PDA

View Full Version : Mark Sanford is Not Dead To Me




Lucille
02-20-2009, 09:14 AM
I was too hasty in my previous thread.

He made such an impassioned case against the stimulus bill, and I was disappointed that he wasn't going to be living conservative principles.

BUT it's true that his constituents will be paying for it for decades. Like so many pointed out, it's a lot like Paul's reasoning on the subject.

So what are these governors options?

They can just take it, albeit begrudgingly.

The can take a pass, and let the legislatures request the money as per the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment.

After that they could either just let it be, or they could challenge the Constitutionality of said amendment.

In any case, they could give their constituents a $ for $ tax cut, and shit-can so many state bureaucrats and unnecessary programs, which would allow the relief as well as adherence to conservative principles. That's pretty much the only win-win scenario I can see.

Bradley in DC
02-20-2009, 12:01 PM
Sanford actively opposed the bailout before the vote when it counted (unlike Crist, et al., that lobbied for it).

As a Rep., Sanford was part of Dr. Paul's Liberty Caucus. He's generally been great as governor (LOVE his opposition to the national ID, etc.).

As justifiably angry over what's happening, it would be ill-advised to turn on our friends and supporters who were dealt a bad hand (like the rest of us).

It is certainly not Sanford's fault the bailout passed. In fact, he was probably our highest profile opponent.

Kotin
02-20-2009, 12:09 PM
I am with you.. some people are way too quick to go after him.

if he hadnt gone to builderberg, I dont think that would be the case.. which is stupid.

Elwar
02-20-2009, 01:19 PM
if he hadnt gone to builderberg, I dont think that would be the case..

Or if he had a libertarian voting record.

thasre
02-20-2009, 02:58 PM
I'd support Sanford if I had to, considering the 2012 GOP "top-tier" lineup is looking like Romney, Huckabee, and Palin, but I still have to say that Gary Johnson looks like the winningest winner among potential RP candidates.

Also, I'm not sure Ron Paul himself doesn't plan to run again, in which case it needs to be Paul/Johnson all the way baby. Paul running for the nomination, and then picking Johnson for a running mate.

Lucille
02-20-2009, 03:23 PM
I'd support Sanford if I had to, considering the 2012 GOP "top-tier" lineup is looking like Romney, Huckabee, and Palin, but I still have to say that Gary Johnson looks like the winningest winner among potential RP candidates.

Also, I'm not sure Ron Paul himself doesn't plan to run again, in which case it needs to be Paul/Johnson all the way baby. Paul running for the nomination, and then picking Johnson for a running mate.

I've been hoping for a Sanford-Johnson ticket myself, with Paul as Treasury Secretary.

Bradley in DC
02-20-2009, 07:00 PM
Or if he had a libertarian voting record.

WTF? Sanford's was one of the closest to Paul's when they were in the House together.

Lucille
02-20-2009, 07:10 PM
WTF? Sanford's was one of the closest to Paul's when they were in the House together.

That's what I've read too.

scandinaviany3
02-21-2009, 03:12 PM
yeah..if sanford was a top choice for ron for vp when he was running for president.

He darn well better be a top choice now for our supporters to get behind..else we have trolls and scammers trying to turn this effort into another reform party/libertarian party debate...which we dont have time for.

trey4sports
02-21-2009, 03:16 PM
sanford is a god damn social authoritarian.....

scandinaviany3
02-21-2009, 03:19 PM
can you give an example or translation of your "beef" that sanford is a social authoritarian

Kotin
02-21-2009, 03:23 PM
can you give an example or translation of your "beef" that sanford is a social authoritarian

+1..


I'd really like to hear it as well.

angelatc
02-21-2009, 03:26 PM
I've been hoping for a Sanford-Johnson ticket myself, with Paul as Treasury Secretary.

Oh dear, that just makes my heart palpitate with excitrement!

angelatc
02-21-2009, 03:38 PM
http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/4-12-00.pdf

Sanford talking about restructuring the IMF:


First question, Dr. Meltzer, rate of return for World Bank. Are there
any estimates as to the overall rate of return for the World Bank?

Dr. Meltzer. On its loans? On its loans, it charges – it receives a
rate equal to the rate at which it borrows, plus usually a half of percent
premium that it charges for administrative fees. So its rate of return – if
it borrows at 6 percent, its rate of return on the loan is 6-1/2 percent and
so on.

Representative Sanford. But that could include the default rate;
in other words, probably a negative rate of return if you include default or
restructuring, et cetera?

Dr. Meltzer. I don't know the answer to that question. I would
guess that the answer is not a negative rate of return overall.

Dr. Lerrick. Mr. Sanford, when the World Bank lends money, it
just takes its pure borrowing costs. In Dr. Meltzer's example, it issues a
bond at 6 percent, and it then adds on a small margin of between .25 and
.5 percent to cover its administrative expenses, which are just
out-of-pocket expenses. That is the lending rate.
Now, it does provision for loan losses, but that does not come from
its lending activities. It comes from its net income, and its net income is
unrelated to its lending activities. For instance, the World Bank has $29
billion of equity capital on which it pays no interest or dividends. Just the
investment of these funds at 6 or 7 percent generates close to $2 billion
a year in net income. That is how they provision for loan losses. They
do have reserves on their balance sheet of a number of billions of dollars.

Representative Sanford. So, the blended rate – in other words, if
you include the cost of capital from the taxpayer to the World Bank in the
initial setup, the blended, in essence, rate would be negative?

Dr. Lerrick. Well, if you include the taxpayers' cost of funds, then
it would be negative, yes.

Representative Sanford. So I guess what I am getting at is
often times I hear with these types of organizations that, quote, we cost the
taxpayer nothing. I hear that as almost a consistent refrain. That is
probably not really true if you look at cost of capital in a total sense.

He Who Pawns
02-21-2009, 04:12 PM
Where is Sanford on the federal "war on drugs"? To me, that question is the real test.

Chieftain1776
02-23-2009, 03:38 AM
Ron Paul seemed somewhat enthusiastic about Mark Sanford on Freedom Watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h0s2TR3QGM&feature=channel#t=3m35s @3:35

Lucille
02-23-2009, 03:51 PM
Ron Paul seemed somewhat enthusiastic about Mark Sanford on Freedom Watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h0s2TR3QGM&feature=channel#t=3m35s @3:35

Thank you for that! He sounds very enthusiastic about Sanford. As I've said before, I read they were very close when they served in the House together.

The cosmotarians (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131823.html) are fanning away the vapors with their hankies over Sanford's pro-creationism in school stance.

That is exactly why Sanford needs Johnson on the ticket.

So Judge Napolitano's show is only on the internet? That sucks.


Sanford talking about restructuring the IMF:

Good find! He also wants to lift the US embargo against Cuba.


Oh dear, that just makes my heart palpitate with excitrement!

W00t!

thasre
02-23-2009, 06:37 PM
A little off topic, but I'm thinking... Dream Cabinet!

President Mark Sanford
Vice-President Gary Johnson [or vice versa, preferably]
Treasury Secretary Ronald Paul
Federal Reserve Chairman Peter Schiff
Homeland Security Secretary Karen Kwiatkowski
Attorney General Andrew Napolitano
Press Secretary John Stossel
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael F. Cannon
Defense Secretary Charles Hagel

Who else? [Only to fill in until their departments can be abolished, of course...]

Lucille
02-23-2009, 06:44 PM
A little off topic, but I'm thinking... Dream Cabinet!

President Mark Sanford
Vice-President Gary Johnson [or vice versa, preferably]
Treasury Secretary Ronald Paul
Federal Reserve Chairman Peter Schiff
Homeland Security Secretary Karen Kwiatkowski
Attorney General Andrew Napolitano
Press Secretary John Stossel
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael F. Cannon
Defense Secretary Charles Hagel

Who else? [Only to fill in until their departments can be abolished, of course...]

Those are all great! [heh].

angelatc
02-23-2009, 07:46 PM
It's a dream team, but to be realistic.....Carter made the mistake of filling his cabinet with people from outside of the beltway. Clinton started out the same way, but after about 4 months realized that Congress was not going to deal with people from outside the establishment.

And...Ron Paul would abolish most of those positions anyway. :)

RSLudlum
02-23-2009, 07:52 PM
The cosmotarians (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131823.html) are fanning away the vapors with their hankies over Sanford's pro-creationism in school stance.





Pfft. Sanford is a huge advocate of private schooling over public. That should solve any problems they have. ;)

SimpleName
02-28-2009, 10:58 AM
Sanford is not exactly what I'd like, but in comparison to what we have now...he is a godsend. He would be constantly fighting economic tyrannies like all this stimulus/bailout bills. I would certainly not choose Sanford if I had any other choice. Gary Johnson, being a former governor and business owner with a vastly libertarian streak in him, is much more appealing to me. But I'm not so sure Johnson would be up for it. Then again, after all this insanity lately...he could be fed up enough to just say "The hell with it...LETS GO!" JOHNSON, JOHNSON, JOHNSON! He even has a great last night to chant.

scandinaviany3
02-28-2009, 09:52 PM
http://www.npaper-wehaa.com/bluffton-today;see-506ZhRtK662bIFxJ#c-165190


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090223/pl_politico/19167_1

Indy4Chng
02-28-2009, 10:05 PM
I've been hoping for a Sanford-Johnson ticket myself, with Paul as Treasury Secretary.

+1976... Sanford really needs to get his name known... he is mainstream enough to get elected, but principled enough that he would be less likely to fuck us. I think he could get the Limbaugh republicans on board which is what you need to win. Then Johnson as VP so he can become a household name and take over after Sanford. Paul as treasury secretary would be as good as president to me and this scenario has a lot higher chance from 2% to 3%. :D

rsvforronpaul
02-28-2009, 10:52 PM
Yes but how to get him well-known to the mainstream...lemme see...how abt helping him doing well in a few online polls to start with?

Anyways the stimulus bill debate is giving him some coverage

PaleoPaul
03-01-2009, 12:46 AM
Isn't Hagel for the Draft?

And whoever came up with that Cabinet list...you forgot Secretary of State.

scandinaviany3
03-01-2009, 09:30 AM
"ThinkProgress flags this line from an interview Real Clear Politics did with Republican Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina in which he calls Rush Limbaugh an idiot, albeit indirectly. Asked for his reaction to the idea that some conservatives, most notably Limbaugh, are hoping that Obama's presidency fails, Sanford replies (bold font is mine):

I don't want him to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble. But I do think, in that same vein, if you've looked at the pages of history, if you've looked at the pages of economic data that I've looked at over a long period of time -- I've got a masters in business from the University of Virginia, I've worked up in New York in finance -- if you've looked at that kind of stuff and you legitimately think that something ain't going to work, you'd be cheating him and cheating yourself if you didn't lay it out and call an ace an ace in terms of where you're coming from.

Sanford makes the distinction between legitimately believing a plan is not going to work and explaining your reasons why, and just openly rooting for a presidency to fail, as Limbaugh has, no matter what the cost to the nation."