Jim DeMint Denies Saying He Wanted Health Care To Be Obama’s “Waterloo”
Jan 25th, 2010 | 35 responses
When the truth doesn’t serve, lie:
Via Think Progress, which observes:
Back in September, DeMint was proud of his “Waterloo” comment. “If we lose the health care battle, I think we’ve lost it all,” he said, adding, “And that’s why I’ve said strong things like Waterloo and other things. … [I]f we stop him on health care then I think we have the opportunity to maybe realign the whole political system in our country.”
Actually, DeMint congratulated himself for the Waterloo comment only last week:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said his description of healthcare reform as a possible “Waterloo” defeat for President Barack Obama has been supported overwhelmingly by voters in Massachusetts.
“I’m not looking for vindication but I do believe that was a call to arms early in this race. I was one of the first who was willing to take the president on directly on an agenda that I thought was out of control,” DeMint said Wednesday. “So I certainly don’t regret saying it.”
35 Responses to “Jim DeMint Denies Saying He Wanted Health Care To Be Obama’s “Waterloo””
If the republican party is ever going to have serious designs on moderation, bipartisanship, a bigger tent, etc. then Jim DeMint is exactly the sort of role model to illustrate the opposite of those goals.
Well, politicians are dishonest, so this post is kind of a big “so what” to me, but then I'm cynical.
I do find it amusing that partisans are always willing to go out of their way to point out the dishonesty of the opposition but are strangely quiet when one of “their own” is less than truthful.
You expected something else?
You mean things like closing Guantanamo, reversing the Bush foreign policy, being transparent? Yeah, I wonder where we got those crazy ideas.
Simply put, DeMint is a tool. As far as South Carolina goes, he just has to be to the right of Lindsey Graham and the people will love him. He's a Mark Sanford Repub — you know, the type that tells others what to do, but doesn't take his own advice.
JSpencer — See, your problem is assuming that the Republicans have designs on any of those things.
Well, politicians are dishonest, so this post is kind of a big “so what” to me, but then I'm cynical.”
It's different, when Dems do it it's misspeaking (Hilary dodging bullets, Edwards denying paternity, Dodd not getting a special deal, and Harry- for get about it).
Didn't say he wasn't a tool. I said he was a politician and they are all liars to a greater to lesser degree.
“As far as South Carolina goes”
I like the guy seeking to replace Sanford. “Don't feed stray animals, or else they'll breed…” This would have been an extra boost for Obama late in 2008 after the economy had slumped and there might have been talk then about unemployment insurance and its pros and cons. Heh.
Duck,
Yogi Berra misspeaks.
Politicians, either side, are prone to telling the big one(s)…though I've known a couple who broke the mold & told the truth. They're mostly ex-politicians who didn't survive the next election cycle.
tidbits
They're mostly ex-politicians who didn't survive the next election cycle.'
Show me a failed politician and I'll show you someone who is a lousy liar, and probably a lousy lawyer.
Actually, I do point out when Democrats do something that is dishonest or wrong.
You've got to be kidding. Hillary dodging bullets cannot possibly be considered by any rational person to be comparable to Jim DeMint telling conservative bloggers that if Republicans can defeat health care reform it will be Obama's Waterloo, and will break him, and then denying he said it. Edwards denying paternity — and Edwards' behavior in general — has been thoroughly, widely, and incontrovertibly condemned, mocked, criticized, etc. (including by me, right here, but I'm far from the only one) by liberals and conservatives alike since his affair first became news.
Dodd not getting a special deal cost him his Senate seat (in effect — he isn't running again because he knows he would lose as a result of it), so what the hell are you complaining about? I promise you that if Sen. DeMint's Waterloo remark gets him rejected by the voters, I won't waste my time writing about his lies and outrageous statements.
Edited to add: Oh, and btw — even though Hillary Clinton's lie about dodging bullets is not comparable to what DeMint said, she DID get roundly mocked for it by Democrats as well as Republicans.
When you come right down to it, everyone, politicians or not, are liars to a greater or lesser degree, so why even concern ourselves with truth or honesty at all — in any aspects of our lives or for anyone? Everyone lies, some tell serious lies that are or can be very destructive; others tell less serious lies that don't really affect anyone for the worse. A lie is a lie. No one is completely truthful, so what does it matter if any given lie is greater than any other given lie?
Yes, I have seen you do that on occasion, which is to your credit.
Edited to add: Oh, and btw — even though Hillary Clinton's lie about dodging bullets is not comparable to what DeMint said, she DID get roundly mocked for it by Democrats as well as Republicans.'
You're improving. If I recall correctly, I did a gotcha on this same trio, and you didn't admit Hilary lied.
Congrats.
Your recollection is incorrect, dduck. You brought up the Hillary Clinton incident that other time in the same context as this time — equating it or comparing it to another serious lie or breach of ethics (I don't remember who it was at this point) that had been committed by a Republican — and I responded exactly the same way as I did this time. I made it perfectly clear she didn't tell the truth, that what she said was not true, but that it wasn't comparable. So as much as I like to accept congratulations, I cannot accept yours.
I cannot accept yours.”
Ok. Whoops there goes another bullet (zing).
All this just underscores my point: Politicians are liars or, at best, convenient “forget-ors.” The severity of one deception over other is subjective. While Demint's lie is pretty blatant, to me it seems par for the course.
Kathy, I hope this was sarcasm,
“When you come right down to it, everyone, politicians or not, are liars to a greater or lesser degree, so why even concern ourselves with truth or honesty at all — in any aspects of our lives or for anyone? Everyone lies, some tell serious lies that are or can be very destructive; others tell less serious lies that don't really affect anyone for the worse. A lie is a lie. No one is completely truthful, so what does it matter if any given lie is greater than any other given lie?”
No difference between Bush's yellow cake uranium misrepersentation and me telling some I think his tie is interesting when it's hideous? 4000+ don't die because I don't tell the truth about someone's tie.
And before I get pillaried from the commenters on the right, I could have used a democratic example, but chose not to for Kathy's sake. Please be assured that I think all TMV commenters are remarkably intelligent and insightful (damn, Kathy, you're right. We do all lie).
Well, I didn't mean to say that all lies are created equal. I also realize that members of Congress and the government can't be completely honest about some things. This one you've highlighted seems pretty tame to me. It's purely political and doesn't regard anything of substance. Everyone knows he opposes most Democratic policies and opposes the President's agenda. So what? In two weeks is anyone even going to remember this, much less at election time? Do voters in S. Carolina, a very red state, care? Unlikely, so what does ThinkProgress hope to achieve by highlighting this? What do you hope to achieve?
Again, maybe I'm cynical, but it all seems kind of pointless for you to waste your talents it.
JEEEEEEEZ, Tidbits! Of course it's sarcasm! Don't you know me better than that by now?
I just get extremely frustrated with this lazy, amoral, studied pose of indifference that I see so much of from certain commenters here: They all lie, they're all dishonest, they all take bribes, they're all cutthroats under the fancy linen — I can't stand it! The essence of being a reasoning, mature adult is the ability to make distinctions — and these people act like distinctions don't matter, or maybe don't even exist. Hillary Clinton fibs about dodging bullets in Kosovo, Jim DeMint says he wants Pres. Obama to be broken like Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo and then denies saying it. What's the difference? They're both lies, they're both untrue, so since they're exactly the same, who cares?
Andy, if you think that openly, publicly saying that you, as a U.S. senator, want to defeat health care reform because it will break the President of the United States, is objectively no more serious than Hillary Clinton saying, to make herself look good on a campaign stop, that back when she was in Kosovo she was dodging bullets at the airport, then there is a problem with the way you think about ethical and moral issues. I'm sorry, but there's no other possible conclusion.
“JEEEEEEEZ, Tidbits! Of course it's sarcasm! Don't you know me better than that by now?”
Ok, Ok. I figured it was, but I'm pretty gullible, ya know. And, sometimes you do get “all jacked up” (from the song by the same name). And now I'm really in trouble with my friend Ms. Kattenburg, admitting that I listen to Gretchen Wilson songs, after she performed at Sarah Palin rallies and all ,and even did a duet, “Politically Uncorrect” with Merle Haggard.
Best
gc
It's purely political and doesn't regard anything of substance.
Well, yeah. It's political because it has to do with our political institutions; i.e., the government. “It's political” is another well-worn phrase that's essentially meaningless anymore because of how routinely it's used to describe everything in public life that isn't agreed with.
I think what you mean by “it's purely political” is that it's not important — that it has no larger significance or implications beyond Jim DeMint's individual political fortunes. But that's not true. It has enormous significance, because when DeMint made that statement, he was referencing a very real Republican Party strategy to neuter Pres. Obama's presidency by standing in united opposition to everything he proposes or tries to do. So this is not about Jim Demint opposing “most” Democratic policies and opposing his agenda. It's about the entire Republican membership of Congress opposing all Democratic policies and opposing Obama's agenda.
And in fact, it's not even that. It's not about Republicans wanting to see their values reflected in Obama's policies or the Democratic majority's ideas. It's about blanket opposition to the Democrats, no matter what because that is the strategy that has been decided upon to defeat his presidency.
And I happen to think that that is something that a whole lot of people will remember for a very long time, most particularly at election time.
Actually, g.c., I never heard of a song called “all jacked up,” orGretchen Wilson, before you told me this.
But that's okay, my friend. True art knows no politics.
Kathy,
I never said anything about Hillary Clinton – you must be confusing me with someone else. Her little fib about bullets in Bosnia was moronic, but no more than that.
Oh, dduck probably. Sorry about that.
Here you go, Kathy. “All Jacked Up.” with Gretchen Wilson, with cameo appearances by Kid Rock, Charlie Daniels and Hank Williams, Jr.
http://vodpod.com/watch/861435-gretchen-wilson-… .
Kathy,
By “political” I mean it's not about policy, but about the partisan game that's played in Washington.
You even bolded the “all” but your claim simply isn't true. The GoP strongly supports the President's strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, so there are obviously limits to GoP opposition.
You say the GoP should want to “see their values” reflected in the Democrat's ideas? What? Are we both talking about the USA here? That makes no sense to me – let me explain with an example: Let's flip the coin, how could Democrats “see their values reflected” in GWB's plan to privatize part of social security? They can't. It's pretty much the same today for the health care “reform” bills. There's simply very little consensus on some issues.
So you're expecting the Democrats to get big gains in the races this year? Want to bet some beer on that?
As for DeMint, his opposition to Obama is more likely to help him that hurt him, so I ask again, what is the point of even bringing it up?
So you're expecting the Democrats to get big gains in the races this year?
Well, to be honest, not if Obama continues his policy shift toward Republicanism.
Want to bet some beer on that?
I loathe beer.
By “political” I mean it's not about policy, but about the partisan game that's played in Washington.
It is about policy. The “partisan game that's played in Washington” does not explain a Republican minority in Congress that not just votes against every — literally, every — piece of legislation the Democrats introduce, but obstructs the passage of literally every single piece of legislation to the limit of the extent that Senate rules will allow. That is a policy, and Jim DeMint was giving voice to it with that remark. No Democratic or Republican Congress has ever done that before.
The GoP strongly supports the President's strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, so there are obviously limits to GoP opposition.
The GOP does not strongly support the President's strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no legislation there for them to obstruct or vote against — although they did threaten to filibuster the omnibus bill that had the renewal for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they voted for the spending only after all their procedural roadblocks had been defeated. And they did all that, not so much to defeat the spending measure, but more because it was another mechanism to delay health care reform passage.
As for DeMint, his opposition to Obama is more likely to help him that hurt him, so I ask again, what is the point of even bringing it up?
Um, because I'm a political blogger and because I consider the Republican strategy that DeMint's remark is part of as a seriously anti-democratic (small d) policy and a threat to the functioning of government — if the minority party in Congress can successfully obstruct every item on the majority party's policy agenda — you know, the one that got them elected?
Not my type of music — but that Gretchen Wilson sure is purty! She looks like Crystal Gayle.
Ok, Kathy, we are really expanding the debate here and I don't think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I must say, though, that I'm quite disappointed that you don't like beer. And for the record, I don't consider “bud,” “lite,” MGD, etc to be real beer.
Country isn't everybody's cup of tea (or bottle of beer). Isn't mine most of the time, but now and then I find something funny or lively there. Of course, I did go to that Bonnie Raitt/Lyle Lovett concert with a country, blues flavor, and I do like Willie Nelson. Fer as purty goes, give me someone I can talk to in the morning (hoping that comment doesn't cross any lines).
Wasn't this post about honesty? No genre spends more time discussing lying and cheating than country music.
I plan to be more rational tomorrow. Talk to you then.
To me, it all tastes like acid and looks like soap.
I plan to be more rational tomorrow.
Oh, no!