[Opinionated Blowhard]

Putting aside whether Santorum fully fits the "Compassionate Conservative" definition, one thing I know is that Compassionate Conservatism destroyed conservatism in the 2000s. It resulted in the losses in 2006 and 2008. It completely undermined the GOP when it tried to fight against Obama's spending binge. George Bush turned into Herbert Hoover laying the groundwork for FDR's New Deal. Conservatism can't be social conservatism and economic moderatism. If that is where the GOP is going, I will start voting third party.

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.

[SeekAndFind]

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 ).

[SharpRightTurn]

“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.

[HamiltonJay]

Santorum is not now, and never was a fiscal conservative... He’s a social conservative and a fiscal moderate.

[A.Hun]

Putting aside whether Santorum fully fits the "Compassionate Conservative" definition, one thing I know is that Compassionate Conservatism destroyed conservatism in the 2000s. It resulted in the losses in 2006 and 2008. It completely undermined the GOP when it tried to fight against Obama's spending binge.

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.