I get weezy thinking about it.
Posted on 02/06/2005 8:39:53 PM PST by pratherdc
Sanford run for White House likely
By LEE BANDY Staff Writer
If there were any doubts that Gov. Mark Sanford will run for president, he certainly erased them with his State of the State address before a joint session of the General Assembly.
The Capital City was abuzz.
Veteran political observers said it sounded more like a State of The Union address.
“Did you hear that speech? “ asked state Rep. Jim McGee, R-Florence. “Looks like to me he’s running.”
House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Charleston, who worked for Sanford when he was a congressman, is more certain. “He’s definitely running.”
No evidence is offered to refute the predictions, and the governor is saying nothing to discourage the speculation.
Sanford consistently downplays talk about a White House bid, noting he has all he can say grace over in trying to push his agenda through an ornery Legislature. That’s his focus now, he insists, not a run for national office.
However, the governor and his staff have had every opportunity to spike the speculation. They have declined to do so. No Sherman-esque statements have been issued, and the State of the State served only to add fuel to the talk about a presidential run.
See for yourself.
In his speech, Sanford talked about:
• The rising cost of the war in Iraq, saying it “spreads a gray cloud” over the economy
• Ballooning federal deficits and a dollar “that’s on increasingly shaky ground”
• A federal government out of control
• Rising consumer debt
• The specter of double-digit inflation
• The welfare state and its drag on the economy
• A global trading system that has become less cohesive and more threatening to American jobs
The governor didn’t home in on state matters until a quarter of the way through the speech.
That was a mistake, putting more focus on Sanford’s possible national ambitions, says Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston.
Sanford’s staff says pundits are reading too much into the speech, making more of it than it is.
The governor always has been interested in the global economy and how it might impact the state, explains spokesman Will Folks, adding Sanford was on the Joint Economic Committee and the international relations panel while in Congress.
Skeptics laugh. The Sanford inner circle doesn’t sound too convincing.
During the Republican National Convention in New York last fall, there was a steady hum about future candidates. Sanford’s name was among those mentioned.
He was busy making the rounds, seeing all the right people and meeting with folks who have deep pockets. He spoke to a group called the Club for Growth, whose members meet with potential candidates, grade them and decide whether to support them with money.
One evening Sanford invited the state GOP delegation to a reception at a friend’s home on the Upper East Side. When the governor silenced the assembled gathering to thank businessman Howard Bellin for the use of his home, the host said, “I fully expect to be his guest at the White House in another four years.”
Sanford grinned.
The 2008 presidential race is a ways off. Sanford may not run. If he does, he has two hurdles to scale to be considered a viable candidate.
He must first win re-election next year by a comfortable margin.
He also needs to stop having to put big zeroes on his legislative score card. He must have some accomplishments to point to. Today, he would go to the nation’s voters empty-handed.
Sanford - Rice 2008
South Carolina.
I agree with all but his first statement, and I am also not as concerned about inflation. Otherwise, the guy is right on the money. The Iraq war does cost money, no doubt, but I don't know if he put this statement correctly or not-the last thing he wants to do is Bush-bash.
Oh, and PING!
My thought too. If Sanford starts talking like Buchanan then he's gonna shoot himself in the foot.
Seeing the full text, I think his Iraq comment was OK. However, he would have served himself better to praise Bush in some way, even if the two of them have different views on fiscal issues (Sanford of course being much more fiscally conservative than W).
If Sandford going to turn into a Pat Buchanan type of candidate, I'm not going to support him.
Re Newt: The country will never chose a first lady named Calista..<P.
Off the top of your head..who's a possible VP candidate..Sandford/Rice?
Check out this editorial in yesterday's (2/6) Greenville News. "President Sanford? Perhaps" by Dan Hoover
It mentions several websites petitioning Sanford for Pres.
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2005/02/05/2005020558098.htm
My name is mentioned in that article (I signed the Sanford for President petition). I'll leave it to your intiution to see which one is me.
Does anyone know his position on Israel?
And, free-market-capitalismophobic; even more accurate!
What's wrong with NAFTA? Trade is a good thing, so please explain to me how it is not. Visit the link provided in post #18 of this thread and try to refute what it's trying to tell you.
NAFTA is not free trade but just loss of US sovereignty.
You know that giant sucking sound it is US jobs going aways and illegal immigrants coming in.
• A global trading system that has become less cohesive and more threatening to American jobs
???? I hope Sanford is not a protectionist. If he starts this Edwards rhetoric he will loose my support fast.
The giant sucking sound might be the vacuum created by the air escaping from your argument. Funny how the protectionist crowd simultaneously complains about immigration and outsourcing. When capital flows out of the country - potentially making other countries better off, enticing their citizens to stay and not come here, benefits the US. owner of the capital, and might just go to producing goods the Americans can buy at a better value - protectionists bitch about this too! So, does the protectionist really think that they can have it both ways when many times they're not even the owners of the capital?
Next I suppose that someone will tell me that the race to the top is the Buchananite "race to the bottom".
Yea entice them not to come here like those illegals from Mexico.
We are giving away our wealth for poverty in return.
might just go to producing goods the Americans can buy at a better value
The better value is temporarily as good jobs go Americans have no job benifits and have to pay out of pocket. Not to mention the falling dollar means higher prices of US because imported good will be more expensive.
benifits=benefits
Don't know a lot of this man but he sounds good although I am pulling for a Condi Rice/Newt Gingrich ticket.
This wasn't the only error you made in that post...in my [not so] humble opinion, your entire premise in inaccurate.
I get weezy thinking about it.
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.