Posted on 03/23/2009 12:00:50 PM PDT by VinL
In the ongoing debate over the economic stimulus package, South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford has made all the right enemies. The White House has brushed aside Sanford’s threat to turn down $700 million allotted for his state. Republicans in Sanford’s own state have hinted that they’ll override any attempt to veto the cash. Moderate California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has gently mocked Sanford’s position. “I’ll take it,” Schwarzenegger told George Stephanopolous last month. “I’m more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn’t want to take this money.”
Sanford’s public battle with the White House has won him support with a more important group of people: the Republicans who will pick their next standard-bearer in 2012. According to some big-money Republican donors, party strategists who worked on the 2008 campaign and activists who powered the quixotic presidential bid of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Sanford is emerging as the leader for the next Republican nomination.
“His profile has grown dramatically over the last month,” said Floyd Brown, a Republican strategist who lives in Washington state best-known for creating the 1988 “Willie Horton” ads against Michael Dukakis. “Amongst the activists who really matter, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, in the South, there is a lot of positive talk about him. A lot of people asking, ‘What do you know about this guy?’”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
Sorry, Palin is her own worst enemy, not the MSM.
I’m curious. What common causes do you think the far left and the far right will find?
What is an ordinary American? I'm an ordinary American, and I relate much better to President Bush than I do to Governor Palin.
No, I didn’t say it was. But it was certainly botched.
Sanford/Paul 2012!
I would rather Sanford, Palin, and Jindal not run in 2012. If today’s Dow rally was no fluke and the economy continues to improve, Obama is guaranteed a landslide win in 2012. I’d rather have RINOs like Romney and Huntsman spend their own money to fund the 2012 Presidential campaign and lose so we can be rid of these RINOs. By 2016, hopefully people will finally tire of liberalism and want change of the conservative sort.
If Obama gets 8 years, and Republicans don’t make significant gains in congress in 2010, we may not be able to elect a conservative for generations.
My beef with Sanford is that he is not articulate. He’s a horrible speaker and cannot put his small gov’t credentials into play. And yes, he has drunken the global warming koolaid and legalizing drugs (which is a non-issue BTW).
Though I am anti-drug legalization, I don’t disqualify people based on a well reasoned, non revenue generating, no tax dollars for addicts stance. Global Warming on the other hand is a frickin BS, socialist wet dream. He’ll have to leave that behind of he wants my vote.
She’s not that conservative if you moved beyond the hype and what she actually said in the campaign!
I could good for either Sanford or Palin. Just say no to RINO Romney.
Whatever.
So you believe Al Gore and his man made climate change scam?
You think we should never employ force, unless attacked first?
So you believe Al Gore and his man made climate change scam?
Not at all. But Sanford is willing to at least be receptive to the possibility for the purpose of killing the proposed government-intensive and anti-business policies that currently dominate the debate. Read his WaPost piece on climate change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201455.html). He makes a few concessions to establish common ground so that the 50% of the public who believe in climate change will open their mind. Then he proposes pro-business solutions to the perceived problem. This is not the type of compromise that George Bush and John McCain practice, adopting certain liberal policies to placate the opposition. This is the type of consensus-building that Reagan practiced, listening to the opposition's concerns and building innovative solutions that do not rely on government.
You think we should never employ force, unless attacked first?
No. But do you really think this is relevant considering that the public's overwhelming opposition to preemptive war will make it impossible for any president in the next 15 years to actually initiate a preemptive war? This is a non-issue.
Refusing to support Sanford because of an insistence on ideological purity will lead us to the same place as it did when so many short-sighted conservatives shunned Fred Thompson for Mike Huckabee because Thompson once supported allowing first-trimester abortions - another RINO nominee and another general election loss.
Any Conservative should take issue with the Global warming scam and his unwillingness to fight our enemies (it's about Sanfords stated principles, that he rejects non-military regime change and preemptive force), not just Iraq.
the public's overwhelming opposition to preemptive war will make it impossible for any president in the next 15 years to actually initiate a preemptive war? This is a non-issue.
Heaven help us. We don't need a President who will make foreign and defense policy decisions based on public opinion! If we have to act preemptively against enemies, I expect the President to act accordingly, regardless whether it's popular or not. "Popular" means nothing else than "liberal MSM approved".
This BTW is in clear contradiction to your earlier remark that "because his adherence to his beliefs in the past should give us confidence that he won't choose political expedience over principal."
He makes a few concessions (on climate change) to establish common ground so that the 50% of the public who believe in climate change will open their mind. Then he proposes pro-business solutions to the perceived problem. This is not the type of compromise that George Bush and John McCain practice, adopting certain liberal policies to placate the opposition.
So much for principle... reading remarks Sanford made on "man made climate change" it is clear that he either enthusiastically peddles this lie, or he really believes this.
We trashed Gingrich for buying into Gorebull warming, Sanford doesn't get a pass.
Global warming and Defense policy are not about "ideological" purity, but real bread and butter issues. A candidate wrong on these two is DOA. Beside that he is politcally clumsy, insults those who want Obama to fail as "idiots", which either means he feels the need to be PC, or he can't guard his mouth.
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/2008BilderbergAttendees.html
See #57
I'm talking about the man/woman on the street. If you relate better to President Bush than to Governor Palin, I would have to assume that you are not a conservative. Bush certainly isn't one. He's a good man, but some of the domestic choices he's made were terrible for the country.
That's OK though....different strokes for different folks. I just happen to think that the majority of Republicans agree with me on this one.
You’ll never get both of them on any ticket. You’ll have to settle for a more balanced ticket so we can actually win.
It will likely be someone like Romney shoring up a Sanford or Palin ticket.
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.