Huckabee rips Mitch Daniels for calling “truce” on social issues

posted at 4:49 pm on June 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

Two things here. First, obviously, Huck wants to position himself as a social-con champion in case he gets the itch to run next year. If he can do that by torpedoing a potential dark-horse rival, particularly one from Indiana who might play well in a midwestern state like Iowa, so much the better.

Second, the uproar among social cons undoubtedly reflects deeper anxiety about the tea party’s emphasis on fiscal responsibility over “family values.” Remember Ben Smith’s piece back in March about evangelicals feeling antsy at the prospect of the GOP turning libertarian? Sample quote:

“There’s a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative,” said Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association. “The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.”

“As far as I can tell [the tea party movement] has a politics that’s irreligious. I can’t see how some of my fellow conservatives identify with it,” said Richard Cizik, who broke with a major evangelical group over his support for government action on climate change, but who remains largely in line with the Christian right on social issues. “The younger Evangelicals who I interact with are largely turned off by the tea party movement — by the incivility, the name-calling, the pathos of politics.”

Follow the link for Tony Perkins — who hammered Daniels yesterday on his call for a “truce” — dismissing tea partiers’ “Contract From America” as irrelevant because it didn’t include socially conservative stances among its top priorities. The reason Daniels is taking such a beating, I suspect, is that evangelicals want to send a message to the GOP before its flirtation with libertarianism turns into something more serious. Message: If you go the “Reason” magazine route, you’re going to find yourselves with a much smaller base. Enter Huck with a shot across the bow:

Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican “leaders” would suggest this truce, even more so. Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific Governor, and I’m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down…

A strong leader doesn’t need to focus myopically on one or two issues – but a strong leader is willing to fight for and defend their principles while rising to meet new challenges and solve all of the existing systemic problems confronting us.

He follows that by asking for donations, of course. What’s odd in hindsight about what Daniels said is that it’s hard to imagine a situation where a deal on cutting entitlements would hinge on some sort of concession on a social issue. Democrats don’t need to deal on abortion; their policy preference on that issue is a matter of constitutional law, thanks to the Supreme Court. And they’re leery enough about losing votes among centrists by backing gay rights that, to this day, The One still maintains the charade that he’s against gay marriage. If we ever do get to the point where Democrats are willing to reform social security, does anyone seriously think their payoff demand will be a federal same-sex marriage statute? Fact is, in phrasing it as he did, Daniels opened up a can of worms that he didn’t have to open. From now on, he should just say “solving our fiscal crisis should be America’s top national priority” and leave it at that.

Exit question: Where’s Palin on this, anyway? Surely she’s not ready to concede the social-con vote to Huck.

Update: Headline comments imported!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

As a Hoosier I would not vote for Mitch Daniels for anything. Last time he ran I left governor unmarked on my ballot. He is a beltway type open border fellow. Not for us.

PTN 39 on June 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM

It’s fine to go after mitt on healthcare

however I doubt you would be genuine about it.

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM

It’s genuine with me. I’m genuinely leery of Romney’s views on the role of government.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Did Mike Huckabee get a boob job?

portlandon on June 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM

He didn’t need to; he already had bigger boobs than Palin.

Huck needs a brain job.

Splashman on June 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Social issues are the most important to me. However, I also don’t think there is much the government can do about societal issues. Hearts and minds need to change first.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM

There is one important thing the government can do, except that it’s more of a not-doing: The government can stop giving incentives for behavior that makes society worse.

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Please don’t help the Dems in their mission to divide the GOP.

Missy on June 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Honestly, I think the area where the Right is really divided is foreign policy.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

There is one important thing the government can do, except that it’s more of a not-doing: The government can stop giving incentives for behavior that makes society worse.

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM

True

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM

It’s fine to go after mitt on healthcare

however I doubt you would be genuine about it.

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Umm compared to you, I have been around the block and know better then to deal with any Government healthcare.

You need to live a little longer. Yes, you are going to throw the age BS thing. But since you don’t own a home, you don’t have anything but yourself to take care of, you don’t pay a whole lot of taxes as of yet. I don’t see how you should assume anything.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Because ever since TARP, Stimulus, the take over of the student loan industry (making me unemployed), healthcare and the use of an oil platform accident as an excuse to stop drilling, all I can think of is social issues. I still don’t see this as a fight anyone has been fighting. Both of these gentlemen are just seeking press. Mission accomplished.

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Folks, it is possible to prioritize fiscal sanity over social issues without throwing the social cons under the bus. Remember we need all the votes we can get to defeat these criminals in the WH.

Please don’t help the Dems in their mission to divide the GOP.

Missy on June 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Tell that to Mitch Daniels.

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I still don’t see this as a fight anyone has been fighting. Both of these gentlemen are just seeking press. Mission accomplished.

Cindy Munford on June 11, 2010 at 5:23 PM

True. Well, there ARE a lot of pro-choicers in the GOP who are eternally embarrassed by the every existence of pro-lifers.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM

And the mask drops.

portlandon on June 11, 2010 at 5:07 PM

“The mask drops” by me noting a crucially important fact that’s been confirmed by various polls? Which we’ve blogged before more than once?

Amazing to me, even now, that merely noting information that doesn’t help Palin qualifies as “bias.”

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM

It’s genuine with me. I’m genuinely leery of Romney’s views on the role of government.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Well, he’s run a private, multi million dollar business, no? I highly doubt he’s anti business.

He also was against the nationalization of the car industry, and supported letting Detroit, “go bankrupt” as he penned in a piece in the NYT last year.

He also, despite MA’s plan, doesn’t support a federal plan. States v. feds, you know.

You need to live a little longer. Yes, you are going to throw the age BS thing. But since you don’t own a home, you don’t have anything but yourself to take care of, you don’t pay a whole lot of taxes as of yet. I don’t see how you should assume anything.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Understand he’s come out multiple times against federal healthcare programs. But you wouldn’t dare be honest enough to mention that, proving me point.

Furthermore, owning a home has nothing to do with it. The job market is terrible for college grads (i.e. me), the entitlement crisis is going to hit me a lot harder than most of the older readers here. The problem with Islamic jihad will simply worsen, and people like me will be dealing with much worse than readers who are older. So please, stop with your lame lecture. We each have a lot at stake, in various ways.

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM

This isn’t about Palin. We all know you like Mitt. I don’t see how jumping on port, who is pointing out the obvious, is anything other then you getting upset about it.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

“The mask drops” by me noting a crucially important fact that’s been confirmed by various polls? Which we’ve blogged before more than once?

Amazing to me, even now, that merely noting information that doesn’t help Palin qualifies as “bias.”

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM

The election isn’t next week, so I don’t see how polling data on Palin right now has much of a bearing on anything…particularly since she’s not even said she’s running.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Amazing to me, even now, that merely noting information that doesn’t help Palin qualifies as “bias.”

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Lighten up,Francis.

I was joking. I should have used the international sign for jest: /

portlandon on June 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

B you are what? 10 years younger then I? You don’t think I don’t have my fair share of dealing with it? Keep dreaming. Most kids (sorry but it is true) who are in your age bracket are slugs… and don’t try to deny it.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM

This isn’t about Palin. We all know you like Mitt. I don’t see how jumping on port, who is pointing out the obvious, is anything other then you getting upset about it.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

LOL. I know. Allahpundit’s Beta spidey senses get him all riled up. Golly.

portlandon on June 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Well, he’s run a private, multi million dollar business, no?

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Big deal. So has George Soros.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Because ever since TARP, Stimulus, the take over of the student loan industry (making me unemployed), healthcare and the use of an oil platform accident as an excuse to stop drilling, all I can think of is social issues. I still don’t see this as a fight anyone has been fighting

Hey, we can have a booming economy but if we have an immoral society….what does it matter?

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

LOL. I know. Allahpundit’s Beta spidey senses get him all riled up. Golly.

portlandon on June 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM

it happens to the best of us.

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM

The election isn’t next week, so I don’t see how polling data on Palin right now has much of a bearing on anything…particularly since she’s not even said she’s running.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Polls are a way of gauging what people are thinking right now. They are helpful.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Right now, in 2010, the emphasis SHOULD be on fiscal issues, because that’s what Tea Partiers are so upset about. In 2010, our purpose should be to re-take the House, and House members have no influence on abortion policy, so let’s concentrate on economic issues.

2012 is another story. The whole abortion problem was brought about by the Supreme Court, and to change the Supreme Court, we need a President to appoint conservative Justices and a Senate to confirm them. Even if Republicans took the Senate in 2010 (a long shot), Obama would never appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court.

Social issues WILL matter in 2012, but now is not the time to debate them. First things first, let’s retake the House!

Steve Z on June 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Polls are a way of gauging what people are thinking right now. They are helpful.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM

And of course, they’re going to be thinking in January 2012 EXACTLY the same way they’re thinking now.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Daniels overstated his point.
Huckabee overstated his point.

We don’t need to forget about social issues but we don’t need to run a campaign based on them either. I think we’re actually doing better on the abortion issue by changing hearts than the government can or will do in the near future.

thevastlane on June 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM

And of course, they’re going to be thinking in January 2012 EXACTLY the same way they’re thinking now.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Look I’m no fan of politicians making decisions on polls. However, I think they can useful at times.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM

I think we’re actually doing better on the abortion issue by changing hearts than the government can or will do in the near future.

thevastlane on June 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Exactly! More and more people are changing their minds on abortion….and once we got the hearts of minds of the American people then we can change the laws.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

You know what really makes me want to agree to “truces” and put issues like protecting the unborn on the “back burner”?

Sneers and insults directed at social cons (or, as I’ve always thought of them, “conservatives”).

Keep it up, folks! It’s very persuasive.

Kensington on June 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Believe it or not, social issues are an important part of the GOP’s electoral equation. It makes us competitive in OH, PA, MI, MN, WI, WV, IA, MO, when we wouldn’t be otherwise because all those states are fiscally moderate. Dumping social issues might be somewhat more helpful in bringing in OR, WA, maybe ME. The rest of the blue states aren’t worth the time and would cost us too much in purple states. And it just shows Daniels has no concept of what it takes to win the GOP nod.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM

–Doesn’t it also make the GOP less competitive in NV and CA?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Sneers and insults directed at social cons (or, as I’ve always thought of them, “conservatives”).

Keep it up, folks! It’s very persuasive.

Kensington on June 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Yeah for some reason the sneers and insults at social cons are especially venomous.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Sneers and insults directed at social cons (or, as I’ve always thought of them, “conservatives”).

Keep it up, folks! It’s very persuasive.

Kensington on June 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Yeah for some reason the sneers and insults at social cons are especially venomous.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM

And the sneers and insults at RINOs or others aren’t?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM

And the sneers and insults at RINOs or others aren’t?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM

We’ve had to hold our noses and vote for your guys more than the reverse.

ddrintn on June 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

And the sneers and insults at RINOs or others aren’t?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Heh. True enough.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Polls are a way of gauging what people are thinking right now. They are helpful.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM

You said it RIGHT NOW. 2+ years from an election they are not helpful. Unless you are Allah, who even on his conservative blog that should be united to oust The Marxist in Chief tries to demoralize Palin supporters with silly polls as much as the media does… Makes me wonder if he had a choice right now b/w the Marxist and Palin who would he choose? Hopefully he and the uninformed electorate are smart enough to make the right choice in 2+ years.

davek70 on June 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM

And the sneers and insults at RINOs or others aren’t?

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Well, since we’ve been voting for their loser candidates election cycle after election cycle, maybe you could give some leeway.

But, yeah, the venom directed at “social cons” is worse. It’s been charm central all day both here and at Ace of Spades.

Kensington on June 11, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Yeah for some reason the sneers and insults at social cons are especially venomous.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Yes, and it is sad to see. Daniels really opened up a can of worms here.

I guess Social Conservatives (who comprise a large, if not the largest portion of GOP voters/Tea Partiers) are supposed to just shut up, keep voting and doing most of the legwork to get Republicans elected, and then sit quietly in the corner.

Sorry, but we won’t.

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Wow! It’s great to have the headline comments imported here — thanks, AP!

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Sorry, but we won’t.

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Yes, but then people like me who point out what the Gov is doing with the money makes people’s eyes open up and then there is that outrage that only lasts, what…. a month with social cons before it is forgotten?

What do they call people who are moderately So-Con and extreme Fiscal-Con?

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

solving our fiscal crisis should be America’s top national priority

Incidentally, it is also something within the purview of the federal government according to the Constitution.

burt on June 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

The whole fiscal conservative/socially liberal voter/politician is an overblown illusion in my opinion.

We know the Libertarian Party gets at most 1% in national elections, and Republicans who are supposedly libertarian (Ron & Rand Paul for example) are actually very pro-life and conservative on most social issues.

Catering soley to the fiscal cons while ignoring social cons is a recipe for electoral diaster. It’s also extremely counter-productive, since most social conservatives are great fiscal conservatives too.

Look at the US Senators. Can you name a single one who is both a conistent social liberal AND a fiscal conservative? Most who run on that platform end up being liberal on both, like Arlen Specter.

Meanwhile, people like DeMint & Coburn (both got elected as social conservatives in social conservative states) are also solid fiscal conservatives. You can have both, without p!ssing all over social conservative voters the way Mitch Daniels is doing.

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM

What do they call people who are moderately So-Con and extreme Fiscal-Con?

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

So-Fisc-ticates? :-)

Mary in LA on June 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM

He also was against the nationalization of the car industry, and supported letting Detroit, “go bankrupt” as he penned in a piece in the NYT last year.

blatantblue on June 11, 2010 at 5:26 PM

If you go back to the January 2008 Michigan primary campaign, Mitt was very much for a bailout for the “Detroit Three.” Like everything else, Mitt tells the voters what he thinks they want to hear.

bw222 on June 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM

What do they call people who are moderately So-Con and extreme Fiscal-Con?

upinak on June 11, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Conservatives.

kingsjester on June 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Jimbo3 on June 11, 2010 at 5:39 PM

In general, social conservatives, e.g. Angle, Allard, Ensign, Domenici do fine in the libertarian west; it’s not a disqualifier. To consistently win in CA/NY/New England my guess is that we’d have to significantly moderate on fiscal issues. Isn’t it surprising that the first GOPers to win statewide in NJ in a generation is pro-life.

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Absolutely right. People like to talk up Giuliani as being fiscal conservative, soc liberal, but he had huge deficits which caused Bloomey to raise taxes. Giuliani was basically a W. Also, that’s why Norquist likes social conservatives; they’re fusionists in general. BTW, like your moniker as a fellow Norwegian :-)

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Also, I just don’t get it why we have to fall on our sword just when a majority of people are now pro-life, for the first time in generations.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 11, 2010 at 6:05 PM

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Cool! :)

Born & bred in Norway, emigrated to the US to escape socialism only to be disappointed by RINOs and Donkeys…

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Note to Huck-ster: Go pound sand!

You are the reason we had to put John “freaking RINO” McCain up as our nominee. The few of us who were afraid enough of the horrors that Obambi would do to this country held our noses and pulled the lever, but none of us wanted see that jackass in the WH either. Take your moronic, superstitious voodoo crapola and sell it to the gawd-fearing trogs who love you, but keep it the hell out of our politics!

MJBrutus on June 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM

We know the Libertarian Party gets at most 1% in national elections, and Republicans who are supposedly libertarian (Ron & Rand Paul for example) are actually very pro-life and conservative on most social issues.

Yep. That is why I stated earlier if there is a split on the Right it is on foreign policy / national security issues….not social issues.

terryannonline on June 11, 2010 at 6:25 PM

The Euro has tanked we are $13 trillion+ in debt the Bush tax cuts are about to expire we got chaos at our southern border and not to mention a vicious oil spill which nobody seems to know what the hell to do about it. Yet, Hackabee’s boldest move is to challenge Mitch Daniels over abortion.

Good to see where his prorities are at

Chrisin206 on June 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM

wow, that’s interesting. My family was on the boat a long time ago. Family in FL and MN. Don’t know why tons of Norwegians went to the upper midwest; must seek out the cold. My family moved down to FL after a few too many winters!

TimTebowSavesAmerica on June 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM

He follows that by asking for donations, of course. What’s odd in hindsight about what Daniels said is that it’s hard to imagine a situation where a deal on cutting entitlements would hinge on some sort of concession on a social issue.

I think that people have got this thing all wrong. Daniels is a pro life conservative…all he is saying is right now we need to concentrate on getting our fiscal house in order. I really do not understand why people are so upset about that. He is not pro choice, nor is he saying the GOP should be.

Daniels is a very pragmatic and effective administrator. I think this is just his way of prioritizing things.

Terrye on June 11, 2010 at 7:35 PM

I really do not understand why people are so upset about that. He is not pro choice, nor is he saying the GOP should be.

It was not wisely expressed. I understand what he’s trying to do, but a smart pol can convey his priorities and bring everyone on board without implying that there are two factions within the party who are at war, and that one side must agree to take a back seat to the other. Feeds right into the left’s favorite storyline about the Neanderthal so-cons dragging the GOP down.

Missy on June 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM

You are the reason we had to put John “freaking RINO” McCain up as our nominee. The few of us who were afraid enough of the horrors that Obambi would do to this country held our noses and pulled the lever, but none of us wanted see that jackass in the WH either. Take your moronic, superstitious voodoo crapola and sell it to the gawd-fearing trogs who love you, but keep it the hell out of our politics!

MJBrutus on June 11, 2010 at 6:22 PM

o.0

There are no words.

You’re an idiot.

KinleyArdal on June 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Sorry, can’t abide by the Jesus Christ candidate. Social Conservatism is a losing platform.

Dandapani on June 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Sorry, can’t abide by the Jesus Christ candidate.

Who are you talking about?
Huckabee?
He’s a not a candidate for anything.
And I find your description offensive.

Social Conservatism is a losing platform.

Dandapani on June 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM

No, it’s not.
Ask President Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Note to AP: When the GOP embraces social conservatism, it has nothing to do with tendencies to Libertarianism!
Conservatism is a 3-legged stool: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Conservatism and Conservative Defense and Foreign Policy in defense of the nation.
See Rush for further elaboration on this theme.

You can’t kick out one leg of this stool without losing the other 2 eventually…Huckabee’s right and Daniels is wrong.

Jenfidel on June 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

To consistently win in CA/NY/New England my guess is that we’d have to significantly moderate on fiscal issues. Isn’t it surprising that the first GOPers to win statewide in NJ in a generation is pro-life.

Norwegian on June 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Isn’t it surprising that the first GOP to win statewide office in NJ in a generation–Chris Christie–is not only pro-Life but is a fiscal conservative and not a moderate, as you proposed!

Jenfidel on June 11, 2010 at 9:27 PM

TRIPLE SNAP.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Triple snap for Flip Flopney?! Really???

Jenfidel on June 11, 2010 at 9:36 PM

The name you’re looking for is Mitt Romney.

Falz on June 11, 2010 at 5:07 PM

TRIPLE SNAP.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Flash: Mitt Romney Endorses Sarah Palin For President

gary4205 on June 11, 2010 at 9:52 PM

o.0

There are no words.

You’re an idiot.

KinleyArdal on June 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Very good retort. Did you think of that all by yourself?

MJBrutus on June 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Note to AP: When the GOP embraces social conservatism, it has nothing to do with tendencies to Libertarianism!
Conservatism is a 3-legged stool: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Conservatism and Conservative Defense and Foreign Policy in defense of the nation.
See Rush for further elaboration on this theme.

You can’t kick out one leg of this stool without losing the other 2 eventually…Huckabee’s right and Daniels is wrong.

Jenfidel on June 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

The problem with stools is that they don’t go anywhere. Thanks but I much prefer the bipedal platform of Fiscal Responsibility and National Security. So-called “social conservatism” was a a deal cut to form a coalition among true conservatives and the religious righteous. The partnership has long outlived its usefulness and has in fact become a grave liability.

MJBrutus on June 11, 2010 at 10:09 PM

“The mask drops” by me noting a crucially important fact that’s been confirmed by various polls? Which we’ve blogged before more than once?

Amazing to me, even now, that merely noting information that doesn’t help Palin qualifies as “bias.”

Allahpundit on June 11, 2010 at 5:25 PM

It’s cumulative.

It’s the snark.

It’s that “wink” photo you use when you know it pisses off most of your readers.

It’s the fact that you will run every hit piece ever published against her, but when she does well, crickets. (and she does well DAILY)

It’s also the fact that you dismiss her, while shilling for the biggest jokes in politics like Romney and Huckabee.

You are just too biased.

It would be one thing if you balanced it out, but you don’t You go out of your way to dis Palin, and prop up the GOP establishment show ponies.

Then you get all defensive when people call you out.

And people wonder why Palin supporters are so “touchy” Hell, we gotta fight the communists on the left, and the establishment, GOP Good Old Boy Network on the right.

How about just sticking to the facts?

gary4205 on June 11, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I like Daniels, but he was not smart in how he stated his goals.

But I like Huckabee even better. You have to stand on principle. You have to have clarity in order to win the war. Whether that war is against Terrorism, Drugs or the war against the pro-life movement. You can’t be wishy washy. You have to stand firm. In order to win the hearts and minds of pro-choice voters, you have to be firm on saving the life of the unborn.

Ask Israel who they would rather have as America’s POTUS, Huckabee or Obama. Huckabee has always been unwavering on his support of Israel.

texasconserv on June 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM

I like Daniels, but he was not smart in how he stated his goals.

But I like Huckabee even better. You have to stand on principle. You have to have clarity in order to win the war. Whether that war is against Terrorism, Drugs or the war against the pro-life movement. You can’t be wishy washy. You have to stand firm. In order to win the hearts and minds of pro-choice voters, you have to be firm on saving the life of the unborn.

Ask Israel who they would rather have as America’s POTUS, Huckabee or Obama. Huckabee has always been unwavering on his support of Israel.

texasconserv on June 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Actually, if Peter Beinart over at the Daily Beast is to be believed, and this is according to someone in the Obama regime, Netanyahu and his team are waiting for President Sarah Palin.

This is quoting Beinart:

As an Obama official once told me about the Netanyahu team, with amazement, “these guys are actually waiting for President Palin.

Don’t blame ‘em, she’s the only one out there sticking up for ‘em that’s credible.

gary4205 on June 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM

I guess a link to the Beinart quote would help, huh?

http://tiny.cc/2jzze

gary4205 on June 11, 2010 at 11:24 PM

The problem with stools is that they don’t go anywhere.

You’re stretching the metaphor beyond its logical limits.
Don’t do that–it ruins the image.
(This stool isn’t meant to travel…)

So-called “social conservatism” was a a deal cut to form a coalition among true conservatives and the religious righteous. The partnership has long outlived its usefulness and has in fact become a grave liability.

MJBrutus on June 11, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Uh-no.
Social conservatism is a much a part of American exceptionalism as Fiscal Conservatism and National Security based on the muscular use of the American military and power.
Study the Founding Fathers.
Read what De Tocqueville said about Christian Faith and its integral role in American democratic vibrancy.
There was no modern political “deal”–Democrats used to embrace social conservatism as much as Republicans until relatively modern times (JFK, LBJ, etc with their “living Constitution” used to effect social engineering).

Jenfidel on June 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Very good retort. Did you think of that all by yourself?

MJBrutus on June 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I did. ^.^ Sometimes it’s the only reply that makes any sense, when the recipient of the comment is simply incapable of comprehending any other words. It seems well suited to you!

KinleyArdal on June 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Social conservatism can be practiced without the interference of the government. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry someone of the same sex. Don’t lie abortion? Don’t have one. If society is really better off practicing socially conservative values, and if we truly live in a free society, then Americans will adopt those values out of their own self-interest.

RightOFLeft on June 12, 2010 at 2:52 AM

If society is really better off practicing socially conservative values, and if we truly live in a free society, then Americans will adopt those values out of their own self-interest.

RightOFLeft on June 12, 2010 at 2:52 AM

Then the State will respect the will of the people as expressed in their referenda and won’t force values on us that we don’t want (like same sex marriage and abortion on demand without parental consent up until birth) by judicial fiat as they’ve already done several times.

Before Roe v. Wade was passed, abortion was illegal in a good deal of the states.
Same sex marriage has failed to pass in a vote in 37 states, yet it’s being ruled into being by activist courts.

The majority of Americans have already adopted those values out of their own self-interest, religious values or common sense of decency and don’t need the State to force them to adopt values that violate the ones they have, do they?
I’m sure that’s where you were heading, wasn’t it?
Conservatives like Rev. Huckabee are concerned with rolling back Liberal tyranny in public policy like that.
*ahem*

Jenfidel on June 12, 2010 at 6:26 AM

If I remember correctly correctly there is a libertarian party. How are they doing in elections lately anyways?

neuquenguy on June 12, 2010 at 6:42 AM

Social conservatives need to get a clue. No president was ever going to push for making abortion illegal and none of them ever will. They might say so to get the votes of social conservatives but they know they aren’t going to be telling anyone what to do with their bodies. Period. Bush is an evangelical and him and Rove used to laugh at these people as soon as they left the room. It wasn’t illegal at the founding of this nation for a reason. The founders thought that they needed to stay out of people’s personal liberty. Palin won’t do anything about it, she never said she would. She considered the alternative but made her own choice. She said recently she’s not going after anyone smoking a joint in their own home. You can project whatever you want to onto these politicians, but they are not going to put a federal gun to the head of a 14 year old pregnant by her father and say she needs to breed for the state. It ain’t gonna happen. Social Conservatism is as statist as wealth redistribution. I’ll vote pro-life to get these Commies out of office but I don’t believe in it. Neither do most politicians who want to mind their own business. Pro-Life is the albatross around the neck of Republicans.

adamsmith on June 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Try this:

“I think we should declare a truce on fiscal issues.”

Or this:

“I think we should declare a truce on national security issues.”

Sounds like a bad idea, huh? Well, so is a truce on social issues–especially when the other team is working overtime with Fisting Czars for Kids and the Mandatory Abortion Tax.

Three legs: Social conservatism, Fiscal conservatism and National Security conservatism.

The Party of Lincoln shouldn’t do five-legged dogs or two-legged stools.

Noel on June 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Family values is code for God.

To think that there can be a fiscally responsible society with freedom and not involve “family values” “morality” or “God” as the basis is ludicrous.

The evil in leftist or rightist economics is merely the evil in man, the evil in defense and war is merely the evil in man, the evil in environmental issues, is merely the evil in man, the evil in politics is merely the evil in man.

Dealing with greed, envy, coveting and deception are at the core of any society.

When a porcupine eats just the bark (they girdle the tree) the entire tree dies – you can’t separate the bark from the tree, fiscal conservatives anymmore than you can separate God from His people or their economic dealings from His rules.

Your enemy isn’t God, it is those who don’t listen to Him.

Don L on June 12, 2010 at 1:11 PM

“It’s the economy, stupid” is apparently as lost on Mike F*ck-a-flea as it is to much of America.

Dark-Star on June 12, 2010 at 3:44 PM

This is the moment I’ve been afraid of–the social cons may very well lose this thing for all of us.

ElectricPhase on June 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Mike Huckabee DOES consider the economy very important. If you watched his hit show on Fox News, Sat & Sun, at 8:00 EST, you would really know where he stands regarding the economy and other issues.

Right2Bright,
I read this post on the internet about ignoring social issues and how it has affected another country who did that very thing:

“You know, it’s funny this truce thing would come up. We’ve had a truce on social issues in Sweden since the 70′s…

The result? Transsexual MPs, authorities which admit that they would rather see the number of abortions get higher, schools which shows movies like “Dogma” during Religion class, stay-at-home mums are more or less extinct because of the taxes and children are therefore forced to day nurseries and kindergarten. Oh, and did I mention one of our ministers is openly gay? I could go into detail about what we’re taught during sex ed (which has been mandatory for 40 years), but I really wouldn’t like to disgust someone. And you would be disgusted, and rightfully so.

You may call a truce, but don’t expect evil to follow. Evil does not know truces. And abortion, my friends, is the ultimate evil.”

As you can see, evil will always be with us and would have a field day if we try to shelve moral issues in our daily lives.

I also think a President who is pro-choice like Obama can do a lot of damage to abortion besides the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. He can change laws like he did when he first came into office about paying for abortions overseas. Look what he did to the healthcare bill…we will be paying for abortions. A pro-life President would NOT do that or accept any legislation the Dems try to put through to increase more abortions. A pro-life President is very important. Yes, it would be hard to change the Roe verdit, but, as I have shown, there would be other things that a President could stay on top of regarding abortion.

Mike Huckabee likes Mitch Daniels very much, but he knows that a President has to handle many, many hard decisions at the same time. He certainly wants the economy to be put back on its feet, but lots of the issues that are fiscally responsible are morally responsible too. Before all of you think Mike Huckabee would be a President who would force his Christian religion on you, remember when he governed in Arkansas he did not force his religion on those people and promised not to do that as President of the U.S.

Mike Huckabee has said many times, you don’t have to choose between between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. We should be BOTH!

BTW, for all of you people who think Gov. Daniels would be a great choice for President, remember that he was the Budget Director under Pres. Bush, and if he should get the Republican nomination, Pres. Obama would have a field day showing the American public that we don’t want another BUSH fiscal associate when all the Dems and most of the Independents think Bush was responsible for the economic mess we are in now. (of course he wasn’t). Plus the fact that after what Gov. Daniels just said about putting the socl issues on hold, the Evangelicals would have a very difficult time trusting him with those issues. Without the Evangelical voters, nobody can win the Republican nomination.

VFT on June 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Also, Mike Huckabee is smart enough that if he wins the Republican nomination, he wouldn’t use moral issues against the Democrats. He knows where the Dems stand on those issues. He might use some of the moral issues in the primary, but that’s because the moral issues are part of the Republican platform. I don’t really see him stating these issues very much though (unless it comes up like with Daniels or some other Republican leader) because he made those points in the 2008 primary. People already know where he stands on those issues. I’m sure he would focus a lot on the economic issues during the primary. That’s not to say, like Daniels, he would consider putting them on a shelf if he was elected President (big difference).

So you wouldn’t have to worry about Mike Huckabee bringing up those issues during the general election…he is very politically savvy. For any of you who hoped or thought Mike Huckabee was NOT going to run in 2012, you can just forget that because his actions have shown that he will be campaigning for President in 2012!

He would be the best chance we have to beat Obama. Just look at the last 12 of 14 months of national PPP Republican Presidential 2012 polls. Mike Huckabee has won 12 out of the last 14 polls. He was the first Republican to have more points against Obama and beat Obama 2-3 months straight. The June PPP poll just showed Mike Huckabee losing to Obama by 2 points. So don’t think he wouldn’t have a chance against Obama!

VFT on June 12, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Small government means precisely that. It doesn’t mean an intrusive government tasked with following the will of the social cons.

The social cons are at least as bad as the leftists are. Both are examples of people who think they know what is best for everyone else and are not afraid to use force to get their way.

I want a constitutionally limited government. I want free markets. If the social cons have a point to make, they can do so without attempting to hijack the government and abuse the power of the state to impose their will upon the rest of us. That is what is known as tyranny and it will be resisted, with violence if need be.

leereyno on June 13, 2010 at 2:31 AM

Social conservatives need to get a clue. No president was ever going to push for making abortion illegal and none of them ever will…

adamsmith on June 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM

.
Thanks for schoolin us about abortion Mr. Smith. But governors in state after state had sign bills restricting and prohibiting abortion before Wade vs. Rowe. If one respects the Constitution one will respect the Constitutional authority of the states to legislate against heinous practices such as infanticide and abortion. One way or another we will either succumb to the Culture of Death and lose all of our inalienable rights and constitutional self government or we will preserve the inalienable right to life.

Mike OMalley on June 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Small government means precisely that. It doesn’t mean an intrusive government tasked with following the will of the social cons.

The social cons are at least as bad as the leftists are. Both are examples of people who think they know what is best for everyone else and are not afraid to use force to get their way.

I want a constitutionally limited government. I want free markets. If the social cons have a point to make, they can do so without attempting to hijack the government and abuse the power of the state to impose their will upon the rest of us. That is what is known as tyranny and it will be resisted, with violence if need be.

leereyno on June 13, 2010 at 2:31 AM

.
So you are telling us that when Social Conservatives enter the democratic arena, engage in free speech, petition their government for redress and engage in election and representational government thats OK right? As long as they never win enough elections to influence anything such as governance and legislative policy, right Mr. leereyno? Let me guess, because gathering majority democratic support to legislate and pass law similar to those passed by state after state for the life of the Constitutional Republic before Wade vs. Rowe would be (how did you put it) “that is what is known as tyranny and it will be resisted, with violence if need be”?.
.
Tell me Mr. Leereyno, how many Libertarians think this way?

Mike OMalley on June 13, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3