Skip to comments.Mark Sanford for President 2008
Posted on 01/10/2005 8:14:18 AM PST by RockinRight
(PRWEB) December 22, 2004 -- Why support a Sanford ticket? Under President George W. Bush, aided by a Republican Congress, we've seen the size of government expand -- dramatically. Discretionary spending has soared; education has become federalized under the No Child Left Behind Act; and the American welfare state has received it's biggest booster shot since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson, in the form of the Medicare prescription drug coverage entitlement.
This is all despite the fact that Bush campaigned on a platform of smaller government and lower taxes. While he followed through with lowering taxes, the skyrocketing size and cost of government has made deficits even worse. While some government expansion is natural in the face of the War on Terror, much of this growth occurred before 9/11.
Why? A Los Angeles Times Poll found that almost 60% of Americans would rather have a smaller government that provides fewer services, as opposed to 26% that want larger government providing more services. If Bush genuinely believed in smaller government, it would be no problem to rally public support around him. And yet, today, we have seen an expansion of government powers that would make even Democrats like Bill Clinton gush with pride.
And John Kerry is no better. Besides announcing he would repeal Bush's tax cuts, he also promised a vast and costly new health care plan -- one that dwarves even the cost of Bush's pork-laden Medicare plan. Toss in even more federalization of education, stricter gun control, and abortion on demand, and the mix is a government that makes Bush's administration look like that of a frothing-at-the-mouth anarchist.
Today, we have record high deficits and extravagant federal spending. It took centuries for government spending to reach $1 billion. It took an extra few decades for it to reach $2 billion. Bush will propel government spending to $3 billion in only a few extra years. Government is growing exponentially, and unless we elect strong leaders to undo this damage, we can expect only economic ruin in the future.
Governor Sanford is that leader. He has stood up not only to pork-barrel, spendthrift Democrats, but to his own Republican majority in the South Carolina state legislatures. He vetoed 106 parts of his own party's suggested budgets, saying that it simply cost too much and criticizing his fellow Republicans for reckless spending. On the other hand, Bush has yet to say "no" even once -- he has never used his veto power at all.
If Sanford can face down the comparatively small budget of his own state, imagine how much change he can bring to the morbidly obese federal budget. A massive, across-the-board cut in taxes paired with an immense budget reduction would invigorate the suffering American economy, but we can only see such a plan put into action if we elect those with the spine to follow through on it.
Governor Sanford has proven that he has the grit to face down the wasteful partisans in his own party. He has taken serious measures, including rare budget line-item vetoes, to ensure that taxes stay low and government growth stays contained. He has held true to conservative principles, supporting reasonable abortion limitations, gun rights, and family values. And through it all, he has been met with skyrocketing approval ratings as high as 70%, proving that he knows what to do and how to make people feel good about it.
Men with this much conviction are rare -- and we need to give them all the support we can. I'm ready to see President Sanford in the White House, shrinking the budget, cutting taxes, and respecting our Constitutional rights; are you?
One complaint I have is that all the Sanford for President articles trash Bush too much. I have my beefs with Dubya, but we have to be careful-a lot of Bush voters would be turned off if Sanford's campaign starts up as a "Bush sucks I am better" campaign-which means we lose and Hillary wins.
You want on my Sanford ping list?
Jimmy Carter, did you say?
Bush campaigned on conservative issues for his second term, as opposed to the centrist issues he went for the first time around.
What's worrying me about 2008 is that a few high-profile conservatives are bashing the War on Terror--I'm thinking of Newt Gingrich. It should be possible for these elected officials to scrounge up the support for both restricted government and kicking the crap out of Islamofascists. If not, we're in trouble.
What about Jimmy Carter? You comparing Sanford to Carter? I certainly hope not or a flamin's a comin!
Agreed. I like Newt but the guy's nuts anymore.
Yeah, but how does he look in a cowboy hat clearing brush?
I dunno. I know the girls like Dubya in that pic, don't have one of Sanford.
Bush hasn't even been inaugurated second time around, and people are already lining up for the next election.
It is a bit premature, but I know a good candidate when I see one. If we wait too long we're gonna have to deal with the establishment's choice, whose name will probably be McCain, Giuliani, or Frist.
One complaint I have is that all the Sanford for President articles trash Bush too much.
He calls it like it is. Sure, I voted and volunteered for Bush, but I don't agree with a lot of what he's done. I'd much rather have a true economic conservative in D.C.
So would I. Which is why we must be careful.
Just referring to "Jimmy who?" - that was the reaction Carter had in 75/76 when he was the Peanut Farmer running for President.
Sanford will get lots of comparisons to Carter in this regard.
Well I can accept that. Carter did win, after all.
He'll be a much better president that Jimmah, however.
You are quite right about that. President Bush is, it should be obvious, quite popular with the people. It isn't necessary to denigrate what the President has accomplished. There is still much more to be done and most recognize that. If Sanford take the base that has been created and builds on that, he has a good chance at success. To try to damage the President tends to have some blow-back.
Yeah, its kind of silly for Sanford to run against Bush in 2008.
But it stands to reason he may be running against Jeb.
Maybe, but I don't think Jeb's gonna run. Not yet anyway, it screams "Kennedy" too much (RFK running after JFK, etc).
"Bush hasn't even been inaugurated second time around, and people are already lining up for the next election."
The next election will cost the victor $200 million dollars. Getting started right freakin' now for the 2008 run would just be good sense.
One remarkable thing about Sanford and another potential candidate, Gov Tim Pawlenty, is that they are younger (though not by much) than I am! Makes me feel a little old. Hard to believe as early as 2009 we could have a president born after I was. But it would be good to see some new blood in the GOP. Sen George Allen is in his early 50s but he is youthful. And all 3 of these guys are preferable to McCain, IMO.
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.