Wednesday, September 22, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesThe "Bain" of Obama and other anti-Romneys: Mitt wins SC

The “Bain” of Obama and other anti-Romneys: Mitt wins SC

Mitt’s free market capitalism brand is the best bet to drink at an Obama re-election denial tea party

The depths of Great Depression II and the historic 2010 tea partier conservative-driven Republican Party mid-term landslide encouraged dreams of a Reagan-like 2012 GOP nominee to retire President Barack Obama to a resumption of his autobiographical writing career.

The crashing sounds of Bachmann’s looseness with the facts, Cain’s knowledge gaps and Perry’s non-creative vulture mis-sighting-destruction awoke this South Carolina gamecock from Utopian REM eye-battings to the reality of imperfect choices absent Gippers and Silent Cals.

We so wanted one of the most historically reliable conservatives to be the 2012 standard bearer for our Party of Lincoln. But we learn anew that voters can’t rehabilitate those with character lapses or lacking the campaign skills required in the second decade of the 21st Century. We can’t blame voters in Iowa, New Hampshire nor the Palmetto State for weighing electability based on actual campaign performance, much less 11th hour anti-capitalist attacks against companies that make offers to buy other companies that are accepted by those other companies.

We are proud of our fellow social conservative from the Keystone State for vigorously defending the heart of conservatism, i.e. the free market capitalism of Mitt Romney, even if he is the lone remaining obstacle to a Rick Santorum as GOP presidential nominee. We would be proud to support him or Jon Huntsman in the Fall. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich lost us with their leftist attacks on Bain Capital.

But when we factor in all of the issues and electability, George Will’s minimization of the urgency of the latter notwithstanding, we must now endorse the former governor of the Bay State and believe that the primary voters of our native Palmetto State will once again choose the GOP nominee when a plurality of them vote for Mitt Romney in 11 days.

Do I think Rick Santorum could defeat Barack Obama? I do. The smug President of Food Stamp Nation that voted for all the policies that led to this recession and who focused on stimulus pay-offs to state government union dues paying workers, oil drilling moratoriums, Keystone Pipeline job delays and fundamentally changing America via ObamaCare, would have a hard time garnering more electoral votes than even a warm bucket of non-Ron Paul-flavored spit.

But Mitt Romney is the better choice between those left standing on the issues, campaign skills and electability.

President Obama must be removed from office. His removal alone will spark a major economic recovery by bringing investor capital off of the sidelines where fear of what Obama could do next, and the certainty of what he won’t do, now rules.

Obamacare must be repealed and it won’t be if Obama is re-elected. The beltway George Wills counsel that we have “survived” equally bad presidencies and that no “apocalypse” will result from an Obama “stymied” by a GOP-majority House and Senate.

Mere survival and stymieing? Avoiding apocalypse? Is that the standard for a GOP “win”, even if that were the only goal? We can’t reverse any of the decades-long big government creep that Will bemoans with mere stymieing.

Mitt Romney will unleash the American economy, defend the nation from evil enemies and be a social conservative advocate. Yes, I believe his pro-life epiphany was sincere.

Mitt Romney believes in America. His goals are not George Will minimalism “informed” by a fantasy of a Congress-led 19th Century America. Since Washington, America is best governed, first and foremost, when we choose at least one man with courage that can make a majority. Mitt can be that man.

In the wake of Romney’s Granite State win, we hear:

And this President wakes up every morning, looks out across America and is proud to announce, “It could be worse.”

It could be worse? Is that what it means to be an American? It could be worse?

Of course not.

What defines us as Americans is our unwavering conviction that we know it must be better.

That conviction guides our campaign.  It has rallied millions of Americans in every corner of this country to our cause.

Over the last six months, I’ve listened to anxious voices in town meetings and visited with students and soldiers.  In break rooms and living rooms, I’ve heard stories of families getting by on less, of carefully planned retirements now replaced by jobs at minimum wage.  But even now, amidst the worst economy since the Great Depression, I’ve rarely heard a refrain of hopelessness.

Americans know that our future is brighter and better than these troubled times.  We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America.  We still believe in that shining city on a hill.

We know that the future of this country is better than 8 or 9% unemployment.

It is better than $15 trillion in debt.

It is better than the misguided policies and broken promises of the last three years – and the failed leadership of one man.

The President has run out of ideas.  Now, he’s running out of excuses.  And tonight, we are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation.  This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision.  I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique — We are One Nation, Under God.

Mitt Romney has the Reagan vision and will make us proud as the next President of the United States.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor – Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Mike gamecock DeVine
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009. www.devinelawvista.com

17 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

17 COMMENTS

  1. I find myself in the unusual position of being in disagreement with you GC (but unlike at other blogs, do so respectfully 🙂

    Several points of contention but I will limit it to two: 1) how can the guy whose health care plan in MA was the father of ObamaCare a) be a free market guy; and, b) effectively use that issue against Obama; and, 2) if Gingrich and Perry are excluded from consideration because of their “leftist” attacks on Bain Capital, why is Romney not excluded as well due to his equally leftist attacks on Newt Gingrich for earning a living as a consultant?

    • ditto re respect eburke, I mean, we are parsing the baggage of politicians after all and I am choosing Mitt now after months when I was for 3.5 tea partiers that imploded, in my view; and that this choice also takes into account electability at this point and that I do not want Perry and Newt to be rewarded for their anathema-to-basic conservative economic attacks on Bain.

      I do think that the Romney transgressions, including RomneyCare, are ameliorated somewhat due to how long ago they were and that he reversed course on most of his transgressions with conservative pledges. On RomneyCare, when he was pushing it, many conservatives, incl Heritage Fdn, advocated the individual mandate as the conservative position of personal responsibility. Plus Mitt can make the 10th amendment argument.

      Mitt recently moved to support a flat tax and I don’t think the attacks on Newt’s consulting fees rise to the level of the attacks on Bain.

      Perry already faced an uphill battle in SC given the price per vote he has spent in Iowa and NH and his incompetent debate and other campaign performances for months. Despite that, I would still be planning on voting for Perry if he survives till Super Tuesday if he had not played the class warfare card yesterday. But I knew before then that he had no chance to survive till Super Tuesday anyway. He failed as a candidate and my support can’t change that fact.

      I would have no problem if Santorum consolidated conservative support and won SC, but I do not want the Perry and Newt tact to work and shame my native state.

      more later

  2. Aside from the fiscal issues about Romney, I am bothered by the hypocrisy of his stand on social conservative issues. For example: it is one thing if one does not have or profess to certain faith beliefs, but to be Mormon and support abortion…well that makes him a hypocrite. I ask, if he can be a hypocrite about his religion, what else he is a hypocrite about? The two are not separated. I respect more the person who doesn’t say one thing, and do another. Our faith beliefs call us to certain principles, where are his?

    He is a politician, nothing more.

    • Agreed, Lady P. As much as I am not a John Huntsman fan, he at least doesn’t hide where he disagrees with conservative orthodoxy. I won’t vote for the guy, but I at least respect him.

      Mitt…not so much.

    • Yes, Mitt sucks. They all suck. I am settling based on campaign reality and punishing the most recent cynical class warfare attacks meant to play into what I hope is a false premise about what would appeal to my native state. I do not want Perry and Newt to be rewarded for class warfare attacks on Bain.

      • I understand that, GC, but why is that any different for rewarding Mitt for his class warfare attacks on Newt for his consulting at Fannie and Freddie; or his straight out of the liberal Dem playbook attacks on Perry falsely accusing him of wanting to take away Grandma’s Social Security (a reminder is here: https://tiny.cc/933r1)

        I’m not a big fan of either Perry or Gingrich taking this tack, but to reward the guy (Romney) who started these “Dem Playbook” attacks, and now pretends faux outrage at being attack from the Right with leftist jargon strikes me as being incongruous. If this kind of stuff has made you angry (which I totally understand) why are you rewarding the guy who first started down the path?

        • I don’t see, and more importantly the general understanding doesn’t define them as, the attacks on Newt re Fannie as class warfare attacks and even more importantly, the Romney victories are not defined by Newt, since Newt got so few votes. But given the method and rhetoric used and now the super pac ads (I actually heard one here in ATL today and Super Tuesday is in March!), any Newt win (Perry’s campaign has been dead for weeks, let’s bury it) in SC would be seen as directly due to the Bain attacks. Perry blew his campaign due to his own incompetence.

          Mitt will now have to show competence or Santorum will win. The animus against Newt is simply too high for him to be nominated, imho…more later…been a busy day at the law office and GC be tired!

  3. Mike: I know you have not been in a coma for the last four years as the “electability” of John McCain has been discussed, because I have seen articles bearing your signature published here and elsewhere.
    But to you and the other pundits, what difference is there between you punishing Gingrich and Perry and Gingrich and Perry punishing Mitt? Further, you didn’t stop at criticizing Newt and Rick, you endorsed. And similarly, both to you and the other pundits, this is not the general election. Obama is not on the ballot and neither is capitalism. It is absurd to cast Perry and Gingrich as anti-capitalists to begin with, but to go the extra mile and endorse Mitt?
    However, if you were going to endorse, you could have done better in your apology than to say that Mitt has made up for past transgressions by “making conservative pledges”. That is an incredibly weak endorsement, and pretty much an insult to those people who frequent these pages. And it’s of absolutely negative reassurance for you to say that Mitt’s individual mandate proclivities aren’t so disqualifying because “even the Heritage Foundation..blah, blah, blah.” Wow! Heritage Foundation? We don’t give a fig about the Heritage Foundation, Mike. As I said, capitalism is secondary in this election. Don’t waste our time trying to impress upon us that Obama is a socialist. Some things are given. The abyss that we are staring at is about much more than Keynesianism, or supplysideism, or even Marxism vs, capitalism. This election is about something that is an absolute in the Constitution, and that is……freedom. On the basis of this ‘Individual Mandate’ thing, Mitt Romney is disqualified.

    • Its related to the timing of the Newt/Perry attacks and how any victory by them would be seen…but I’m very tired, need rest and will respond fully before the SC vote in a column, if not sooner in a comment. thinking…

      • And that is one of the problems about Romney, the idea that he believes a state can force its citizens to accept an individual mandate. The state vs federal forcing purchasing is negligible – same infringement on liberty.

        • Exactly, Lady P. For all the talking heads, this question: what if Mitt decided it would be okay for there to be no capitalism in Massachusetts, but tell us he was all for it in the other 49 States. Someday I’m going to read the Massachusetts Constitution and see where it says that people can be forced to buy a product as a requirement of their residency. I am told over and over again that there is a “wall of Separation” in the US constitution, and Have nearly gone blind trying to find it.

      • What GC just explained here, is constitutionally correct although it seems “asymmetrical” or unfair to…one group or another out there depending on the time and issue at hand. And Romney sounds weak and like a kid who just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to use it to justify RomneyCare instead of just saying in effect “I lost my mind ,the Lege saved me from myself, I wont do that again” a la Perry- Gardasil. But here’s the secret.. state preemption can work powerfully, powerfully to advance all kinds of *conservative policies and causes* at state level, and protect them from federal meddling. Shhh dont tell the liberals, let them think it’s just an obscure constitutional debate *thingy* for the wascally Wepublicans. I think the above at least in part where GC is going in his promised upcoming article. We can’t throw this baby out with the bathwater on special state powers and preemptions.

  4. I am getting bored of this all. Don’t be offended let me explain why. In the miltary they have a saying about fighting wars, “Amateurs talk Strategy, but Professionals talk Logistics.” If we turned off the sound on our TVs and just watch the moves of the various campaigns – where & when they send the candidate to speak, who they court to endorse them , and in my book most important – ***how far they are planning ahead with all this stuff*** – Mitt’s campaign team has been running rings around everybody else’s. You don’t have to like it, but there it is. I bet right now while all campaigns are cooking up special recipe mudballs for further throwing at their fellow Republicans, someone in Mitt’s campaign is running multi layered electoral college computer projections in order to plan where to be in the third week of September. Ask your self when did the Romney campaign first contact Nikki Haley? If you say anytime in the last two or three months…(annoying buzzer sound).

    • Can find no fault with your analysis/speculation, ‘jack. Especially since Romney has had the M&T to put all this into practice.
      Which means that if Mitt and his people are as smooth operators as you say, these people crying crocodile tears over attacks on him are baying at the moon, and especially since the man himself, after the attacks on Newt, shrugged and said”People need to have broad shoulders.”
      I have no idea what kind of an operation or staff Rick Perry has, but the candidate himself at least has an appreciation for advance planning,regardless of how well they expected to do in IA and NH, for in response to a Laura Ingraham foray into the brouhaha he pointed out 1. If Mitt is the eventual nominee, it’s better for him, and the Party, to deal with it now than in September and 2. Anybody who thinks that we are giving Obama ammunition doesn’t appreciate Obama’s organization – they already have people working on it.

  5. Yes I have come to wince and accept it, this unpleasentness is a kind of an inoculation process against what’s coming later from Obama. But jus the thought of that – Ugh. Groan. Obama. Billion dollars war chest. Union goons. Accomplice MSM. No scruples. Ruthless desire to stay in power for power’s sake. It is going to get fearfully ugly out there, the stuff that will be thrown by Obama.

  1. I find myself in the unusual position of being in disagreement with you GC (but unlike at other blogs, do so respectfully 🙂

    Several points of contention but I will limit it to two: 1) how can the guy whose health care plan in MA was the father of ObamaCare a) be a free market guy; and, b) effectively use that issue against Obama; and, 2) if Gingrich and Perry are excluded from consideration because of their “leftist” attacks on Bain Capital, why is Romney not excluded as well due to his equally leftist attacks on Newt Gingrich for earning a living as a consultant?

    • ditto re respect eburke, I mean, we are parsing the baggage of politicians after all and I am choosing Mitt now after months when I was for 3.5 tea partiers that imploded, in my view; and that this choice also takes into account electability at this point and that I do not want Perry and Newt to be rewarded for their anathema-to-basic conservative economic attacks on Bain.

      I do think that the Romney transgressions, including RomneyCare, are ameliorated somewhat due to how long ago they were and that he reversed course on most of his transgressions with conservative pledges. On RomneyCare, when he was pushing it, many conservatives, incl Heritage Fdn, advocated the individual mandate as the conservative position of personal responsibility. Plus Mitt can make the 10th amendment argument.

      Mitt recently moved to support a flat tax and I don’t think the attacks on Newt’s consulting fees rise to the level of the attacks on Bain.

      Perry already faced an uphill battle in SC given the price per vote he has spent in Iowa and NH and his incompetent debate and other campaign performances for months. Despite that, I would still be planning on voting for Perry if he survives till Super Tuesday if he had not played the class warfare card yesterday. But I knew before then that he had no chance to survive till Super Tuesday anyway. He failed as a candidate and my support can’t change that fact.

      I would have no problem if Santorum consolidated conservative support and won SC, but I do not want the Perry and Newt tact to work and shame my native state.

      more later

  2. Aside from the fiscal issues about Romney, I am bothered by the hypocrisy of his stand on social conservative issues. For example: it is one thing if one does not have or profess to certain faith beliefs, but to be Mormon and support abortion…well that makes him a hypocrite. I ask, if he can be a hypocrite about his religion, what else he is a hypocrite about? The two are not separated. I respect more the person who doesn’t say one thing, and do another. Our faith beliefs call us to certain principles, where are his?

    He is a politician, nothing more.

    • Agreed, Lady P. As much as I am not a John Huntsman fan, he at least doesn’t hide where he disagrees with conservative orthodoxy. I won’t vote for the guy, but I at least respect him.

      Mitt…not so much.

    • Yes, Mitt sucks. They all suck. I am settling based on campaign reality and punishing the most recent cynical class warfare attacks meant to play into what I hope is a false premise about what would appeal to my native state. I do not want Perry and Newt to be rewarded for class warfare attacks on Bain.

      • I understand that, GC, but why is that any different for rewarding Mitt for his class warfare attacks on Newt for his consulting at Fannie and Freddie; or his straight out of the liberal Dem playbook attacks on Perry falsely accusing him of wanting to take away Grandma’s Social Security (a reminder is here: https://tiny.cc/933r1)

        I’m not a big fan of either Perry or Gingrich taking this tack, but to reward the guy (Romney) who started these “Dem Playbook” attacks, and now pretends faux outrage at being attack from the Right with leftist jargon strikes me as being incongruous. If this kind of stuff has made you angry (which I totally understand) why are you rewarding the guy who first started down the path?

        • I don’t see, and more importantly the general understanding doesn’t define them as, the attacks on Newt re Fannie as class warfare attacks and even more importantly, the Romney victories are not defined by Newt, since Newt got so few votes. But given the method and rhetoric used and now the super pac ads (I actually heard one here in ATL today and Super Tuesday is in March!), any Newt win (Perry’s campaign has been dead for weeks, let’s bury it) in SC would be seen as directly due to the Bain attacks. Perry blew his campaign due to his own incompetence.

          Mitt will now have to show competence or Santorum will win. The animus against Newt is simply too high for him to be nominated, imho…more later…been a busy day at the law office and GC be tired!

  3. Mike: I know you have not been in a coma for the last four years as the “electability” of John McCain has been discussed, because I have seen articles bearing your signature published here and elsewhere.
    But to you and the other pundits, what difference is there between you punishing Gingrich and Perry and Gingrich and Perry punishing Mitt? Further, you didn’t stop at criticizing Newt and Rick, you endorsed. And similarly, both to you and the other pundits, this is not the general election. Obama is not on the ballot and neither is capitalism. It is absurd to cast Perry and Gingrich as anti-capitalists to begin with, but to go the extra mile and endorse Mitt?
    However, if you were going to endorse, you could have done better in your apology than to say that Mitt has made up for past transgressions by “making conservative pledges”. That is an incredibly weak endorsement, and pretty much an insult to those people who frequent these pages. And it’s of absolutely negative reassurance for you to say that Mitt’s individual mandate proclivities aren’t so disqualifying because “even the Heritage Foundation..blah, blah, blah.” Wow! Heritage Foundation? We don’t give a fig about the Heritage Foundation, Mike. As I said, capitalism is secondary in this election. Don’t waste our time trying to impress upon us that Obama is a socialist. Some things are given. The abyss that we are staring at is about much more than Keynesianism, or supplysideism, or even Marxism vs, capitalism. This election is about something that is an absolute in the Constitution, and that is……freedom. On the basis of this ‘Individual Mandate’ thing, Mitt Romney is disqualified.

    • Its related to the timing of the Newt/Perry attacks and how any victory by them would be seen…but I’m very tired, need rest and will respond fully before the SC vote in a column, if not sooner in a comment. thinking…

      • And that is one of the problems about Romney, the idea that he believes a state can force its citizens to accept an individual mandate. The state vs federal forcing purchasing is negligible – same infringement on liberty.

        • Exactly, Lady P. For all the talking heads, this question: what if Mitt decided it would be okay for there to be no capitalism in Massachusetts, but tell us he was all for it in the other 49 States. Someday I’m going to read the Massachusetts Constitution and see where it says that people can be forced to buy a product as a requirement of their residency. I am told over and over again that there is a “wall of Separation” in the US constitution, and Have nearly gone blind trying to find it.

      • What GC just explained here, is constitutionally correct although it seems “asymmetrical” or unfair to…one group or another out there depending on the time and issue at hand. And Romney sounds weak and like a kid who just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to use it to justify RomneyCare instead of just saying in effect “I lost my mind ,the Lege saved me from myself, I wont do that again” a la Perry- Gardasil. But here’s the secret.. state preemption can work powerfully, powerfully to advance all kinds of *conservative policies and causes* at state level, and protect them from federal meddling. Shhh dont tell the liberals, let them think it’s just an obscure constitutional debate *thingy* for the wascally Wepublicans. I think the above at least in part where GC is going in his promised upcoming article. We can’t throw this baby out with the bathwater on special state powers and preemptions.

  4. I am getting bored of this all. Don’t be offended let me explain why. In the miltary they have a saying about fighting wars, “Amateurs talk Strategy, but Professionals talk Logistics.” If we turned off the sound on our TVs and just watch the moves of the various campaigns – where & when they send the candidate to speak, who they court to endorse them , and in my book most important – ***how far they are planning ahead with all this stuff*** – Mitt’s campaign team has been running rings around everybody else’s. You don’t have to like it, but there it is. I bet right now while all campaigns are cooking up special recipe mudballs for further throwing at their fellow Republicans, someone in Mitt’s campaign is running multi layered electoral college computer projections in order to plan where to be in the third week of September. Ask your self when did the Romney campaign first contact Nikki Haley? If you say anytime in the last two or three months…(annoying buzzer sound).

    • Can find no fault with your analysis/speculation, ‘jack. Especially since Romney has had the M&T to put all this into practice.
      Which means that if Mitt and his people are as smooth operators as you say, these people crying crocodile tears over attacks on him are baying at the moon, and especially since the man himself, after the attacks on Newt, shrugged and said”People need to have broad shoulders.”
      I have no idea what kind of an operation or staff Rick Perry has, but the candidate himself at least has an appreciation for advance planning,regardless of how well they expected to do in IA and NH, for in response to a Laura Ingraham foray into the brouhaha he pointed out 1. If Mitt is the eventual nominee, it’s better for him, and the Party, to deal with it now than in September and 2. Anybody who thinks that we are giving Obama ammunition doesn’t appreciate Obama’s organization – they already have people working on it.

  5. Yes I have come to wince and accept it, this unpleasentness is a kind of an inoculation process against what’s coming later from Obama. But jus the thought of that – Ugh. Groan. Obama. Billion dollars war chest. Union goons. Accomplice MSM. No scruples. Ruthless desire to stay in power for power’s sake. It is going to get fearfully ugly out there, the stuff that will be thrown by Obama.

Must Read