• #3
    First of all, good riddance Jim. Don't let that Senate door slap you on the butt on your way out.

    Second, I have no clue it this means a decline in Tea Party influence. One would hope so. All they have done is screw up an already screwed process.
  • #2
    It's a win win for we the people. Deleting his intellectual contribution from congress, a win. Adding him to Heritage diminishes their creditability even lower than it is now. If ever there was a definition of an oxymoron, describing the Heritage Foundation a think tank is it
  • #16
    He has his work cut out for him at Heritage, but Michael Lind is not the one to look to for worthwhile criticism of the organization.
  • #20
    Nope, Think Tanks, like The Heritage Foundation, are incubation of policy. Say you think global warming is crap. You hire someone like Pacific Research Institute (PRI) to do a study. They know who is paying them and act accordingly. A white paper is presented at American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, also conservative. In 2007, PRI presented, "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators." as well as the documentary,"an inconvenient truth ....or convenient fiction" which was filmed at The Heritage Foundation.

    If you want to really understand an issue, you need to hear presentations from all sides. If you want to prove your point of view, you can arrange to have research done to substantiate it. Having people willing to pay for these things helps.

    These presentations are open to anyone. If you go to Wikipedia, look up think tanks and then visit their sites. Upcoming sessions are listed along with RSVP forms. The National Press Club has sessions open to the public too. CSPAN records and broadcasts some of the sessions as well.

    The people in charge of these groups have tremendous invisible power. I was on The Heritage Foundation VIP list, even though I am a progressive. Good manners and respect will get you far. The people I
  • #42
    We agree to a fine degree, but I have a different take on the function of think tanks. Rather than serving as incubators of policy, I see them functioning as implementors of an agenda.

    As you observed, goal-oriented research is readily available at retail .(full disclosure: I have ghostwritten research papers for pay, including doctoral theses.) This the mechanism by which wealthy donors, including George Soros and the Koch brothers, broadcast their agendas. Before the first check is written policy has been decided. Think tanks serve admirably in supplying the scholarly PR pros that populate Sunday morning chat shows.

    All that is fun for wonks like me but normal people live happy and full lives without paying much attention beyond what is needed to operate the voting machine. And that's a good thing.
  • #44
    @DARSB What I saw in DC was different. Before decisions were made on big issues, at the stage where congress was forming their opinions, the think tanks presented papers and discussion panels on issues to inform our elected officials, senior government employees, embassy's, etc. Each sent staff to the sessions to listen and report back. While Bush II was president, it was clear Iran was working toward nuclear electricity or weapons. It was too early to tell which. The think tanks has sessions on Iran. Every view point imaginable was discussed. The same with ending the Iraq War. That was years away, but it was a major topic of presentations. The ideas came out of the panel discussions and white papers presented at the think tanks. By the time a bill is written the idea has been discussed, in depth, for quiet awhile. This is not directed at the voters, our opinion doesn't even matter! The think tanks court congress to present and vote for the legislation they favor. It is marketing, money in motion, smoke and mirrors and there is nothing good about it. They pretend to be scholarly experts and that are presenting the facts, however, they are experts paid to present a view point, both to congress and on the news. They are experts in defending their group's ideals. There is nothing scholarly about it. It is all about money and not about the facts.

    I believe that what we want when we vote and what congress delivers are totally different. Most people have no idea how their representatives vote. Scott Brown was almost able to convince Mass voters that he voted for women and not along party lines -- he is an independent. His voting record disagrees, he votes with his party over 2/3 of the time and his stance on the issues based on his voting record is conservative. Has he voted in the interest of the people of Massachusetts?
  • #37
    Jim DeMint. What can I say? Most anti-gay senator since Rick Santorum. Me's basically Fred Phelps. Tea bagger nut who ironically helped Dems by helping getting insane crazy tea baggers on the ballot only to lose in the election. Remember Christine O'Donnell? Remember Todd Akin? All supported by Jim Demint.
  • #32
    He is most likely thinking that it is time to make some big money and protect it before the liberal leaches of the country get a stronger hold on the cash cow?
  • #31
    for all you conservative/soon to be liberal lock in step progressives hoe's -our founding fathers had a quote for you...If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    Samuel Adams
  • #30
    no it's a sign that fiscal conservatism does not have a place in American governance.

    I don't blame him he is just banging his head against a wall ,the Democrats and most of the GOP are going to spend us into a doomsday scenario anyway..

  • #28
    A quiter that will still get his BIG salary for doing nothing.
    Plus his health plan golden parachute ALL paid by the tax payers.
  • #26
    I don't think this indicates Tea Party decline, however, what a waste of supporter dollars to leave after 2 years. The word "quitter" comes to mind.
  • #24
    Sayonara, Jimbo! Any time a theocrat leaves office, that's nothing but good news for this country. And all to become King of the Whackaloons at the Koch Brothers' Heritage. If they weren't fresh out of ideas before,.....
  • #21
    I wonder if people realize that GOP Gov. Nikki Haley will most likely assign another Senator aligning with the GOP to replace Sen. DeMint. That replacement will have 4 years in the U.S. Senate. There really is no change in the demographics here. It's SC, a Conservative State. Figured I'd pass the word before liberals start drooling...
  • #23
    Short of a hood and sheet, DeMint is about as far right as it get's in America and while the Neo-Cons will never admit to the virtues of Unions, the Senate is the country's worst Union of all. Whoever is appointed will not seniority and therefore will not sit on important committees for the rest of this term. Unless SC elected a grand dragon of the KKK they could not get any further right than DeMint. Anything should be an improvement.
  • #45
    @jessejaymes kinda like Reid, TV's rachel madcow and chris matthews for democrat socialist left wing extremist? Please.
  • #46
    @Republican5001 Sorry I don't play the "yeah but the other side is worse". Both sides are corrupt to the core and the sins of the "other side" doesn't justify the sins of your side.
  • #48
    @Republican5001 The KKK was founded in a Baptist "Christian Church" by Democrats. For decades they were all "Democrats". Today they are all GOP and Libertarians. I don't play that game of "yeah but the other side is worse." No they're not. Corrupt to the core is corrupt to the core. You can keep score. I don't need to.
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    Is DeMint's departure a sign that the tea party is losing strength?

    I'm looking forward to S. C.'s Gov. appointing Scott. He's a solid conservative who'll have the remainder of the term to show what he can do. This may be a good move for the Tea Party.
  • R Load more comments...