South Carolina: Just Say No to Obamney
The Palmetto State is known as a bastion for American conservatism. If that reputation is well-deserved, then South Carolinians will do their civic duty and reject Mitt Romney – the candidate that repudiates everything conservatism is supposed to stand for – in their crucial primary on January 21st.
Since the dawn of the contemporary primary process, no Republican presidential candidate has won the nomination without winning the South Carolina primary. Given the changes to this year’s process like the emergence of SuperPacs, delegates being proportionally allocated as opposed to winner-take-all, and the more drawn out primary calendar, that trend may or may not continue. Despite all the media hype over his second place finish in Iowa (if the Appanoose County chairman is to be believed) and his win in New Hampshire, Romney has less than 2% of the delegates it takes to actually clinch the nomination.
Nevertheless, there’s no doubt the vital importance South Carolina will provide from a momentum standpoint, and there’s no doubt that momentum fuels perception of where the race stands for the states (like Florida) still to come.
This is why if you’re one of the 75% of Republican primary voters who want anyone other than Obamney…err…make that Romney as your nominee, then South Carolina is the place to take a stand against media-anointed frontrunners. The same media that chose John McCain as our nominee four years ago only to hammer him in the general, are doing the same thing all over again this time with
There are three primary reasons South Carolina primary voters should reject the media and Republicrat establishment’s attempt to shove
Obamney Romney down our throats.
Obamney Romney accepts the Left’s premise on most key issues.
His economic plan doesn’t call for an overhaul or reform of a corrupt tax-and-spend system, but rather the hackneyed class warfare middle-class “targeted” tax cuts the Left usually argues for. This is why the Wall Street Journal referred to
Obamney’s Romney’s economic plan as “timid.” He raised taxes and fees by $700 million as governor of Massachusetts, which empowers the tax-takers as not the taxpayers.
Crony capitalism and targeted tax cuts as opposed to real, pro-growth reform. Does that sound more like a conservative, or more like a Democrat?
Obamney Romney has refused to sign the Personhood or Susan B. Anthony pledges, so he can claim all he wants that he’s had a sincere pro-life conversation but actions speak louder than words. Since his alleged pro-life conversion, Obamney Romney signed into law taxpayer-funded abortions for only $50/kill, appointed a Planned Parenthood presence to a permanent post on a Massachusetts state medical board (without appointing someone who is pro-life), appointed pro-abort judges, and expanded access to abortifacients.
Pretending to be personally pro-life while advocating and enacting anti-life policies? Does that sound more like a conservative, or more like a Democrat?
In 2008 Barack Obama stated he believed marriage should be between one man and one woman, but that he was in favor civil unions and in favor of imaginary “homosexual rights.” That is verbatim the same position
Obamney Romney took in a recent New Hampshire primary, when he proudly made the case he’s a champion of imaginary rights that if enforced will restrict your God-given right to religious freedom, and even admitted to appointing homosexual activist judges in Massachusetts. Anybody that shares Obama’s passion for promoting moral depravity cannot be counted on to defend moral values like marriage, which is why Obamney Romney again reiterated his support for civil unions (so-called homosexual marriage by another name shortly after giving a speech at the 2011 Values Voters Summit. And according to Mat Staver at Liberty Counsel, Romney disobeyed his own state’s constitution to wrongly impose so-called homosexual marriage when the Massachusetts Constitution explicitly forbids the courts from changing the marriage law.
Not defending marriage while claiming to be for it, and then actually pursuing the policies of the homosexual lobby which undermine marriage and morality. Does that sound more like a conservative, or more like a Democrat?
When it comes to
Obamney Romney this disturbing trend shows up on every single issue. Obamney Romney was for Massachusetts’ “tough” gun laws before becoming a life-long member of the NRA. Obamney Romney was for amnesty before he was against it. Obamney Romney was against the Bush tax cuts that saved us from a post-9/11 recession, and now he’s running as the economic mastermind who can get America back to work again. Up until the summer of 2011 Obamney Romney was an adherent of global warming mythology. And of course, Obamney Romney signed into law the very model for Obamacare, complete with its own government mandate.
2) Electability = Wreckability
Whether someone believes in limited government or not, or is pro-life or not, can be objectively defined. What is totally subjective is the issue of electability, and often the candidates who only have to meet that subjective threshold end up becoming the worst train wrecks once in office because they are people of position and not conviction.
The reason why is simple, really. After all, who determines who is “electable?” It’s often the same liberal media and Republicrat establishment that most opposes the principles that make us conservatives, that’s who. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise the candidates our opponents think are the most “electable” end up opposing us once they’re elected.
In my own state a RINO governor won the 2010 primary because he was the most “electable.” Now in office he wants to increase spending by hundreds of millions while flirting with raising the regressive gas tax, which is something the Democrat incumbent he was running against wasn’t even willing to do.
If a candidate isn’t willing to take bold and defined stands on the campaign trail when it’s in his own best interest to do so, I can promise you he’ll never do it while in office when it’s our best interests on the line.
Obamney Romney’s history shows he’s at best an opportunistic moderate, if not an outright malleable RINO.
We must remember that after the emotion of the election and the competitive fervor of Republicans vs. Democrats wears off, the winners still get to govern. The decisions they make could last a lifetime, especially because the winner gets to determine an infrastructure that lasts long after they’re in office. Think of all the political offspring Ronald Reagan gave birth to long after he left the White House, and now imagine
Obamney Romney doing the same.
3) For such a time as this.
Not since 1980 has the country been more eager to evict a liberal Democrat from the oval office. In that election we were blessed to get a true contrast in Reagan nominated, and the rest is history.
That opportunity exists again in 2012.
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are all key battleground states that Obama won four years ago. They’re also all states that went Republican in the 2010 midterm elections and are now trending against the president. There is simply no way a Democrat can get the necessary 270 Electoral College votes without a majority of those states, and a Democrat with high unemployment and a bad economy on his record isn’t winning a majority of those states. He might not even win any of them.
This is a chance to put someone in office that has actually done the things
Obamney Romney use to oppose and is now promising to do.
That’s why I’m supporting Newt Gingrich for president, and I encourage my South Carolina listeners to do the same.