Many of us are so eager for President Obama to leave office, we are in danger of electing a republican that is just as devoted to big government as President Obama has been. In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was rushed in as president elect. Very few people knew anything about him. The media failed to do their job and didn't properly examine his anti-colonialist leanings, his background, or his lack of leadership and executive experience. They were completely blinded by their vast distrust of both Bush and the republican party.
Apparently, the majority of U.S. citizens were also blinded, but by two words: Hope and change. We saw an infinite amount of "hope" posters with Obama's face, nearly every Obama ad used either the word "hope" or "change," and his campaign website was spattered with the words. The country fell for it.
Did you know that those words were not unique to the Obama campaign of 2008? In nearly every campaign year prior, candidates in both national and local campaigns had used those words. Those words work because they cause people to vote on emotion rather than principle.
In fact, the word "change" as a campaign slogan was mocked in an episode of Cheers nearly 20 years ago. In the 21st episode of the 11th season, Dr. Frasier Crane is disgusted with the sheep-like mentality of voters during a local election season. He makes the argument that any bozo with a toothy grin and a catchy yet meaningless slogan could garner votes. To prove his point, he puts dimwitted Woody the bartender on the ballot for city councilman. Woody is worried he can't handle an upcoming debate, so Dr. Crane simply tells him to use the word "change" about a hundred times and Woody would please the debate audience.
It is easy to get caught up in the emotion of debates, town halls, meet and greets, and other campaign scenarios, but we really have to dig deeper. We have to take emotion out of the equation. As I have watched the republican primary debates, I am worried that republicans are in danger of making the same mistake the country did in 2008.
We can't simply nominate someone who looks good and says what we want to hear. We can't support someone merely because they say they are against someone. We cannot be blinded by our vast distrust of those who we want out of office. We have to be for someone, not against the other person. We have to know the person and their principles.
During the debates, there is inevitably at least one dopey candidate which, when asked a question, answers with a generic anti-Obama response. Something like "The only thing we need to worry about is getting Obama out of the White House." However, we should in actuality be focused on finding a candidate who is for smaller government.
Some have said that anyone would be better than President Obama. However, the president isn't the problem -- he is merely a symptom of the progressive big government disease. Many GOP candidates are just as loyal to big government as Obama has been, but many seem to be lapping up talking points from these candidates.
A candidate's anti-Obama talking point is like red meat for conservatives and libertarians. We love it, we devour it, and we always want more. It gives us validation, but it is merely a form of political porn. It will destroy us.
I'm all for giving Obama the figurative boot, but that isn't going to solve our problems. We have to give big government the boot. We have to give progressive policies the boot. We have to give corruption the boot. We have to stop tolerating political games. This won't be accomplished by being against President Obama; it will be done by being for a constitutionalist who doesn't bend from pressure.
We have to find a person who has The Constitution running in their blood. We have to find someone who isn't willing to compromise on constitutional principles. We have to find someone who knows and understands history.
Perry, Gingrich,and especially Romney and Huntsman, are all game players. They do whatever they need to do to get votes, even if it means compromising their principles. Playing political games and compromising principles may acquire the needed votes and therefore the position, but this shows us that the person cannot be trusted. If they are willing to play games and compromise their principles, they are willing to ignore The Constitution when it impedes their agenda.
Romney is not the person we need. Although he is someone who handles debates well, he has played the game of Washington and continues to support big government policies. Additionally, this man continually changes his stance on nearly everything. Despite what he and his supporters say, he is all over the board on nearly everything. He says what the audience of the day wants to hear. Validation is nice to feel, but it is dangerous. We need to hear truth, even if it is hard to hear.
Romney knows the truth about social security. It is an unconstitutional big government program that is broke. Yet, he wants to continue supporting it since he thinks that saying anything negative about it will scare old people away from voting for him. He is a coward, he is afraid of telling the truth, and he doesn't understand that people are sick of being lied to.
Everyone knows that SS is not solvent, even the elderly know it. However, the elderly aren't worried about themselves, they are worried about their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Yet, Mitt Romney thinks old people are stupid sheep and will be scared away if someone tells them the hard truth.
Perry has been telling the truth about SS, but he is also a game player. He wants to compromise his supposed conservative principles in order to secure votes. I have no idea what he was thinking when he signed an executive order which mandated that little girls get vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease. He has since said that it was a mistake to mandate it via an executive order, but he still would have pushed it through via the state legislature. Why? This tells us that he thinks of government as being a nanny to the sheeple.
Perry has also said that anyone who refuses to reward illegal aliens is lacking a heart. That was plain stupid and completely showed his true colors -- he will bend over for anything if it means securing votes. He doesn't have The Constitution in his gut. The same story goes for Huntsman and Gingrich.
We have to know what guides the candidate. Thus far, the top contenders of the GOP primary seem to be guided by getting votes and power. They say they are conservatives, but where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that they understand our republic and our constitution? Where is the evidence that they are 100% loyal to our republic and to our constitution?
The Constitution isn't there to be used when it helps an agenda, it is there to establish the role of government, to limit government, and to ensure our freedoms and liberties are not encroached. Any candidate who doesn't understand that is a danger and has no business being in office. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
We must refuse to be drawn in by talking points, slogans, a nifty haircut, a white smile, a funny debate moment, or anti-Obama talk. We have to know our own principles and find a candidate whose principles match our own. Don't make the same mistake the country did in 2008 -- don't vote against someone, vote for someone with constitutional principles. And if The Constitution doesn't matter to you, move to a different country!
NOTE:
I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I am fully aware that he has The Constitution running in his blood, but his foreign policies are a deal killer for me. He fails to understand that radical Islam is absolute evil, and I think the man may be an anti-semite. He has no problem allowing Israel to be wiped off the map. We must defend Israel. Ani Yisraeli!
I like Cain and Bachman, but I am still not 100% convinced they can be trusted, plus, I question Bachman's leadership capabilities.
Similar articles:
Politics Blog Posts
Nillabyte Message