Gov. Mark Sanford on CNBS this morning sounds like the NEXT RON PAUL !!

[Falseflagop]

And younger. Wow this guy was great said No bailout or stimulus !!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=927273486&play=1



I just hope he keeps talking this way and does not waver !

The baby ROn Paul nice to know one exists already in place !

[Elwar]

I like how Sanford talks...I'm sure his actions are just as great.

Like when he endorsed Ron Paul when he really needed it.

Oh wait...

[ArrestPoliticians]

I like how Sanford talks...I'm sure his actions are just as great.

Like when he endorsed Ron Paul when he really needed it.

Oh wait...

I smell a rat...

[nelsonwinters]

I highly recommend watching this video of Gov. Sanford speech about GOP as a brand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuwp_Dmapo

[SWATH]

What's this about Romney, Jindal, Palin, and Rick Perry being rockstars to rebuild the party?

[Lucille]

I read that when he was in the House, he and Ron voted together quite often.

[JoshLowry]

Are you fucking kidding me?

The media is pushing this guy to run, that's your first warning.

He shilled for McCain and now he shills for Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is an enemy of freedom and property rights.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54219

Fuck Mark Sanford. Honey, Honey, Poison is not acceptable.

He won't even allow medical marijuana, you are a slave in his eyes. He wants to control what you put in your body. He wants to control you.

He is not a freedom candidate and I won't support him.

[MRoCkEd]

Are you fucking kidding me?

The media is pushing this guy to run, that's your first warning.

He shilled for McCain and now he shills for Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is an enemy of freedom and property rights.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54219

Fuck Mark Sanford. Honey, Honey, Poison is not acceptable.

He won't even allow medical marijuana, you are a slave in his eyes. He wants to control what you put in your body. He wants to control you.

He is not a freedom candidate and I won't support him.
...
...
...
Johnson 2012?

[Tenbatsu]

Mark Sanford lost his credibility, in my opinion, after attending the June 08 Bilderberg meeting.

[Jeremy]

Mark Sanford lost his credibility, in my opinion, after attending the June 08 Bilderberg meeting.

How many times do we have to point out that if you were invited you would probably go. I WOULD

[JoshLowry]

Mark Sanford lost his credibility, in my opinion, after attending the June 08 Bilderberg meeting.

Yeah, that doesn't mean much.

His voting record and who he endorses tells all.

[Jeremy]

Yeah, that doesn't mean much.

His voting record and who he endorses tells all.

you dont really have great examples though

I mean you say who he supports, but are you forgetting that RP said nice things about what's his name form Alaska?

[Tenbatsu]

Attending is one thing, I would attend as well, but not spilling the beans afterward shows he is more than likely complicit with their agenda.

[Elwar]

Yeah, that doesn't mean much.

His voting record and who he endorses tells all.

Yep, his lack of endorsement of Ron Paul in the primaries tells a lot.

[speciallyblend]

corrupt leaders will pick corrupt leaders.

WE EITHER GET THEM ALL FIRED OR OUT OF OFFICE, or the ron paul revolution will remain silenced by the corrupt powers to be in the gop..

[JoshLowry]

you dont really have great examples though

I mean you say who he supports, but are you forgetting that RP said nice things about what's his name form Alaska?

Sanford will splinter this movement if you keep your eyes shut and try to stomach this wolf in sheep's clothing.

I didn't become active in politics so I could support someone who will represent the Constitution 90% of the time.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mar...un_Control.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Gun_Control.htm)

Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Drugs.htm

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mar...vil_Rights.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Civil_Rights.htm)

Shilled for McCain and shilled for Rick Perry.

I'd love to hear his thoughts on the Federal Reserve, Foreign Aid, and the Iraq War. Strange that you can't find anything online about it. :rolleyes:

The medical marijuana issue is a relatively small issue, but it defines him. He sees government as a tool to control the people. That's not a pro-freedom candidate.

Just like when Bush campaigned in 2000 on a non interventionist foreign policy, some of it may have sounded good, but he was not the whole package. If you settle for less then you're going to get fucked.

Don't swallow the pill. The media is even pushing him to run for crying out loud.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Sanford is your typical "Opportunist" almost every politician is Washington are changing their tune, blaming it on everything but themselves.

Look at it this way... have any of these politicians initiate bills to curbs all these disasters? How about anytype of objections to this corporate welfare and Corporate Protectionism over the past 10 years?

Did any of these politicians object to all the wasteful spending and do everything to stop it?

The typical, slide of hand... bait and swirch politician BS!

Did anyone catch Friedman's interview with Mark and Erin Burnett on CNBC this morning? Friedman called it all out on these politicians... exactly to a T!

Politicians and Corporate Protectionism has destroy the standard of living and economy!

[Andrew-Austin]

"Shilling" for Rick Perry is not acceptable.

[steph3n]

I liked him up till rick perry....come on gov goodhair is HORRIBLE. Even the Republican Party doesn't like him now in TX.

[Lucille]

Yep, his lack of endorsement of Ron Paul in the primaries tells a lot.

Tucker discusses Ron Paul with Mark Sanford (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKOCsBpcZfw)

[literatim]

How many times do we have to point out that if you were invited you would probably go. I WOULD

You only get invited if you are apart of the elite.

[ArrestPoliticians]

How many times do we have to point out that if you were invited you would probably go. I WOULD

I wouldn't, and neither would Ron Paul.

[Shotdown1027]

There is a fairly easy way to solve this. Does anyone have the Freedom Index ranking for Mark Sanford? Paul got a 100% every year, so if Sanford got a 60, he isnt very good, if he got a 90, he is.

Him and Butch Otter, I'd be interested in.

[dannno]

Thanks Josh..

We really shouldn't get caught up in an anti-liberty candidate, especially if the media is pushing for him. Too many red herrings here. We have other candidates like Johnson who I would definitely support.

In fact I wrote him a letter of support 10 years ago while he was governor, and I got a hand-signed letter mailed back from him.

[Spirit of '76]

This is wonderful. It's not even two weeks past the 2008 election, and we're already squabbling over people who may or may not run 4 years from now.

Bob Barr is a neocon! Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat! Mark Sanford is a bilderberger! Gary Johnson is an inexperienced kid! Ross Perot is a crank! Lyndon Larouche is a conspiracy theorist! Pat Buchanan is a protectionist!

Fast forward to 2012, when a big government Democrat defeats a big government Republican by a margin of 51 to 48, and all the people we bickered over for four years take less than 1% of the vote combined.

No wonder all of this has gotten us fucking nowhere...

[Elwar]

This is wonderful. It's not even two weeks past the 2008 election, and we're already squabbling over people who may or may not run 4 years from now.

Bob Barr is a neocon! Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat! Mark Sanford is a bilderberger! Gary Johnson is an inexperienced kid! Ross Perot is a crank! Lyndon Larouche is a conspiracy theorist! Pat Buchanan is a protectionist!

Fast forward to 2012, when a big government Democrat defeats a big government Republican by a margin of 51 to 48, and all the people we bickered over for four years take less than 1% of the vote combined.

No wonder all of this has gotten us fucking nowhere...

That's why I think we need to choose (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=168255)

[Spirit of '76]

That's why I think we need to choose (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=168255)

Uh... good luck with that.

[0zzy]

the liberty movement is dead.
look no further past the Garden of Eden,
allow no man to run under our banner if he has touched the apple,

[LibertyEagle]

...shilled for Rick Perry.

:eek: He did?

I must have missed that. I have to admit that if he did that, I won't have a thing to do with him.

[slacker921]

.. and what's he have to say about Iraq? Eh?

[DeadheadForPaul]

How many times do we have to point out that if you were invited you would probably go. I WOULD

+1

[AbolishTheGovt]

Mark Sanford = dishonest McCain shill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4qtgTAg_7o

[DeadheadForPaul]

some of you are serious headcases

[ItsTime]

Are you fucking kidding me?

The media is pushing this guy to run, that's your first warning.

He shilled for McCain and now he shills for Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is an enemy of freedom and property rights.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54219

Fuck Mark Sanford. Honey, Honey, Poison is not acceptable.

He won't even allow medical marijuana, you are a slave in his eyes. He wants to control what you put in your body. He wants to control you.

He is not a freedom candidate and I won't support him.

What he said.

[MRoCkEd]

j-j-j-johnson

[V-rod]

Ah, the conspiracy theorists whackjobs show up again. Forum was pro Palin in 2007, then she is thrown under the bus, now Mark Sanford. I am willing to bet that some of you would of waited 3 months before going after BJ Lawson had he won.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Did this board seriously go pro-Palin? I was on hiatus for the past months

If anyone supported Palin, then they should be ashamed - especially as RP supporters

[BKom]

Mark Sanford = dishonest McCain shill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4qtgTAg_7o


Actually that Slurpee brain freeze was probably the most honest thing any elected Republican said about McCain during the entire campaign.

Looks to me like Sanford is solid on the taxing and spending side of the ledger. The thing I'm watching for is all the morals garbage we get from so called conservatives.

If he's a drug warrior and in favor of invading our privacy with the Patriot Act and using the Military Commissions Act, that's a deal breaker. I am pro-life, so that's not a deal breaker for me. That becomes a question of jurisdiction ultimately. But all the nanny state marriage defending and things like that which should be entirely removed from government will be the true test.

I would support Gary Johnson, but he's completely unelectable. I've just been down that road and I'm not willing to head there again. If his only identifiable issue weren't the drug war, I'd be on board. I wonder if he has a PR guy who could get him invited on the talking head shows to talk economics and foreign policy. If he can raise his profile on other issues, maybe he'd be viable. I'd certainly be willing to help if he's going to do that.

[hopeforamerica]

I had no idea he was a Rick Perry fan. OMG!! Rick Perry is the worst, ask anyone that lives in Texas. Mark Sanford is off my list for good.

[MRoCkEd]

Well - if both Sanford and Johnson run, I hope the movement isn't splintered into two segments

[paulitics]

We don't even know where this guy stands on the patriot act, military comissions act, wiretapping, the end of posse commitatus, Iraq war, Iran war, Afghanastan war, federal reserve, torture, CIA secret prisons, Nato, WTO, Nafta, Nau, pre-emptive wars, on and on.


Here's what we do know. His rhetoric sounds good on economic policy. Well big deal. So does Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Fred Thompson, dozens of other neocons including G. W Bush when he was running.

Without cutting spending from the massive military industrial complex and the burgeoning police state at home, a conservative economic policy is not possible and is irrelevent. Why support a guy so soon, you know so little about. And the fact that the media is pimping him, and he supports McCain and Perry is pretty telling.

[revolutionary8]

Ah, the conspiracy theorists whackjobs show up again. Forum was pro Palin in 2007, then she is thrown under the bus, now Mark Sanford. I am willing to bet that some of you would of waited 3 months before going after BJ Lawson had he won.

And out come the haters who call everyone who questions their politicians' actions' "Conspiracy Theorists" in order to not only divide, but to silence dissent and reasonable concerns. I have not figured out if this is your intention, but it is most certainly the result.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Mark Sanford, along with Rick Perry, attended the Bilderberg meeting this year.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Sarah Palin flys the Isreali flag in her office and speaks of the huge threat that Iran is. It is also a reasonable concern that Sarah Palin does not know that Africa is a continent. It is also a reasonable concern that Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford are the new media darlings of the "Reformed" Republican Party.

Now V-rod, tell me again why the above points are nothing to be not only concerned about, but "non-issues" rather than pulling out your over-used and tired "Conspiracy Theory wack job" media whored talking point hammer- mmmmkay?

[StateofTrance]

Ah, the conspiracy theorists whackjobs show up again. Forum was pro Palin in 2007, then she is thrown under the bus, now Mark Sanford. I am willing to bet that some of you would of waited 3 months before going after BJ Lawson had he won.

What are you smoking? There were threads or two about Palin being a "fan" of Ron Paul. But that's about it.

Palin is as neo-con as Sanford. Please don't be a disillusioned Republican and get carried away that easily.

[revolutionary8]

And out come the haters who call everyone who questions their politicians' actions' "Conspiracy Theorists" in order to not only divide, but to silence dissent and reasonable concerns. I have not figured out if this is your intention, but it is most certainly the result.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Mark Sanford, along with Rick Perry, attended the Bilderberg meeting this year.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Sarah Palin flys the Isreali flag in her office and speaks of the huge threat that Iran is. It is also a reasonable concern that Sarah Palin does not know that Africa is a continent. It is also a reasonable concern that Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford are the new media darlings of the "Reformed" Republican Party.

Now V-rod, tell me again why the above points are nothing to be not only concerned about, but "non-issues" rather than pulling out your over-used and tired "Conspiracy Theory wack job" media whored talking point hammer- mmmmkay?
sorry,
wrong thread.:o

[Knightskye]

I'd rather have this guy:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/sanfordandson/Sanford01.jpg


...
...
...
Johnson 2012?

Has he reversed his position on regulating the internet?

[SLSteven]

How many times do we have to point out that if you were invited you would probably go. I WOULD

Was Ron Paul invited?

[V-rod]

And out come the haters who call everyone who questions their politicians' actions' "Conspiracy Theorists" in order to not only divide, but to silence dissent and reasonable concerns. I have not figured out if this is your intention, but it is most certainly the result.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Mark Sanford, along with Rick Perry, attended the Bilderberg meeting this year.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Sarah Palin flys the Isreali flag in her office and speaks of the huge threat that Iran is. It is also a reasonable concern that Sarah Palin does not know that Africa is a continent. It is also a reasonable concern that Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford are the new media darlings of the "Reformed" Republican Party.

Now V-rod, tell me again why the above points are nothing to be not only concerned about, but "non-issues" rather than pulling out your over-used and tired "Conspiracy Theory wack job" media whored talking point hammer- mmmmkay?


Oh NOES! NOT BILDERBERGGG!!!

On a serious note, I'm not terribly impressed by Palin, but that Not knowing Africa thing was debunked as a total hoax. A lie travels much more quickly than the truth, and the truth usually gets buried for the sake of convenience.

As for Israeli flag, you can chalk that up to Evangelical Christianity more than interest in global foreign policy. I have a lot of extended family, like many, who are Southern Baptists, and they buy into the whole "we must defend Israel because God wants it" mantra. Some hard-nosed conservative intellectuals make some good points about supporting a democracy like Israel in the middle east, but lets not kid ourselves, we are supporting it mostly out of religious dogma.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

His timing is suspiciously bad. If he's so fired up about this now, how come he wasn't when Ron Paul had been talking about it before? Why did he wait until AFTER the democrat won and the republicans are now searching for a new hope?

[Mini-Me]

We don't even know where this guy stands on the patriot act, military comissions act, wiretapping, the end of posse commitatus, Iraq war, Iran war, Afghanastan war, federal reserve, torture, CIA secret prisons, Nato, WTO, Nafta, Nau, pre-emptive wars, on and on.


Here's what we do know. His rhetoric sounds good on economic policy. Well big deal. So does Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Fred Thompson, dozens of other neocons including G. W Bush when he was running.

Without cutting spending from the massive military industrial complex and the burgeoning police state at home, a conservative economic policy is not possible and is irrelevent. Why support a guy so soon, you know so little about. And the fact that the media is pimping him, and he supports McCain and Perry is pretty telling.

Amen.

[Truth Warrior]

Maybe Mark just took the "Ron Paul Talking Points" class at Bilderberg. :rolleyes:

[brandon]

As for Israeli flag, you can chalk that up to Evangelical Christianity more than interest in global foreign policy. I have a lot of extended family, like many, who are Southern Baptists, and they buy into the whole "we must defend Israel because God wants it" mantra. Some hard-nosed conservative intellectuals make some good points about supporting a democracy like Israel in the middle east, but lets not kid ourselves, we are supporting it mostly out of religious dogma.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that it is okay for the president of the united states of america to fly a foreign flag in their office?

[itshappening]

His timing is suspiciously bad. If he's so fired up about this now, how come he wasn't when Ron Paul had been talking about it before? Why did he wait until AFTER the democrat won and the republicans are now searching for a new hope?

because he wants to present himself as that new hope, then sell us all out

[Roxi]

Did this board seriously go pro-Palin? I was on hiatus for the past months

If anyone supported Palin, then they should be ashamed - especially as RP supporters


it was kind of sick, some people did use the "but i kind of like her" line, and of course the "shes hot" line, but the majority of us did NOT support palin, but there were plenty of trolls around here pushing obama and mccain

[speciallyblend]

it was kind of sick, some people did use the "but i kind of like her" line, and of course the "shes hot" line, but the majority of us did NOT support palin, but there were plenty of trolls around here pushing obama and mccain

palin is just a neo-con corn kernel that drops out of bushes stanky azz. they are all part of the same pile of shit that needs to go. the gop leadership needs to be fired and replaced with new leaders not neo-con shills...

[nobody's_hero]

Are you fucking kidding me?
The media is pushing this guy to run, that's your first warning.


+1

I'm reluctant to jump on any bandwagons—I just don't know enough about the guy.

I like what Sanford says on the Real I.D. He's a staunch advocate for state's rights.

BUT

We have four years until the next presidential election. Yes, we need to start working now to plan for election 2012, but we don't need to rush in 2 weeks after election 2008 and have a push for any one candidate, and that be it—simply let it ride until 2012. The 2010 election may help us in our choices, it may not, but there is no need for the rush.

There are few candidates out there who meet the same quality as Ron Paul, but should be patient enough to weed out some who don't even come remotely close.

I have to say the same for that Johnson guy. We need to work on coordination efforts before we go rallying roughshod around candidates who may not be much more than the flavor of the month.

[Truth Warrior]

In late 2004, who would have predicted Ron? :rolleyes:

[Printo]

This movement will go nowhere if we shun every candidate. Everyone talks about Bilderberg or CFR or how the person didnt endorse Ron Paul in the primaries. NEWS FLASH, no current governor endorsed Ron Paul. NEWS FLASH, no one cares about Bilderberg besides nutty conspiracy theorists on this board who think they're trying to take over the world.

We will most likely never find another Ron Paul. Understand that. Sanford has the voting record. The man is principled. Gary Johnson is also principled but needs to be back in some form of office in order to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. These men are fiscally conservative & support civil liberties. Right now those are 2 good credentials that we can all rally behind. People are not ready for a full-fledged libertarian candidate, at least they werent for Dr. Paul. Maybe it was Ron Pauls delivery, I mean he's not exactly the most charismatic fellow & comes off as quirky to a lot of people. Americans want someone who appears as a leader, not a smart guy. We want both so lets get ourselves a leader, who is also smart. Johnson & Sanford are two guys that fit the bill.

Get real people. Be a little more open-minded and accept slight differences in candidates or we will never get anyone. There will never be a Ron Paul, but there will be Ron Paul-like candidates.

[Truth Warrior]

This movement will go nowhere if we shun every candidate. Everyone talks about Bilderberg or CFR or how the person didnt endorse Ron Paul in the primaries. NEWS FLASH, no current governor endorsed Ron Paul. NEWS FLASH, no one cares about Bilderberg besides nutty conspiracy theorists on this board who think they're trying to take over the world.

We will most likely never find another Ron Paul. Understand that. Sanford has the voting record. The man is principled. Gary Johnson is also principled but needs to be back in some form of office in order to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. These men are fiscally conservative & support civil liberties. Right now those are 2 good credentials that we can all rally behind. People are not ready for a full-fledged libertarian candidate, at least they werent for Dr. Paul. Maybe it was Ron Pauls delivery, I mean he's not exactly the most charismatic fellow & comes off as quirky to a lot of people. Americans want someone who appears as a leader, not a smart guy. We want both so lets get ourselves a leader, who is also smart. Johnson & Sanford are two guys that fit the bill.

Get real people. Be a little more open-minded and accept slight differences in candidates or we will never get anyone. There will never be a Ron Paul, but there will be Ron Paul-like candidates. You'll NEVER get ANYWHERE you really WANT to be, on your chosen path, POLITICS. :p

WAKE UP!!! :rolleyes:

[The_Orlonater]

I wouldn't, and neither would Ron Paul.

I'd go to learn the enemy.

[The_Orlonater]

This movement will go nowhere if we shun every candidate. Everyone talks about Bilderberg or CFR or how the person didnt endorse Ron Paul in the primaries. NEWS FLASH, no current governor endorsed Ron Paul. NEWS FLASH, no one cares about Bilderberg besides nutty conspiracy theorists on this board who think they're trying to take over the world.

We will most likely never find another Ron Paul. Understand that. Sanford has the voting record. The man is principled. Gary Johnson is also principled but needs to be back in some form of office in order to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. These men are fiscally conservative & support civil liberties. Right now those are 2 good credentials that we can all rally behind. People are not ready for a full-fledged libertarian candidate, at least they werent for Dr. Paul. Maybe it was Ron Pauls delivery, I mean he's not exactly the most charismatic fellow & comes off as quirky to a lot of people. Americans want someone who appears as a leader, not a smart guy. We want both so lets get ourselves a leader, who is also smart. Johnson & Sanford are two guys that fit the bill.

Get real people. Be a little more open-minded and accept slight differences in candidates or we will never get anyone. There will never be a Ron Paul, but there will be Ron Paul-like candidates.


I'm tired of the rats in this country, I don't want to be a part of this cult. Let's secede to build a new Republic.

[LibertyEagle]

Governor Rick Perry (scum bag neocon Texas governor) was on Hannity & Colmes last night, singing the praises of Sanford and Steele.

That is NOT a good omen for Sanford. In my opinion, for that to happen, he almost has to have sold out. I personally haven't shut the door yet, but I am extremely wary.

Honestly guys, I don't think we stand a chance of getting anyone good in as President. U.S. House, yes. State reps, yes. Local government, yes. If we take back some of our state and local governments, THEN we'll have a chance at the national level. If I am going to focus on anything at the federal level, it's going to be the U.S. House, because they control the purse strings.

[JoshLowry]

Governor Rick Perry (scum bag neocon Texas governor) was on Hannity & Colmes last night, singing the praises of Sanford and Steele.

That is NOT a good omen for Sanford. In my opinion, for that to happen, he almost has to have sold out. I personally haven't shut the door yet, but I am extremely wary.

Honestly guys, I don't think we stand a chance of getting anyone good in as President. U.S. House, yes. State reps, yes. Local government, yes.

Thanks for that info. I believe Sanford is the GOP's Trojan Horse.

BJ Lawson says the cure to globalism is localism. We may not have a fight in the presidential race this next go around.

[paulitics]

This movement will go nowhere if we shun every candidate. Everyone talks about Bilderberg or CFR or how the person didnt endorse Ron Paul in the primaries. NEWS FLASH, no current governor endorsed Ron Paul. NEWS FLASH, no one cares about Bilderberg besides nutty conspiracy theorists on this board who think they're trying to take over the world.

We will most likely never find another Ron Paul. Understand that. Sanford has the voting record. The man is principled. Gary Johnson is also principled but needs to be back in some form of office in order to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. These men are fiscally conservative & support civil liberties. Right now those are 2 good credentials that we can all rally behind. People are not ready for a full-fledged libertarian candidate, at least they werent for Dr. Paul. Maybe it was Ron Pauls delivery, I mean he's not exactly the most charismatic fellow & comes off as quirky to a lot of people. Americans want someone who appears as a leader, not a smart guy. We want both so lets get ourselves a leader, who is also smart. Johnson & Sanford are two guys that fit the bill.

Get real people. Be a little more open-minded and accept slight differences in candidates or we will never get anyone. There will never be a Ron Paul, but there will be Ron Paul-like candidates.


Slight differences in candidates would be the difference between Ron paul, and Bob Barr. I'm not sure if there is only a slight difference between Mark Sanford and Ron Paul. With the exception of some economic issues, and Real ID, they may be worlds apart. What is his foreign policy stance? You say he suports civil liberties. Does he want to repeal the patriot act, military comissions act, and all of the horrendous legisaltion of the last 10 years?

Since you brought up that wacky conspiracy, Bilderberg, it is kind of is a big deal because it violates the principles of an open governement, and keeping high ranking U.S government figures meeting with private individuals behind closed doors. What makes it worse is that they meet with other countries private citizens and policy makers behind closed doors.

I guess I'm nutty because it unsettles me to know that Condoleeza Rice, Rumsfield Bernanke, Robert Gates are meeting with David Rockefeller, the Queen of England, and other world financiers and globalists who have no allegiance to the countries and disrespect national sovereignty. I have no problem with private citizens having their own meeting, but when they ALWAYS have to meet with those who affects my country in a profound way, I say "what the hell gives them the right?" Matter of fact, I am 90% sure it is illegal already for these common sense reasons. So you may not care about whacky conspiracy theories, but you should care about the law of the land, and at the very least the principles of the constitution and what our ancestors fought and died for.

[Mort]

I wouldn't be willing to call Mark Sanford the next Ron Paul until I heard his foreign policy stances.

[humanic]

Are you fucking kidding me?

The media is pushing this guy to run, that's your first warning.

He shilled for McCain and now he shills for Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is an enemy of freedom and property rights.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54219

Fuck Mark Sanford. Honey, Honey, Poison is not acceptable.

He won't even allow medical marijuana, you are a slave in his eyes. He wants to control what you put in your body. He wants to control you.

He is not a freedom candidate and I won't support him.


Sanford will splinter this movement if you keep your eyes shut and try to stomach this wolf in sheep's clothing.

I didn't become active in politics so I could support someone who will represent the Constitution 90% of the time.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mar...un_Control.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Gun_Control.htm)

Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Drugs.htm

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mar...vil_Rights.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Civil_Rights.htm)

Shilled for McCain and shilled for Rick Perry.

I'd love to hear his thoughts on the Federal Reserve, Foreign Aid, and the Iraq War. Strange that you can't find anything online about it. :rolleyes:

The medical marijuana issue is a relatively small issue, but it defines him. He sees government as a tool to control the people. That's not a pro-freedom candidate.

Just like when Bush campaigned in 2000 on a non interventionist foreign policy, some of it may have sounded good, but he was not the whole package. If you settle for less then you're going to get fucked.

Don't swallow the pill. The media is even pushing him to run for crying out loud.


I believe Sanford is the GOP's Trojan Horse.

Josh wins this thread. :cool:

[humanic]

NEWS FLASH, no one cares about Bilderberg besides nutty conspiracy theorists on this board who think they're trying to take over the world.

Uh huh. Only a nut would care that many of the most politically and economically powerful globalists-- who in their own writings talk openly about undermining U.S. sovereignty and who dominate the western world's power centers, including the executive branch of the U.S. federal government for decades-- have been holding yearly private meetings without the knowledge of the vast majority of the public and in probable violation of U.S. law for over 50 years.

[Spirit of '76]

Out of curiosity, what exactly did Sanford do/say on behalf of Rick Perry?

[LibertyEagle]

Out of curiosity, what exactly did Sanford do/say on behalf of Rick Perry?

I haven't heard anything, but then again, I don't think Perry is going to be ushered out as a candidate for President this next time.

It seems pretty clear to me that the elite are pushing those who they want to control the party. To me, it's notable that Sanford seems to be one of those.

[Spirit of '76]

I haven't heard anything, but then again, I don't think Perry is going to be ushered out as a candidate for President this next time.

I'm just wondering, because the claim that he "shilled for Rick Perry" seems to have people up in arms. I'd just like to know what exactly he did or said before I allow the usual histrionics that characterize this forum to propel me to grab my torch and my pitchfork and set out for the guy's blood.



It seems pretty clear to me that the elite are pushing those who they want to control the party. To me, it's notable that Sanford seems to be one of those.

I'm seeing a lot more love for Pawlenty from the media than for Sanford, but you just may be right. Of course, the elite are going to pick their guy for the nomination no matter what we say or do. If it happens to be a guy who may not be perfect, but at least has a real, consistent record of fiscal conservatism and a good stance on states' rights and privacy issues, we'll at least be better off than with a rampantly authoritarian globalist.

I'm inclined to think that perhaps if the GOP really is pushing Sanford (and I think it's way too early to tell), it may be in no small part because at least some of the party elders are thinking that they lost this election because they deviated too far from the core principles. That, and he's a dynamic, good-looking young guy who can compete with someone like Obama in the camera's eye.

[BKom]

It's a little difficult to figure Sanford out. I think he just mentioned Perry in passing as one of the "prominent" governors at the convention.

What we'll need to figure out if whether he's the self-effacing fiscal conservative he seems to be, or is he a nanny stater who's fine with the drug war, the Iraq War and the Military Commissions Act.

Looks to need a lot of vetting. And if Gary Johnson is seriously interested in running, he'd better start getting out there on other issues and getting some boots on the ground doing fundraising and advance work.

This is the time to start building an organization and start repairing the internet search engines that only bring up anti-drug war stuff. I love that he's against the war on drugs. But he needs some serious diversification if he's to be a serious candidate.

[s35wf]

And out come the haters who call everyone who questions their politicians' actions' "Conspiracy Theorists" in order to not only divide, but to silence dissent and reasonable concerns. I have not figured out if this is your intention, but it is most certainly the result.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Mark Sanford, along with Rick Perry, attended the Bilderberg meeting this year.

It is reasonable to be concerned that Sarah Palin flys the Isreali flag in her office and speaks of the huge threat that Iran is. It is also a reasonable concern that Sarah Palin does not know that Africa is a continent. It is also a reasonable concern that Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford are the new media darlings of the "Reformed" Republican Party.

Now V-rod, tell me again why the above points are nothing to be not only concerned about, but "non-issues" rather than pulling out your over-used and tired "Conspiracy Theory wack job" media whored talking point hammer- mmmmkay?

Yeah what he said ^^^

[Barney]

First they tried to sell us on Huckabee, the warmongering preacher who never saw a junket he didn't like. And that chipped away a small faction of hardcore religious zealots.

Then they did a bit better peddling Libertarian-Bizzaro Bob Barr, and managed to get the Libertarian Party to sell its soul for absolutely nothing in return.

And then they really did a job on us with a media campaign that must have cost in the TRILLIONS to pitch a charismatic EX-antiwar candidate who voted for every Iraq war appropriation since taking office in the Senate.

Now they're looking to take another bite with a hollowed out shell of Mark Sandford. Honestly, how many amongst those who rallied to Paul's message of freedom would have endorse John McCain?!

Anyone here who saw fit to endorse McCain,... Sandford's your man.

[BKom]

Did Sanford "endorse" McCain before he was the party's candidate? I thought he stayed away from endorsing anyone until the process was over.

And I can't blame any sitting politician for not endorsing Ron Paul. Ron never wanted the job and his awful campaign would have taken down anyone who got on the bandwagon that never left the station.

Look around the national campaign and I think you can see why no governor would attach himself to that. There were a couple of people in the campaign who were great. And then there was everyone else.

[StateofTrance]

"Mark Sanford" means neo-con in my dictionary.

[BKom]

"Mark Sanford" means neo-con in my dictionary.

Please enlighten me. I've never heard him talk about anything other than economic issues and budget issues. He is very good on those. In what way is he a neo-con.

I don't care what meetings he went to. What has he said or done that would lead you to believe that? I'd really like to know.

[revolutionary8]

Please enlighten me. I've never heard him talk about anything other than economic issues and budget issues. He is very good on those. In what way is he a neo-con.

I don't care what meetings he went to. What has he said or done that would lead you to believe that? I'd really like to know.

Besides the FACT that he attended the elitist Bilderberg meeting this year, and is a "friend" of RICK PERRY and he was invited to the meeting concerning the "reformation" of the GOP that Ron Paul was excluded from, there are these issues to be concerned about:



- Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO.
- Voted YES on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements.
- Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.
- Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder.
- More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty (signed the Contract with America)
- Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges
- Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions
- Does not oppose the "War on Drugs"

I will NEVER support Sanford.

[BKom]

Ron told a lot of us how much he liked Sanford during the campaign. That would be one more strike against Sanford. Ron's people judgments are almost uniformly awful.

[pastortony]

If any of you bothered to listen to the interview he didn't "shill" for Perry but mentioned him along with a bunch of other names that are rising stars in the GOP. He didn't say he agreed with any of them on policy matters or that he supported any of them - he just mentioned their names. It's called being diplomatic.

[revolutionary8]

Ron told a lot of us how much he liked Sanford during the campaign. That would be one more strike against Sanford. Ron's people judgments are almost uniformly awful.

Wrong.
Sanford attended the Bilderberg meeting late in the year. Ron Paul is a "profit" of Economics, not a prophet of whacked out sociopaths. :D

BK,
I must have missed the part about RP being a cheerleader for MS. Could you please direct me to that POI? :rolleyes:

[revolutionary8]

If any of you bothered to listen to the interview he didn't "shill" for Perry but mentioned him along with a bunch of other names that are rising stars in the GOP. He didn't say he agreed with any of them on policy matters or that he supported any of them - he just mentioned their names. It's called being diplomatic.
blah blah blah
And FUCK PERRY.
scoot along.

[pastortony]

revolutionary8

You have shown yourself to be typical of those that only hear what they want to hear.

[revolutionary8]

revolutionary8

You have shown yourself to be typical of those that only hear what they want to hear.

How so?
Debate me concerning Rick The Dick Perry, which is in fact -- why we are crying over spilt milk. :D

[socialize_me]

Are you fucking kidding me?

The media is pushing this guy to run, that's your first warning.

He shilled for McCain and now he shills for Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is an enemy of freedom and property rights.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54219

Fuck Mark Sanford. Honey, Honey, Poison is not acceptable.

He won't even allow medical marijuana, you are a slave in his eyes. He wants to control what you put in your body. He wants to control you.

He is not a freedom candidate and I won't support him.

I love it when you talk dirty, honey.

[JoshLowry]

I love it when you talk dirty, honey.

Yea I'm a bit upset that anyone deemed a Ron Paul supporter would compromise for a lesser candidate. It's all or nothing for me. The reason we are in this mess is because people have settled for less in the past.

Screw being active in politics for people who are halfway decent. You're practically begging on your knees for them to give you just a few crumbs at that point.

[Spirit of '76]

"Mark Sanford" means neo-con in my dictionary.

You seem to need a new dictionary.


he was invited to the meeting concerning the "reformation" of the GOP that Ron Paul was excluded from

You mean the one for Republican governors that Ron wasn't invited to because he's not a Republican governor?

[Spirit of '76]

If any of you bothered to listen to the interview he didn't "shill" for Perry but mentioned him along with a bunch of other names that are rising stars in the GOP. He didn't say he agreed with any of them on policy matters or that he supported any of them - he just mentioned their names. It's called being diplomatic.

This is the closest I've gotten to an answer to my question about what exactly he said or did for Rick Perry.

So far, no one who has accused him of "shilling" for Perry has bothered to tell exactly what he said or did.

[revolutionary8]

This is the closest I've gotten to an answer to my question about what exactly he said or did for Rick Perry.

So far, no one who has accused him of "shilling" for Perry has bothered to tell exactly what he said or did.

your IGNORANCE is not my concern.

[Spirit of '76]

your IGNORANCE is not my concern.

In other words, you have no clue what he actually said.

[revolutionary8]

In other words, you have no clue what he actually said.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Are you joking?
IOW, you are too lazy to type in a few words on your own keyboard. I'll give you a boost-
start here:
www.tpj.org



‘Governor Handout’ Trashes the Bailout

As the planet struggles to comprehend—and contain—the global meltdown of credit markets, Texans face the added burden of trying to understand their governor’s bewildering position on the crisis.

With the $700 billion bailout hanging in the balance in Washington on October 1, the Texas governor who heads the Republican Governors Association issued a joint statement with the head of the Democratic Governors Association urging Congress to “leave partisanship at the door and pass an economic recovery package.” When local media reported this endorsement, however, Governor Rick Perry issued a statement that said, “In a free market economy, government should not be in the business of using taxpayer dollars to bail out corporate America.” Hitting a rare populist stride, Governor Perry added, “We’re certainly not interested in Washington bailing out a bunch of irresponsible mortgage brokers in an industry that has too often been run on greed.”

When reporters sought to clarify the Perry doctrine, a gubernatorial spokesperson said her boss backs solutions “that don’t require taxpayer dollars.” 1 One such remedy is to force the lenders, bankers, investors and consumers who partied throughout the bubble to ride out the inevitable hangover as best they can. Yet Governor Perry’s letter directed Congress to “pass an economic recovery package” and he has refused to say what this illusive, tax-free recovery package might be.2

This gubernatorial gibberish prompted speculation that Governor Perry was kicking off his 2010 reelection campaign, which could feature a bruising primary with U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.3 Hutchison—who reportedly has designs on Austin’s torched Governor’s Mansion—voted for the bailout the same day that Perry confused the Austin press corps. If that primary becomes a referendum on which of these politicians has been the biggest corporate concubine, it could be a long campaign.

Perry’s corporate-friendly track record adds to the confusion over his professed aversion to the bailout. Hallmarks of his administration are the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. Over the past five years these programs collectively have doled out almost $500 million in taxpayer funds, awarding most of it to private businesses that agree to open or expand operations in Texas.4 Recipients of this corporate welfare notably include giants in the field of predatory mortgage lending.


Trumpeting what he called the “crowning jewel” of the Texas Enterprise Fund at a 2004 press conference, Governor Perry awarded $20 million in taxpayer money to Countrywide Financial to create 7,500 Texas jobs over six years.5 The governor’s prepared remarks that day address Countrywide’s CEO, saying, “Angelo Mozilo, thank you for your commitment to creating jobs and greater opportunity for the people of Texas.” Recently, however, the attorneys general of seven states, including Texas, announced an $8 billion deal to settle charges that Countrywide (now owned by Bank of America) misled borrowers and made loans that customers could not afford.6 As the nation’s No. 1 mortgage lender, Countrywide aggressively laid the groundwork for the current job-killing crisis. In this way, Governor Perry’s “crowning jewel” effectively drop kicked the country in the family jewels.


Governor Perry convened another press conference in 2005 to give $15 million in taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest savings and loan. “Less than a week after the Spurs beat the Pistons to win the NBA Championship, San Antonio has brought home another national title,” Perry announced, “the largest job creation announcement in the United States for the first six months of 2005.” 7 Drowning in bad mortgage debt, Washington Mutual (WaMu) claimed another title last month when federal regulators seized it in the largest U.S. bank failure in history.8 After its $15 million Enterprise Fund award, WaMu’s PAC generously contributed $7,500 to Governor Perry’s campaign. As the ship foundered in April, Perry’s campaign cashed a final, $2,500 WaMu check. WaMu also wrote a $25,000 corporate check to Perry’s Republican Governors Association in January.

Since Governor Perry persuaded the 2003 legislature to create the Texas Enterprise Fund, the governor’s campaign has collected $267,125 from key players in the current credit crisis. And after Perry took the helm of the Texas Governors Association this year, that group has raked in $400,000 in corporate checks from key credit-crisis companies. This can leave the impression that Governor Perry is criticizing the excesses of those who attended a wild party in which he himself enthusiastically participated.


ACC Capital (Ameriquest) $100,000 $0 $100,000 Failed subprime lender bought by Citi
AIG∆ $0 $50,000 $50,000 Insurer now owned by Federal Reserve
Bank of America BofA.∆ $70,000 $150,000 $220,000 Bought Countrywide & Merrill
Citigroup, Inc.∆ † $7,000 $50,000 $57,000 Bought Ameriquest
Countrywide Financial $7,000 $0 $7,000 Failed subprime lender owned by BofA
Financial Services Forum $7,500 $0 $7,500 Trade group of U.S. financial giants
Goldman Sachs∆ $6,525 *$100,000 $106,525 Bank’s alumni are running the bailout
JP Morgan Chase∆ $13,000 $0 $13,000 Bought Washington Mutual
Lehman Brothers $0 $0 $0 Biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history
Merrill Lynch∆ $3,100 $0 $3,100 Failed bank bought by JP Morgan
Morgan Stanley† $2,000 $0 $2,000 Mitsubishi is buying 9% of this bank
Wachovia∆ $29,500 $0 $29,500 Failed bank giant bought by Well Fargo
Washington Mutual $7,500 $25,000 $32,500 Biggest bank failure in U.S. history
Wells Fargo $14,000 $25,000 $39,000 Bought failed bank giant Wachovia
TOTALS: $267,125 $400,000 $667,125

Republican Governors Association (RGA) data courtesy of CQ.com’s MoneyLine.
* The Republican Governor’s Association received another $25,000 in April from John Whitehead, an ex-chair of both Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
∆ Member of the powerful Financial Services Forum trade group.
† Recently propped up with a heavy infusion of foreign capital.

[RevolutionSD]

Nothing to see here, Sanford is just another statist. Why should we get a boner because he's against the bailouts?

[Spirit of '76]

Are you joking?
IOW, you are too lazy to type in a few words on your own keyboard. I'll give you a boost-
start here:
www.tpj.org

Can you read?

My question was very simple: What did Mark Sanford say or do on behalf of Rick Perry?

Can you answer that question?

[revolutionary8]

Can you read?

My question was very simple: What did Mark Sanford say or do on behalf of Rick Perry?

Can you answer that question?
Yes.
Read the f'in thread.
:rolleyes:

(nm the FACT that SANFORD AND PERRY ATTENDED THE SAME FUCKING MEETING THAT ONLY .000000007 PERCENT OF THE FUCKING POPULATION ATTEND OR HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND)

[Spirit of '76]

Yes.
Read the f'in thread.
:rolleyes:

The answer to the question is not in the thread.

The accusation is: "Sanford shilled for Rick Perry."

The question is: "What exactly did Sanford do or say on behalf of Rick Perry?"

So far, two people have said that he mentioned Perry as one of the notable governors at the convention, but no one has yet explained if a.) that's the extent of his remarks about Perry and b.) how that constitutes "shilling".

[JoshLowry]

In the OP there is a link to a video. Near the end of it Sanford suggests that Perry is a star in the GOP for the upcoming 2012 election.

[Theocrat]

I don't really trust Mark Sanford, myself. As Josh has shown in this thread, Sanford doesn't have a consistent voting record for Constitutional principles. His lack of support for Congressman Paul in the Primaries and his endorsement of John McCain in the general election says a lot about his political character.

We should be careful that we don't rush so quickly to support someone just because they mention the Constitution a few times or spit out libertarian lingo. Actions speak louder than words, and it's easy to deceive others by cunning speech which tickles the ears. It's just like the blindness of certain Christians who jump on the bandwagon of a candidate the moment he or she utters that he or she believes in the Bible out in public. It usually ends with them supporting a hypocritcal, neocon who only wishes to win over the "Christian conservative" base.

[Spirit of '76]

It's sad how misleading that ontheissues.org site is...



Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mar...un_Control.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Gun_Control.htm)

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6641/sanfordpaul1ky3.png

Wait a minute! Ron Paul voted against it too?

Hmmm... Interesting... Let's dig a little deeper.

According to ontheissues, that refers to H.R.2122, voted on 6/18/99. This bill was also known as the "Omnibus Gun Control Bill".

It dealt mostly with gun shows. While it is true that it would allow for 24 hour background checks at guns shows, it also would have made it illegal for private individuals to sell firearms to each other at or near a gun show and given the BATF unlimited access to search any vendor at a gun show without a warrant.

Here's the GOA page on the bill:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=244&chamber=H&congress=1061

You'll note they say, "In sum, the bill took more negative steps than positive ones" and gave members voting AGAINST the bill a positive score.

Overall, the GOA gives Sanford an A rating: http://gunowners.org/106hrat.htm



Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Mark_Sanford_Drugs.htm

This was a budget bill, and the amendment Sanford voted for didn't "prohibit needle exchanges", it prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs in DC.

The other amendment he voted to approve in this case did not "ban medical marijuana". It prohibited the use of federal funds granted under the budget to legalize "any schedule I substance".

This amendment was also known as the Barr Amendment, after its author, Representative Bob Barr (R, Georgia).


Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.

This was another amendment to the above budget bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to subsidize gay adoptions.


I would highly advise people not to take ontheissues.org at face value. It can point you in the right direction if you're willing to read the fine print and then do some actual research, but their one-sentence summaries of the bills in question are ultimately very misleading.

[Spirit of '76]

In the OP there is a link to a video. Near the end of it Sanford suggests that Perry is a star in the GOP for the upcoming 2012 election.


lol

That's it? The host asked him who are the "rising stars" that we should watch for in terms of the names that will be put forth for 2012, and Sanford said, "There's a bunch of names out there, Pawlenty and Crist and Rick Perry from Texas. There's a bunch of folks."

That ain't shillin'. That's answering the guy's question.

[pastortony]

lol

That's it? The host asked him who are the "rising stars" that we should watch for in terms of the names that will be put forth for 2012, and Sanford said, "There's a bunch of names out there, Pawlenty and Crist and Rick Perry from Texas. There's a bunch of folks."

That ain't shillin'. That's answering the guy's question.

Some people hear only what they want to hear. There's a certain type of person that is never going to be satisfied with a candidate unless that candidate is so far outside of mainstream politics that he's only able to get 1% of the vote. Just look at the history of the LP for evidence.

I honestly think there are certain people who are only content if they are part of a miniscule minority where only they are their friends are right, and everyone else is a shill, sellout, neocon, decieved and/or part of the machine.

Fortunately there are plenty of us out here in grassroots conservatism that understand the meaning of incrementalism and can recognize candidates that will enable us to advance our agenda.

[BKom]

Wrong.
Sanford attended the Bilderberg meeting late in the year. Ron Paul is a "profit" of Economics, not a prophet of whacked out sociopaths. :D

BK,
I must have missed the part about RP being a cheerleader for MS. Could you please direct me to that POI? :rolleyes:

I'd love to point you to something, but I can't point to anything public. It was said to me and about half a dozen others in private.

To make this clear: I am a big fan of Ron's. I wanted to see him as president and I went months without much sleep trying to get that done. But he is either the worst judge of people on the planet (judging by those he assembled at national, with a few exceptions) or he simply didn't want the job.

What I'm hoping is that this "movement" isn't just a Ron cult. I'd love to see others who believe in limited, constitutional government and leaving people the heck alone get a shot at the support of people here. Ron is 72. If he runs again it will certainly not be as a viable candidate. It would be a vanity project. So, we need to start looking for other candidates we can support. Barr was never that guy. Maybe Sanford will prove to be. If not, maybe a Gary Johnson if he can broaden his issues and appeal. But it can't just be about Ron.

[zmyrick19]

If not Ron, this man is almost certainly the best choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson

[Misesian]

I'm still confused why Ron Paul supporters wanted Keynesians to run for President.............

[mudhoney]

It's sad how misleading that ontheissues.org site is...



http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6641/sanfordpaul1ky3.png

Wait a minute! Ron Paul voted against it too?

Hmmm... Interesting... Let's dig a little deeper.

According to ontheissues, that refers to H.R.2122, voted on 6/18/99. This bill was also known as the "Omnibus Gun Control Bill".

It dealt mostly with gun shows. While it is true that it would allow for 24 hour background checks at guns shows, it also would have made it illegal for private individuals to sell firearms to each other at or near a gun show and given the BATF unlimited access to search any vendor at a gun show without a warrant.

Here's the GOA page on the bill:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=244&chamber=H&congress=1061

You'll note they say, "In sum, the bill took more negative steps than positive ones" and gave members voting AGAINST the bill a positive score.

Overall, the GOA gives Sanford an A rating: http://gunowners.org/106hrat.htm



This was a budget bill, and the amendment Sanford voted for didn't "prohibit needle exchanges", it prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs in DC.

The other amendment he voted to approve in this case did not "ban medical marijuana". It prohibited the use of federal funds granted under the budget to legalize "any schedule I substance".

This amendment was also known as the Barr Amendment, after its author, Representative Bob Barr (R, Georgia).



This was another amendment to the above budget bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to subsidize gay adoptions.


I would highly advise people not to take ontheissues.org at face value. It can point you in the right direction if you're willing to read the fine print and then do some actual research, but their one-sentence summaries of the bills in question are ultimately very misleading.

Thanks for doing some research. Interesting stuff.

[nbhadja]

mark sanford= keynesian war hawk scum bag

[Peace&Freedom]

Thanks for doing some research. Interesting stuff.

I agree, the same problem is found in a lot of issue questionnaires sent to candidates during a campaign. The orgs that do so are usually pushing a certain cause and may couch the issues misleadingly, causing the candidate to look bad answering them, or 'duck' the questions by not answering them and risk looking evasive.

The issue is not whether Sanford 'sounds' like Paul, but will ACT like a Paul if elected. Look at the betrayal already in evidence with the Obama transition. Do we want 'our' candidate to crush us emotionally in the weeks after the election, with "McCain will be my this, Guiliani will be my that" cabinet announcements? How Paulite or movement populated is Sanford's current entourage and administration?

[pastortony]

What I'm hoping is that this "movement" isn't just a Ron cult.

From what I have observed (and I have been here far longer than my post count would indicate) it is a Ron cult.

Ron Paul attracted two types of people. First are paleocons that came out of the GOP, CP and even the LP. Then there were the pro-drug, pro-porn, anti-defense modern day anarchists that came out of various fringe movements. These two groups that would never normally meet came together (in one way or another) to support Ron Paul.

While on fourms like this and other Ron Paul sites it may seem like the groups are about equal in size, in the grand scheme of things those on the fringe make up a miniscule part of the overall electorate.

So yes this "movement" will likely split. There will be a candidate or two that will be attractive to the paleocons and while they may not agree with him/her 100% they realize that incrementalism will work. They will find themselves allying with other Republicans that may have supported Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo or one of the others last time out and will work to get those candidates through the nomination process. A lot of people in the GOP right now are looking at where the GOP went wrong and realize the answer is to go back to traditional conservatism, so they are a lot closer to what Paul stands for then they were in the primaries. Sanford looks like he will be one of those candidates that will be looking for support from this crowd.

To the other faction no mainstream candidate will be good enough so they will eventually ally themselves with someone who's ideas are so extreme that he/she has no chance of winning an election and they will go back to the obscurity that they once came from.

[Misesian]

From what I have observed (and I have been here far longer than my post count would indicate) it is a Ron cult.

Ron Paul attracted two types of people. First are paleocons that came out of the GOP, CP and even the LP. Then there were the pro-drug, pro-porn, anti-defense modern day anarchists that came out of various fringe movements. These two groups that would never normally meet came together (in one way or another) to support Ron Paul.

While on fourms like this and other Ron Paul sites it may seem like the groups are about equal in size, in the grand scheme of things those on the fringe make up a miniscule part of the overall electorate.

So yes this "movement" will likely split. There will be a candidate or two that will be attractive to the paleocons and while they may not agree with him/her 100% they realize that incrementalism will work. They will find themselves allying with other Republicans that may have supported Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo or one of the others last time out and will work to get those candidates through the nomination process. A lot of people in the GOP right now are looking at where the GOP went wrong and realize the answer is to go back to traditional conservatism, so they are a lot closer to what Paul stands for then they were in the primaries. Sanford looks like he will be one of those candidates that will be looking for support from this crowd.

To the other faction no mainstream candidate will be good enough so they will eventually ally themselves with someone who's ideas are so extreme that he/she has no chance of winning an election and they will go back to the obscurity that they once came from.

Yes, I will align myself with the cult of Lew Rockwell type libertarians that reject statism. Please tell me when the last time incrementalism has restored liberty?

If you're going to group individuals, I think you need to come up with much better factions. I would think that MOST of us here are classical liberals as opposed to paleocons like Pat Buchanan types who still really did not support Ron Paul.

[pastortony]

Yes, I will align myself with the cult of Lew Rockwell type libertarians that reject statism. Please tell me when the last time incrementalism has restored liberty?

If you're going to group individuals, I think you need to come up with much better factions. I would think that MOST of us here are classical liberals as opposed to paleocons like Pat Buchanan types who still really did not support Ron Paul.

You mean the Lew Rockwell type that has been so incredibly successful at electing LP parties to office?

[Misesian]

You mean the Lew Rockwell type that has been so incredibly successful at electing LP parties to office?

When has Lew Rockwell, or even LewRockwell.com ever stated that the mission of the Mises Institute, and LRC, is to get people elected to office?

I think they were pretty successful with Ron Paul don't you?

[pastortony]

When has Lew Rockwell, or even LewRockwell.com ever stated that the mission of the Mises Institute, and LRC, is to get people elected to office? I don't know if they have or not, but the way we affect change in this country is at the ballot box, so if government and economics is your issue the only way you can truly have an effect is by getting candidates elected to office that are aligned with your views.


I think they were pretty successful with Ron Paul don't you?

Not at all. Ron Paul did not win the nomination.

[Misesian]

I don't know if they have or not, but the way we affect change in this country is at the ballot box, so if government and economics is your issue the only way you can truly have an effect is by getting candidates elected to office that are aligned with your views.

So if you sacrifice liberty for winning elections what do you end up with?




Not at all. Ron Paul did not win the nomination.

If Ron Paul wasn't not in Congress since 1976 then we wouldn't have had a R3volution to begin with now. I'd certainly think the classical liberals were successful with Ron Paul.

[pastortony]

So if you sacrifice liberty for winning elections what do you end up with?

I am not suggesting that we sacrifice liberty, but am instead saying that if we look at every candidate under such a high powered microscope then no one is acceptable. We are removing ourselves from the process. Sanford might not be perfect, but he is certainly on the right track and if the options are between a viable candidate that I agree with 90% and a fringe candidate that I agree with 100%, I'll take the viable candidate so that I have the ability to influence the system.

[Misesian]

I am not suggesting that we sacrifice liberty, but am instead saying that if we look at every candidate under such a high powered microscope then no one is acceptable. We are removing ourselves from the process. Sanford might not be perfect, but he is certainly on the right track and if the options are between a viable candidate that I agree with 90% and a fringe candidate that I agree with 100%, I'll take the viable candidate so that I have the ability to influence the system.

Being compatible with the 5 enumerated mission statement issues of the C4L is NOT putting people under a microscope.

If they reject any of these viewpoints outright, they should be rejected for our support. Compromise is what has gotten us to this situation to begin with. I'm sorry but I will not waste my time, money, and efforts to a candidate that SIMPLY believes in Free markets (yet may not even understand that free markets means ZERO government interference!) but don't get the rest.

It's rather insulting I think to suggest that those who are truly Paulian in nature should back somebody only because they're the least of the evils. On a pure evil scale I doubt anybody here would argue that Ron Paul is on one side of the spectrum while Obama/McCain were on the other (PURE).

[pastortony]

Being compatible with the 5 enumerated mission statement issues of the C4L is NOT putting people under a microscope.

If they reject any of these viewpoints outright, they should be rejected for our support.

While I agree with the C4L's positions on those issues, you would be hard pressed to find a candidate that agrees with Paul 100% on all of these in the mainstream of politics. This last election should have taught people here something - you need solid ideas, but you also need to be a viable candidate. If ideology were all that matterd then Paul would be the president elect right now. Paul's poor ability to sell his ideas to the GOP voters prevented him from being able to advance his agenda.

So depending on how you define "compatible" will determine whether you will have an effect on the process or that you will be sitting on the sidelines supporting a fringe candidate with a minor amount of support.

It's not a matter of supporting the lesser of two evils in the case of supporting someone like Sanford. It's a matter of supporting someone who one might agree with on 80-90% of the issues so that at a point in the future they can eventually get someone elected with whom they agree with on 100% of the issues.

However, if you feel that you can only support someone that's with you 100% then you should be aware that you are likely to never have a positive impact on the process.

[Misesian]

It's a simple matter of math. If Gov. Sanford believes in only 1 out of the 5 issues that's not a 90% candidate.

You forget that the Old Right became the GOP today because of compromising and picking the lesser of the evils.

I'd be honored to campaign and fight for liberty like Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, Walter Block, Laurance Vance, etc. have done while being principled non-voters. You seem to think that you have to support a candidate in order to spread the message of liberty.

I would lose all credibility if I campaigned for and supported a candidate that I wasn't certain was dedicated to defending liberty. What is the proof of this regarding Sanford? The most I'm given so far is that he's "conservative".

[pastortony]

I would lose all credibility if I campaigned for and supported a candidate that I wasn't certain was dedicated to defending liberty. What is the proof of this regarding Sanford? The most I'm given so far is that he's "conservative".

Look at his voting record in the house and the way in which he governed SC. And don't just look at the ontheissues page because it's been shown already how that can be misleading. I would hardly say that he is 1 out of 5. However, depending on the level of "Paulian" adherance to those principles one must hold your findings may show otherwise. As I see the man, I feel that he is one of the few viable candidates that is sympathetic to paleoconservative ideals and holds to the general principles that we support. Therefore, as it stands today I would be encouraged to see him run for the nomination and would support him over the other names that have been throw out so far as potential candidates (Palin, Jindal, Romney, etc)

[Misesian]

Look at his voting record in the house and the way in which he governed SC. And don't just look at the ontheissues page because it's been shown already how that can be misleading. I would hardly say that he is 1 out of 5. However, depending on the level of "Paulian" adherance to those principles one must hold your findings may show otherwise. As I see the man, I feel that he is one of the few viable candidates that is sympathetic to paleoconservative ideals and holds to the general principles that we support. Therefore, as it stands today I would be encouraged to see him run for the nomination and would support him over the other names that have been throw out so far as potential candidates (Palin, Jindal, Romney, etc)

I would give to Sanford that he's probably not a neocon, though again, is he going to be dedicated to restoring liberty? That's the utmost important goal of what we're trying to do. The Constitution is always secondary to liberty since it's the document that is supposed to be protecting it. When it comes to ISSUES what are more important at this point in time than sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy too?

If Sanford is onboard with sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy I would support him. By onboard I mean selling these issues to the public too, not say he supports it as scraps thrown to the Ron Paul dogs.

[dr. hfn]

fuck sanford...go Johnson! go Ventura! go Lawson! go Ron Paul!

[pastortony]

I would give to Sanford that he's probably not a neocon, though again, is he going to be dedicated to restoring liberty? That's the utmost important goal of what we're trying to do. The Constitution is always secondary to liberty since it's the document that is supposed to be protecting it. When it comes to ISSUES what are more important at this point in time than sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy too?

If Sanford is onboard with sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy I would support him. By onboard I mean selling these issues to the public too, not say he supports it as scraps thrown to the Ron Paul dogs.

His foreign policy is yet to be seen, as he wasn't in the house when the Iraq votes were taken. I think you will see a lot of GOP politicians now swing back to the non-interventionist side now that this war is Obama's instead of Bush's. The problem with Iraq is that we are over there now and imbedded. Iraq is a huge mess that's going to need a lot of work to clean up. Theoretically it is nice to say that we will bring the troops home immediately, but there is a practical side to it to consider as well. What is more important that how he would handle Iraq is how Sanford, or any candidate will deal with future foreign policy matters.

Sound money is a tough sell at this point, because there arent many politicians talking about it. It's an issue the American people are clueless about, so it will take a lot of education to accomplish anything. Sanford's recent writing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503602.html)on the bailout shows me that he is not supportive of the way the fed has been managing things. If he is not championing the abolition of the Fed from what I have read he certianly would be receptive to the position.

In my 20+ years of being involved in this, I have learned that it is far easier to elect someone who is sympathetic to your positions that it is to elect someone who holds to all your positions, especially when some of the positions we hold are somewhat radical in today's climate.

So from what I know about Sanford, he isn't lockstep with Paulian ideology, but he is certainly sympathetic to the views. And considering he is one of the few viable potential candiates that is, we shouldn't write him off.

[Goldwater64]

From what I have observed (and I have been here far longer than my post count would indicate) it is a Ron cult.

Ron Paul attracted two types of people. First are paleocons that came out of the GOP, CP and even the LP. Then there were the pro-drug, pro-porn, anti-defense modern day anarchists that came out of various fringe movements. These two groups that would never normally meet came together (in one way or another) to support Ron Paul.

While on fourms like this and other Ron Paul sites it may seem like the groups are about equal in size, in the grand scheme of things those on the fringe make up a miniscule part of the overall electorate.

So yes this "movement" will likely split. There will be a candidate or two that will be attractive to the paleocons and while they may not agree with him/her 100% they realize that incrementalism will work. They will find themselves allying with other Republicans that may have supported Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo or one of the others last time out and will work to get those candidates through the nomination process. A lot of people in the GOP right now are looking at where the GOP went wrong and realize the answer is to go back to traditional conservatism, so they are a lot closer to what Paul stands for then they were in the primaries. Sanford looks like he will be one of those candidates that will be looking for support from this crowd.

To the other faction no mainstream candidate will be good enough so they will eventually ally themselves with someone who's ideas are so extreme that he/she has no chance of winning an election and they will go back to the obscurity that they once came from.


This is the credited answer.

[Goldwater64]

I would lose all credibility if I campaigned for and supported a candidate that I wasn't certain was dedicated to defending liberty. What is the proof of this regarding Sanford? The most I'm given so far is that he's "conservative".

Lose credibility with who? Just wondering.

[revolutionary8]

you are a trip Goldie.

Some people could get screwed up the ass and still whine, "I might have an itch, can ya gimme sum hemeroid medicine?"
it baffles me.
;)

[Spirit of '76]

Some interesting stuff on Sanford...

http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/mark_sanford/index.html

That one's from a prominent SC political site. The author apparently knows Sanford and chronicles lots of interesting things, including the ongoing fight between Sanford and Lindsey Graham, the fact that many SC Republicans accuse Sanford of being a Libertarian and not a "real Republican", and more.

He mentions the fact that the McCain asked Sanford to endorse him three times this year, and Sanford kept turning him down, then once it was clear McCain would be the nominee, Sanford issued a half-hearted endorsement through a spokesman.

I was particularly amused by the author's anecdotal account of his experience at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where he encountered Sanford standing calmly in an aisle away from the rest of the delegation while the crowd went wild over Bush's speech. He claims Sanford leaned over to him and asked him if he'd ever read "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".



http://ballotbox.governing.com/2008/08/south-carolinas.html

A good column on the way Sanford's political enemies, including Republican officals who campaigned for Sanford's Democratic opponent, refer to him constantly as a "libertarian".

A quote from Sanford: "I'm an unabashed conservative, and sometimes accused of being a libertarian, to which I say, 'I'm guilty, I love liberty.'"



http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126383.html

A play-by-play of an anti-Real ID conference at the Cato Institute. The author notes Sanford commends Bob Barr for "travelling around the country talking about the problems with the PATRIOT Act."



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25806

And interview with Sanford where he criticizes Republicans in SC for favoring big government. He also says that he doesn't "play ball" with lobbyists, whether they're from the right or the left.

It also mentions that Sanford has taken heat from Republicans for not being a strong enough 'social conservative'. Sanford responds that his true passion is fiscal conservatism.



http://www.fitsnews.com/2007/05/17/mark-sanford-is-a-roman-general/

A neocon blog that claims Sanford said the Republican Party needed to distance itself from Iraq by saying "the way you guarantee you lose is if you're the party of Iraq."



http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

A site by Ron Paul supporters. This page points out that only five Congressmen voted against the policy of regime change in Iraq: John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, and Mark Sanford.

Sanford also voted against going to war over Kosovo.



http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4343283

In searching for "Mark Sanford + Iraq", "Mark Sanford + Iraq War", "Mark Sanford + War", "Mark Sanford + Afghanistan", and "Mark Sanford + Foreign Policy", I couldn't really find much of substance.

I certainly didn't find anything where Sanford spoke out in favor of the war. Most of the stuff is like the above, his 2005 State of the State address, in which he points out the financial costs of the war and then asks people to wish well for the troops serving in harm's way. Very noncomittal...



I'd like to see him pressed more to define his foreign policy, but domestically I like what I see.

[Indy Vidual]

And younger. Wow this guy was great said No bailout or stimulus !!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=927273486&play=1



I just hope he keeps talking this way and does not waver !

The baby ROn Paul nice to know one exists already in place !

Sounds like a "Falseflagop" to me. :eek:

[escapinggreatly]

Sanford says a lot of good things. I hope he maintains them as he becomes more prominenet on the national scene.
__________________

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/22/libertariansig.jpg
The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes. (http://www.meltingpotproject.com/)