The Trouble With Santorum

Image from newsophile.com

At this point in the Republican primary, Rick Santorum is the only substantial “not Mitt” left in the running. With Gingrich falling behind Paul in the Illinois primary, it’s safe to say that Newt’s campaign has run it’s course. Delegate count being a factor, there’s no way Gingrich or Paul can feasibly win the nomination.

It’s been interesting to watch the migration of supporters from Palin (once she decided not to run), to Cain. Then from Cain to Gingrich, then from Gingrich to Santorum. Even more surprising is the Tea Party support of Santorum, particularly since Santorum, by his own admission, has qualms with the Tea Party movement as seen here (after his soliloquy on the virtues of government intervention):

We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; … but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.

And then there’s the issue of our friends, the Libertarians. Santorum said,

I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement.  I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people that believes in no government.

And Santorum on smaller government? Goldwater Conservatism? Meh…

To our credit, Republicans have sort of morphed away from the Goldwater idea that government needs to be smaller, it needs to do less, it needs to be doing nothing except what it’s core functions are to a party by and large, and there are elements still left by the way, in the party like that, to a party that by and large says, look, we need to restructure the way we do programs or the way government functions to create the kind of incentives or create the kind of help and programs that give that power to folks closer to the people or to family or to the individual themselves.

And to disspel any concern that the above listed were merely isolated incidents, there’s also this - the big one, the queen mother of them all:

One of the criticisms I make to what I refer to as a more Libertarianish right.  They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do.  Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional Conservatives view the world.  There is no society that I”m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Less government?? Individual freedom?? No government in the bedroom?? Pssh… that’s just crazy talk.  Limited government, individual freedom and the ability to make choices without government intervention are the cornerstones of conservatism.  Santorum, for whatever reason, chooses to characterize these “radical” ideals as libertarian, which is not inaccurate, but to act as though they are not conservative values is dishonest. Furthermore, it begs the question as to what conservatism means to Rick Santorum.  If your only solution to societal ails is more government – you’re doing it wrong. And it’s precisely this notion that makes Rick Santorum, well, troubling.

 

 

Yes, there is a war on women…

…and it’s been waged by the left. 

The latest liberal meme suggests the GOP is up to its usual antics – repressing women and trying to steal their hard earned rights.  Listening to left, you’d think the GOP was trying to abolish the 19th amendment.  But this whole “war on women” revolves around one thing – what the government will subsidize.

Rather than focus on actual women’s issues, the left single-handedly put the feminist movement in reverse, and floored it. Somehow women’s issues no longer include income equality, equality of opportunity, intellectual respect etc. etc. etc. No, no. Now every woman (we’re told) should be in a tizzy about the government’s opinion of their uterus.

MoveOn.org compiled a list of the 10 most “shocking attacks from the GOP” in this fictitious War on Women. Six of the ten deal specifically with “reproductive rights“ while the remaining four deal with government assistance.  Even Stopthewaronwomen.com addresses one issue – abortion, and invites site visitors to assist in stopping the attacks on Planned Parenthood. Yes.  That’s the war, government funding of “women’s health.”  And take a look at Move On‘s latest attempt to frame The War:

When did feminism morph into a government subsidy free for all? I’m sure the women who chained themselves to street lamps and suffered through hunger strikes for women’s suffrage would be thrilled to know the idyllic modern feminists is one who begs Congress for “free” birth control.

Of course the self-professed feminists of today will tell you feminism is in decline thanks to the GOP’s efforts to squash reproductive rights, then run off to join their gal pals in a Slutwalk. No longer is feminism (at least the left’s perverted version of it) about independent and intellectually liberated women, it’s about government subsidized sex.

While the conservative movement looks at strong, trailblazing women as role models and inspiration of what women can accomplish, to the left we’re nothing more than a uterus. A uterus with a vote.

There Are No Conservatives in the Race, So Stop Looking

The GOP presidential primary gets more ridiculous with each passing day. From N-word rock to Gloria Allred and now moon colonies, we’ve made sure to focus on issues that matter.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it’d be badass to visit the moon, but with soaring unemployment, unsustainable debt, an increasingly fragile Middle East, and threat of Obamacare, whether or not we can put a Starbucks on the moon is not something I’m terribly concerned about, at least not today.

Even more outlandish than lunar living are the “True Conservative” purity tests.  Regardless of a candidate’s successes, cries from “True Conservatives” bemoan them as “not conservative enough.”   Such whining also suggests that there is a candidate in the race who is the shining star of conservative principles and values.  I hate to break it to you, but allow me to let you in on a little secret: there are no conservatives in the race. That’s right, you heard me, no conservatives, not one.

The current GOP field has three regular ol’ Republicans and a feisty little Libertarian. Breath a sigh of relief, there’s no need to scour their records to discern who is most Conservative. You can stop yelling at everyone who disagrees with you that their preferred candidate isn’t really a “truuuuuuuueeeee Conservative.”  Because you know what? You’re right. While it’s true each GOP candidate has engaged in conservative behavior from time to time, they are by every measure, simply Republican.   Whether it’s refusal to recognize this obvious fact, or a frantic desire to find Reagan incarnate, I’m not sure, but the sooner the base understands this, the easier life will be and the quicker we can all be friends again.

Blame “the establishment,” blame the media – it makes no difference because like it or not, we have four choices. In the Final Four we have three Republicans and Grand Pappy Libertarian. We have Romney, perhaps one of the most quintessential Republicans in existence (good hair and all) and yes, Romneycare, we heard you the first billion times you screamed it. We have Santorum, social Conservative, but Big Government Republican, supporter of Arlen Specter and believer in a restricted internet. And then there’s Newt, oh Newt. True, he led the GOP revolution in the 90′s and balanced the budget, yada yada yada, but he also supports the individual mandate and believes in global warming, or climate change, or whatever we’re calling it these days.  And he’s definitely not a social conservative (unless we’ve redefined that to include up to four marriages and/or affairs). And if you’re still dissatisfied with these choices, there’s always Ron Paul.

So there you have it. You can pack away your conservative measuring stick and save it for 2016 when we will again, eviscerate any actual conservative for forgetting a talking point, being too boring, or something equally as asinine, but claim the man willing to spend a bazillion tax payer dollars to put a McDonald’s on Mars is the hope of all conservadom.

________

This post originally appeared on The Political Operative, January 27, 2012.