So, if you have the government *FORCING* what you consider immorality, you *WILL* fight to the death to stop it.
And the left *WILL* do so just as much as we will.
The only way for a nation such as ours to thrive is to recognize that, just like our founding fathers did. Which is to get the government the heck out it.
The upshot is that regardless of left or right, the government needs to butt out.
And Santorum most patently does *NOT* believe it that concept. Just compare the two quotes below to see the difference (heck, the last bit sounds *EXACTLY* like Hillary Clinton with her 'It takes a village' cr@p):
Santorum:
“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
Reagan:
"I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.
That is my point.
Wanting government to NOT fund NGO’s and crap will be called “extreme Christian rightwing fringe” stuff.
As usual I’m late to the party but I’m with you on this last.
We only get to vote (legally) in one primary or caucus, then the general. I think we should duke this one all the way out; my vote(s) would be for the best equipped and best-visioned Patriot Conservative in those selections.
When SP didn’t run we were left with some lesser alternatives, but I’ll always take the best according to the above rather than the most likely to win during primary season.
Slays me that some strategists and persons of influence abandon that (Ted Nugent today?) in order to win a majority.
Defeats the purpose of primaries, IMHO.
I’d rather lose and have principle- when it comes to the general it gets more complicated but we’re not there yet!