Big spenders?

Democrats are banking that voter disgust with the Iraq war will propel them into the White House next year.

But with every one of their major candidates advocating massive tax increases -- whether it's to pay for Barack Obama's Social Security plan or Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine scheme -- the door is wide open for Republicans to attract the many undecided voters who believe in fiscal restraint.

The war in Iraq is no doubt unpopular and could cause problems for whichever Republican gains the nomination. But to have any chance next fall, the GOP must also re-emphasize the issues that swept the party to power in 1980 and again in 1994 -- limited government and low taxes.

It appears that strategists for the top-tier Republican candidates understand this.

For instance, over the weekend, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani again traded barbs over the issue of spending, each accusing the other of being more profligate.

Mr. Giuliani has a "bit of a problem" when it comes to spending restraint, Mr. Romney argued in New Hampshire. He even put out a news release attacking Mr. Giuliani, headlined "Big City, Big Spender." The former New York City mayor "left a budget gap twice as big as the one he inherited, over $3 billion," Mr. Romney said.

Oh contraire, Mr. Giuliani countered: "Governor Romney spent considerably more than I did. ... Spending in New York City per capita was down when I was mayor; spending under (Governor Romney in Massachusetts) was up. (He) attempted to reduce taxes. He said he wasn't able to do it because there was a Democratic legislature. I had a Democratic legislature. I reduced taxes 23 times."

At the same time, GOP candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain have also repeatedly attempted to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Of course, all this talk is an attempt to appeal to the GOP base -- just as Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush and the war are designed to energize the left. But the rhetoric coming from Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney also appeals to a wide swath of independent voters.

For decades, candidates who endorse spending restraint, low taxes and individual freedom have been winning elections against opponents who favor higher taxes, padding government programs and a more intrusive bureaucracy. But Democrats are apparently so confident that the election will turn on Iraq or hatred of the incumbent that they're willfully flouting this prescription -- even to the extent of the congressional Democratic leadership allowing the president to gain the upper hand in his vetoes of appropriation bills.

It's an opening that Republican candidates should continue to exploit.