Arguing on the Enemies' Premises Dept.
Here is a great example (ÞBBG) of how when you start arguing on the enemy's premises, you're half lost already. "The Amazing Wonderdog" picks apart the CPC childcare plan, the chief objection apparently being that it is insufficiently comprehensive, detailed, and/or focused to properly be called a "plan". On those criteria, the Dog is right.
A principled party of the right, when asked about their Child Care Plan, would respond thusly:
"We don't have a national child care plan, for the same reason we don't have a national breakfast cereal plan--because this is a free country, and we shouldn't be confiscating people's income in order to provide perverse incentives for people to eat what we think they should for breakfast."
"Furthermore, our involvement would make cereal cost more for everyone, whether or not they are personally paying the bill."
"And on top of all this, there is absolutely no widespread popular demand for the federal government to get involved in the breakfast cereal business, except insofar as if you ask, 'Would you like to pay less at Safeway for breakfast cereal?', most people would say Yes."
Regrettably for some of us, there is no principled party of the right in Canada. Kudos to Aaron Lee Wudrick in Skippy's comments (the 2nd one, anyway) for at least raising these principles, though achieving apparently zero impact.
POSTSCRIPT: I thoroughly enjoyed this snippet from an old Reason story, dredged up by Nick Gillespie in his weekly bitch-slap of Sen. John McCain:
Some years ago, a newspaper sent me to interview S.I. Hayakawa, by then a retired senator from California. Hayakawa was legendarily combative: Asked once during a campaign stop what he thought about a local referendum on legalizing greyhound tracks, he snapped: "I'm running for the U.S. Senate. I don't give a good goddamn about dog racing."
Such anger--I wonder how he ever got elected?