Santorum: A Massively Expanded Welfare State is ‘The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned’

Red State ^ | 11 January 2012 | Jeff Emmanuel

[altura]

Is he better than Rick Perry?

Not by a long shot.

[aruanan]

Just the wording of the general welfare clause in context demonstrates that the means by which the general welfare was to be promoted were the limited and enumerated powers of the Constitution.

[kosciusko51]

Agreed. Some here might mistake that talk, however, for comm-u-nism!

When the government forces "altruism", it is communism. When altruism is performed by an unfettered and willing people, it is "community", such as the Amish or the early church.

[jdsteel]

Thanks for your excellent post on this hit piece. It saved me the trouble of doing it myself. Rick doesn’t have a chance for the top spot but would make a fine VP pick (IMHO).

[driftdiver]

Rick “you’re heartless if you want to enforce immigration law” Perry?

Thats a tough one but we can talk about it when Rick wakes up from his nap.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

If you understand that Santorum is a Catholic conservative, his stances make sense. I'm not saying this as a knock on Catholics. But there is a brand of Catholic conservatism which is very conservative on social issue but which believes the state has an obligation to help the poor and working class. That is Santorum to a tee. I admire him and voted for him in Pennsylvania when he was a senator but he really is a Bush / Huckabee “Compassionate Conservative.”

He also is well connected to the lobbyist community — Rick is no “outsider.” People who put there hopes into him as some true conservative outsider are going to be very disappointed.

[WorkingClassFilth]

It is still practiced today by true believers and those of good will.

You're right, though, about the necessary function of altruism. Unfortunately, it is also the lynch pin on which deceivers build their argument.

[Running On Empty]

I agree

[tacticalogic]

What Santorum is arguing, IMO, is that it is in the gub’mints interest to foster (real two parent) families (Duh, that's a Western concept, no?) so that in the fullness of time they, in fact, will better everyone in the physical, moral and social sense.

I have a problem with these kinds of arguments in the context of candidates for national offices because they just make sweeping generailzations about "what the government should do" without specifiying or taking into account which government we're talking about.

We are a republic. That means there is a system of defined spheres of authority divided between the State and national governments.

It's fine to think that government in general should be taking care of the poor, but if it is to be done it needs to be done by the state governments. There is no enumrated power of the national government that empowers them to do that.

[icwhatudo]

Glad I’m not the only one who says this a a hatchet job on Santorum. The title itself is pure BS as if he ever made such a statement. Lots of out of context mish mash here folks.

Santorum or Newt 2012

[sevinufnine]

Wrong, there was a perfect candidate out there. Name was Herman Cain. The left was mortified of his popularity and honest. So they found a few bimbos willing to lie and exaggerate any fact on his behavior.

Newt has to be the nominee if Cain doesn’t return, period. This Santorum is no better than Obama if he leans socialist. As for Romney, he makes me puke. I’ll have to carry a pail to the polls to vote for him so I can puke on the way out.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[NELSON111]

There isn’t a perfect candidate but there are several which are far worse.

And just to think...if someone decent had actually run...they would have walked away with it.

[NELSON111]

There isn’t a perfect candidate but there are several which are far worse.

And just to think...if someone decent had actually run...they would have walked away with it.

[driftdiver]

yes Cain was a good candidate. Is he still a candidate? No, but perhaps you haven’t read the news lately.

To compare Santorum to Obama is ignorant.

[ncalburt]

Exactly the AstroTurf these Romney bits are peddling is not
Even logically anymore
First the concerned freak that Rick is stripping away
Medicare or SS now he is evil for not doing it.
They have run out of smears do they make
It up.

[TexasCajun]

That idiot Rick Perry is looking better and better every day.

[ctdonath2]

“selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.”

There is a difference between “contribute” and “compelled”.
The kind of difference that sparked creation of this country in the first place.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

SMEAR.

How about you tell us who you support, and post something about them to help readers understand why you support them.

Rather than posting stuff which seems right out of the "Saul Alinsky" liberal attack machine.

So who do you support?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Thanks. Unfortunatley, I believe that even if Mr. Santorum is somebody’s VP pick, we’re still going to lose (see my tagline). Using a conservative to bolster a weakling ticket is a tired and unprofitable tactic. No, scratch that. Using a conservative in this way is nothing more than baiting the trap with an attractive scent so that we’ll all be trapped and killed.

In this election, far too many conservatives will be willing to go down that road and, as a result, we’ll likely see another BO term. If, and I do mean if, the country can be saved after that, it will be far more open to men and women of principle and direct action than the weak and vaccilating are now - “conservatives” included. Any candidate who is chiefly electable is nothing more than an empty husk that mirrors the fears and greed of an unprinciple electorate.

We are in deep, deep waters and principles - even unpopular and unelectable ones - are exactly the prescription needed to save the Republic.

My $0.02