Posted on 01/16/2009 6:25:14 AM PST by Caleb1411
Perhaps it sounds cold, but why don’t the guys that want to do this stuff just do it and forget the Feds? Of course there will be strings, and a dumbing down of the spriritual angle (to satisfy the voracious God-haters). Let it go, get back to work and forget the handout. We are becoming a dependent nation where even “faith-based” entities need government or they are bitter.
“Compassionate Conservatism” is the foulest of curses. It took a vibrant party that was ascendent in the mid-to-late 1990s and destroyed it. It witnessed politicians who were elected on the promise of bringing small government back to Washington turning into bigger government whores than the Dems.
After World War II, no one wanted to be named Adolph anymore because of the foul association it had with Hitler. I hope this cancer of Compassionate Conservatism (aka Rockefeller Republicanism) has the same fate. I can’t explain how much I hate it.
“Compassionate Conservatism” is neither.
And I’ve ALWAYS said that.
A grant to pay for consultants...I’m speechless.
Colonel, USAFR
“Serving the office, not the man”
Suicidal, alright, but at least it is "benevolent" and "altruist" and protects a Conservative from being called a "racist", country be-damned in the process.
As Reagan said: the phrase "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is not a good thing to hear.
It is actually rather queer to observe, almost surreal in a sense.
Methinks it is akin to a turkey telling a pilgrim on the chopping block at Thanksgiving, "thanks for at least having the common courtesy of using a sharp hatchet."
During the 1950's, "Compassionate conservatism" was called "Modern Republicanism," and the case for this brand of what was essentially "welfare state lite" was argued in books such as A Republican Looks at His Party (Harper, 1956). However, with "modern Republicanism" as its guiding philosophy, the GOP steadily lost influence and was finally routed in the 1958 elections. By the end of the decade, "Modern Republicanism" was on the way out, as the conservative faction led by Barry Goldwater began to revive the party.
Well THERE'S your problem--that stuff isn't in the Constitution. Or did that never cross your mind?
I closed two of those threads last night and one so far this morning. Not one mention of wide-open borders, horrible monetary policy, out-of-control spending. I wish the President and Laura the very best that their lives have to offer, including peace and prosperity. Can't, however, fawn and praise as though he was one of the great presidents.
I've never seen anything like it, ignoring such blatant facts and realities, all for the sake of keeping sacred cows alive. It's not very academically honest if you ask me, but I suppose it is a viewpoint held in some quarters on FR.
One thing for sure; not a one of those people must have had a loved one in their family slain by an illegal alien or run down by an undocumented drunk driver, such as were thousands of our poor fellow American during eight years (and of course under previous administrations).
I share your opinion about “compassionate conservatism.”
Thanks for posting it.
Most days of this administration, I have been hard-pressed to articulate the difference between compassionate conservatism and liberalism.
I was on a post a few days ago, and the Bush people called in the mods and pinged our leader as well...there was some off color humor granted and most of us were not singing Bush’s praises, but...lots of whining and tattling lately.
The Country has been dragged left by a resolute leftist agenda and the Compassionate Conservative is actually the Liberal of 40 years ago. Conservatives have become more and more left out because we have fought the wrong battles the wrong way. I don’t know what to do, but we had a resurgence with RWR, sadly this was destroyed by the Compassionate Bush 1 & 2.
There’s nothing surprising about the way things turned out. Of course the state doesn’t give out money with no strings attached (for that matter, nor should it). However nice it might be to fantasize about receiving government largess without having to pay the cost of more government control and regulation; we have to live in the real world were such is impossible. And no, Olasky’s not getting away with claiming that he at least had ‘good intentions’ - every one has intentions, many of them good; but in the end we’re all judged according to the results of our actions rather than the altrusitic thinking with which we were motivated.
No one in America who is serious about "fighting poverty" would support and promote programs that sap initiative, reward indolence and laziness and enable able bodied people to live as parasites on the hard earned money extorted as taxes from others.
They would not encourage and promote the ongoing addition of millions of foreigners, legal and illegal, to the ranks of the poor and needy living on government programs financed by taxpayers.
A society cannot defeat poverty when it institutes laws and policies designed to discourage self reliance and to ensure a never ending supply of new "victims".
George Bush has compassion but was not serious about "fighting poverty".
Yep. Not to mention that it has taken our country closer to the brink of ruin than it has been in many years.
btt
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.