« MoveOn Not Convinced--Rallies Members To Urge White House To Support The Public Option | Home | Reid To Baucus: Ditch Efforts At Bipartisanship »
DeMint Compares Honduras Coup To Franken's Election
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who has been a staunch supporter of the recent coup in Honduras against leftist President Manuel Zelaya, made a rather interesting comparison on the Senate floor today:
"On what basis does the Administration demand Zelaya's reinstatement?" DeMint asked. "His removal from office was no more a coup than was Gerald Ford's ascendance to the Oval Office, or our newest colleague Al Franken's election to the Senate."
Um...I thought Republicans were calling Franken's election an illegitimate coup!
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Jesus, I am so sick of Republicans pushing the notion that any time a Democrat is elected to anything, it's the equivalent of a coup. Actually, I'm more than just tired of it, it is beginning to scare me. How long can they keep thumping on that before some nutcase decides to take the AK-47 out of the basement and take out a few of the people the Jim DeMints and Rush Limbaughs have said are stealing the country?
They need to be called on this every time they say it. They need to be asked why they have a problem with the democratic process.
Richard Nixon left office voluntarily. Nobody came to the White House in the middle of the night to arrest him and put him on a plane out of the country in his PJs. Granted, he was facing impeachment, but impeachment is a process that is provided for in the US Constitution, requiring public charges, a laying out of evidence, a defense for the accused, and a public vote. In no way is it anything like what happened in Honduras.
July 7, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if David Broder will call out Jim DeMint for incivility and call him a loudmouth? I don't think I'll hold my breath until he does.
July 7, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe David Brooks will do it. He's all into civility today.
July 7, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incessant and dogged denial of the legitimacy of any aspect of the Democratic victory of 08, or implying such, is part of the GOP strategy to take back in 2010 or 2012.
July 7, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't think DeMint is explicitly illegitimizing Franken here; rather he's legitimizing Zelaya's removal. He equates Franken's election with Ford's ascension after Nixon resigned, which one would have to assume is considered legit pretty much across the board. Which isn't to say he's not intentionally implanting subliminal references. It just seems hard to nail him here for impugning the MN Supreme Court.
July 7, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, but claiming that the coup was legitimate has just as many problems. I've been hearing this all over the right wing for a while now...saying it wasn't a "coup" but rather an "impeachment." I guess equating a military takeover to a lawful removal from office by a legislature isn't any crazier than the other stuff they say though.
July 7, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't know the details of Honduran law, but let's say for a sec that Nixon was impeached and convicted by the Senate but refused to leave the White House.
I COULD take armed men to go in and get him, I suppose.
So just the fact that the military escorted him out of the country doesn't mean that the wheels of their government did not turn like they were supposed to.
However, I'm surprised he used Franken as an example rather than Bush the Lesser, who was inserted into office by the Supreme Court, not by vote of the people.
July 7, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more complicated than that. It's like if the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes, he refused, that night the Marines flew him to Mexico in his PJs, and the next day the Senate voted unanimously to remove him. Validated after the fact, and the president was in the wrong in the first place, but hardly done according to procedure.
July 7, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't make sense, either. Nobody had voted for Ford to be president; he had been chosen by Nixon to take Agnew's place as Vice-President after Agnew resigned. The Senate voted to confirm the choice, but Ford had not been elected by the general electorate to the office of either president or vice-president.
Al Franken won a legitimate election. Yes, it was close, and yes, there was a dispute over the results; the dispute was litigated under previously established rules, and Franken was ruled the winner of a majority of the legitimate votes cast.
I am sick and tired of Republicans always trying to make it sound as if recounts are somehow illegitimate unless they result in a Republican victory.
July 8, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe De Mint was trying to make a joke. Perhaps in honor of the comedian Al Franken being elected to the Senate.
But seriously, the best response to something like this is mockery, and I know just the guy who can do it. Al Franken, you are arriving in the Senate not a moment too soon.
http://www.hopeandchange.net/2009/06/congratulations-to-senator-franken.html
July 7, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a dumbass. How could a Senator be that stupid?
July 7, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I agree with your sentiment, with all due respect, may I remind you of Ben Nelson and Jim Inhofe?
July 7, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The list is looooooong and not so distinguished.
Sessions
Kyl
LIEberman
Martinez
Chambliss
McConnell
Bunning
Ensign
Imhofe
Coburn
Corker
Conryn
etc
July 8, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did he twitter this yet? I'm getting my @jimdemint lines ready.
July 7, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://twitter.com/JimDeMint
July 7, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
sore
loser
July 7, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think De Mint just used political ju jitsu to punch himself in the face.
July 7, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
DeMint is the male (I'm pretty sure) version of Michelle Bachmann, always good for a loony quote. Why are so many of our lawmakers total bozos? Is this what the founding fathers had in mind? I don't think so.
July 7, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the founding fathers didn't believe in the direct election of senators. DeMint might help illustrate why they didn't.
July 7, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we could have Senators appointed by Palin, Sanford, Blagojevich,, etc. As for me, I'd rather have Klobuchar & Franken than whoever Pawlenty might put in.
Sorry, but Demint got the votes of his state. It's the majority of voters there who are delusional morons. He's just representin'...
July 7, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
South Carolina --- Sanford, DeMint, Thurmond. My birth state, Oklahoma, is not quite as benighted.
July 8, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...you forgot our Miss Lindsey Graham! There are even many more up-and-comers on the Repub side that may make DeMint and Graham look good by comparison.
And also, doesn't Oklahoma give us the joke that keeps on giving, one Inhofe? If I were a card player I'd say he alone is worth three Grahams, and maybe two DeMints.
Klan robes Thurmond is gone, but de mortuis nil nisi bonum...just sayin'.
July 8, 2009 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does DeMint's remark qualify as a Hoekstra-ism?
Roundabout, but, still.
July 8, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink