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 ...
Santorum is not now, and never was a fiscal conservative... He’s a social conservative and a fiscal moderate.
No, it didn't. One issue conservatives and Paultards destroyed conservatism and handed our nation over to the Dems.
Bush's spending was nothing like Obama's. Nothing, no where close, not comparable. Only the blind can't tell the difference between 2.5% deficits (to GDP) and 15% deficits.
Bush's largest deficit was 435 billion. Obama hasn't had one less than 1.2 trillion.
"Conservatives" threw the Republican House under the bus in 2006 over 45 billion in earmarks. Obama and the Dems blew a 1000 billions on Porkulus...didn't help the economy at all but lined their donors pockets. We were far better off under Bush and the Republicans elected in 2004.
TARP was responsible in part for keeping the western world's commercial banking system from collapsing. We know that now, beyond a doubt. It ended up costing only 19 billion dollars, probably the best economic deal in history. Bush was right to do it, because it was the right thing to do for the nation, whether his base liked it or not. That is the difference between a leader and a milksop.
Go ahead a vote for a third party and stab America in the back again.
Yep. C’mon Newt backers. Get behind Santorum, or face Romney/Obama.
I warned this would happen.
Santorum’s plan is more fiscally conservative than Paul Ryan.
Compassionate conservatives want to try to use the One Ring for good, rather than throw it into the fires of Mt. Doom. They should know better.
I don’t care what his plan says, I can tell you as someone who was a constiuent of Santorum, he’s not a fiscal conservative. I am not saying that’s a disqualification of him, but I am saying he talks a good game about it at times, but don’t expect this guy to cut out the pork, its NOT his view of government, never has been.
He’ll yeild to pressure when he needs to, but he’s not someone who is fundamentally ideologically fiscally conservative.
TARP was responsible in part for keeping the western world’s commercial banking system from collapsing.
...ahhh, horsehockey Kensian/liberal crapola! We need more bank failures so that we can get integrity back in the crooked system. Conservatives did no such thing... Rove Rinos deserted every conservative candidate in play in ‘06 and ‘08 with no money and no support since the Rockefeller Rinos would RATHER have Dems in office than see a conservative win. They plan to stay in power nad rack up pension credits at all costs, especially reaching across the aisle...
stupid Stockholm syndrom Country Club Rinos kill a little of America off in every election...
ymmv
Indeed.
Whoever comes in 2nd to Willard, should Willard win* SC WILL have my vote.
*Which Perry’s 5-7% there is going to insure.
Oh well, there’s always 2016.
As someone who’s a constituent of Perry, I’m not sure what to say about his record in contrast. Sure, he’s balanced the budget, but it’s also TX. He could have done better here.
And don’t get me started on Newt.
I’m just not seeing it. Sure, Santorum isn’t as strong as Cain was, (who is?), but I like the plan he’s putting up there. Who, besides Paul do you see as stronger?
“TARP was responsible in part for keeping the western world’s commercial banking system from collapsing. We know that now, beyond a doubt.”
Pure bull.
I’m right with you there. The Iowa results were enough for me after seeing the breakdown.
Glad to have you on board again! Be nice to get all the Cain folks together behind Santorum. :D
Exactly. Bush also accused them of balancing the budget “on the backs of the poor.”
So basically , he’s this year’s Huckaphoney?
Your last sentence is nonsense. Further, I’d say anyone voting for “any republican will do” is the back stabber. RINOs have almost destroyed conservatism and it looks like YOU are with the RINOs.
I don’t think he’s as bad as Huckabee, but he’s not an ideological fiscal conservative.
Santorum was not tight with the purse strings, and played the pork game plenty.
Again, not saying this disqualifies him, just pointing out a reality.
Right now I think Santorum is in a boomlet, that is more projection that reality, and its important folks are aware of this guy.
Personally I don’t see Santorum remotely surviving the scrutiny of the spotlight, let along having a chance in hell at a national campaign. He’s not a horrible person, but he’s just not what a lot of folks are projecting on him.
He’s basically booming, because he’s the last man standing, not because of anything he’s done, and honestly, he’s splitting the non romney vote which means if this stays the way it is, he’s playing spoiler in order for Romney to be our nominee. Love to see it differently, but I just don’t.
“Trying to sell willard as a conservative is a non starter.”
I agree.
Circular firing squad
The “Santorum isn’t that great a fiscal conservative” stories started on Iowa caucus night.
I’ve heard nothing that makes me prefer Newt over Santorum.
Direct link:
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like(Redstate.com)
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.