Sanford for Governor

National Review ^ | June 21, 2002 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[The Game Hen]

Bob Peeler vs. Mark Sanford.

They're the two candidates in a run-off next week to be the Republican nominee for governor of South Carolina. For some reason, Sanford is often described as the moderate in the race and Peeler as the conservative. It's true that Sanford backed McCain and Peeler backed Bush in 2000, and that became, especially in South Carolina, a moderate-vs.-conservative fight (although it wasn't obvious in 1999 that it would turn out that way).

But Sanford is in fact an exemplary conservative. Elected in 1994, he quickly became one of the leading lights of the "Republican revolution." He was an early champion of free-market Social Security reform, a foe of profligate spending, and a reliable ally of social conservatives. In 2001, he honored his pledge to serve only three terms by leaving Congress. Now he's running for governor on a platform including the abolition of the state income tax and the promotion of educational choice. (He's mused aloud about home-schooling his kids in the governor's mansion — a comment that Peeler has criticized.)

The Club for Growth is backing Sanford. Stephen Moore, its head, says, "Sanford is a potential superstar and we don't have a lot of them in the governor's offices right now." (Moore is also on NR's masthead and a columnist for NRO, which I should mention to avoid another rant from John Judis.)

Peeler is a conservative, too, but he's not a man to push conservative ideas. Peeler is criticizing Sanford for the conservative votes he cast in Congress. Pulling items from budgets Sanford supported, Peeler is portraying Sanford as a foe of veterans and breast-cancer research funding. If these campaign tactics work in a Republican primary, conservative voters will have only to look in the mirror to see why government never shrinks.

[The Game Hen]

The SC board of Free Republic has turned into a real hair-pulling brawl. Some have been spewing Peeler's negative talking points and worse. I'd like to think this article will put to rest the issue of Sanford's conservative credentials. If an unbiased Senior Editor of National Review can't convince them then it's hopeless.

[Palmetto]

Sanford bump.

Go Tigers!!

[The Game Hen]

I'm rooting for the Gamecocks (obviously) but I'm so proud of both of them! 10 minutes to go!

[The Game Hen]

I received the following message from Mark Sanford responding to Peeler's attack ad about his veto of the postage stamp for Breast Cancer research.

Peeler's new ad is not only offensive in its lies and misrepresentations about my congressional voting record, but it shamefully- SHAMEFULLY- exploits a very emotional and painful issue for women. Women should be outraged at being manipulated for Bob Peeler's selfish purposes.

It is critically important that Bob Peeler's claim about my congressional record on breast cancer research funding be immediately exposed for the lie that it is.

WHY PEELER'S BREAST CANCER AD IS A GROSS DISTORTION OF MARK SANFORD'S VOTING RECORD:

...

MARK VOTED FOR OVER $832 MILLION IN BREAST CANCER RESEARCH DURING HIS TIME IN CONGRESS, MARK ALSO VOTED FOR $51 MILLION IN OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH IN CONGRESS.

MARK’S WIFE AND MOTHER HAVE BOTH HAD CANCER AND FOUR OF HIS WIFE’S BLOOD RELATIVES HAVE DIED OF CANCER IN THE PAST TEN YEARS.

EVERY YEAR MARK WAS IN CONGRESS HIS WIFE JENNY TAPED COMMERCIALS FOR BREAST CANCER AWARENESS, AND BOTH MARK AND JENNY HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN THE RACE FOR THE CURE FOR BREAST CANCER, HELD EVERY OCTOBER IN CHARLESTON. MARK'S WIFE JENNY HAS ALSO WRITTEN NUMEROUS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO PROMOTING THE EVENT AND EARLY DETECTION AWARENESS

ADDITIONALLY, MARK VOTED FOR THE QUALITY CARE FOR THE UNINSURED ACT (HR 2990), WHICH INCLUDED THE WOMEN’S HEALTH AND CANCER RIGHTS ACT (ENSURING HEALTH COVERAGE REGARDING BREAST CANCER PROCEDURES AND CONSULTATION)

MARK VOTED AGAINST THE BREAST CANCER STAMP BECAUSE THE U.S. POST OFFICE ITSELF SAID THE BILL WOULD MOSTLY GO TO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND NOT BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. IN FACT MARK SANFORD HELPED WRITE THE LEGISLATION THAT ENSURED THESE ‘SEMI-POSTAL’ STAMPS ACTUALLY DELIVERED ON THEIR PROMISE TO SUPPORT CAUSES LIKE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH INSTEAD OF GOING TO WASTE IN WASHINGTON, DC.

I've lost all respect for Peeler. Why can't he talk about himself? Especially since he's never actually done anything.

I can't wait to get this primary behind us.

[Big Steve]

When Carroll Campbell and his two sons endorse Mark Sanford, then you know it's game, set and match for Sanford. While I will still vote for Peeler because his views are closer to mine, I want to say I am dismayed at the attacks leveled against Sanford because they were taken out of context. Sanford's votes weren't always popular, but he did what he felt was right. He has yet to run one negative ad on an opponent, and that alone commands a lot of respect. While some people have said they will vote for Hodges if Sanford wins the primary, Sanford will have my support with no questions asked. I met him once in person and he seems a down to earth kind of man. He's not as bad as some of his critics would like. Give him a chance, and give Hodges the boot come November.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Finally a grownup way of looking at the primary run-off,, I thought I was watching the Clinton-Gore campaign trying to scare seniors and telling the country the world was going to burn up cause of Bush's record on the envirorment,, we are better than that,, I understand the frustration when a candidate you are pulling for had a big lead for months and is beaten,, it's a shock,, and some immediately lashed out in desperation,, but thats what the Gore backers did after the election of 2000,, hopefully the catfighting is over and we can all gather together once either Peeler or Sanford is our nominee and whip out the can of Whoopass on the Hodges campaign,,,,,,,

[weikel]

[CWRWinger]

He has yet to run one negative ad on an opponent, and that alone commands a lot of respect.

It was annouced on WORD Radio this morning that one of those ads was not from Peeler at all, but was generated by a talk show host as a spoof. Peeler had nothing to do with the ad at all.

[The Game Hen]

Here in Charleston we didn't hear the spoof but we've heard plenty of attacks clearly identified as Peeler's. We are probably hearing more than you are because Peeler is targeting areas where Sanford is strong.

[SC Swamp Fox]

I voted for Peeler in the Primary, but I am leaning towards Sanford in the run-off.

When I dig a little bit I find that the "Paid for by Peeler" ads are slanted and misleading. I finally just saw a Peeler commercial where he said what he wants to do, instead of the "Sanford loved Clinton" ads I have been hearing. I agree with his stated core values, but I am not hearing how he intends to implement his ideas.

I think dixie sass was wise to schedule our chapter meeting well after the Primary and run-off.

[Anotherpundit]

I'll be voting for Sanford and have done some (very small) volunteer work with his campaign. Sanford strikes me as a more practical, capable man, more able to actually change things and get things accomplished.

The main difference seems to be that sanford's base is a little more libertarian/economic oriented, while Peeler's is a little more derived from cultural & moral conservatism. That's fine, but overall, I think South Carolina needs economic help more; conservative cultural values are already relatively well established here.

[PistolPaknMama]

"on a platform including the abolition of the state income tax "

Sandford has not proposed the abolition of state income tax. He has proposed a change in the source of funding for that tax. Getting the money from somewhere else is not a reduction in taxes we pay.

What he proposes is a sharp increase in gasoline tax, meaning that middle class people who are totally dependent on their cars to get to work, or drive FOR work, will feel the brunt of the "abolition of state income tax."

Not to mention that companies who have employees who they pay for gas and mileage will pass that cost on to SC consumers, so we will actually pay that tax twice...once the pump and in a higher cost for goods and services.

Reduced government = reduced tax. Can't get more simple than that.

[PistolPaknMama]

"..wise to schedule our chapter meeting well after the Primary and run-off"

Ain't that the truth! Gunnedeh said he's bringing plenty of ammo to the meeting. Hopefully we'll all have recomposed ourselves by then and he can leave it in his trunk! LOL!

God bless Dixie!

[PistolPaknMama]

LOL...where's Lamar?

[weikel]

[PistolPaknMama]

ROTF - oh Lord, it's the big one Elizabeth!

[The Game Hen]

I had heard several times that Sanford planned to eliminate state income taxes. I went to http://www.Sanfordforgovernor. com/ and found the following:

Sanford Tax Plan Overview
- Completely eliminate the individual income tax in South Carolina in 18 years.
- Change to the tax system comes through growth in our economy. This plan slows the growth in government, but still allows General Fund Revenues to modestly increase annually. In addition, all revenues from the Lottery or Tobacco Funds will remain untouched. - A trigger mechanism is put in place so that if real spending levels are not maintained in any year, then reductions in the income tax will be suspended for that year.
- All marginal rates will be cut by more than half by year 5.
- Sales Tax is broadened to include gasoline. This pool of money creates the “infrastructure and income tax transition fund” which would be drawn on as a line of credit in the event of economic downturns. At the end of 20 years this would sunset and the money would go to address the liability S.C. faces in transportation and infrastructure.


You can find lots of information at this site giving long, specific descriptions of Sanford's positions. The liberal media taught me a long time ago that if you want to know a candidate's position, get it from the candidate. I don't know where you got your information but it sounds like some of the anonymous attacks out there distorting Sanford's history and positions.

[PistolPaknMama]

I don't know where you got your information

Sales Tax is broadened to include gasoline. This pool of money creates the “infrastructure and income tax transition fund” which would be drawn on as a line of credit in the event of economic downturns.

From Sanford's own website, apparently, which is where you said you got the above information.

[The Game Hen]

I don't understand.
You went to Sanford's website and found:
"Sandford has not proposed the abolition of state income tax." ???

I found just the opposite and quoted it exactly in post #17.

Also, I don't consider 5% "a sharp increase in gasoline tax."

I'm not trying be critical, I'm just trying to understand how you came to your conclusions.

[Palmetto]

Sandford has not proposed the abolition of state income tax. He has proposed a change in the source of funding for that tax. Getting the money from somewhere else is not a reduction in taxes we pay.

PPM, IMHO a consumption tax is far more fair to the taxpayer than an income tax, which is only slightly more fair than property taxes.

Consumption taxes make revenues more volatile, but frankly I think the government should get used to not counting on growing revenues every year. Reduced spending is a natural consequence of consumption tax revenue sourcing.

MHO.