Jim Robinson
Posted on 02/15/2012 12:10:39 PM PST by NoPinkos
...Jonah Goldberg explained that Mike Huckabee's brand of conservatism was inconsistent with traditional conservatism, in that the former Arkansas Governor believes that government exists, not to protect individual liberty, but to make people live moral lives in accordance with his personal beliefs....
While Rick Santorum doesn't have the record of supporting tax hikes that Tax Hike Mike had or some of the other points listed above--though some of the do apply, he certainly has a record of backing certain social policies based upon the notion that government exists to ensure a certain behavior from its citizens....
On the fiscal and regulatory side of the equation, Santorum doesn't even come close to having a record worthy of Tea Party support....
The only two conclusions I can draw from this is that the anti-Romney faction in the Republican electorate will so blindly follow whoever is deemed to be their "guy" at the moment that they don't care about his economic statism....
The other is that the Tea Party movement has been completely overrun with social conservatives. If that's the case, Republicans will lose this election, and lose it badly. That's not to say that social conservatives can't be fiscal conservatives, rather fiscal issues must come first in this election....
Santorum's social conservatism is going to turn away independent voters. For example, his strange rant against contraceptives is going to sound nutty and unserious to many on-the-fence voters in swing states. And national polls show that voters are now supportive of gay marriage, which Santorum vigoriously opposes.
This is the bed that Republicans have made. The idea that Santorum would be any better on fiscal issues than Romney is absurd. They're both fiscal moderates that aren't going to change the culture of waste in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at unitedliberty.org ...
Somehow, Reagan and George W.Bush won as very open social conservatives so this contention is idiocy.
And, if think social conservatives are going to concede the marriage issue, you're out of your mind.
There are more social conservatives than liberaltarian types. There is no chance of Republicans winning squat without socials conservatives. Get used to it. Know your place at the back of the bus. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around.
The utter idiots who are conservative only on fiscal matters brought Santorum to the fore by going after social conservatives without Santorum’s fiscal record first until he was all that was left.
Social conservatives have been completely clear that there will be no more compromise on religious freedom or any other social issue even if it means Obama or civil war.
The fiscal only crowd was so stupid they thought they could play chicken and get what they wanted.
Dead wrong. Quit whining.
Pray for peace, prepare for war.
But I must challenge the lead article's acceptance of Rick Santorum as a "Social Conservative."
Rick Santorum, not only in this campaign, but in the Senate, has shown that he does not respect the Tenth Amendment. In the context of American Constitutional Law, there can be no clearer evidence that the man is not a true social conservative. Why?
Many of the specific grievances in the Declaration Of Independence, had to do with outside interference with local communities' rights to have their own Courts, their own institutions--a revolt against outside dictation on social matters. This was reflected in our Constitution, by the fact that social questions--the Police Power that deals with health, safety & morals--was left to the States & local communities; a decision clearly reaffirmed in the Tenth Amendment.
We in Ohio can jolly well handle our own social legislation, we do not need a Pennsylvanian telling us what we need or do not need in managing our purely local affairs. But Rick doesn't apparently accept that. For a specific example, he was one of those who supported the idea of Congress trying to dictate a judicial finding in a Florida Probate Court case (Schiavo) in 2005--apparently failing to realize that this sort of intrusion into local access to local Courts, was one of the very things spelled out as justifying our Revolution in the Declaration.
This is absolutely basic to Federalism.
William Flax
But if it comes to Santorum versus Romney, or Santorum versus Obama.....hey, it's a no brainer.
Now would be a good time for conservatives to read Dr. Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind, which can be read online, by the way.
In Kirk's last chapter he reviews the works of poets and writers, quoting lines which now seem to bear a strikinig resemblance to the players on the stage in American politics today.
For instance, in Robert Frost's "A Case for Jefferson," Frost writes of the character Harrison:
"Harrison loves my country too
But wants it all made over new.
. . . .
He dotes on Saturday pork and beans.
But his mind is hardly out of his teens.
With him the love of country means
Blowing it all to smithereens
And having it made over new."
The pseudointellectuals who occupy the White House, the media, and much of Congress fancy themselves "intellectuals."
By their words and actions, however, they display a provinciality reminiscent of that Dr. Kirk recalls as having been described by T. S. Eliot as being one of time and place, having no intellectual grounding in ideas older than their own little experience in dabbling and discussing Mao, Marx, and other theoreticians.
America's written Constitution deserves protectors whose minds are out of their teens in terms of their understanding of civilization's long struggle for liberty.
It certainly deserves protectors who do not consider it a "flawed" document because it does not permit the government it structures to run rough shod over the rights of its "KEEPERS, the People" (Justice Story).
Blasting it "all to smithereens" seems to be the goal of the current Administration and so-called "progressives" who control the Executive and one-half of the Legislative branch of government.
The Founders' Constitution's strict limits on coercive power by elected representatives are being ignored and disavowed; the free enterprise system which allowed individual citizens to achieve and excel in their chosen pursuits is being co-opted by elected and unelected bureaucrats; and the rights of conscience, speech, and religion are being trampled as we post here--yet, the persons who could influence minds and hearts are quibbling about petty politics of the day instead of debating great ideas such as how to preserve liberty, or, in economic matters, the great moral philosopher, Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations."
When, in 1776, our ancestors felt the heavy hand of the British government "taking" their earnings, regulating their lives, interfering with their beliefs, and asserting coercive control over their actions, they did not waste their time on such trivia.
They wrote great treatises such as "Thoughts on Government" and "Common Sense." They educated their young on the merits of liberty, as opposed to slavery to government, and they did the groundwork which allowed for a written Constitution for self-government to be ratified in the states only eleven years later.
America is about to be bankrupt, both financially and philosophically, and those who have benefited from the Founders' ideas, who call themselves "conservators" (conservatives) of those ideas, should come together to place those ideas before millions of young people who must participate in voting in November on whether they desire liberty or slavery. Women, youth, men, so-called "seniors"--all need to have the choice presented clearly that this election pits the ideas of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and America's other Founders against the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Keynes.
There are always "useful idiots." That's what every oppressive regime has relied upon. A "useful idiot" with a big megaphone is more dangerous to liberty than millions of ordinary ones, because of the ability to lull more people into a sense of complacency.
America, awaken! This decades-long battle for your liberty has been engaged. But, for decades, you have allowed the ideas of your liberty to be censored from your nation's textbooks and public discourse.
Your best weapon is contained in your Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which leaves all the power in your hands. Read them, amplify upon their principles and ideas by accessing the Founders' writings and speeches.
For a quick review of those principles and your nation's first 50 years under its Constitution, consult John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address here, or a recent reprint of a 1987 Bicentennial collection of the Founders' principles, here.
James Madison stated: "Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ... the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it ... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free."
Who paid you to register here at FR and post this tripe?
I susupect the source of funds is from someone even less conservative than Santorum.
Then I must have been thinking of someone else down there.
Romney is, at best, a fiscal conservative, of questionable ethics who has a documented history of disengenuousnes, half truths and unmitigated lies.
I would never support Romney as long as there was a somewhat-viable conservative candidate available. That would be Santorum, if “push came to shove.” That said, my preference by far, of those available, would be Newt.
GO NEWT!!!
While I’m supporting Newt. If he can’t be the guy I would like to see it deadlocked in hopes of getting a more conservative candidate. This is even more reason for the Newt supporters to stay with Newt no matter what.
Illegal aliens are government growth hormone.
**********
hahahahaha! That was pretty durn funny!
A 13% rating from the AFL-CIO makes him "pro-union"?
If so, then Ron Paul is a union organizer by comparison - and "Mitt Romney" is probably an alias of Jimmy Hoffa.
“He is a conservative, and I think, when he’s in charge, he’d do things differently that when he was just a team player. He would clearly be better than Bush fiscally.”
If that were the case, his platform would “do things differently than when he was just a team player”.
It doesn’t.
Social Conservatives (Conservatism + moral values) on the other hand, FILTER OUT these degenerates. The idea of sharing anything with these types, just makes feel like vomiting!... sorry /s
Enough with the Santorum opposed TARP. Prove it. If Rick Santorum was able to vote for it, and was in office at the time you better believe he would have voted for it. Conviently he waited until now to suddenly be against it. BS. Now, I can vote for Rick if I have to, but we have to stop with the half-truths. He needs to stop saying he opposed TARP. If anyone can show me anywhere he opposed TARP publically before it was enacted then I will beieve it. Until now, I say, sure Rick, just like you opposed all the other spending when you were in office. Sure, Rick Santourm, fiscal conservative. NOT.
Santorum is a fiscal conservative. He DOES have the power to fight the Dems. He WILL be a constitutional President. He is doing this to save the country for his kids, NOT because of his own grandiose ego. With a Republican congress he WILL get a lot done that will be fiscally sound. He’s not coming to the table to spend.
And he ISN’T a RINO like Mitt.
I think it is very prejudiced for voters to be against social conservatives for their beliefs, especially, like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum, when they don’t campaign on their beliefs. They just hold them.
Newt is more of a government guy than I’d like - but the fact remains - FACT REMAINS - that Rick’s votes and Rick’s campaigns have been more big government than Newt’s votes and Newt’s campaigns.
Most of Newt’s big government leanings have been expressed as ideas in books or speeches or theories - which is not good - but it is far less damaging than Rick’s big government sponsored bills, big government authored bills, big government votes, and big government weenie campaigns.
Again, those are facts. And notice I did not try and say my guy is perfect or make any excuses. I simply put in perspective his dalliances with liberalism versus Rick’s dalliances with liberalism. This matters.
What evidence is there of that? Romneycare is running up massive deficits in Massachusetts. He raised taxes and fees $700 million.
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.