Do you think it's OK to have "Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) community health centers" as long as they are exclusively staffed by those who share your own values?
Nope, but see, this brings up another point, which is the pure idiocy of trying to separate out "fiscal" and "social" issues, as if they were two mutually-exclusive sets of issues. I can just as easily ask a lot of social liberaltarians if they are willing to keep the DHHS, so long as it reflects their social values - and the answer from many of them would be (and in fact, HAS been) "Yes."
I've known libertarians who want to eliminate the federal Dept. of Education, but who then say they'd be entirely cool with allowing homosexual indoctrination in schools, once they're devolved to the states. That's just as bad as the federal DHHS doing it, and shows that they just don't "get it."
Conservatives need to work hand in glove to advance ALL of conservatism - not just one preferred little corner of it that they try to carve out as "theirs." Someone who is not willing to work just as hard for social conservatism, when one or more of those is the issue of the day, asthey are for fiscal conservatism cannot really be called a "conservative" and does not really have any place in the conservative movement, except as an opportunistic scavenger.
**********************
Agreed.
In fact, bears repeating:
Nope, but see, this brings up another point, which is the pure idiocy of trying to separate out "fiscal" and "social" issues, as if they were two mutually-exclusive sets of issues. I can just as easily ask a lot of social liberaltarians if they are willing to keep the DHHS, so long as it reflects their social values - and the answer from many of them would be (and in fact, HAS been) "Yes."
I've known libertarians who want to eliminate the federal Dept. of Education, but who then say they'd be entirely cool with allowing homosexual indoctrination in schools, once they're devolved to the states. That's just as bad as the federal DHHS doing it, and shows that they just don't "get it."
Conservatives need to work hand in glove to advance ALL of conservatism - not just one preferred little corner of it that they try to carve out as "theirs." Someone who is not willing to work just as hard for social conservatism, when one or more of those is the issue of the day, as they are for fiscal conservatism cannot really be called a "conservative" and does not really have any place in the conservative movement, except as an opportunistic scavenger.
I’ll always vote for a social conservative as long as he or she is a fiscal conservative too. For example, Palin is on my list of acceptable candidates, Huckabee is not.