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 ...
Romney sucks, can we just drop all the romney crap talk?
Yep, Palin has a wall of negatives and stereotypes to climb. She will not be a 2012 contender.
She’s better than almost any governor and NY, CA, IL, NJ, etc. could use a governor like her, but I doubt she’ll ever make the WH.
To solve the drug crisis you'd need to remove limitations on the right to work, institute vouchers at the grade and HS levels, and eliminate the 80% of poverty due to unwed, uneducated mothers (adoption and a positive response to chastity)
You are spot on about GW and I worry that too many pubbies have drunk at that well. On the other hand, they are all politicians in the end. Public perception is more important and people are making fun of GW as an issue. I think it will go away as a “critical” issue by time of the next election cycle.
Even Reagan wasn't perfect - Lebanon, didn't shut down a single dept., etc.
We need to play electoral math to win. We need 50% plus one to win. That is the fact. Facts are stubborn things.
Romney or someone like him must be on the ticket if we are to unseat the Kenyan Marxist.
No, not if you want to defeat the Kenyan Marxist.
LMAO!I heard the same BS regarding Giuliani. It was crap then, just as this is crap.
This is a conservative website, btw.
Politics is the game of compromise. You work hard to get the best, which is usually the lessor of two evils. McCain was not even on my dance card, but he'd be an improvement over Obama, however slight.
The goal is a ticket that can win. As much bad as Bush did he was better than a liberal. Not the perfect conservative candidate, but judging from the comments not too many here will ever find a perfect candidate. You either win or you stay in the minority where all your good ideas count for naught. Get it?
I’d prefer no evil. I’m not ready to compromise at this stage of the game, as that’s just giving in. The liberals won with a hardcore socialist.
I get it, apparent;ly you lack principles to get it. The way you play the game, you either lose with your ‘winner” or lose like we did in 2008 by having two barely distinguishable candidates.
i see no point in giving in, especially 3 years out.
I can comprehend the day where Sanford's candidacy is ruined because he's made too many enemies, he's viewed as an extremist, or that his communication skills are not that strong. I cannot comprehend the day where Sanford's candidacy is ruined because he is viewed as too liberal.
This guy is a fire-breathing conservative. You guys aren't paying attention if you think otherwise.
He is a Conservative of the Paul/Buchanan flavor when it comes to Foreign policy and this Global Warming stuff isn’t Conservative at all.
Nonetheless the point is winning. Hold their feet to the fire. They are politicians and react to their base. Sanford or whoever needs to be brought around to the right way of thinking on many issues. It is true of just about any electable politician.
We too often on FR get hysterical over political comments. We need to see them for what they are:
1. They neutralize a naturally hostile media (even capons have feelings)
2. They neutralize the issue and allow us to shed light on it in a non-confrontational way. Even the most ignorant Freeper is wiser by miles than the average voter when it comes to issues.
3. Good politicians, people who really get things done, do so by creating as much consensus as possible to get the job done. You do it not by confrontations with potential allies, but through good old fashioned give and take. Gingrich once said, “the angels are in the details.” More often than not, something said means much less than what they do.
That is the American way. It is how the free-market works and it is how we'll regain our country. Sniping at each other or writing off potential candidates because they are imperfect sounds awfully Utopian.
You misunderstand. I said a President WHO BELIEVES IN PRE-EMPTIVE WAR won't be able to initiate one anyway because of public opinion. So there is no difference between Sanford and anyone else on this issue. I never said Sanford was making foreign policy decisions based on public opinion. It is clear he does not, since he was one of only two Republicans who voted against the war when it was popular.
(Sorry, bad formatting on last post) He is right on every other issue, and he never actually supported any policy regarding the environment that I am convinced is wrong. He only set up a group to "study" the issue, which is a common tactic of placating the opposition and diffusing an issue without doing anything.
So you must hate Reagan, who was wrong on immigration. That's a "bread and butter" issue, too, is it not?
Are you coming from the angle that Sanford should never be seen in the same room as a Democrat, or that the Bilderberg conference (which has Republican and Democrat attendees) is some sort of globalist confab secretly conspiring to form a world government and a North American Union (unless Ron Paul can stop them!).
Better yet, get Sanford for alone and ask him where all this damn money went. He was undoubtedly briefed on the situation at the conference. BTW: Our Gov. Perry was at the 2007 Bilderburg. Looking back, it's almost funny. Barry must be their current fallguy. http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/have_bilderberg_kingmakers_selected.htm
So it’s the latter (you believe Bilderberg is some globalist conspiracy and probably also believe the illuminati and freemasons have something to do with it). You answered my question by your ridiculous answer. Calling Sanford a socialist is absurd.
Call him/them what you will, I do judge people by the company they keep.
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.