Megan McArdle asked the following question about the SCHIP debate:

Reading the comments on this, I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you think we should die on? I do understand your objections to the program, but an informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother, indicates that this is killing you with the moderates. Save it for national health care next year, is what I’m saying. This debate is framing the issue in a way that is going to make things harder, not easier, when Hilarycare is on the table again.

Simply put, yes!  If you truly believe what you stand for shouldn’t you be willing to die on every hill that comes along?  Would you rather lose on principle or win on fraud?

She, while claiming to be a conservative/libertarian, shows she is neither when it comes to children:

On the other hand, as I’ve stated, I’m broadly sympathetic to the goal of providing health care and other goods to children, so perhaps your mileage will vary.

If she were really conservative or libertarian she would be sympathetic to the Constitution and to individualism.  Nothing she claims to stand for is advance by giving benefits designed to help the poor to the middle and upper-middle class, especially the plight of children.  She should know that.

More on SCHIP here.