 |
Gov. Mark Sanford Ping! |
Want on or off this ping list? Just FReepmail me.
Posted on 04/26/2009 11:50:29 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
By risking his popularity now, Mark Sanford may be quite popular in 2012.
BY ANDREW ROMANO
. . . . .
When Obama unveiled his $787 billion stimulus plan, a flock of ambitious Republican governors promised to fend off large portions of the Washington windfall. But as political pressures mounted, only Sanford stuck to his guns. For the past month, he has boldly threatened to reject up to 25 percent (or $700 million) of South Carolina's stimulus funds unless a reluctant Republican-dominated legislature sets aside a matching sum of state money to pay down its debt. (He has accepted the rest.)
. . . . .
But even true believers have bad days, and at this particularly stressful hour, it doesn't take much to set Sanford off. In the halls of the State House, legislators accuse the governor of selling out the poorest South Carolinians to feed his own ambition; outside, his approval ratings have fallen to 40 percent. Asked how this makes him feel, Sanford pauses, then admits to experiencing the "occasional lonely moment." But he still believes, he quickly adds, that there's a "silent majority" of voters who support his stimulus stance; it's just that they're "too busy to make their voices heard."
. . . . .
For Sanford, 48, . . . , it's a chance to test the principles that have animated his 15 years in the arena—sustainable spending, smaller government—and perhaps seize a spot on the national stage as the most prominent of what he calls the "true conservatives." For his party, meanwhile, it's a possible turning point. As the nation shifts leftward to accommodate an expanding government, will hands-off economic libertarianism be remembered as a relic of Reagan's '80s? Or will it come roaring back in response?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
. . . . .
Sanford's libertarian politics are an extension of his penny-pinching quirks.
. . . . .
"What I believe I truly believe," he boasts. "I can't do the flavor-of-the-month approach."
Too bad that most Republicans have pragmatically given in to the misguided notion that we need more Government, so long as it's run by "conservatives."
In any case...Sanford ping!
Newsweak.... just another leftwing propaganda publication.
Last true believer in what, global warming?
Just say no to rinos... even if they get an issue or two right.
LLS
I'm sure they concluded that Gov. Sanford is:
a) a moron.
b) a relic.
c) a racist.
d) all of the above.
I dare you to cough up credible evidence attesting to the truth of your otherwise unfounded allegation, other than that executive order that he issued. Furthermore, I dare you to present credible evidence that Gov. Sanford has endorsed the pseudo-scientific assertion of widespread, anthropogenic climate change while openly discounting the influence of the Sun and other physical factors as negligible.
In his terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Sanford voted against Kyoto, has publicly opposed carbon cap-and-trade, and has voiced support for nuclear power. That hardly sounds like someone who is in the league of Al Gore's carbon tax cabal; at worst, it is someone who might approve of Theodore Roosevelt's conservationism.
[To dispute that all climate change, regardless of causality, is folly. This planet's climate does indeed naturally change, in the context of geological time. Cases in point: the "prehistoric" Ice Age and the medieval warming period (hint: it's how Greenland got its name). However, a simple recognition that the global climate does indeed change over time does not imply that humans are the sole factor (or even the primary factor) in effecting such changes, as is often charged, although it is foolhardy to entirely neglect the impact of humans on their environment. Humans can and do on many occasions choose to pollute their natural surroundings, as such actions are perceived to be in their self-interest, which is generally placed ahead of the interests of their fellow citizens. Consequently, what ought to be discussed, rather than this idiotic carbon tax, or a new framework of global rulers, is the proper role of Government (and the appropriate levels, thereof) in protecting and ensuring the sanctity of "the public green" (i.e., the common natural and geographic environment).]
BUMP!
But I don’t think the Constitution gives anyone in government the right to try and control any of the environment.
It's not in any of the enumerated powers, though I suppose the interstate commerce clause could be used as justification. However, in the absence of such justification, the power to regulate private treatment of the environment is left to the States or to the People, per the Tenth Amendment, except for disputes between States or between residents of different States.
He buys into man made global warming... a lie if there ever was one.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc4NzU5MTMyZjM4MTAwOWJhZDAxOTI4N2MwODAyYzE=
“Few Republicans seem to take climate change and other environmental issues very seriously. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford may be a welcome exception. Writing in the Washington Post last week, Governor Sanford argued Republicans need to respond to the warming climate debate with a positive conservative agenda. “The climate change debate is here to stay,” he wrote “and as America warms to the idea of environmental conservation on a grander scale, it’s vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction.”
Governor Sanford understands that embracing environmental policies entails a certain risks for conservatives; “the issue of environmental conservation sits squarely on the battle line between government and liberty.” On the one hand, environmental protection is a driving force for aggressive government intervention into the economy. Endorsing some environmental policies entails abandoning conservative support for limited government and economic liberty. On the other, as America becomes a wealthier and more advanced nation, the demand for environmental conservation will only increase. If conservatives fail to engage the debate in a constructive way, they may suffer political costs. In a divided nation, environmental questions need not motivate a large percentage of voters to have a real political effect.
Governor Sanford argued that “conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion” by articulating conservative principles for environmental protection. One does not have to accept Al Gore’s apocalyptic visions to share environmental concerns. Nor does one have to endorse expansive federal regulation to encourage conservation. As Governor Sanford wrote, there is a need for “ecologically responsible solutions based on free-market principles that both improve our quality of life”...
Mark Sanford:
“For the past 20 years, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising sea levels at our farm on the South Carolina coast. I’ve had to watch once-thriving pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marshes. I know the climate change debate isn’t over, but I believe human activity is having a measurable effect on the environment.”
http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064040212&ShowArticle_ID=11003001071679375
Issue #20.05 :: 01/31/2007 - 02/06/2007
Sanford Suffers Heat Stroke
“Governor Abandons Libertarian Bent to Tackle Global Warming
BY MICHAEL GRAHAM
Well, I guess the chicks at the Cato Institute won’t be flinging their undies at Gov. Mark Sanford anymore.
The Cato Institute is America’s leading libertarian think tank, where great minds fight for your right to opt out of Social Security, avoid government-mandated health care and — of course — smoke pot.
Until recently, Sanford has been a rock star in libertarian Republican circles. Whenever some beltway “compassionate conservative,” shipping tax-funded pork back home, would mock small-government Republicans for not being able to win elections, “Gov. Mark Sanford” was a handy retort.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Sanford, the poster boy for limited government, has drunk deep the Kool-Aid of big government, and on the biggest, governmentiest issue of all: global warming.
He’s appointing a commission! He’s considering legislation! He’s going to use the mighty power of the General Assembly to turn back the winds, stem the tide and save the world!
Like I said, libertarians smoke a lot of pot.
Although I am not a member, I admire libertarians for their blunt assessment of the limitations of government.
Global warming is the perfect example. About 1,000 years ago, the world was experiencing the medieval warm period. People farmed the now-frozen tundra of Greenland. The America that greeted the Pilgrims was in the throes of the little ice age. Londoners had festivals on the frozen Thames — a sight never seen before.
Is there anything any government could have done in either era to stop the drastic warming or cooling of their day? To answer “yes” is to reveal one’s ignorance. Or one’s membership in the Democratic Party.
This time, we’re told, it’s different. The world hasn’t been this hot in 400/600/1,000 years (take your pick of panicked media reports). Of course, the fact that the world has been this hot before — and without the benefit of the internal combustion engine — might be seen as evidence that the climate will change with or without us.
Is the climate changing? Of course. It’s always changing. Until 1998, 1934 was the hottest year on record. After that, temperatures dropped for 40 years, even as we fired up more factories, cranked out more cars and set off dozens of nuclear blasts.
That’s why the debate in the 1970s was about global cooling and the coming ice age. Drastic government measures were suggested but, thankfully, nothing was done.
Then planet Earth, ignoring the reportage from Newsweek, began getting warmer. And once again, costly government action is proposed.
How costly? In the past month, both Massachusetts and California have announced state–run “fight the carbon!” programs like those on Sanford’s horizon. These government efforts will raise the price of running factories and heating homes by millions (Massachusetts) or billions (California) of dollars each year. Every driver, worker and homeowner is going to pay these costs in taxes, lost jobs, or both.
By comparison, South Carolina is so small that more people live in the Boston area than live in the entire Palmetto State. We’re not competing for manufacturing jobs with high-tech Massachusetts or California, but with China and India — nations that have rejected the Kyoto anti-global warming treaty and promise to keep the CO2 pedal to the economic metal.
This is why I’m so stunned that a smart guy like Sanford would get into the global warming business. Even the global warming kooks admit, when forced, that humans have a relatively small impact on the Earth’s temperature. The best estimates are that Kyoto, fully implemented, might lower temperatures 100 years from now by one-half a degree or so.
And the cost of trying to impact the weather by cutting back basic emissions like carbon dioxide — you know, the stuff we exhale — is enormous. Trillions of dollars worth of economic activity — you know, the jobs we need — would have to stop.
So we’re going to cripple our economy and throw people out of jobs, not because the world’s getting warmer (it might be doing that without us) but because we hope — hope — that a 2-degree temperature increase in a century will instead be 1.5 degrees?
This isn’t the philosophy of a libertarian. It’s the posturing of a candidate for national office. And, as an opening ploy in a bid for the vice presidency, it makes good political sense.
But, Gov. Sanford, you’re breaking a lot of libertarian hearts along the way..”
http://www.timesexaminer.com/content/view/760/1/
“Gov. Sanford Attends Bilderberger Meeting
Written by Bob Dill
Jul 16, 2008 at 12:00 AM
The July 7 issue of the New American reported that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford attended the annual secret meeting of the elite Bilderberger Group at the sealed-off Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Virginia. June 5 through 8, 2008.
The magazine described the group as the Bilderberger attendees as “global power brokers from the worlds of politics, business, central banking, finance, and media.,” and the membership of globalist one-world organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations.”
Attendees included the Director of the National Security Agency, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, and many others including David Reckefeller, who attended the first meeting in 1954.
The Governor’s office verified the accuracy of Governor Sanford’s presence at the meeting in response to a request by The Times Examiner”
“Gov. says SC should move to cut carbon emissions
ContentType:Spot Development; ContentElement:FullStory; Breaking:True;
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Monday the state needs to tackle carbon dioxide and global warming issues before the federal government reacts.
On Monday, the Republican governor formally received a 653-page report from his Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee that says South Carolina can release less carbon dioxide than it did in 1990 by promoting voluntary efforts driven substantially by incentives and laws already on the books.
``I think it’s incredibly timely given the conversation that America is increasingly having on energy,’’ Sanford said. ``Doing nothing is not going to be an option.’’
South Carolina’s greenhouse gas emissions rose 39 percent between 1990 and 2005, according to committee chairman Ben Hagood, a Republican state House member from Mount Pleasant. That’s twice the national average. If nothing is done, South Carolina’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 will be 125 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, with a third from power production and a third from transportation.
The report offers 51 policy initiatives to cut emissions by 55 million metric tons by 2020 and leave the state emitting 5 percent less carbon dioxide than in 1990, Hagood said.
Sanford said rising carbon dioxide levels pose threats as global warming raises sea levels in the future and brings more severe hurricane forecasts that raise insurance premiums.
``This is something that’s going to be very real. There will be a national reaction to it. And the question is: Do we react? Or do we let the federal government simply fill in the blanks for us?’’
Sanford praised elements of the report, saying he favors ideas such as utilities allowing net metering, which lets consumers transmit surplus electricity they generate from things such as solar or wind power and receive credits on their bills. He’s also backing plans to use special lanes on congested interstate highways to encourage carpooling.”
Delusion is a powerful drug.
LLS
“Sanford praised elements of the report, saying he favors ideas such as utilities allowing net metering, which lets consumers transmit surplus electricity they generate from things such as solar or wind power and receive credits on their bills. He’s also backing plans to use special lanes on congested interstate highways to encourage carpooling.”
I don’t favor them at all but carpool lanes are hardly the height of statism.
Please list the statist anti-”climatechange” proposals favored by Sanford.
LLS
“and he is far more like Bush than Reagan.”
Ouch!
Anyway I care about what his views on government action are not that you think he “believes in” global warming.
There has been no indication he supports things such as cap and trade or other statist measures that will allegedly combat “climate change” and I seriously doubt he would. So I say big deal.
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.