Arriving in my e-mailbox:
The American Principles Project today blasted the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for giving a major platform to potential 2012 presidential candidate Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who recently called on Republicans to make a “truce” on social issues, abandoning a key tenet of the conservative movement.
“Unfortunately, while Governor Daniels is slated to speak at CPAC’s ‘Reagan Dinner,’ he has failed to understand how Ronald Reagan fused the three critical legs of the conservative movement into one coherent governing philosophy,” said Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. “Discarding one makes the whole obsolete.”
In November, the group organized a coalition of conservative organizations protesting CPAC’s inclusion of GOProud because it is “fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith,” it wrote in a letter to CPAC Chairman David Keene and his fellow board members.
“Governor Daniels’ selection is an affront to the millions of conservatives who believe that social issues such as abortion and traditional marriage are non-negotiable.”
Since APP launched the coalition, concern has grown and other groups have pulled out of the conference, including many past sponsors.
“The Beltway wisdom among Republican insiders boils down to a simple mantra: Social issues are a thing of the past. But this theory falls apart outside of the Washington bubble. The Republican sweep in the House was dominated by pro-life, pro-family candidates, and polling shows large majorities want to see action on these issues,” said Mr. Blom.
Really? Mitch Daniels must not be allowed to speak at CPAC? Never mind that he’s managed to balance Indiana’s budget while so many other states face fiscal Armageddon, never mind that Indiana Right to Life loves him, never mind that he opposes gay marriage, never mind that Cato graded him a “B,” never mind that he’s a deeply religious man who has declared, “atheism leads to brutality,” all of that is irrelevant because he’s talked about a “truce” on social issues in some interviews? And for that, he must not be allowed to darken the doors of CPAC?
Just think, it was an entire six years ago that we heard complaints that CPAC was too dominated by social conservatives and was dismissive of the perspectives of libertarians . . .
Yep, he's my governor, love him to death. Anybody who can cut 5,000 overlapping government jobs is just awesome. Heard him this morning on WLS in Chicago. Hope he doesn't run for president, because I'm just a little selfish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd now it's the other way around. I thought it was the SOCIAL Conservatives boycotting CPAC this year?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile they're talking Reagan perhaps the American Principles Project should be reminded of Reagan's saying about people that agree with you 80% of the time - they're 80% friends not 20% enemies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe lesson of 2010 was so painfully simple. Conservatives win the economic argument 100% of the time. Cloud that message with a social agenda and that success rate will decrease dramatically. Single issue voters, on the left or the right, are obnoxious. Can we please move past your pet issue for the sake of the country? Or is your issue so important that the country wouldn't be worth saving without it? Gross.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, APP is in my crazy book now. Will be disregarding any statement they put out in the future immediately.
Why does everyone always have to be outraged over everything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenr1217. Conservatives were losing all the time the economic argument until Reagan forged a durable socially and fiscally conservative platform. This coalition is the one that wins and wins big. In fact many liberal voices are trying to convince Socially conservative Christians that fiscal conservatives are wrong and they should move over to the Democrats just as you are shoving them out the door. You think losing evangelical Christians strengthens the conservative movement? Really? No way.
Social Conservatives and fiscal conservatives should be natural allies. United we can do tremendous good for the country, separate we are doomed.
The minute you convince Social conservatives that they will not get the time of day from the Republicans or fiscal conservatives is the day you stop winning all elections.
As for Mitch Daniels not speaking at CPAC the American Principals crowd is crazy. I understand the desire to push back and remind fiscal conservatives that social conservatives are not 2nd class citizens but saying that Mitch Daniels can't speak at CPAC is crazy. Mitch is a good man and trust worthy he would not abandon core principals of social conservatism willy nilly. We should be winning him back on the band wagon not trying to throw him out in to the street.
I just remind Fiscal conservatives that they need to be careful what they wish for lose the socially conservative from your ranks and you will not be winning very many elections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIrish Gal- he's term limited and his term ends in January of 2013, so if he became pres, it wouldn't really affect his time in indiana.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe social conservatives boycotting CPAC (note, not all social conservatives) need to take a deep breath and relax. They also need to remember that they are just one pole in the tent of conservatism and that most people in this country vote based on the condition of their wallet. If the GOP can present a coherent economic plan and deficit reduction plan, we will be well positioned in 2012. Let's not blow it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Mr. Blom, if your organization was around in 1980 would you have a problem with a candidate who:
a: Signed a law liberalizing abortion
b: Opposed a proposed law that would of banned homosexual teachers
c: Had a divorce
d: Was not a regular church goer
All those things described Ronald Reagan. As someone who was followed politics closely at that time, Jonah Goldberg's generation, Reagan accomplished basically nothing politically when it came to abortion. He talked about being pro-life but he spent zero political capital on it. Which was fine with me since undoing the damage of the 1970s and defeating the Evil Empire was more important.
One more thing Mr. Blom. Yes many Tea Partiers are social conservatives but there were a lot more Gadsen flags than explicit pro-life signs at the Tea Party rally I attended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAPP's reaction is obviously over the top - however, Gov Daniels' "truce" comment will not be easily forgotten, as it suggests (1) a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the culture war, where social conservatives are essentially playing defense, so "truce" means surrender; (2) less than stellar political flair, as social conservatives have longer memories than anyone with whom he scored points by saying that.
As for CPAC, MDGOP : that is precisely the point - a decision such as including GOProud is a clear signal that social conservatives aren't even considered one of the poles of the tent (think how Libertarians would feel if Democrats for Life were included). I was planning on attending this year, but now I frankly don't know if I can in good conscience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is room for social conservatism - it is messaging that matters. Many socially conservative ideas are also fiscally conservative and make sense if you are socially liberal fiscal conservative. No government money for abortion is of course the big one. You can also turn a social conservative issue into a limited government or federalism issue. Like Roe v Wade should be reversed and states should be allowed to make their own abortion laws. A conservative who makes these points, and does so without relying on God or scripture, can pass them. But as soon as you put the focus on the social conservative side of the coin instead of the fiscal conservative or limited government side, you fracture your coalition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought I read where Daniels clarified his remark - it was directed towards liberals, asking them to hold off on their "social issues" - gay marriage, DADT, advocating for tax payer funding of abortion - in order to focus on fiscal issues and employment. I believe his point was that if the Republicans have to battle the liberal social agenda it would take away focus on the economic issues that the electorate wants addressed. If I'm wrong, please inform me otherwise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm rabidly pro-life and unwilling to compromise even a little on the issue. Nonetheless, I'm a proud supporter of Mr. Daniels and hope he runs for President. These stances are not incongruous since I believe that Mr. Daniels never suggested we compromise on social issues. Instead, he simply believes that we need to temporarily table some of the more divisive issues to address the fiscal time bomb that is threatening our greatness as a country. I do not think Mr. Daniels will appoint activist judges or expand government funding of abortion (he'd be adamantly opposed to both) but is instead suggesting that we focus on something that we may be more likely to find consensus on (due to the enormity of the problem). He'll get my vote and money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse