Via Erick Erickson who reminds us that even after tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary, the candidate field will have completed 1.80% of the primary process. Less than 2%. In other words, it ain’t over despite what all the Romneybots think. Even after South Carolina in 2 weeks, less than 3% of the delegates will be allocated.
Truth be told, I still don’t understand the Santorum surge. After GW–whom I adored, yes–nearly destroyed conservatism with that “compassionate” tag of ever-increasing government expansion in the name of … expansion–we don’t need another Republican who believes the answers lie in more government. I’m not an Ann Coulter fan, but this made me laugh because it’s true (H/t: Legal Insurrection):
Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.
Professor Jacobson calls it a smear against another not-Romney, but there’s truth in the statement.
Meanwhile, we have a choice as outlined by Rick Perry. He identifies what this election is about and is still the only small-government conservative running. He’s also the longest-serving governor in the country of that giant state. The one that dominates job creation.
Almost universally, Republicans hold in contempt the real-life “ends” of the Obama administration’s policies, though admittedly there are those self-described conservatives who have favored (and even authored) Obamacare-like approaches to health care and policies like cap-and-trade. To us, those ends look decidedly liberal and reminiscent of European social democracies, and out of step with our vision for America.
Yet some conservatives, while rejecting the “ends” have not yet fully rejected the means, despite the fact that many Americans—and not just conservatives or libertarians— have reached the conclusion that the federal government has just become too big and has its fingers in too many pies, with the predictable negative real-world consequences for the rest of us.
They argue that a big intrusive government is fine, desirable even, so long as it pursues “conservative” goals, which frequently when scrutinized are neither conservative nor worthy. Earmarks are okay, as long as they are directed by “conservatives.” Expansions of government like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind were acceptable because they represented “Republican” policy. Congress spending all its time in Washington, DC, and legislating madly is fine, so long as the congressmen are Republicans and they are pursuing something that the Washington, DC, establishment has deemed “conservative.” It’s okay to have a government so big, so unaccountable and playing with so much money that serving Members of Congress can get rich while on the job, and once off the job, they can get even richer by becoming high-powered corporate consultants before skipping over to K Street itself, to try to grow government and spend even more of your money.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we have reached a critical juncture at which government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.
Do we really need the Rick who has no executive experience, who supported Arlen Specter at the expense of a real conservative, and whose record in the Senate consistently betrays conservative principles?
Filed under: 2012, Perry | 2 Comments »