Replies

Of all of Sanford's policy positions, climate change and Iraq are the two with which some conservatives take issue. Considering Reagan himself granted amnesty to illegal aliens and compromised on many issues, and none of the other candidates for the Republican nomination are ideologically pure, that's not bad. Looking at the candidates as a whole, Sanford is still the most promising, because of his conservative position on almost every issue (aside from these two) and because his adherence to his beliefs in the past should give us confidence that he won't choose political expedience over principal. THAT is the most important quality in a candidate, regardless of what he says during a campaign (see Mitt Romney).

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.

Of all of Sanford's policy positions, climate change and Iraq are the two with which some conservatives take issue.

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.