Looking Forward to 2008: Mark Sanford for President

The 2004 elections are scarcely off the lips and minds of the more informed of the populace, and the New Year is not here, yet the minds of many have already turned to 2008, where the figure of Hillary Clinton looms large on the horizon, to the Republicans a socialist specter and the Democrats a saving seraph come to redeem their party from oblivion. Already, the wretched partisans of the GOP have begun the drumbeat for the coronation of John McCain or Rudy Guiliani, the only men, they assure us, who have a prayer of beating Hillary. Coming in a close third, Jeb Bush can easily visualize himself as the third Bush to take his seat in the Oval Office. These are the men, the party hacks claim, alone can beat Clinton. Yet, let us consider these two men closer, in the light of sound, learned, reason. BetWWTS.com is offering odds of 1/5 on Rudy Guiliani and 7/1 on John McCain. John McCain, four years from now, will be seventy-two, Rudy Guiliani, in 2008 will be sixty-four. Neither of these men is particularly healthy, and both have a history of cancer. The reader may well say, so did John Kerry. Yes, Kerry had a decided history of prostate cancer, a fact that received scant attention from the mainstream media. In 2008, both men's personal health will be under the intense scrutiny of the leftwing media. Moreover, both these men have Achilles heels, of a diverse, but equally dangerous nature.

John McCain considers himself eligible for the presidency, due to his long career as a senator. Yet, senators, as those who deign to look through the annals of history may see, do not have a high rate of electability, a fact that Walter Mondale, Bob Dole and John Kerry might all attest to. Though many believe him a moderate, and revile him for it, John McCain has a solid, somewhat average rating, of 75 from the American Conservative Union, a fact that will no doubt be hyped by his shills. On the potentially important issues of 2008, such as social security, the second amendment, and immigration, McCain has a poor record. He has a C from both the GOA and NRA, and a similarly rating from Americans for Better Immigration. As for social security, it is doubtful that his previous plan, revealed during the 2000 Republican primaries, has improved largely. At any rate, the tax surpluses, with which he wished to bolster social security no longer exist, and probably never will again in our lifetime. McCain moreover, has the economic experience of the average U.S. senator.

A brief glance at Rudy Gualiani shows him equally unqualified, either win or hold the presidency. Giuliani makes no bones about being his socialist tendencies. He is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and pro-gay rights. Direct quotes on this subject, 'I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights.' And on the partial birth abortion ban? 'No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.' As recently as 1994, only a decade previous, he endorsed Mario Cuomo over George Pataki, whom he called, 'too-conservative.' His position on unchecked illegal immigration is more damning still. According to a Michelle Malkin column, 'When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.' Moreover, Giuliani, a lawyer, has little experience in economics, beyond city level. He has served at no higher post than mayor, and though New York City turned over a new leaf during his tenure, it remains to be seen what aptitude Giuliani might have for the economic governance of a state.

When subjected to a critical analysis, neither of these men, it can clearly be seen, is the leader, to unite the diverse elements of the Republican Party, and indeed the nation, into a voting bloc powerful enough to elect him to office. John McCain has cultivated the adoring media image of himself, as a 'maverick' and a 'progressive.' In actuality his brief flirtation with John Kerry and the Democrats, and his co-formulation of the infamous, and controversial Campaign Finance Reform law, show him to be the anti-thesis of the AP created mannequin's divisive figure. As for Giuliani, his socialist-liberal tendancies would no doubt alienate thousands of voters. Moreover, a profound examination of Giuliani's past, especially in the light of recent scandal, involving Bernie Kerik, will show that Kerik was only latest corrupt official to be tied to Giuliani, who evidently ignored the obvious corruption of his staffers and other appointed city officials during his terms in office. While Giuliani himself has not been directly implicated, it is difficult to believe that he was unaware of the actions of his subordinates.

There are some intelligent skeptics, who, upon reading this article may well think, 'but George Bush was not precisely a fusionist, but he won two presidential terms, therefore, the candidate needn't be a unionist of the first order.' Again, when consulting history we remember that Bush won an extremely narrow race in 2000 as he had little moral or political character, and certainly very little charisma. Many conservatives voted for him, simply because he was not Al Gore. Bush again lacked the either of these qualifications in 2004, but he had two deciding factors on his side. 1. The War on Terrorism and his resolution to fight it. This aspect of his personality, and the supposed necessity of a vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror attracted many 'Reagan Democrats,' conservative, Democrats, represented by such celebrities as Toby Keith, Ed Koch, and Zell Miller, all of whom aggresively supported Bush's re-election. 2. The John Kerry menace. With one of the most left-liberal records in the U.S. senate, John Kerry, served as a bogeyman to the denizens of the Christian right who feared the repercussions that his ascendancy to the presidency might have on such issues as gay marriage and abortion. They turned out at the polls voting for George Bush to a man. 3. George Bush has not united the majority of the country behind him with his personality or talent, fate and certain incidents of the past four years have done this. It would naturally be insane to suppose that destiny will again amalgamate the nation behind these two men of dubious morals, political ability and honest. So who then is the ideal man for the Republicans to run in 2008? Some say, Bill Owens, governor of Colorado. But between Owens marital problems and his recent failure to lead his party to victory on a statewide basis, there is little chance that he will risk a primary run in '08.

Jeb Bush, others cry! But the country has had enough of the Bushes. The Presidency was not created to host political dynasties, and though Jeb Bush is a competent governor, he has no exceptional capabilities or merit to place him above the other candidates for 2008. Who then, besides these four men has a prayer of winning the 2008 primary and general elections? A man who throughout his political career has been a dark horse, a man whose charisma surpasses the counterfeit appeal of John Edwards, a man who in the course of his public service as a congressman, and more recently governor of the state of South Carolina has proven his veracity to his constituents. I refer, as the introductory orators frequently say, to Mark Sanford.

Mention the name of Governor Sanford to the average American citizen and you will receive for your troubles, a blank stare and the tiresome question, 'WHO?' In a succint word, Mark Sanford is everything George W. Bush pretends to be. He is a sucessful business man, with a B.A. in business and an M.B.A. from the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business. He has owned Norton and Sanford real estate investment firm since 1992 and currently serves in the Airforce Reserves. In January of this year, he was promoted to Captain in the Air Force Reserve's 315th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. Sanford served three terms in House of Representatives, and was a member of the Joint Economic Committee and International Relations Committee, among others. After serving for six years, he then retired from office, nobly fulfilling his promise to the citizens of South Carolina that he would only serve three terms in office. As governor, his record has so far been one of admirable, fiscal and bureauractic reforms that have saved the people of South Carolina literally millions of dollars. This is the man we need as President of the United States, a man of humble beginnings who has, through hard, diligent and honest labor risen from humble beginnings to the position of deserved prominence in which he now stands.

But, murmur some, is this man electable? Let us again consider the facts. Sanford is undoubtedly an ideological and political heir of Ronald Reagan. He has the personality, and the political ability to win the Presidency, and appeals to all the blocs that Reagan did, the liberterians, constitutionalists, conservative democrats, and the Christian right. As for the liberal, 'Bush' Republicans, a careful choice of an Eastern, moderate running mates, perhaps Governors Mitt Romney or George Pataki, or Senators Judd Gregg would secure them.

Sanford would undoubtedly sweep the South and West, from Florida to Montana. The only area, necessary to secure would then be the Mid-west. By concentrating his campaign primarily on the states won by George Bush in 2000 and 2004 Sanford can beat any contender that the Democrats attempt to field against him.

Many believe that 2008 is a long way off, that it is far too early to consider candidates for the Republican primaries now. Sanford will face a stiff re-election challenge from the Democrats in 2006 and we should wait for its outcome before hailing Sanford for President. Mark Sanford has declared himself, 'amused' at the thought of being drafted to run in 2008.

Yet the powers that be are already planning for the future. Karl Rove, the liberal Republicans from D.C. the Corporations whose dollars own half the congressmen in Washington - all these are even now planning for the future. Conservatives have been outflanked for years by the Dark Force within the Republican Party. Consider the GOP's three last Presidential choices, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and George W. Bush were all elevated above better men to receive their parties nomination. Conservatives have thrice been forced by the apparition of the evil party, to vote for the Republican candidate, though he scarcely represented their views. In answer to question that should even now be forming on the lips of every conservative reader, 'But what can we do?', there is a lucid and clear answer. We must make our voices be heard. Now and in 2008. A few weeks previous to the writing of this column I was in the same depressed quandry as many informed readers. The future seemed dark for America, for the constitution, and most of all, for liberty. Now I've seen the light at the end of the dreary, socialist tunnel, that has become the Bush tenures in office. I've seen the light and its name is Sanford, America's last rejuvenating force for liberty. Following a link to small website that has recently received large publicity, http://draftsanford.cjb.net/, I found a petition to draft an obscure governor to run for the Presidency of the United States. I had heard scant mention of Governor Sanford, previous to this, but having read an enormous volume of information on him in a relatively short time, I was quickly convinced that this man was the direct heir of Ronald Reagan. I signed the petition, and though I am as of yet, not in any way affiliated with this campaign to draft Mark Sanford I would urge all liberty lovers to take the first, decisive step, to sign this petition. This is, I will in conclusion repeat, merely the first step, but it must successfully be made. A frequently repeated line during every election year is, 'The fate of our country is at stake.' The fate of our country has been at stake for some little time. So far, conservative constitutionalists have been losing ground steadily before the onslaught of left liberal socialists and neo-conservatives, really no better than conservative democrats. Now there is a faint hope that after perpetual defeat we may at last seize a victory. Add your name to the petition to draft Mark Sanford for president. Do it now!

In summary: "Bush is evil! Sanford for President!" Not exactly the best way to win people over.

I agree. I am a Sanford guy myself, or atleast leaning that way, and this article should have focused more on Sanford and less (if at all) on Bush.

As for the liberal, 'Bush' Republicans, a careful choice of an Eastern, moderate running mates, perhaps Governors Mitt Romney or George Pataki, or Senators Judd Gregg would secure them.

I disagree here. While Bush is definitely not the fiscal conservative we'd hoped him to be, most Bush voters would support an heir to Reagan like Sanford without having to put in a fuzzy moderate running mate, methinks.

"If you want to run for president, you have to have three things: the charisma and charm — he has that; you've got to have the (fund-raising ability) — he's got that; and you've got to have the policy record," said Stephen Moore, the group's president. "... I think Pawlenty has each one of the essential items to be a presidential candidate."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/9568355.htm?1c

My problem with this article is that it's more of a Bush bash instead of a pro-Sanford article.

Being up here in Michigan, I want to know why Sanford is such a great guy. Especially since I don't know that much about him(although I've heard good things.)

Easily the most fiscally conservative governor on the planet

100% pro-life and pro-2nd amendment

has charisma

Check the link in the article to the information pages. You can navigate to other places where you can find out more.

It's too bad that you didn't use this space to talk more about Sanford and his family. Our President is a good man and a great President. Gov.Sanford might need his help one day so it's best not to bash President Bush. I was kind of leaning towards Sanford but now,thanks to you, I'll go with someone else.

Don't hold this guy's post against a good man like Governor Sanford. It was a Bush-bashing article, and that I didn't like. However, Sanford is a good man and a good choice for 2008. Here's some information for you:

Full Name Marshall Clement Sanford, Jr. Born March 28, 1960 in Florida. Wife, Jenny, four sons. Has M.B.A. from University of Virginia, worked for real estate investment firm before getting elected to the House of Representatives in 1994. Served till 2001, was then elected Governor of SC. He has military experience, and is thought of as a "maverick." A strong conservative with a libertarian streak, in Congress there were several spending bills where he and Ron Paul were the only two to vote against it.

In other words, this man is a Reagan's Reagan.

The hard part is that Sanford himself has said he doesn't plan to run for President...

But other things he's said suggests he's open to it but not waying now. Here's his reply in 2003 (during an interview with Columbia World publisher Warren Smith) when asked about his political future:

It is interesting, because everyone comes at you with the crazy ideas. You ought to do this, and you ought to do that. It is very important in life, in politics, not to get ahead of yourself. One of the most valuable lessons that God ever taught me was this: The only day you’ve got is the day you have. You don’t have yesterday, and you don’t have tomorrow.

For instance, if I had planned to run for governor when I was in Congress, I would not have voted some of the ways I did. I remember a whole host of votes where it was me alone or me and Ron Paul. Votes that were not in my best interest politically, but I wasn’t worried about it because I thought they were the right votes.

Sounds to me he's open to the idea!

"For instance, if I had planned to run for governor when I was in Congress, I would not have voted some of the ways I did."

Sounds to me like he's willing to put politics ahead of principle. Not a point in his favor.

Regarding my last reply. I thought you said he was willing to put principle ahead of politics. Reanalyzing the comment, I disagree. He was probably making a point that he voted his conscience. I don't think he was implying that he really would have voted differently.

what does Sanford's family have to do with his running? I believe the article and the site that it linked to provide adequate info on Governor Sanford.
As for the PResident, he's nothing more than a conservative democrat. I voted for him, as I would have voted for Zell Miller, to keep Kerry out of the Whitehouse but he's far from ideal. To sway on the basis of one article is unbelievably petty.

Let's elect a real conservative in '08!

I don't think he was implying that he really would have voted differently.

I don't know of any other way to interpret his statement. If what you're saying is true, then he didn't mean what he said. Either way, I consider it a point against him (in that he either is prone to put politics ahead of principle, or is not speaking clearly about what he means). Not that I'm saying there's no way I could get behind him, because I know no one's perfect. But so far he's just not my #1 choice. That's still Tancredo for me. But I'll keep him in mind as a potential fall-back.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.