Posted on 01/06/2012 9:00:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The outcome in Iowa was both electorally inconclusive and politically clarifying. There is a Republican Party, supporting Mitt Romney, that wants to win an election. And there is a Republican Party, supporting Ron Paul, that wants to make a point about limited government.
This division is not entirely ideological. There are rock-ribbed conservatives who believe that the highest political priority is the early retirement of President Obama. There are evangelicals — uncomfortable with libertarianism and the foreign policy of Charles Lindbergh — who have nevertheless joined Paul’s protest against swollen government
Based on recent history, the party of electability will eventually prevail. Activists rooting for the new (and more extreme) Barry Goldwater will need to explain how he avoids the political fate of the first one.
But perhaps the most surprising result of the Iowa caucuses was the return of compassionate conservatism from the margins of the Republican stage to its center. Rick Santorum is not just an outspoken social conservative; he is the Republican candidate who addresses the struggles of blue-collar workers and the need for greater economic mobility. He talks not only of the rights of the individual but also of the health of social institutions, particularly the family. He draws out the public consequences of a belief in human dignity — a pro-life view applied to the unborn and to victims of AIDS in Africa.
Electability Republicans can live with Santorum’s populism and moralism. Anti-government activists cannot and have begun their assault. Santorum is referred to as a “pro-life statist.” David Boaz of the Cato Institute cites evidence implicating him in shocking ideological crimes, such as “promotion of prison ministries” and wanting to “expand colon cancer screenings for Medicare beneficiaries.”
But Santorum is not engaged in heresy; he represents an alternative tradition of conservative political philosophy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If we SPLIT the true Christian Evangelical Conservative vote three ways between Newt, Santorum, and Perry — we simply lose to Willard the Obama-lite Liberal.
Period.
Just in:
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Rasmussen
Reports
Gingrich 18, Romney 27, Santorum 24, Paul 11, Perry 5
Romney +3 : (
It’s not rocket science, folks.
With respect to Santorum, his book lays out a case for using government programs and special breaks to help families and other conservative social institutions. He says he will cut the budget but it worries me that his whole emphasis is on social issues and he doesn't really make a case for taking an ax to the size of government. That is why he is not my first choice. I remember how demoralized I was at Bush's spending binge and TARP etc. I can imagine Santorum doing the same thing.
Only RINOs use that phrase to hid their progressive roots.
Why does one have to add the adjective “compassinate” to conservatism?
This implies that conservative principles are NOT compassionate ( as opposed to liberalism ).
By doing this we are already conceding to the FALSE implication that conservatives are inhumane.
WE OUGHT TO REJECT THIS IDEA and educate people to show them that conservatism is IN AND OF ITSELF COMPASSIONATE ( more compassioante than the cruel results of liberalism ).
Some GOP candidates need to drop out and consolidate the conservative base....otherwise Romney will take his small faction, win some primaries, and pronounce his “momentum”.
Exactly. Limited government is compassionate. Any state that has a huge amount of control over its peoples’ incomes and which doles out spending on social programs to take care of people ends up being a tyranny. There is no statist government in history that was ever compassionate. The Soviet Union? North Korea? Cuba? They are all giant prison camps.
Sorry folks but we just don’t need another Senator or Speaker of the House or Congresscritter of any kind to occupy the WH. They are all from the same fabric bolt.
Yes. Let’s start by having Romney and Paul drop out.
Especially a liberal governor.
Especially a liberal governor.
Who does that leave? “Any of the kind” clearly disqualifies Romney and Huntsman, while the first part of your statement disqualifies the rest.
The way I remember it, Bush 43 and Rove invented the phrase “Compassionate Conservatism” to differentiate themselves from the Gingrich/Santorum conservatives of the 90’s, who had become unpopular in the late 90’s during impeachment.
Santorum did seem to be on board with most of the Bush agenda, but I don’t recall him ever identifying himself as a “CC”.
I don't see anything in the above reference that makes him look bad. GWB compassionate conservatism meant tax credits for single Moms, home loans for minorities with bad credit and prescript drugs for seniors paid for by the nation's (debts) credit card and NCLB without private school vouchers except in DC.
More troubling is Santorum's past pro-union votes but yet he still looks better than Romney and Newt. I have yet to see any commercials of him with Pelosi demanding that 'our leaders' take action on climate change,
“I remember how demoralized I was at Bush’s spending binge and TARP etc. I can imagine Santorum doing the same thing.”
BUMP
I can’t handle another “compassionate conservative.”
I want a conservative instead.
As for the posted lead article, it is an effort to avoid part of the real debate by attributing the traditional non-meddling U.S. Foreign Policy to Charles Lindbergh, rather than Washington & Jefferson.
Let's have the debate, by all means; but allow those of who oppose World Government & any foreign policy initiatives, not clearly in America's interest, the opportunity to define our own arguments. (See Pseudo Pragmatism--Political Folly, which quotes Washington directly on the psychological issues often overlooked in the foreign policy debate.)
Finally, while I like many things about Santorum, his rejection of the idea that social policy as to health, safety & morals, was supposed to be left to the States, makes it impossible to support him, until he acknowledges that such issues must be governed by the oath to support the Constitution.
William Flax
I don’t see Rick Santorum as another Compassionate Conservative. He did vote with the party on a couple of Bush’s really stupid initiatives—prescription drugs for medicare, and No Child Left Behind. But then so did virtually all the other Republicans in office at the time.
Bush said it was necessary for the party to remain popular enough so it could do other things like cut taxes. He was wrong, but I’d blame that on Bush and Rove, not an individual Senator like Santorum who was voting with the party.
As for Ron Paul, he is no conservative. He is completely lacking in moral principles, and he is one of the biggest pork guzzlers in the house, all the while he rants about cutting spending. He is sufficiently UNconservative so he has a lot of young, liberal Democrats voting for him.
What major pieces of legislation would Gingrich propose that Romney would not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.