Is Santorum a conservative?
Socially, yes. Otherwise, not quite as much of one as you might think.
Somewhat like Romney, Santorum has the problem of coming from a somewhat liberal state (although nowhere near as liberal as Massachusetts) where he had to please his constituents. Unlike Romney, Santorum’s a career politician, with no executive or private sector experience to speak of.
This commenter makes an interesting point with which I agree:
How many more months are we going to keep pretending that the argument worth having is who is or is not conservative?
There are only two questions remaining, and those have been the ONLY questions remaining for months now:
1.Who of a bad lot has the best chance of beating Barack Obama?
2. Who of a bad lot will govern the MOST conservatively?
If you think that almost any of these guys is a shoe-in to beat Obama, then it’s the answer to question #2 that will determine the candidate you support. If you think unseating Obama will be difficult and the race hard, then the answer to question #1 will be the one that is most helpful when you decide for whom to vote in the primaries.
And if you, like some people who comment around the blogosphere, think that the eventual Republican nominee isn’t conservative enough (whomever he might be), and that there’s really little difference between him and Obama, then by all means stay home on Election Day. But when Obama wins and goes on to claim more executive power, leads the country in an ever-leftward direction through extra-legislative means, vetoes the more conservative bills of a (possibly) Republican Congress, continues a foreign policy destructive of our relations with allies and weak on some of our enemies, and appoints some very young (in other words, with long tenures probably ahead of them) and very liberal Supreme Court justices and federal judges, then you can look in the mirror and congratulate yourself for having had a hand in causing that to come about.
What difference is there in the likes of Obama and the previous president and their respective administrations? The rhetoric differs only slightly, ‘conservatives’ being conservative only by more liberal use of ‘Constitution” and in their nods to the ‘fiscal responsibility’. Face it — Republicans may talk like Patton but rule like Quisling. The substantial difference between the Democrats and Republicans? The Republicans would take twice the time to satisfy liberal desires than the Democrats.
Dragging your feet is not opposition.
Evangels are like to Conservatism like what Progressives are to Liberalism. A perversion of the real thing.
“But when Obama wins and goes on to claim more executive power,…”
Preach it sistah!
Not getting what Donny said.
And dragging your feet IS opposition. Ask any parent.
It’s a far cry from capitulating,and it buys time.
Romney just won the CPAC poll. Is it possible that conservatives are figuring out the priority is beating Obama? Perhaps Obama showed his hand too early with the swipe at the Catholic church.
The idea that Obama is no different than (fill in the blank) is ludicrous.
Shhh! If George Pal cannot see the difference between Obama and ANY previous administration, don’t wake him from his stupor.
Admittedly, most Republican Presidents have not been as conservative as most of us would prefer; although it is also true that most of the time they have struggled with a Leftist Congress. On the other hand, I know of none who have trampled the Constitution in the manner we are now witnessing.
I am sure that Donny had some Atheistic thought that he wanted to share with us; but, lost it in the transmission.
Oldflyer,
Bush started the wars Obama continues. The two of them will have made Afghanistan safe for theocracy; Iraq ripe for Islamic sectarian war. All those American lives wasted — absolutely.
Under Bush: The Patriot Act, liberal spendthrift programs such as No Child Left Behind, paid drugs for the elderly, suspension of any qualifications for home buyers – down to no down payments, a blind eye to illegal immigration, the Bush crony banking/government scandal continues unabated to this day, as does accommodation of islam (Obama’s obsequiousness to Saudi Kings outdone by the Bush family being in bed with them).
The difference — Obama has done in four years what it took Bush eight years to accomplish — my point.
As for stupor, be advised that the great change in America began in the ’60s with the Great Society programs. Republicans have never put an end to one dismal failed program, have never even had the guts to call for an end, and are complicit in the extension of those programs — precisely what got us to where we are. The ‘not conservative enough’ threshold was breached long ago and we are worse for it.
If you believe Mitt, Rick, or Newt, will not bleat for raising the debt ceiling yet again when the time comes, or will actually and drastically cut entitlements, or will cease America’s foreign adventures and stop wasting American lives, then you have a faith greater than I can manage. I prefer giving the trend its due until such time as the trend ceases to be trend.
Really? I prefer to blame the people who actually voted for Obama.
I’ve already stated in no uncertain terms that I will not vote for Romney. I may vote for Gingrich or Santorum, but I don’t believe any of the three can beat Obama in the general election. As things stand now, I will probably vote for the Libertarian candidate in November.
Also consider that even if the Republicans run the table in the election, economic collapse in the next few years is a near mathematical certainty. Mainstream Republicans show no evidence that they are capable of averting it. If the Republicans are in power when it happens, they will be blamed for it and leftists even more radical than Obama will be elected.
I’m with Joan of Argghh!:
Yeah, rickl, the conventional conservatives are resorting to insults and browbeating since all their justifications for Romney aren’t taking root.
I reject the false choice and pose option #3: Are any of the candidates likely to uphold and defend the Constitution during the inevitable crisis?
If you don’t vote for the Constitution, your definition of conservative is hollow and worthless. Whatever you see in the mirror is just an image.
To vote for any candidate in the general that has no realistic chance of defeating Obama (anyone not the Repub candidate) is to enable Obama.
Repeat:
is to enable Obama.
That’s what you want to do, it’s your right, and it’s what I fought for.
Go ahead. Enable Obama. Don’t call it anything else.
Aside from governing Most conservatively, I would add most effectively. Having Robert Kagan and Robert Bork as advisors and a John Bolton endorsement seems like a pretty clear contrast to Obama. The president has to do more than just espouse policies; he must also have a team and enough congressional support to implement them.
I’m not “enabling” anybody except the candidate I actually vote for.
Seems there are a lot of people who need to clear their heads and take the red pill. Or is it the blue pill? I don’t know; I never saw that movie anyway.
Right Ed, but the problem, humbly speaking, is determining who has no chance. Doesn’t the lack of poll veracity, the huge swings in Republican candidate popularities, the history of come from behind wins, and the fact that it is still too quite early to tell, prohibit one from making that determination (given the fairly obvious and stupid choices don’t apply like write ins and Ron Paul, but even Ron Paul?).
Hunh?
I kind of like rick’s stand: It has a feel to it that denies hysteria. And, let’s not forget, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says a person must vote for the only “one'” who can win.
Ed Bonderenka Says:
February 11th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
That excludes Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, in my estimation.
Scare tactics? When The O doesn’t need to placate his base,why should he exert himself, especially given a fractious congress. Likely he will withdraw and play more golf. Meanwhile, maybe conservatives can locate some backbone in Repub leadership in time for 2014
Rickl: everyday there’s a poll that shows one of them within striking distance or ahead of Obama, and they haven’t even targeted him yet (unfortunately).
Except Paul, whom you neglected to mention.
Curtis: I’m saying to vote (in the general election) for a third party candidate (or no candidate) is to enable Obama. It’s almost axiomatic.
If someone wants to vote a “conscience” vote by not voting for the Repub candidate (and I’m no party hack), they are enabling Obama to continue.
Some people think that would be preferable.
That thinking is alien to me.
CPAC just went off C-SPAN and Obama’s face came on the screen mouthing more lies.
Someone thinks that’s a good thing?
Well, Ed, yes!
But almost always.
Haven’t there been occasions when third parties did indeed prevail and changed our country for the better?
It is scary. Obama is, IMO, an absolute disaster as President. He has managed to do much more damage in three years than I ever dreamed. Just by maintaining anti-business policies he has prevented any meaningful economic recovery. To make things worse he shoved Obamacare up our A****, has managed to offend most of our allies and kowtow to our enemies. Instead of doing what’s best for the country, he has always, always, done what he sees as politically best for “transforming” the country to fit his progressive vision. Yet we are arguing among ourselves that the candidates are not pure enough for us. It’s tantamount to deciding our team can’t win before the game is ever played.
For my part I think any of the Republican candidates would be a huge improvement. None of the candidates are perfect. In fact the perfect candidate does not exist because we all look for differing attributes in those we want to vote for. Also, do not forget the appointment of activist judges that will occur in a second Obama term. On that count alone it is worth voting “Anybody But Obama.” Whoever wins the nomination will have my vote, and monetary as well as volunteer support. This is no time to lose sight of the goal – get rid of Obama. ABO – 2012.
It’s also important to work to get more conservatives elected to the Senate. If Congress is more conservative there is a better chance that the budget and spending issues can actually be dealt with and not just tinkered with. I’d like to see conservatives quit sniping at one another and instead concentrate on the main target – Obama. We need to stop his runaway spending, liberal judge appointments, and impotent foreign policy. If we don’t, we are a good bet to become another Argentina.
Ed:
I actually said the other night that I think Paul has a better chance of beating Obama than any of the other three.
For those conservatives who are planning to sit the election out or vote third party, here’s a link to Breibart’s speech at CPAC:
http://tinyurl.com/7epkup3
Go Andrew, go.
“What difference is there in the likes of Obama and the previous president and their respective administrations?”
Maybe nothing – except the difference of having Kagan and Sotomayor on the SC for two generations instead of Alito and Roberts.
“I actually said the other night that I think Paul has a better chance of beating Obama than any of the other three.”
With all due respect, you’re out of your mind. A Repblican candidate who lets BO run to the *right* on foreign policy! And that’s one of only several showstoppers for Paul. It would make Johnson-Goldwater look like a cliffhanger.
Curtis: No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
“Third party candidates very rarely win any elections. For example, such a candidate only won a U.S. Senate election twice (0.6%) since 1990. Therefore, it is very rare to have a national officeholder not affiliated with and endorsed by one of the two major parties. Currently, there are only two U.S. Senators (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders), who are neither Democrat nor Republican, while no U.S. Representative hails from outside the major parties. The only two U.S. Presidents without a major party affiliation were George Washington and Andrew Johnson.”
“The only two U.S. Presidents without a major party affiliation were George Washington and Andrew Johnson.”
And Johnson never ran in a Presidential race; he was of course the Vice-President who took over after Lincoln’s assassination and was later impeached though not convicted.
Y’all toss out phrases like “enabling Obama” as if you could scare people into voting your way. If it comes down that way, I plan to vote to cancel one of y’all who votes to “enable Romney”.
In head-to-head national polls, Paul has been within striking distance of Obama for weeks. And that’s with the rest of GOP demeaning or ignoring him. Imagine where he might be if the righty machine recognized RP as the one Obama is most likely to lose to.
I wonder if Paul somehow got the nomination, would Santorum run third party?
foxmarks Says:
February 12th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Y’all toss out phrases like “enabling Obama” as if you could scare people into voting your way. If it comes down that way, I plan to vote to cancel one of y’all who votes to “enable Romney”.
What is voting my way? ABO that stands a chance. If Paul gets the nod, he gets my vote. Then I work like hell to get rid of him next time.
But I can’t parse: ‘I plan to vote to cancel one of y’all who votes to “enable Romney”.’
Ed: You already know you would work like hell to get rid of Paul?
If it comes down to Romney v. Barry, I am voting for Barry. (not to get into that discussion again; rest assured I think Obama sux)
But if somehow Romney limps into the White House, I can’t say I will certainly oppose his re-election. Who knows, maybe he will learn the Constitution…