With the Ames Straw Poll behind us, the race for the Republican presidential nomination is starting to pick up speed. That means it is more important than ever that we know just where the candidates stand.
Unfortunately, we can expect much of the media attention over the coming weeks to be focused on the “horse race” aspects of the campaign. Will Perry or Bachmann become the conservative alternative to Romney? Is there a dark horse out there somewhere? Who will make the next gaffe?
Advertisement
The candidates are not likely to make things easier. If what we have seen so far is any indication, we can expect lots of Obama-bashing, promises to be the most conservative candidate in the race, and platitudes about American greatness.
So, with that in mind, here are a few questions I’d like to see them answer:
What three programs (at least) would you cut or eliminate? Every Republican candidate has called for balancing the federal budget. Every candidate is also, justifiably, opposed to raising taxes. Since the federal government will spend $1.1 trillion more this year than it takes in, that means spending will have to be cut. Of course, everyone is against “fraud, waste, and abuse.” But the last time I looked, there is no line item called “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the federal budget. Across-the-board spending cuts are another type of cop out. They preserve worthless or wasteful programs, albeit at lower levels, while cutting programs that are actually useful. Balancing the budget without raising taxes is going to require cutting specific programs, so tell us which ones you would cut. And promising to “go through the budget line by line” or the equivalent doesn’t count. Surely by now you have figured out some specific programs that you are willing to cut — even if it means offending that program’s supporters.
How would you reform entitlements? Answering the first question was actually the easy part. Domestic discretionary spending makes up less than 20 percent of the federal budget. If you eliminated it all — the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the FDA, the FBI — we would still be running a deficit. Ultimately, dealing with our deficit and debt requires dealing with entitlements, particularly Medicare and Social Security. But so far we’ve heard little more than vague generalities. Do you support Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare reform? If not, what would you do? What about Social Security? Would you cut benefits? Should young workers be allowed to save a portion of their payroll taxes in personal accounts?
Are you a fair-weather federalist? Republicans have become fond of quoting the Tenth Amendment recently: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But we’ve heard that before. President Bush was all for states rights until a state did something he didn’t like, such as legalize medical marijuana or physician-assisted suicide. What happens now if a state, say, chooses to permit gay marriage? Already former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has attacked Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas governor Rick Perry for even hinting that states have that authority. And Bachmann and Perry have started to go wobbly on the issue.
Are there any limits to our military commitments? We are now fighting at least three wars, not counting drone attacks and covert actions. We have troops in more than 100 countries and are still guarding South Korea from North Korea and Germany from, well, something. Are all these military commitments still necessary? Under what circumstances would you commit U.S. troops to combat? It’s not enough to say you would protect U.S. vital interests. What are those vital interests? Promoting democracy? Human rights? Fighting every last terrorist in any country that they pop up in? Ensuring “stability” in every area of the globe?
What is the proper role of government? It’s not possible to think of every possible issue that may come up during your presidency. That’s why it’s so important to know your animating principles when it comes to government. Is it government’s role to “create jobs”? Should government enforce moral values? What things can only government do, and what should be left to civil society? Is there anything that you think is a good idea, but still shouldn’t be government policy?
I'm not 100% sold on Ron Paul, but I am starting to find it rather curious how he's being systematically and deliberately ignored lately. Is the writer of this article aware that Paul did rather well in the Iowa polls, better than two of the people pictured above? Yet his name is not even mentioned in the article.
Indeed, Hippy. But I thought maybe the reason Paul was excluded from this particular article was that anybody who follows Paul already knows his answers to theses questions.
3 depts to eliminat? Paul says ALL not authorized in constitution. That's more than 3.
Entitlements? Transistion out of them over time. Young people opt out. Take care of old people who rely on them.
Fair weather federalist? Hardly
Limits to military? What do you think. Whether NRO likes is or not, we are reaping the fruits of our military adventures of the last 40 or 50 years. So there is a built-in limit, it's called empire collapse. But obviously Paul would contract all commitments and bring troops home. He would support national defense, not military adventurism.
Proper role of government? Constitutional.
Perhaps it's because Ron Paul has zero percent chance of being nominated or elected.
Paul certainly has his supporters and they show up well in straw poll / caucus events. He's also been down this road before - there was no indication then that he was the choice of a majority of Republicans, there's no indication now that he's the choice of a majority of Republicans now & there's no good reason to believe he'd beat Obama in the general election.
Obama's strategy is going to be "Make the Republican Nominee Scary as Hell." Paul's ill-suited to fight against that type of campaign because, on some issues, he is scary as Hell.
Yes, yes, I know "I don't have proper respect for the Constitution" or "I don't know/understand the man." For me, that's right up there with the Left complaining about their "communication effort", i.e., "we've not dumbed the message down enough for those ignorant hicks to understand how great we are."
Paul has yet to show he's capable of gaining majorities for his political program. To date (IMO), he's been more interested in being true to his philosophy & being the "voice of the prophet in the wilderness" than in actually affecting policy.
It's good to have those people around, to challenge conventional thinking, etc. But you don't put them in charge of anything.
I would disagree, more and more conservatives such as myself who voted for McCain and Bush are tired of what we have been seeing from the big government conservatives who turn the corner and sell us out. People like me are all for supporting someone who has an impeccable 30 year record of conserving the Constitution.
As far as being "unelectable" that is nonsense. The only groups who propogate that claim with force are those who are afraid of Ron Paul and the painful truth he tells about where we are now and we will end up if we don't change course. This election is going to be a fight to the finish revolving around the role of government and which politician actually walks the walk along with their talk.
If one supports a constitutional amendment that, for instance, enshrines the right to life by limiting abortion and preventing doctor-assisted suicide, that's HARDLY "going wobbly" on federalism.
Ron Paul disqualified himself as a candidate with his manic and deranged comments on Iran in the debate. I was glad he was honest and anyone listening could see what I have known all along.
From all I have heard Bachmann say, in person and on tv, she would overturn Obamacare. That is the most important thing for openers. She could be persuaded easily to close the department of education and energy. If she isn't already there. It is difficult to say these things openly in a campaign.
She definitely is in favor of private medical care reforms and reform in our legal system relating to lawsuits against doctors.
Her speeches make her sound pretty good to me.
I know she prefers smaller government and less intrusion into our lives. I know she supports tax reform for a simpler system. I wish she supported the Fair tax.
I don't know enough about Perry.
I still prefer Palin. For me she is the real deal and if she gets in, I would love to see her win the nomination and win it all. She would be reliably conservative in all the important ways.
Palin/Toomey or Palin/Rubio in 2012.
Considering that all we REALLY know about the race so far is that it appears that our candidate will have good hair, I think it's high time we got some questions answered. (CNN moderators read this and are suddenly compelled to scribble down: "Conditioner: leave in or rinse out?" "Dye?" "What is your stance on 19th century presidential face hair?" etc)
And why, oh why, was i required to type "face hair" and not the proper relative of the word "face"?
"And why, oh why, was i required to type "face hair" and not the proper relative of the word "face"?
I have to say, this net nanny is strange. Another person wanted to use that word you wanted to use, in a completely different context, and the net nanny wouldn't let him.
There is really nothing wrong with that word, I mean I don't even see how it can by misinterpreted.
Not like Dick Van Dyke, try mentioning him in some internet places!
Ron Paul IS starting to get a lot of press mention. That's because he exposed himself badly on stage and the MSM/LSM knows he would be a big loser against King Barack I. They want him to win so they give him much more press.
I don't yet know who the best candidate is to beat Emperor Obama but I know it's not Ron Paul. So do the MSM/LSM/Liberal propagandists.
The President doesn't stand a chance in a debate with Ron Paul. Rep. Paul would be having an intellectual battle with an unarmed opponent.
Unfortunately the MSM is doing EVERYTHING in it's power to insure voters don't get a chance to see that 'debate'.
---
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
~ Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time
With all due respect to my libertarian colleagues, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama since Paul is unelectable.
I agree with the thrust of this article--what do the serious Republican contenders really plan to do? I'd like to know what departments of the Federal government they would consider for serious cutbacks or elimination. We need that kind of pruning to even begin to reduce federal spending. And entitlement reform is essential.
"What happens now if a state, say, chooses to permit gay marriage? Already former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has attacked Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas governor Rick Perry for even hinting that states have that authority. And Bachmann and Perry have started to go wobbly on the issue."
Quite wrong. So wrong that I stopped reading. Bachmann and Perry recognize the fact that states now have sole power over enacting SSM or declining to do so. They (along with Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and erstwhile candidate Pawlenty) support a constitutional amendment defining marriage for the nation as the union of a man and a woman.
But Tanner thinks that adding amendments to the Constitution is inconsistent with . . . what? Another amendment that was added to the Constitution? There is nothing "wobbly" and certainly nothing unconstitutional (obviously) about Article V of the Constitution, which sets forth the amendment process. It isn't asking too much that writers for NRO get this straight before pontificating.
An excellent set of serious questions, which any serious candidate for this high office needs to answer. It will be interesting to see who among the field actually answers and who dodges! More importantly, it allows us to gauge the real solutions that our candidates propose and mean to implement (I know, probably a pipe dream!..but still one can hope..)
Republican candidates may actually have to answer them, and honestly too. because the MSM will hold them accountable, something they do not do for Democratic candidates.
Who will emerge the strongest I do not know expect it is rapidly looking like it will not be Michelle Bachman.
As much as I hate to say it, she is rapidly proving the media’s narrative right...that she’s an empty skirt. While she dodges tough questions like all politicians (why not, if you give a definitive answer you automatically alienate voters somewhere). But she has never been adept at it...she telegraphs her dodges and they look not obvious but vacuous as well.
If this was her only flaw, no biggie but she now has a pattern of not doing her homework. Earlier in the year she confused her Concords, this really was a minor issue but she then had temerity on the O’Reilly Factor to blame an unnamed staffer.
Now there is a pattern of these ‘missteps’, just yesterday she confused Elvis’ birthday and death day.
Over the weekend she skipped part of her own rally to attend a now refuted (by her own mother) family reunion.
When I first began to follow Michelle Bachman I was impressed by her strong speeches and convictions. But it is now appearing to me she is much more style then substance.
We already are enduring a style over substance presidency, no need to repeat that mistake.
"Now there is a pattern of these ‘missteps’, just yesterday she confused Elvis’ birthday and death day."
In before "If getting Elvis' birthday wrong is the worst you can come up with then she must be untouchable".
She is shallow, and worse she obviously has not made it a habit to tell the truth. Interesting that for someone who is so ready to share with us her piety and moral views is also so willing to regularly tell us lies. I'll take a truth telling atheist politician before a lying evangelist(or ex Lutheran or whatever) any day.
"When I first began to follow Michelle Bachman I was impressed by her strong speeches and convictions."
Wondering if you ever posted anything about that anywhere. Because I find it hard to believe that an admirer would be swayed by the petty things you refer to, especially to the point of concluding a few days after Bachmann won the straw poll (and a few days after she creamed David Gregory, and creamed him "adeptly") that she is rapidly proving to be an empty skirt.
I'm not sure Bachmann is my candidate, but I would like to see her treated fairly, and I don't think your post is fair.
These are all questions that I would like to know how the candidates will answer.
However, it seems self-destructive to make the GOP primary about entitlement reform and 10th amendment on prickly issues such as gay civil unions (which many conservatives are split between libertarian and republican on).
Plus, at this point, I feel like I have a pretty good handle on who the candidates are, without forcing a prime-time, bare-knuckle boxing match on conservative fundamentals:
**Ron Paul is a bedrock libertarian who makes claims that can't be accomplished without like minded majorities in the house and senate (sound at all like BO2008?)
**Mitt Romney is a northeastern /Republican/, meaning that he might win the RINO vote (seriously, there is probably a huge RINO vote...). My only hope is that since he was the governor of a state, he might respect state rights.
**Michelle Bachmann is a grassroots conservative who I generally agree with. The fact that she was an unlikely politician is endearing, but her lack of experience is also troubling (I criticized BO2008 on the same grounds, and I don't take that back now).
**Rick Perry is conservative with over a decade of executive experience. He carries some baggage (but hey, BO2008 was friends with mobsters and communists). Some say that he is too Texan; however, as a Texan working in the northeast, I find him refreshing.
These hard questions could actually be used to form a position of strength by a passionate, intelligent and convicted conservative. However, why put them through a dog and pony show just to give them more opportunity to slowly alienate moderates and independents. We might want to leave something to the imagination, is all I am saying.
