Santorum: Republicans “to our credit” abandoned idea of smaller government
In a 2008 interview, Rick Santorum explains how he thinks “to our credit” the Republican Party has “morphed away from the Goldwater idea that government just needs to be smaller, it needs to do less, it needs to be doing nothing except for what its core functions are.”
It’s not clear exactly what he thinks the new (shall we say “neo-”) conservative view is, but it certainly involves government “incentives” and “programs”:
Look, we need to restructure the way we do programs, or the way government functions, to actually create the kind of incentives or create the kind of help and programs that give that authority, that give that power to solve these problems, to folks closer to people, or to the family or to the individual themselves.
With double-talk like this, he can claim to be standing up for the family and individual liberty; but meanwhile, these “liberties” will only be available as approved by a Federal government program.
It’s the kind of Statism we’ve already come to love from Mr. Santorum. It’s a Party line, by the way, that Obama could use, too: we need to “restructure” government programs that empower local schools, families, and individuals.
Whatever that means, we know what it does not mean: smaller government that is stripped to its core functions.
Categories:
BureaucracyCivil GovernmentElectionsComments (16)
I am not sure who would be the lesser of the evils running as Republicans, but, at this point, I would vote for a pile of dog crap over Obama.
One of the marks of a Republican Form of Government, is a smaller, accountable Govt. with the minimum amount of taxation.
All one has to do, is take the free Const. course, offered by Hillsdale College, learn how to argure Constitutionally, try to influence as many as possible--and vote!
Meanwhile, while one is learning of the Foundational Documents, on may pray earnestly to the God that gave us our rights, in the first place--ask God forgiveness of our ignorance!
Walking Tall
One of the marks of a Republican Form of Government, is a smaller, accountable Govt. with the minimum amount of taxation.
All one has to do, is take the free Const. course, offered by Hillsdale College, learn how to argure Constitutionally, try to influence as many as possible--and vote!
Meanwhile, while one is learning of the Foundational Documents, on may pray earnestly to the God that gave us our rights, in the first place--ask God forgiveness of our ignorance!
Walking Tall
And therefore what you will get is a pile of dog crap.
The Institute On The Constitution's constitution course runs rings around the Hillsdale course since that basically, at its end point, comes to the conclusion proffered by Santorum and the Republican Party in this and every other cycle.
The Institute On The Constitution's constitution course runs rings around the Hillsdale course since that basically, at its end point, comes to the conclusion proffered by Santorum and the Republican Party in this and every other cycle.
Santorum you double talker, .........conservative my a$$ he is big gov. like odumbo step down you moron Santorum!!
Some argue that a Republican should adhere to the current Republican ideal. For one that's just dangerous. Unfortunately, Santourm's rhetoric is not far off from the view point of many current conservatives. I just wonder if it's Santorum that's following his personal ideals or if he's following the ideals of the conservative voters. Yes, Obama can use that same line. Big government is big government. Even if Obama had to adopt conservative big government policy, he can still deal with that. It'll all be towards his advantage.
The dangerous thing about Santorum and others like him is not that they push policy that is anti-freedom, but that he's accepted among the conservatives. And, he goes unchecked. He pushes for anti-abortion laws that are accepted by Christian conservatives, but this is only to wedge not just himself but bigger government policy into conservative mainstream. Some say he would be better than Obama. I say, he's no better than Obama.
Just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in Screwtape Letters, we shouldn't get distracted from the Truth even by getting hungry and thinking about a sandwich. Same goes with the distraction of what looks to be a good law, but only defeats what is true. The devil twists things just right to deceive us even mandating against abortion into being accepted by the conservative-right. We ought to be careful.
The dangerous thing about Santorum and others like him is not that they push policy that is anti-freedom, but that he's accepted among the conservatives. And, he goes unchecked. He pushes for anti-abortion laws that are accepted by Christian conservatives, but this is only to wedge not just himself but bigger government policy into conservative mainstream. Some say he would be better than Obama. I say, he's no better than Obama.
Just as C.S. Lewis pointed out in Screwtape Letters, we shouldn't get distracted from the Truth even by getting hungry and thinking about a sandwich. Same goes with the distraction of what looks to be a good law, but only defeats what is true. The devil twists things just right to deceive us even mandating against abortion into being accepted by the conservative-right. We ought to be careful.
I'm assuming that you meant to say "..we know what it doesn (not) mean:". Otherwise the statement doesn't seem to fit the context.
There is a reason that Santorum and Romney are ahead in the 'rigged' elections. These two will carry on the agenda for the establishment. If we are ever to get 'our' America back, Ron Paul needs to be sitting in the White House. Without, legitimate elections, it won't happen. Funny, but everyone I talk to, one on one, prefers Dr. Paul to the rest of the gang.
Another good reason Rick is not the one we need. Both Romney and Rick will have trouble beating Obama if they even can, then they will let the Machine of Politics run them. We need a person in there that will beat Obama head on, and then tell the machine that they will not obey them and raise some heck. That person is person is Newt.
Newt can be put into the same category as Romney and Santorum. They're all the same.
Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul 2012
Sorry, Robert, but Newt is just as much a statist as Mitt and Rick. In fact, it's difficult to even know where his principles lie considering how protean he has been over the years. Here's a great example from the allegedly "conservative" Newt that really rivals this embarrassing admission by Santorum.
"In an unnoticed 1992 speech, Newt Gingrich in a single utterance took aim not only at a beloved conservative icon but also at a core tenet of the conservative movement: that government must be limited.
Ronald Reagan’s “weakness,” Gingrich told the National Academy of Public Administration in Atlanta, was that “he didn’t think government mattered. . . . The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-a...
"In an unnoticed 1992 speech, Newt Gingrich in a single utterance took aim not only at a beloved conservative icon but also at a core tenet of the conservative movement: that government must be limited.
Ronald Reagan’s “weakness,” Gingrich told the National Academy of Public Administration in Atlanta, was that “he didn’t think government mattered. . . . The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-a...
Santorum is NOT a political conservative. Social conservatism is great, but it's not the role of the federal government to enforce those values; our FAMILIES do that.
The idea that he is the "conservative alternative to Romney" is a farce.
The idea that he is the "conservative alternative to Romney" is a farce.
I really have not decided where Santorum is coming from. He says he is a Christian, but Obama says that too. But I have Obama figured out. He is 100% anti-GOD Muslim according to his decisions.
The Republican party picked Mitt and Rick out along time ago they wanted Mitt to be the president and tryed to push him on us through Fox news they new the people really didnt want him so that is why they had a back up Rick they are both alike if eather of them win we will stay on the same path we are nowon they are for big goverment and one wourld country so you better wake up the Republcans are right in with ovmit and the Democraps we dont have anyone except one person that will stand with us and go back to the constation and smaller goverment that one is Ron Paul he would look after are soliders and bring are country back to us god help us
This is the exact reason why I left thew Republican party. This and the fact the party has no idea what they stand for...
Good gawd...you people argue like a bunch of schoolgirls. Remember, please, that the main problem here is "President" Obama. We need to work together (no matter how much it may hurt) to get him thoroughly "retired" before he can cause any more damage. None of the current crop of Republican candidates is absolutely ideal (that is to say, none of them are Ronald Reagan) but EVERY ONE OF THEM is head-and-shoulders above Obama. Get your priorities in order, folks. If you don't, we'll be eating crow for yet another four years, and he'll ruin the Supreme Court while he's at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment