Club for Growth On the Republican Candidates … and, Umm, The Democrats
The Club for Growth is a group supporting free market economic policies and limited government. They have reviews of each presidential candidate regarding their records on economic matters. Not all Republicans look that good. For example, here is the conclusion reached regarding Iowa winner Mike Huckabee:
Governor Huckabee’s record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.
Yikes. Go to the link above to see the detailed analysis of Huckabee’s record. On economic issues, Huckabee does not look much better than some Democrats.
Republican candidates overall do not come off all that well. Those of us in favor of more limited government, reduced spending, reduced taxes, and reduced regulations get frustrated by these guys. Bush’s big-government conservatism seems just too tempting to many Republicans (Ron Paul is the exception, of course). The problem then is that their policies just become watered-down versions of what the Democrats want to do.
Still, no matter how disappointing some Republican candidates are, the Democrats are just terrible. The Club for Growth summarizes the leading candidates:
Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Edwards are nearly identical in their opposition to economic freedom and their determination to expand the size of government. If they showed any glimmer of moderation in the Senate, their recent rhetoric and policy proposals leave no doubt as to their desire to move the Democratic Party leftward on economic issues. They often seem locked in a three-way battle to see who can be the most anti-growth in their economic policies. More often than not, John Edwards wins that designation, outdoing Clinton and Obama in inflammatory rhetoric and in big-government policy proposals, truly mastering the art of class-warfare politics. That said, the differences between the trio are merely variations on the same theme. All three have backed and are proposing policies that would prove disastrous for economic growth in this country.
I am always amazed how the leaders of the Democratic Party manage to be wrong on almost everything. But then, of course, they reflect a very large number of Americans who are deeply misled on economic matters.
The idea of soak-the-rich, Robin Hood policies seem to be what a large percentage of Americans desire for economic policies. This may sound great to those wanting more subsidies and services transferred to them via government power, in the long run economic growth is reduced by the accompanying higher taxes. These same people are the ones most hurt by a less robust economy. Certainly it won’t be the rich hurt most by a slower economy.
Update: Fred Thompson seems to have the best record on free-market economic policies. Too bad he didn’t win in Iowa.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Dan,
Im going to cut and paste the first two paragraphs from Pat Buchannan’s latest colum:
Last Hurrah for Reagan Coalition?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The huge Democratic turnout in the Iowa Caucuses, over twice that of the GOP, and the stampede by independents to vote in the Democratic precincts, suggests that Iowa, a swing state carried by President Bush in 2004, may be lost irretrievably to the GOP in 2008.
Why is Iowa walking away from the GOP? Why did Barack Obama win almost as many votes as all the Republicans put together?
Me again………………………………………………………………….
That kinda made my stomach ache when I read it. I’d rather have Obama (or Edwards) than Hillary as president out of sheer personal dislike, but none of the three would be a step forward for America. Im hoping the Repubs can get the show on the road in the ensuing weeks. I think Thompson in particular has a gravitas and a commanding presence and a reassuring air of intelligent authority and experience that would impress folks if they gave him a chance. He hasn’t abandoned his party’s (and the majorities in both parties) wishes on illegal immigration a la McCain and Rudy either. America is so fragmented now between Fundamentalists, libertarians, outright liberals, financial conservatives, social conservatives, globalists, America-firsters, “Race-is-everything” –people, “moderates”., big government lovers, entitlement-addicts…………………………………its hard to present a candidate that everyone can at least be *fairly* pleased with. The GOP establishment and their media apparatachiks would do well to sit back and not try to shove any favored candidate down the country’s throat and let the voters hear them and decide. Obama will be very good in debates, and Edwards (who was very very very good in front of juries) will also be good in debates and both have pleasant appearances (and Obama has a hot wife, but I mention that only in passing). The GOP should view the Iowa turn out as a wake-up call, and not let Senators like Kay Bailey Hutchinson put riders on Bills that basically allows Homeland Security kill provisions for 850+miles of border fence like she just did in a spending bill much to the displeasure of the voting public.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:40 am
The answer to Miles question should be obvious. The most of voters want big government, believing it would be in their best interest. The Democrats have no problem promising free stuff that they can’t possibly deliver without increasing the national debt or taxes.
The Republican politicians understand this, and that is why they have abandoned the doctrine of limited government. They are merely reacting to what they think would get the votes. The only problem is that they can never out-promised the Democrats. Meanwhile, people who used to vote Republican because they believed in a personal freedom and a limited government stops participating in the process. What is the point when none of the candidates reflect their core values. The only two groups that still have some pull with the Republican party are business interest that are pro-illegal immigration and army of evangelical voters.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
nobody,
The Club for Growth review of Fred Thompson says:
“Senator Thompson’s eight-year record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles. His record on entitlement reform and school choice is excellent, while his support for lower taxes and free trade is very good. On Social Security reform in particular, Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics.
His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.”
Maybe there are some limited government types left. Too bad this guy is not the frontrunner.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Fred probably comes is a distant second to Ron Paul when it comes to limited federal gov’t, but after seeing a little bit of the debate on ABC he really needs to get a clue about monetary policy, in fact almost all the candidates need to get a better understanding about how printing money increases prices of things and hurts the economy in the long run. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that really understands what damage our monetary policy is causing to our economy and individual’s pocketbooks.