Regards, "Baby Coopie"
Posted on 04/12/2005 7:39:29 AM PDT by KyleM
COLUMBIA — Being nice, the speaker of the S.C. House initially made reference to the more generic term "farm animals."
But in the end, the host gave up altogether, abandoning any attempt to avoid use of that four-letter "p" word ("pigs"), as he and the governor got in a little good-natured needling during Tuesday's legislative press conference.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford raised eyebrows and a bit of a stink last year when he showed up at the South Carolina Statehouse carrying two rather lively piglets in his arms as a protest of the state's $5.5 million "pork barrel" spending plan.
Although legislative issues were the focus of the Tuesday press session, the bantering came about as reporters tried to pin down the two Republican leaders about future political plans.
House Speaker David Wilkins was first asked if there might be an ambassadorship in his near future. Speculation, fueled by the planned visit of President George Bush — now canceled because of the funeral of the pope — has it that the speaker is the top choice to become ambassador to Canada.
"Every time things go well. ... This is the most successful session I've seen, I know, in my 11 years as speaker ... either the governor shows up with pigs or rumors start," Wilkins said. "It's just speculation."
Sanford, one of several governors mentioned as a potential national candidate in 2008, was asked if there might be a presidential campaign in his future.
"Absolutely not," he quickly replied. "I'm trying to survive the week."
Well, then came the next question, could the governor at least announce whether he'll seek re-election to a second term in 2006?
"We will officially make that announcement," Sanford conceded. "But the handwriting is on the wall."
Don't worry coopie, you don't have to admit being wrong to be wrong. It's spelled out very clearly. Why you persist, I dunno, but that's okay I'm often stubborn too. Just not wrong.
His younger brother, Jeb, was supposed to be the next president, not W.
http://chud.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-46387.html
No one expected him to be president; Jeb was supposed to run, according to family lore. George W. Bush, as many have noted, was a case study in the power of lowered expectations.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001961721_privilege22.html
There had long been reports that it was Jeb – John Ellis Bush – who was supposed to be the next leader in the Bush family dynasty.
But that scenario ended on election night 1994, as Jeb lost narrowly to Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, the same day that George W. Bush ousted Gov. Ann Richards in Texas.
Jeb ran a more conservative campaign in ’94 than his big brother, focusing more on policy issues and less on the "feel good" approach employed by George W. Learning from his defeat, there was more of a softer, "compassionate conservative" approach to Jeb’s campaign in 1998, which he won convincingly. But by then, George W., who also won that year, was on his way to the Republican presidential nomination.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie090800.htm
Darn the bad luck! Does this mean I'll end up back on JohnnyZ's troll list? Oh, the shame!!
I hate to see this, Sanford would have got my vote if he ran for pres. He would probably have been the most conservative condidate. I always vote for the most conservative candidate.
Did you read your own post?
1994, GWB is big man in Texas. 1998 GWB is well on his way to the nomination, when you said he was political nobody.
Do you have any more ways of saying "I know I'm wrong but I'm not going to admit it because I'm a baby"? Very interested to see lol
By election night (sometime in Nov) 1998 Dubya was on his way to clinching the nod - as I said.
And Dubya did defeat Richards in '94, while Jeb was losing to Chiles - as I said.
And numerous sources (that I posted as a courtesy for those struggling to keep up) mentioned that Jeb was the chosen son, not Dubya - as I said.
Now, one can certainly argue that Dubya's gubernatorial re-election machine was already priming for the Presidential primary prior to his overpowering re-election - I can accept that. But it was not until he posted stunning re-election numbers (around 70% overall), especially in relation to blacks and Hispanics, that he became the hot commodity in the Presidential race - as I said.
Do try to keep up next time.
Very bad news about Sanford - this country could have used a good dose of his fiscal conservatism.
I am terrified at the lack of conservative candidates considering a run in '08 - especially, since conservatism in this country has never been in a stronger position.
Is it too late to draft Haley Barbour?
Regards, "Baby Coopie"
I rest my case. You can run, even with foot in your mouth, but you can't hide when you say stupid things!!
I'd like Pence over Guliani, Pataki, McCain, Allen, Hagel, and the rest of those clowns, but his seemingly excessive 'social Conservatism' is a bit bothering to me. I'd rather a more Libertarian Conservative... like Sanford :(
Where is a Barry Goldwater when you need him?
!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Sanford wants to reform departments of government,Pence wants to abolish them."
I don't know that your above characterization is accurate.
Reagan himself said:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
---Ronald Reagan
And Barry Goldwater said:
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is in liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
---Barry Goldwater
Social Conservatism tends to always result in bigger government and can occasionally be just as disrupting as economic liberalism (although if I had to choose I'd say economic conservatism is much more important.)
I guess it depends what you define 'social conservatism' as.
If something leads to big government then it is not social conservatism.
I didn't know that about campaign finance reform, that is dissapointing. However, I believe Sanford voted for nearly every tax cut while in the house. Also, when he ran for governor he was accused of trying to abolish the department of education while he was in the house: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:OX7RxdiS4R8J:www.med.sc.edu:1081/hodgesone.htm+%22mark+sanford%22+%22abolish+the+department%22&hl=en
Sanford would be an outstanding Pres.
I think both Sanford and Pence are good, the Club For Growth loves both of them and has opinined about both of them for Pres. I think they may be leaning towards Pence now.
"If something leads to big government then it is not social conservatism."
k, then the Constitutional Marriage amendment, war on drugs, doctor assisted sucide, and faith based federal funding all don't fall under 'social conservatism'. I think some might disagree with you.
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.
