Sen. DeMint told The Daily Caller, “I really don’t want Ron Paul to drop out until whoever our front-runner is is collecting some of the ideas that he’s talking about.”

Though the senator has predicted that Mitt Romney will win the South Carolina primary, he himself has not endorsed any of the “not-Romney” candidates. Yet, Mr. DeMint has a suggestion for his party:

The debate in the Republican Party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives. … There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.

Sen. DeMint, who has spent much of his political career fighting against big government, went on to say, ““I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

Though Ron Paul has acknowledged that he might not make it to the nomination, he hopes that his supporters will have a major role in the national party organization. “The more delegates I have, the more leverage I have,” Dr. Paul said in a New York Times interview. “We’ll go after delegates, and we have staying power.”

Perhaps the issue that divides conservatives and libertarians the most is that of foreign policy. Sen. DeMint states:

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy and his disengagement around the world, but we’re going to end up where he is because we don’t have any money. So the Republican Party needs to become the big tent of Americans who really want freedom, prosperity, opportunity and that’s just synonymous with a more limited government.

Sen. DeMint’s approach is right on. The “not-Ron Paul” candidates all have gaps in their conservatism, some more than others. The area of agreement between “true” conservatives and libertarians is limited government and a balanced budget. While most conservatives agree, along with Sen. DeMint, that Ron Paul’s foreign policy dictates “disengagement,” Congressman Paul’s continued presence in the race will push the other candidates toward a fiscal policy that will be compatible with both true conservatives and libertarians. Ultimately, if Ron Paul, in fact, is not the nominee, he who is nominated will need to move- and stay- on the side of limited government. In addition, if both true conservatives and libertarians begin to use the same language, i.e., small government, limited government, freedoms, liberty, prosperity, opportunity, etc., they can, together, work to elect a Congress in which those who believe in smaller government will be the majority. A president who is lacking, in any way, in limited government philosophy, will then be checked by a Congress in which liberals and moderates are the minority.

The obvious way for true conservatives and libertarians to intersect is through the Tea Party movement. Both political philosophies have had a major presence in the Tea Party, and have contributed greatly to its rise. Libertarian Ron Paul is often termed, the Founder of the Tea Party, yet conservative Michele Bachmann heads the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. The Tea Party movement is also clearly identified by its opposition: liberals who have labeled it “extreme.” The candidates who decide to reach out to the Tea Party will have the best chance of securing the nomination, when true conservatives and libertarians, much of the Republican electorate, emphasize that limited government, balanced budgets, freedom, and prosperity are the goals.

A freedom-loving, limited government senator is calling all true conservatives and libertarians to a conversation that may truly save the nation from further tyranny. Will they answer the call?

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) were both elected to the Senate in 2010. Sen. Johnson was elected with the strong backing of the tea party and conservative Senate recruiter, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S. Carolina). Sen. Blunt spent 14 years in the House of Representatives prior to his election to the Senate.

Now, both Senators have dismissed the idea that their contest is about the old guard GOP versus true conservatives. Sen. Johnson, in particular, notes that he believes his years of business experience, prior to his election to the Senate, are what cause him to stand out as a candidate for the vice chairman’s position. “I also bring the perspective of somebody from the outside — somebody totally foreign to Washington, and that’s a very valuable perspective,” he said.

The Heritage Action for America (HAFA) scorecard, which provides a rating that measures legislators on conservative policies and values, gives Sen. Johnson a 91% rating, and Sen. Blunt a 64% score.

Nevertheless, it is the way in which the contest between the two senators came about that has perhaps created a bit more tension. According to RedState, up until this week, Sen. Johnson was the only candidate for the vice chairman’s position, and the election was scheduled for January. However, Sen. Blunt announced his candidacy on Tuesday of this week, an action which was followed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Kentucky) decisions to move up the election to next week, rather than January, and to begin a supportive campaign for Sen. Blunt.

Conservative Republicans will need the strength of the vice chairman’s post to bring about the reforms needed in the country. Sen. Johnson has not only stuck to the principles he put forward when he ran for the Senate, but he is also known as a bridge builder between conservatives and establishment Republicans- something years of business experience has taught him.

About the two Senate candidates, Sen. DeMint said, “Roy is a friend of mine, but Ron Johnson is what I consider the right face for the Republican Party. He’s a nonpolitician, business guy, reform-minded.”

If you have a Republican Senator, think about calling him or her to speak about this important vote.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is no stranger to fights with party leadership. And he’s not holding back in his criticism of the so-called “Plan B” that’s being developed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). In an exclusive interview with The Heritage Foundation this afternoon, DeMint didn’t hold back:

It seems to be a cover-up to me. It’s like I’ve said, it’s like leaving the door to the federal vault open, looking the other way, and saying we had nothing to do with the robbery. The debt limit is set up to keep us from increasing our debt without Congressional action—hopefully to reform the spending process.

He blamed President Obama for politicizing the debt-limit debate rather than seeking a consensus.

“I’m convinced the president has not been negotiating in good faith. He’s got a bad economy. His policies have made it worse. And he’s hoping this debt-limit debate will allow him to blame Republicans.”

The interview runs about 4 minutes. Hosted by Rob Bluey and produced by Brandon Stewart, with help from Hannah Sternberg.

Fortunately, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and some other Republican senators have introduced a new bill entitled the Retirement Freedom Act (RFA), which hopes to allow individuals to opt out of Medicare Part A without forfeiting Social Security benefits. In addition, the RFA  is expected to bring an estimated immediate savings of $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds, even if only 1 percent of eligible seniors opt out of Medicare Part A in favor of private health care insurance.

Medicare and Social Security first became linked together in 1993, when a Clinton administration program rule, i.e. government bureaucrats, unnecessarily tied these two government programs together without review by the elected representatives of the American people. However, in 2008, a lawsuit, entitled Hall v. Sebelius, filed by several seniors, challenged the Clinton-era rule. The seniors, who had all contributed to Medicare and Social Security throughout their employment histories, argued that the applications for Medicare and Social Security benefits are voluntary and not dependent on each other, and that forced participation in Medicare violates the right to privacy. They concluded that they should be able to opt out of Medicare, as their health insurance plan, without forfeiting their Social Security benefits.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this lawsuit is that U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, who heard the case, had sided with the plaintiffs throughout much of its duration, ruling that “neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare.” At one point, Judge Collyer even refused the Obama administration’s request for dismissal of the case.

Nevertheless, in a stunning reversal, in late March of this year, the judge wrote that “requiring a mechanism for plaintiffs and others in their situation to ‘dis-enroll’ would be contrary to congressional intent, which was to provide ‘mandatory’ benefits under Medicare Part A and for those receiving Social Security Retirement benefits.”

Essentially, Judge Collyer ruled that an “entitlement” is “mandatory.” It’s not hard to see that the main concepts of this case are but a heartbeat away from Obamacare, which, essentially, will be Medicare for everyone if it is allowed to reach its final destination.

By introducing the Retirement Freedom Act, Sen. DeMint and the other Senate Republicans are not only underscoring the importance of healthcare freedom for seniors, but they are also modeling a parallel course for the repeal of Obamacare as well. If Americans “opt out” of government entitlement programs, federal spending will clearly be cut. And while it may be worthwhile to argue the constitutionality of government healthcare in the judiciary, ultimately, Americans should want their elected officials, not judges, to remove the barriers to their personal freedom.

Conservatives want their proposal to set the stage for upcoming spending fights over the 2011 continuing resolution, debt ceiling and fiscal 2012 budget. It’s as much a signal to Republican leadership as it is to President Obama that conservatives are committed to courageous ideas.

The proposal comes amid new fears among conservatives that GOP leaders are hedging on their “Pledge to America” campaign promise to cut $100 billion in federal spending by returning to fiscal 2008 levels.

Because the 2011 continuing resolution expires in March — five months into the current fiscal year — there is concern Republicans might reduce the $100 billion figure by prorating it.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, is circulating a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ensure the GOP keeps its $100 billion promise.

“We believe the first step in restoring the trust of the American people and rebuilding the American economy is, simply, to do what we said we would do during the campaign,” Jordan wrote in the letter. “Our first opportunity to do so will be upon us shortly.”

With the 2011 continuing resolution expiring March 4 and the debt ceiling debate not far behind, conservatives sense a golden opportunity to make major cuts to the the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) joined Jordan and Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) on a conference call last night to unveil the bill. They stressed the importance of putting forward a strong proposal early.

“Every Republican is committed to cutting spending,” Jordan said. “The question is to what degree.”

DeMint vowed to “make it an issue” in the Senate, where even some in his own party opposed an earmark moratorium — a mere fraction of the spending reductions in the RSC proposal.

The rescission bill, known as the Spending Reduction Act, would freeze discretionary spending through 2021 at 2006 levels for a savings of $2.29 trillion over 10 years. It eliminates unspent stimulus funding — approximately $45 billion — and ends federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for a savings of $30 billion. It also repeals $16.1 billion worth of Medicaid money.

The RSC also names specific programs that it would put on the chopping block. More than 100 would be cut — from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Endowment for the Arts to beach replenishment and an Obamacare administrative fund.

Even with $2.5 trillion in cuts, the proposal won’t balance the budget. Jordan said forthcoming RSC measure would address that goal — similar to one offered last year that brought the budget into balance within 10 years.

The RSC proposal comes just days before President Obama’s annual address to Congress. According to the New York Times Magazine, “Obama plans to use the State of the Union to present himself as a fiscal conservative.” For anyone to take that claim seriously, Obama’s proposals should be measured against the Spending Reduction Act.

Senate Republican Leaders have led an effort to beat back DeMint’s proposal in an effort to save earmarking.  An Earmark is a special project, usually secured by a lobbyist friend of the politician, for a project in a Senator’s home state.  See Bridge to Nowhere is an excellent example of an earmark.  An earmark is a means for Members of Congress to send federal money to projects favored by the member.  These members are elitists who think the Tea Party movement will tolerate Republicans going back to the free spending ways of the Bush years.

On Tuesday, Senator DeMint is forcing a vote on a proposal to change the rules of the Senate Republican Caucus to ban earmarks for two years.  Seems like a proposal that makes sense, yet the elites and lobbyists are angry.  Leaders of the party are fighting against DeMint to make sure that they can preserve earmarking.  They just don’t get it and believe that the Tea Party movement is here to serve selfish politics.

There is no greater symbol of “big government” than earmarks — those pesky little things that Members use to reward campaign contributors or send taxpayer money to their states and districts — and that Congressional “leadership” uses to pass huge spending bills.  In fact, it was Republicans who used earmarks to grow government during the Bush years.  And now, of course, the Pelosi and Reid machine churns out earmarks relentlessly — 15,000 of them last year — many sponsored by Republicans.

This week Boehner and crew will vote to ban earmarks for two years — great — while there is a contentious debate raging in the Senate Republican Conference.   The expected Speaker of the House John Boehner gets it and House Republican Leadership is complying with the wishes of the Tea Party movement.  Boehner hears the Tea Party movement and is listening to them.  That is more than can be said of Senator Mitch McConnell who is fighting the Tea Party movement.  McConnell loves his pork more than he likes the Tea Party.

In one corner you have recovering earmarker Jim DeMint, who together with Tom Coburn and a number of other Senators (old and new — including John Cornyn and Rand Paul), have offered a resolution to ban Republican Senators from requesting earmarks for two years — in line with what Boehner and Cantor are doing in the House.  Apparently unable to stop sucking at the “trough” of big government for even a short amount of time, Senators McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Jim Inhofe, Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby and Roger Wicker are fighting even the slightest semblance of a slowdown in earmarks.

In defending his right to steal people’s money, Inhofe doesn’t mince words — saying that folks who question why federal taxpayer money is going to Oklahoma — are “brainwashed” or pushing a “phony issue.”

If you care about controlling the size of government, CALL OR WRITE TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE (and those that just got elected).  Taxpayers Against Earmarks has a great website and is tracking the Senate GOP Conference vote.  Their tally is here:  Vote Tally.  They also have the phone number and email link for every Republican Senator and Senator-Elect.

Some Senate Republicans are laughing at the Tea Party movement and they don’t think you will speak up.  Make Senate Republican Leadership back down.  Don’t let big spending Senate Republicans steal all that was gained on Election Day, because of the Tea Party movement.  Don’t let them screw you over and spend all of your money.

Others fear that for all their trouble from organizing, holding rallies and knocking on doors, they will only replace the leftist Democrats with RINO Republicans who will squander the victory.  Will we get Speaker Boehner, or a fresh new conservative leader who will truly take a big stick to big government.   A closer look at the numbers should give conservatives reason to be really excited and also a cause for continued resolve.

If you want a conservative Congress, you have to ask yourself just what kind of conservative are you after.  Drew Kurlowski, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Missouri who studies voting behavior and partisanship, referred me to a dataset popular with political science academics called DW-Nominate.  It is a tremendous resource that meticulously compiles the voting records of the Congress going back to the 1st Congress.  If you want to know who George Washington’s favorite conservative was, this is your site.  Moreover, they settled on a definition of “conservative” that is tremendously useful.  Move over “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative” and make room for (limited) “government intervention in the economy”.  Let’s call it L’GIE.  So who are the liggies?

That most potent army of political groupies has one more reason to crow about  Congressman Ron Paul.   He sets the bar as a champion of limited government.  No one is close.  For the rest of the nation, imagine what a force his son, Senate candidate Rand Paul will be in the Senate.  ”Senator Paul” is just the beginning.

By sorting the Senate in order of most conservative to least, it is no surprise that the fiscal champion, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma gets the award.  Conservative darling, Jim DeMint is close behind. Which one of them will run from President?  Hint:  I asked Coburn’s office already, someone needs to call DeMint.

Another trend is fun to see but stands as no great surprise.  The sisters from Maine, Senators Snowe and Collins compete for dead last among Republicans but still destroy every single Democrat.

Here is where it gets fun for conservatives.  There are five Republican House members making strong bids for the Senate.  None of them ranks lower than the Senator being challenged.   In Missouri, Roy Blunt is running extremely hard and looks almost a shoe-in to replace Kit Bond.  Bond ranks a surprisingly low 35 out of 40 on the conservative scale.  By contrast, Roy Blunt would join the Senate as the 6^th most conservative on the L’IGGE scale.    Illinoisans may finally be so fed up with infamous Chicago Democrat corruption that they will elect Republican Congressman Mark Kirk.  While the Illinois Tea Party activists preferred Patrick Hughes, it may be a nice consolation prize to hear that Mark Kirk at 23, is eight points to the right of Bond.  It is important to note, that Kirk is pro-choice while Bond is pro-life.  Also, because the House and Senate members do not take the identical votes, comparisons are imperfect yet illustrative.

This data will surprise a lot of patriotic Tea Party activists who are disappointed by Mssrs Blunt and Kirk for support for the high profile TARP and “cash for clunkers” votes.   High profile votes however, often overshadow the facts in balance.  According to Kurlowski, “I think it is a fair assessment to say that Blunt has compiled a more conservative record in the House, than Bond has in the Senate. The DW-Nominate scores show it, and ideological rankings from major interest groups on both sides of the aisle confirm the data.”   The same surprisingly, applies to Kirk.  So the Illinoisans who suffered under liberals Durbin (10^th), Burris (97^th) and Obama, for many years left casting an occasional jealous gaze across the Mighty Mississippi River upon Missourians who enjoyed 18 years of Kit Bond’s leadership, now have the opportunity to install a centrist technically  more conservative than Bond!  Happy Day!

All told, taking the House and vastly improving the Senate, conservatives have a lot to be excited about.  The next vote will be for a Republican Speaker, and quite possibly, Republican Senate Majority Leader.   The next task for patriots is to challenge their delegates to vote for conservative leadership.  You rose up and elected them, now tell them what you want.