — a slightly moderate one, for instance — would serve their interests far better than even a very conservative Democrat. But maybe I’m wrong about that, particularly regarding largely agricultural states, where both parties are traditionally pretty conservative by most people’s standards.

    • Most Teaparty groups will not run candidates of their own. The will fight for Conservatives to be run in their states and district, most are smart enough to stay out of the political party deal. Those who have come out as ‘teaparty candidates’ like in Nevada are not backed by any national or state lead group.
      Thanks for all of your comments. Hope to see more form you.

  2. I went to the full story over at TampaBay.com, and another part of Senator DeMint’s comments struck me: his near-advocacy for Jeb Bush to run for the Presidency.
    Rightly or wrongly, Jeb Bush is tainted by two facts:
    (1.) A sizeable portion of the electorate would think along the lines that the first President Bush as somewhere on the okay side of the spectrum, but the second President Bush was either less so or even on the wrong side at the end of the day — and then that electorate would conclude, “Well, things went downhill from Bush the Elder to Bush the Younger, so they could only get worse under a *third* President Bush; and,
    (2.) The fact that were a third Bush in a generation to ascend to the highest office in the land, that clearly would mark the establishment of a dynasty.
    The first criticism is unfair. It reminds me of the imperial days in China, when someone could commit an offense and be executed — along with his entire family, including *anyone* the emperor’s minions could find who shared even a single drop of blood with the offender. In the Bush context, even if the two Bush ex-Presidents were to become regarded at some time in the future as tied for the title of “the worst President ever,” that wouldn’t necessarily be a predictor of how Jeb Bush might perform. But the criticism is hard to counter, because it’s beyond any rationale dispute that he, like anyone, was and is influenced by those around him. As far as I know, he gets along with his brother George and his Father; presumably, they have some considerable influence on his thinking.
    The second criticism is practically impossible to counter. Given that we rebelled against a monarchy and won our independence from it, a very strong strand of our national character (without regard to just where on the political spectrum we may stand) is a dislike, distaste, and distrust of anything smacking of dynasty.
    Look — ironically — at the Kennedy family. While a number of the Kennedy clan and their in-laws have indeed served in public office — but only *one* Kennedy has been President, yet a great many people accuse the family of being dynastic in fact and continuing ambition. If the criticism of the Kennedys is valid, then the Bush clan can’t very well deny their own dynastic ambitions.
    Further, George H.W. Bush was born into a very wealthy family in Milton, Massachusetts then raised in a New York City suburb, eventually graduating from Yale, and George W. Bush, while raised in Texas from age 2, was born in New Haven, Connecticut, marking both of them, in the eyes of some, as “damned New England Yankees.” Prescott Bush was born in Ohio, and attended high school in Connecticut, moving on to Yale, where he became a member of the university’s controversial Skull and Bones secret society, into which his son, the first President Bush and the second were to join in their turn. He served as a Senator — but from Connecticut, not Ohio. And Prescott Bush’ father, Samuel, was born in New Jersey, and raised there, San Francisco, and Staten Island, though he spent much of his adult life in Ohio. He was the patriarch of the Bush political family — or “dynasty,” if you prefer, later in his life serving is political positions. He attended Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, New Jersey. While New Jersey and New York are not part of New England (contrary to widespread but erroneous popular belief), the ties of the Bush family to New England and its perceived elitism and wealth are strong — a turn-off for some. George W. Bush’ matriculation from first Yale then Harvard strengthened those ties.
    Jeb did break the mold to a considerable extent; for instance, he graduated from the University of Texas-Austin. But even he has a New England link of his own: he attended the top-of-the-tier, elite Phillips Academy in Massachusetts.
    In fact, it surprises me the Senator from South Carolina is so fond of Jeb Bush.
    Were Jeb to win the Presidency in 2012 or 2016 then serve two terms, it would mean a Bush had occupied the Oval Office either 20 of 32 years or 24 of 36 years; that’s pretty dynastic in the view of some.
    He also holds some controversial positions, such as his support for the death penalty.
    In short, I can’t see Jeb Bush as the Republican candidate in 2012 for sure, and maybe not in 2016, *unless* the country is in terrible shape going into the election AND the electorate blames President Obama for that.
    If conditions are humming right along, I suspect the Republicans are going to have a tough time finding any candidate acceptable both to the party insiders and their supporters. The party has clearly shifted considerably to the right, so will have to really energize its base to get out the vote if the RNC and every other Republican expect to have a real chance at snatching the White House back from Obama (assuming he doesn’t throw up his hands and quit after one term, which I think *may* be a possibility if the present poisonous political climate persists — heck, *I’d* probably quite NOW!).
    One other factor might be a decider for some voters: a strong endorsement from Senator DeMitt if Jeb Bush does decide to lower himself into the snake pit that is America’s national politics these days. For some, such an endorsement would cement or strengthen further their support of Bush; for others, it would cement their position opposing Bush or strengthen their conviction they were right never to have wanted to vote for him in the first place. I have no idea how those respective numbers would work out vis-a-vis each other.
    Jeb must be looking askance at this controversy over the RNC’s internal memo. Will it turn out to be some sort of political equivalent to the Pentagon Papers? Though I think that’s possible, I really don’t know how voters and contributors might feel, overall. Will Tea Party sympathizers who are still willing to back a mainstream candidate embrace the Republican nominee in 2012, shrugging off any sense of insult-to-the-ordinary-person aura of the memo? Will contributors likewise shrug off the slap in the face?
    I don’t know.
    There’s one last factor that might play against Jeb Bush on the national stage: his Mexico-born wife, Columba, born Columba Garnica Gallo in Guanajuato, the capital city of the Mexican state of Leon, where she met Jeb while he was on an exchange program there. (Jeb’s university degree from UT-Austin is in Latin American Studies.) With both illegal and legal immigration being hot-button issues with a substantial number of voters, I can see her roots being a negative for Bush. In my view, that’s utterly unfair, but, then, my ex-wife is from Beijing, and I’ve lived abroad many years, including in China, so my perceptions are colored by those experiences. Of course, Columba would almost certainly give Bush major appeal with the Latino community, a group at which no candidate dare sneer (nor *should they).
    It’s going to be interesting to see what happens in the mid-term elections (especially given the broad failure of the Tea Party movement to have any significant influence on elections so far, except — possibly — in the recent election of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. then, further on, in the 2012 elections. For instance, in one Texas congressional district primary, the local Tea Party was stridently opposed to a candidate who . . . won. With about 70% of the vote, at that.
    But my bet is the Tea Party will serve as a spoiler for the Republicans,

Comment on Politisite Story