In response to:
I don't agree with any part of this article. Conservatism in and of itself is compassionate because it gets the government off our back and doesn't play Daddy to all our needs. There are already plenty of safety nets set up by states and other charities to help those really in need and to the chagrin of liberals the policies they've touted as helping have instead caused harm sometimes irreparable harm. Liberal caring and compassion usually turns out to be for themselves in the form of more control over everyone's life in other words power. I have many disagreements with Bush but he was a moderate who actually loved this country and did the best he could to lead it in a turbulent time. The term compassionate conservative is an oxymoron.
William F. Buckley once noted that he was 19 when the Cold War began at the Yalta conference. The year the Berlin Wall came down, he became a senior citizen. In other words, he explained, anti-Communism was a defining feature of conservatism his entire adult life. Domestically, meanwhile, the right was largely a "leave me alone coalition": Religious and traditional conservatives, overtaxed businessmen, Western libertarians, and others fed up with government social engineering and economic folly. The foreign policy battle against tyrannical statism abroad only buttressed the domestic antagonism toward well-intentioned and occasionally democratic statism at home.
The end of...
I totally disagree, it is just the opposite, it is redundant. Personally showing compassion to those in need is a defining attribute of religious conservatives. Not necessarily with economic or political conservatives.