In a Washington Post op-ed, former United States Senator and future Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint tells us at the end of paragraph 4 that "think tanks such as Heritage use objective analysis to discover why ideas work or don’t." Yet at the beginning of paragraph 3, DeMint, the sly devil, has already told us that "Conservative ideas work."
Which rather removes the suspense from Heritage's upcoming objective analyses of what works and what doesn't.
Here's one example of what DeMint regards as objective analysis: President Obama "disabled welfare reform last year, when he took away the work requirements that were at the heart of that law’s success." Now every objective objective analysis said that Obama did no such thing--in fact he was only accommodating state requests for more flexibility, which DeMint praises elsewhere in his op-ed ("the courage displayed by conservative leaders at the state level")--hence the what-works "conservative idea" that DeMint has in mind is, it would seem, nothing but bumbling mendacity.
Oh, and a nasty case of mindful forgetfulness. DeMint crows that Heritage "helped pioneer welfare reform," which President Clinton "was eventually forced to sign after vetoing it twice--a law that later, ironically, became a hallmark of his presidency"; yet no "ironic" mention is made of Heritage's pioneering of the totalitarian individual mandate and socialist ObamaCare.
DeMint's even daffier irony is, however, his thematic upshot. You no doubt recall DeMint & Assoc.'s gobsmacked guffawing when Obama confessed during his reelection campaign that his first-term communications and messaging game lacked oomph. Why, it's your policies, man, it's your ideas, they howled--that's why (or so they seemed to genuinely believe) you're losing, and no amount of slicker communications will help. So what is DeMint's prescription for his ailing brand of conservatism? "We need to ... communicate more effectively."
Well, Senator, having read your incorrigibly tangled op-ed, I have to agree with you there.