Sanchez to DeMint: What the hell do you mean, “the biggest tent is freedom?”

posted at 8:35 pm on April 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

A little bit funny, a whole lot jerky. I’m almost surprised he didn’t call him a “teabagger” too. DeMint’s doing damage control here, obviously, but not very well: Yes, it’s true that Obama’s more popular than his policies, and yes, the tea parties had a nice turnout, but to pick the day when the left’s on the brink of 60 to insist that America’s trending back towards its small-government roots seems a tad too nuanced by half. Granted, there’s a chance that Toomey will make a race of it in Pennsylvania, as DeMint predicts, but the odds are still way against it; as I reminded you earlier, if even the chairman of the NRSC is pessimistic about picking up seats, you shouldn’t get your hopes up. What’s most discouraging, I think, is how much of his argument here depends on simply waiting for the Democrats to overreach. That’s true of the party generally at the moment, too. There’s no discussion, really, of wooing new voters to accelerate a comeback; it’s all a matter of biding our time until the left alienates enough people to give us back a majority. How long are we prepared to wait?

His point at the end about the public’s appetite for checks and balances doesn’t really work, either. If that were true, how do we explain last year’s election results?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Look folks, this is actually simpler than it appears. Republicans and conservatives have been giving in by increments for 70 years on the principles of limited, consititutionally correct government.

Conservatives are the ones who chose not to remake laws that are found unconstitutional and instead throw up their hands and say the “courts have spoken”.

Where’s the constitutional basis for social security, or medi-care/medicaid. Federal control of local school systems? Head start, school lunches, speed limits, government regulation of all sorts of things the government should have NO say in, especially the federal government.

Republicans and conservatives have been giving in and giving up on the principles of limited government and throwing in the towel on real freedom for so long, it’s no wonder the electorate is simply looking at who’s going to give them more.

We can’t compete with Democrats when it comes to giving away things, and we gave up the princliples of limited government long ago. So what exactly are Republicans offering Americans in exchange for their votes?

OneEyedJack on April 29, 2009 at 6:51 AM

What’s most discouraging, I think, is how much of his argument here depends on simply waiting for the Democrats to overreach. That’s true of the party generally at the moment, too. There’s no discussion, really, of wooing new voters to accelerate a comeback; it’s all a matter of biding our time until the left alienates enough people to give us back a majority. How long are we prepared to wait?

I suppose you could try to re-teach civics, and expound on the virtues of our original constitutional system, and how it was intended to preserve liberty above-all, and provide enormous opportunities for those who are willing to try. The short-cut version of that would be FREEDOM, btw. Anyway, Rush speaks to this every day on the radio, and has for many years.

Or he could accurately point to too many of today’s Americans as whining special interest voters determined in any way possible to get a larger and larger share of the federal dole while paying less than others, or preferably nothing at all. My dog barks and humps trees. That’s what dogs do. Certain voters are parasites. It’s a fact.

If it was me, I’d probably fumble with a viper like Sanchez too. But not before I was able to make a total fool of myself and tell him that the alliance of hyphenated-Americans are in for a surprise if they think they can feast off the corpse of capitalism forever.Even Sanchez’ own job at CNN can’t last much longer with no viewers. Sooner or later, reality will reassert itself, even for the liberals. The electricity doesn’t stay on by itself.

JiangxiDad on April 29, 2009 at 6:56 AM

Our country is gone.

The only solution at this point: SECESSION.

Now, the details might be a bit tricky.

stenwin77 on April 29, 2009 at 7:06 AM

OneEyedJack on April 29, 2009 at 6:51 AM

Great points. Those along with the saying about a Democracy being trouble when people realize they can vote themselves others’ money really have us in trouble.

Jamson64 on April 29, 2009 at 7:13 AM

the govt can print money & the govt can bailout out just about everything. we can be a socialist nation.

but when we are all poor, we won’t be driving cars, watching janeane garfolo on tv or making a big carbon footprint with our coast-to-coast airline flights.

it is the economy stupid. to quote a president not as bad as bambi.

kelley in virginia on April 29, 2009 at 7:33 AM

A little bit funny, a whole lot jerky. I’m almost surprised he didn’t call him a “teabagger” too.

I think every Conservative being interviewed by one of these “teabag” interviewers should turn it back on them.

“Rick, next time we have a rally, we’d love to teabag you or any of your colleagues.”

Or at a Ubama town hall meeeting.

“Mr President, where do you stand on teabagging? Do you like it? Does Michelle?”

TugboatPhil on April 29, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Why would anyone want to appear on CNN?

Greg Toombs on April 29, 2009 at 8:00 AM

Sanchez will do anything for sensation; Didn’t he shoot J.R?

Cybergeezer on April 29, 2009 at 9:30 AM

What’s most discouraging, I think, is how much of his argument here depends on simply waiting for the Democrats to overreach.

Waiting? Define Over reaching Allah.

Dr Evil on April 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM

If that were true, how do we explain last year’s election results?

Because most people who voted for Obama thought Republicans were in control of Congress.

Esthier on April 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Hey GOP! How about actually SIGNING a CONTRACT WITH AMERICA to fix this mess. Put your signature where you mouth is – like our Founding Fathers did! Commit to stepping down if your conservative rating isn’t good enough! Do SOMETHING other than whine, hoping you’ll get back in power without actually having to fix the problem or accurately represent the Grand Old Party!

Traffic Cop Timmy on April 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

If the GOP is the party of freedom than why are they constantly opposed to it on social issues? For example, exactly what part of conservatism suggests the government should tell people what they can and cannot do with their money in the privacy of their own homes on the internet (online poker)? Yet the GOP voted to ban it. Had they sided on the side of liberty, a lot of those folks who are predisposed to libertarian ideas would be conservatives.

Patriot33 on April 28, 2009 at 11:34 PM

I guess because part of conservatism is to oppose abject stupidity whenever it arises.

GT on April 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Sanchez is an unprofessional jerk. I can do a better job, and I have no formal training in journalism. Plus I’m better looking than he is.
;-)

Goodbye, Sphincter. We won’t miss ya, you old fart. Herre’s some free career advice…. forget about switching parties, and JUST RETIRE ALREADY!!!! You’re frigging 80 years old. Go back home to Pennsylvania and leave the job of governing to people with principles.

UltimateBob on April 29, 2009 at 11:21 AM

His point at the end about the public’s appetite for checks and balances doesn’t really work, either. If that were true, how do we explain last year’s election results?
Allahpundit

I imagine that by the time 2010 rolls around the publics appreciation of checks and balances will be renewed.

gwelf on April 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM

His point at the end about the public’s appetite for checks and balances doesn’t really work, either. If that were true, how do we explain last year’s election results?

Last year’s election results could not be used for your argument on ‘checks and balances’.

Public was sold on Obama being a moderate, that he would end the partisanship, and changed the DC insider/elitist culture.

Guess what? You have eyes, and WE the people have eyes (and ears).

Sir Napsalot on April 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I’m missing Allah’s point entirely. If waiting for the loopy Dems to overreach, as they sure will, is not to Allah’s liking, then what would he propose?

I suppose we could try to sell the American people on fiscal discipline, liberty, low taxes and national security, but that’s awfully hard when 3 RINO senators vote for $780 billion in librul programs under the guise of “stimulus”.

And then, of course, there was the large increase in the Bush deficits to be considered as well as major advances in government programs.

Exactly what are we selling, Allah, if we’re just going to shrug our shoulders in defeat in the aftermath of votes like Specter’s on the porkulus bill?

List the items……and then let me know why voters shouldn’t rather just vote for the real thing and vote for Democrats.

……..

Krumhorn on April 29, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2