Home › Blogs › Stephen Gordon's blog ›

Looking Towards 2012: A New Litmus Test for Presidential Candidates

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 21:20

For years, how one stands on abortion has been the de facto litmus test for most GOP candidates, especially at the presidential level. Not that I'm suggesting there is anything wrong with this test, but I'd like to propose a different theme for 2012.

First, let's take a look at the latest data provided by my friends at the National Taxpayer's Union Foundation about the 2008 presidential candidates.  Keep in mind, these data are presented in pre-bailout dollars; proposed spending by most of these candidates would be much higher today. 

Federal Spending Proposed by 2008 Presidential Candidates
Candidate Total Proposed Spending Increase, in Billions
Bob Barr ($200.93)
Hillary Clinton $218.20
Rudy Giuliani ($1.40)
Mike Huckabee $54.20
John McCain $92.44
Barack Obama $292.95
Ron Paul ($150.10)
Mitt Romney $19.50
Fred Thompson $56.10
Source: Compilation of National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculations from here and here.

It's time to move the debate back to the right.  The obvious litmus test question for any GOP presidential candidate should be: Will you decrease federal spending?

If the answer isn't in the affirmative, then it's time to laugh that candidate off the debate floor.  Then the remaining candidates can reasonably debate policy proposals and compete for who can eliminate the greatest amount of federal largesse.

Would you prefer to support a candidate who differs from Obama only as a matter of scale or one who actually moves this nation in a more conservative direction?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Rank the candidates on your list

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 22:21.

Rank the candidates on your list according to the number of votes they received in the primaries and then come back and explain why this is a good idea.

I ranked them alpha...

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 22:41.

...because of the conflict over various data collection, campaign suspension and primary dates.

You point is well taken -- and I've considered it for some time.  However, as I've argued before, there is no reason to vote for the Democrat-Lite when you can vote for the real deal.

Imagine if the GOP had selected a candidate who could have stirred even half the passion Ron Paul did.  I might have even seen at least one Republican yard sign in my neighborhood before the general election.  As it was, the only signs left were old Ron Paul signs -- not a McCain sign was to be found.

It isn't going to happen with yet another big-government Republican politician, either.  Mobilizing the base is a necessity in politics.

But even within just the Republican candidates

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 23:00.

But even within just the Republican candidates, looking just at the Republican primaries, there is an inverse realtionship between the number of votes received and the level of budget cutting proposed.

... the hell do you live?

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 03/09/2009 - 09:55.

I saw tons of Mccain signs... they promptly went down when Palin was nominated, sure... and they didn't go back up, most of them.

Yard signs get concentrated where they want turnout up.

I live in a pretty liberal part of town, too.

One part of the problem...

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 23:10.

...is open primary systems. 

However, I watched each of the GOP prez debates and followed the elections very closely.  While each of the candidates constantly invoked the name of Ronald Reagan, what most of them actually said regarding decreasing the size and scope of government was without substance.

No wonder folks weren't excited about most of the GOP candidates this time around.

Under Ronald Reagan

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 03/08/2009 - 23:44.

Under Ronald Reagan:

  • more new debt was created than the combined deficits of all previous Presidents.
  • the Federal civilian work force increased by 150,000, to more than 3 million.
  • government spending rose by $321 billion to more than a trillion dollars. Federal outlays rose from 22.7 percent of the gross national product in 1981 to 24 percent in 1985 - although they did return to Carter-era levels by the end of his term.

My point in this post and the previous one being: there is no evidence that spending cuts is a silver bullet delivering electoral success.

In fact, there is no silver bullet.

 

One could argue...

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Mon, 03/09/2009 - 00:19.

...that Ross Perot could have won on that platform if he hadn't suspended his campaign, gone crazy, or whatever.

Republicans ran on a general small government theme to retake Congress in the 90s.

Most importantly, someone needs to take a stand about what's right as opposed to a win-at-all-costs mentality.

 

 

Ways of achieving that

Submitted by banana on Mon, 03/09/2009 - 07:10.

The military budget is one of the largest pieces of spending, and one of the fastest growing - do you think that the Republican party can be brought around to say enough is enough" on that one at some point?