Social Conservatives and Libertarians United...

By RightKlik

Social conservatives and libertarians are united against Mitch Daniels.

First, a libertarian perspective from Michael Cannon:
Mitch Daniels’s record also bears similarities to Obama’s, and his approach to Obamacare as governor has been an anchor on the repeal movement...

Whereas Obamacare requires states to open their Medicaid programs to families of four earning $31,000 (138 percent of the federal poverty level), Daniels expanded Indiana’s Medicaid program to families of four earning $44,000 (200 percent of poverty). From 2008 to 2010, Indiana’s Medicaid enrollment spiked: Adult enrollments grew 21 percent, a rate nearly double the national average. By 2010, Daniels had enrolled another 62,000 Hoosiers in government-run health care...

“Why is Governor Daniels,” wrote Pacific Research Institute health-care expert John R. Graham, “extending the hand of peace . . . when Obamacare has been mortally wounded in the courts and the U.S. House of Representatives?”
— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank)

A social conservative speaks (Richard Land):
Most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. They recognize that a federal government that borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends is committing generational theft, spending our grandchildren's money and impoverishing their future. Social conservatives also argue that government has such high costs partly because of the broken families, broken communities and broken ethics generated by moral relativism...

Perhaps Gov. Daniels interprets the emergence of the tea party as a sign that GOP candidates don't have to depend on social-issues voters as they once did. That seems unlikely...

Consider recent polls from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). They reveal that tea party supporters, while motivated by the fiscal crisis, are also overwhelmingly socially conservative: Sixty-three percent oppose abortion, found PRRI, and 64% oppose same-sex marriage, found Pew.
— Mr. Land is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Mitch Daniels has combined right-wing statism with incoherent ambivalence toward socially conservative issues. Somehow that apparently works very well in Indiana. Could it work in the GOP presidential primaries?


  1. 'Most' social conservatives are not 'fiscal conservatives'.

    You only need to look at the desultory history from 2001-2006 when social conservatives held sway in the White House, led the Senate and had large majorities in the House, all GOP then.

    If 'fiscal conservatism' means 'smaller government and balanced budgets', then the social conservatives then in control of government failed miserably.

    Medicare Part D---massive $10 trillion unfunded new entitlement liability; no taxes raised to cover cost/no spending cuts elsewhere

    Fiscal Grade F-

    NCLB- (No Child Left Behind)- Massive new federal mandate to burden the states with (reverse federalism of Reagan); no taxes raised to pay for it; no spending cuts elsewhere to offset cost

    Fiscal Grade-- F-

    W Bush Tax Cuts--- passed to stimulate economy post-9/11 recession/ Bush WH and the GOP Congress deliberately destroyed the PAYGO laws on the books or neutered them just so they would not have to 'pay for the tax cuts' in terms of offsets in spending LIKE EVERYONE HAD TO DO IN THE 1990'S AND WHICH LED TO THE ONLY 3 YEARS OF BALANCED BUDGETS WE WILL EVER SEE IN OUR LIFETIMES!

    Fiscal Grade--- Z-

    Expansion of War in Iraq--- no offsets or tax hikes to pay for it; worse, war efforts paid for each and every year with supplemental appropriations in the middle of the summer just so they did not have to be included in the annual budget submission which would have INCREASED the official deficits by $100 Billion+ per year for the following 9 years....and counting.

    Fiscal Grade---- Googleplex - Gazillions

    The Social Conservatives talk a big game about being fiscally responsible, but when the history of the late 20th century is written, they will be viewed as fiscally irresponsible and dilatory in duty as the Tip O'Neill Democrats in the 80's and the Obama Democrats who followed....except the Obama Democrats post 2008-on just stepped on the spending accelerator that the GOP had pushed down to the floor before them.....and pushed it through the floorboard.

    Dr. Land is not telling the truth here and he knows it. Sadly. The truth is entirely different than what he dreams it to be otherwise.

    I was up on Capitol Hill on staff from 2002-2004 and then off-and-on from then to 2007 working in government relations.

    Truth. Hurts.

    and things ain't gonna change until people admit the truth and repent of their sins and walk around in sackcloths and ashes...for about 10 years.

  2. I tried doing a more extensive comment and it didn't go through. That's okay. Social Conservatives need to quit demonizing Libertarians for simply wanting to make choices behind closed doors that that social conservatives don't approve of. when liberals get their way and add books or information to the list of things one cannot put in their body, social conservatives (who are overwhelmingly Christian) will moan and whine when the cops bust their doors down for distributing Christian literature or reading their Bibles. Christianity is SUPPOSED to be a religion of choice. Libertarians want to preserve such choices, liberals don't. Whatever side the social conservatives throw in with will win. I hope they make the right choice.

  3. Indiana should keep him. Surely we have better choices...

  4. @Frank Hill I'm not convinced that social conservatives were "in control" 2001-2006. And I'm not convinced that the social conservatives who did "hold sway" between 2001 and 2006 were actually representative of the average American social conservative.

    There's no doubt that a lot of fiscally conservative / fiscally responsible citizens were obtunded during the Bush years. Now they're waking up, and folks like Land want to solidify the alliance between SoCons and fiscal cons in the interest of defeating the Obama regime. I think that should be encouraged.

  5. I don't have any problem with a big tent and as large a coalition going forward as possible.

    The social conservatives were in solid control of the White House; the Senate and the House from 2001-2006 and Karl Rove made sure the evangelical vote got out in 2004 to re-elect W.

    And the fiscal house fell like the 3 Little Pigs houses of straw and sticks.

    I was in a meeting when one chief of staff told me to my face when I brought up the question in 2003: 'When are we Republican Senate offices going to introduce spending cut legislation?' for the 4th straight week to 'Shut the hell up, Frank. We don't talk about spending cuts or balancing the budget anymore up here.'

    that was the moment I knew we were headed for trouble very soon...

    The Coalition umbrella starts and stops with smaller government/fiscal sanity/balanced budgets and a reasonable tax system or else nothing else really matters in the long-run.

    When it is reversed and the social issues run priority level 1-6 and then smaller guvmint/balanced budgets/etc. take priority #1000 and beyond, that is when you see a fracturing of the right side of the spectrum and 36% of the officially registered to vote population in NC are now Unaffiliated or Independent.

    That is unprecedented. In 1992 when Perot ran, the official Indie registered vote was only 4%,


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.