Santorum's 'conservatism': It's no 'alternative'
Played ad nauseam after Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum swept Tuesday's nominating contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri was this sound bite:
"I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."
Which means conservatism and America are in deep trouble.
Does the future of American conservatism really rest in someone who mistakes capitulation for compromise, political expediency for principles and theocracy for constitutionalism?
What's "conservative" about supporting No Child Left Behind, the massive expansion of the federal government into local education matters?
What's "conservative" about supporting the Medicare prescription-drug entitlement, featuring multiple trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities?
What's "conservative" about having, in his last two years as a U.S. senator, one of the largest spending agendas among Republicans?
What's "conservative" about supporting dairy subsidies that promote excess production that depresses prices that continually fuel the plea for even more subsidies?
What's "conservative" about supporting boondoggle mass-transit projects like Pittsburgh's North Shore Connector with the rationale that if taxpayer dollars are not spent here, they will be spent elsewhere?
Rick Santorum, the "conservative alternative"• Hardly. He's nothing more than a bag with a hole in it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.