SANFORD: The GOP has damaged its brand

[bobbyw24]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/04/the-gop-has-damaged-its-brand/

Wednesday, March 4, 2009
[B]SANFORD: The GOP has damaged its brand
Mark Sanford

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
(Part of our Reinventing Conservatism series)

In the wake of the Republican Party's second consecutive electoral defeat, the question that seems to be everywhere is: "How do we reinvent conservatism?"

Most conservatives are willing to concede there is in fact a problem, but I'd simply suggest the question is itself misguided: We don't need to reinvent conservatism; we need to return to it.

The past few months have given rise to a tug of war of sorts on this very matter. On one side, we have those who think the Republican tent is simply not large enough to house a viable political coalition. On the other side stand those who think the key to our future success lies in getting back to basics. I myself fall squarely in the latter camp.

In many ways, a political party is little more than a brand, and brands thrive or wither based on how consistently they deliver on what they promise. Can we make the honest argument that the majority of those who campaigned as conservatives have governed as such? No. The Republican brand is damaged goods because Republicans have damaged it. Unless and until we get back to the principle of saying what we mean and meaning what we say, that won't change.

If we accept the premise that political parties are akin to brands, what steps do we take to rehabilitate our failing product?

First, it's important for brands to, as Tom Peters put it in "In Search of Excellence": "Stick to the knitting." If John Deere's tractor sales are declining, it doesn't broaden its engineering by producing cars and airplanes. Instead, it focuses on producing better tractors.

Second, the necessity of having a clear philosophical mooring cannot be overstated. We must be insistent that with the candidates we support, the officials we appoint and the causes we fight for, there be a clear, overriding philosophy.

Third, we have to be willing to take risks. When Republican governors such as Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson and Michigan's John Engler first took up welfare reform in the 1990s, they were widely disparaged. The American left and the media rose up to defend welfare as it stood, but the governors' perseverance and the tangible, undeniable successes of their programs laid the foundation for the reforms that followed at the federal level.

Fourth, we would do well to remember that this nation was founded on the principles of federalism. There are lots of problems out there, but not all of them are the purview of the federal government. On an aircraft carrier, for example, everyone knows what they're supposed to do. When a fire breaks out, the guys tasked with fighting the fire get to it, while the rest stay out of the way.

Our various governments today act in a way that can fairly be described as the antithesis of that aircraft carrier - much to our detriment. How can a local government function when half the time the feds take care of something and half the time they don't? The answer is, it can't.

Fifth, we can't just be the party of "no." While it's important to argue against that with which we disagree, the American people will in the end respond to policies that make a tangible difference in their lives. Conservatives need to articulate meaningful alternatives to having the government take over a much, much larger sphere of our lives. On education, we must continue to push for school choice, one of the great civil rights issues of our time. On health care, we must fight for portable, flexible care - whether it be by expanding health savings accounts or in some other form. No matter the issue, we cannot accede to the notion that conservatives don't have a solution.

Finally, the notion of being conservative applies to more than just financial assets, and on this too many conservatives have been absent from debates on the key environmental issues facing us today.

In doing so, they have ceded the political high ground to the left. I do think grandmother's notion of leaving the world better than you found it, the biblical notion of stewardship, and even Teddy Roosevelt's idea of conserving for future generations are of great appeal to the modern-day electorate - and if approached from the standpoint of private-property rights and conservative philosophy, it can be a win in growing the conservative mantle.

Each of us could produce our own list, but in the final analysis, it's not conservatism that needs to be reinvented, but our commitment to it renewed.

• Mark Sanford is the governor of South Carolina. He is a columnist for The Washington Times' "Reinventing Conservatism" series.

[rational thinker]

Says the guy who endorsed McCain.

[Truth Warrior]

"Damaged it's brand"? See, it's just ALL about marketing and phony hype. :p

It's all just smoke and mirrors folks, just designed to con and scam the rubes and local yokels. There ain't really no there, THERE. ;)

Al Capone OR "Bugsy" Moran, take your favorite MOB pick. :rolleyes:

The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>

[angelatc]

Says the guy who endorsed McCain.

But he at least waited until the primaries were over, and therefore ticked off McCain.

[roho76]

....but we don't need to change. We just need a new slogan that's all.

[Truth Warrior]

....but we don't need to change. We just need a new slogan that's all. Maybe you can get a GOP government grant of FREE money to come up with one. :rolleyes:

[klamath]

Says the guy who endorsed McCain.

Says the guy that endorsed Obama:rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

it just means sanford reads rpf;)

[fj45lvr]

If Sanford endorsed John McCain then he is a HUGE HYPOCRITE and forget what he has to say....


F**K you Sanford....

[Feenix566]

While in Congress, Sanford was a staunch conservative (he garnered a lifetime rating of 92 from the American Conservative Union), but displayed an occasional independent streak. He often would be one of two members of Congress, along with Ron Paul, voting against bills that otherwise got unanimous support.[citation needed] For example, he voted against a bill that preserved sites linked to the Underground Railroad. He opposed pork barrel projects even when they benefited his own district; in 1997 he voted against a defense appropriations bill that included funds for Charleston's harbor. Seeing himself as a "citizen-legislator," he did not run for reelection in 2000, in keeping with a promise to serve only three terms in the House.[2]

Sanford has sometimes had a contentious relationship with the South Carolina General Assembly, even though it is controlled by his party. The Republican-led SC House of Representatives overrode 105 of Sanford's 106 budget vetoes on May 26, 2004.[6] The following day, Sanford brought live pigs into the House chamber as a visual protest against "pork projects".[7]

Sanford rejected the Assembly's entire budget on June 13, 2006. Had this veto stood, the state government would have shut down on July 1. The governor explained his veto as being the only way to get the cuts he desired, and that using the line item veto would have been inadequate as well as impossible. However, in a special session the following day, both houses dismissed Sanford's call for reform by overriding his veto – effectively restoring their original budget (which indeed contained many reforms Sanford had previously called for).

Sanford professes to be a firm supporter of limited government, and many pundits have described his views as being libertarian in nature. Most recently, he has embarked on an ambitious plan to reform methods of funding the state's public education system. This would include measures such as school vouchers – aimed at introducing more competition into the school system as a means of fostering improvement. This would also allow more choice for parents who wish for their children to be educated in a religious or independent setting easier access at doing so. The plan, known as "Put Parents In Charge," would provide around $2,500 per child to parents who chose to withdraw their children from the state's public school system and instead send them to religious and other independent schools. Sanford has framed this plan as a necessary market based reform.

Sanford has also sought to reform the state's public college system. Sanford has criticized these schools as focusing too much on separately creating research institutions and not on educating the young adults of South Carolina. Sanford has suggested that they combine some programs as a means of curbing tuition increases. The schools did not respond positively to this suggestion, however, causing Sanford to remark that "if any institution ultimately feels uncomfortable with our push toward coordination, they can exit the system and go private."[8]

Sanford's tenure has not been free of controversy. He was criticized for missing a budget debate and was harshly criticized in a Greenville News article for delays in signing a piece of domestic violence legislation.[9] A Time Magazine article critical of Sanford, cited that some "fear his thrift has brought the state's economy to a standstill."[10]

Sanford's approval rating ranges from 47% to 55% over the past year according to Survey USA.[11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford

[acptulsa]

I think I just figured out why I don't trust this guy nearly as much as I trust Ron Paul. Ron Paul jumps off of the party line the moment the truth is confirmed. This guy doesn't get his ass off of the party line until the truth can no longer be denied.

[speciallyblend]

If Sanford endorsed John McCain then he is a HUGE HYPOCRITE and forget what he has to say....


F**K you Sanford....

be nice,but i hear you. everything the gop is bitching about ,they did the last 8yrs.

blowback is going to be a bitch for the gop leaders and so called leaders!!!

THE GOP and these leaders have NO CREDIBILITY LEFT IN MY EYES!

[roho76]

Maybe you can get a GOP government grant of FREE money to come up with one. :rolleyes:

How about a new Department:

The Department of SLOGrANtS

It can be filled with Slogan Czar's.

[Bradley in DC]

Second, the necessity of having a clear philosophical mooring cannot be overstated. We must be insistent that with the candidates we support, the officials we appoint and the causes we fight for, there be a clear, overriding philosophy.

Fourth, we would do well to remember that this nation was founded on the principles of federalism. There are lots of problems out there, but not all of them are the purview of the federal government.

Fifth, we can't just be the party of "no." While it's important to argue against that with which we disagree, the American people will in the end respond to policies that make a tangible difference in their lives. Conservatives need to articulate meaningful alternatives to having the government take over a much, much larger sphere of our lives.

+1

[rockandrollsouls]

Says the guy that endorsed Obama:rolleyes:

lol slapped.

[Feenix566]

Says the guy who endorsed McCain.


....but we don't need to change. We just need a new slogan that's all.


it just means sanford reads rpf;)


If Sanford endorsed John McCain then he is a HUGE HYPOCRITE and forget what he has to say....


F**K you Sanford....


be nice,but i hear you. everything the gop is bitching about ,they did the last 8yrs.

blowback is going to be a bitch for the gop leaders and so called leaders!!!

THE GOP and these leaders have NO CREDIBILITY LEFT IN MY EYES!


lol slapped.

You guys need to reasess your attitude. Just because the guy's in the GOP, that doesn't mean you can assume he's a bad guy. Ron Paul is a Republican, but you don't automatically hate him, do you?

Take a look at the guy's voting record. He's more RonPaulesque than any other politician I've heard of, aside from the man himself.

If you just take the attitude that you hate everyone and everything and all you ever want to do is bitch and moan, then that's all you'll ever do. You're never going to change the world that way.

[speciallyblend]

You guys need to reasses your attitude. Just because the guy's in the GOP, that doesn't mean you can assume he's a bad guy. Ron Paul is a Republican, but you don't automatically hate him, do you?

Take a look at the guy's voting record. He's more RonPaulesque than any other politician I've heard of, aside from the man himself.

If you just take the attitude that you hate everyone and everything and all you ever want to do is bitch and moan, then that's all you'll ever do. You're never going to change the world that way.

sanford fails the ron paul test, that is the bottom line . sanford is a poser to republican principles. he only says what you want to hear,when you want to hear it!

i agree on most of his platform but he is not close to filling ron paul shoes. he is trying to suck up to the revoluton but he fails.

let see what he is saying 2 yrs from now. i do not trust sanford(he is full of doublespeak)

i really do not believe him and he doesn't mean anything to colorado politics.

he trys to be a ron paul republican but gets a d- for a grade! maybe a c on a good day

sorry pro-war doesn't cut it on our message!!

i do not hate sanford ,but i know I DO NOT TRUST HIM!! to me anyone that voted for mccain actually voted for obama, mccain /obama voting for the samething to me

PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR MCCAIN OUT OF FEAR FOR OBAMA WASTED THEIR VOTES AND PRINCIPLES! the gop deserves obama after what they pulled in the primaries. for the obama and mccain lovers one in the same , i didn't vote for obama or mccain since voting for either of them was a vote for both of them!

[speciallyblend]

You guys need to reasses your attitude. Just because the guy's in the GOP, that doesn't mean you can assume he's a bad guy. Ron Paul is a Republican, but you don't automatically hate him, do you?

Take a look at the guy's voting record. He's more RonPaulesque than any other politician I've heard of, aside from the man himself.

If you just take the attitude that you hate everyone and everything and all you ever want to do is bitch and moan, then that's all you'll ever do. You're never going to change the world that way.

not going to change anything propping up the same failed leaders and neo-cons.

if saNFORD WANTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY HE HAS MORE PLATFORM CHANGES TO MAKE!! DANG IT CAPS

[Feenix566]

I don't trust him either. I don't trust any politician. You can't trust anything they say. The only thing that matters is their voting record. But it looks to me like Sanford's voting record backs up his rhetoric. He voted against pork in the Congress. He vetoed countless budgets in South Carolina that were loaded with pork.

What part of his voting record indicates he is un-libertarian? Did he vote in favor of the Iraq war?

[speciallyblend]

I don't trust him either. I don't trust any politician. You can't trust anything they say. The only thing that matters is their voting record. But it looks to me like Sanford's voting record backs up his rhetoric. He voted against pork in the Congress. He vetoed countless budgets in South Carolina that were loaded with pork.

What part of his voting record indicates he is un-libertarian? Did he vote in favor of the Iraq war?

yeah my beef is the war. the question should be which republicans voted against the war? very short list!!

i hear you on the other points i do:)

[Bradley in DC]

he trys to be a ron paul republican but gets a d- for a grade! maybe a c on a good day

Could you actually cite any examinations of his record? All of the ones I have seen when he was in the House with Dr. Paul, his was one of the most similar. There was a small group of maybe two dozen who usually voted with us: Walter Jones, Sununu, Sanford, Taylor (MS), Bob Barr, Ryun, Ryan, Scarborough, Brownback, Butch Otter, Snowbarger, Coburn, Weldon, Bachus, et al.

Thanks.

[Truth Warrior]

Could you actually cite any examinations of his record? All of the ones I have seen when he was in the House with Dr. Paul, his was one of the most similar. There was a small group of maybe two dozen who usually voted with us: Walter Jones, Sununu, Sanford, Taylor (MS), Bob Barr, Ryun, et al.

Please cite where Sanford was "pro-war".

Thanks. How many times has Ron been invited and attended Bilderberg?

[speciallyblend]

Could you actually cite any examinations of his record? All of the ones I have seen when he was in the House with Dr. Paul, his was one of the most similar. There was a small group of maybe two dozen who usually voted with us: Walter Jones, Sununu, Sanford, Taylor (MS), Bob Barr, Ryun, et al.

Please cite where Sanford was "pro-war".

Thanks.

he voted for the war and continues to, can you show me where he is pro-peace??

i agree on many of his issues but i have yet to see him come to our side of pro-peace/anti-war. this is a huge issue and why the gop lost their asses,even if obama isn't anti war /pro-peace. the voters sent the gop packing because of the war,even if their votes were misguided.

sanford is not a colorado politician so i am not to concerned with him,just colorado politicians. basically i do not trust him though, that might change in the future once he changes his tune a lil more. i wish south carolina all the luck though!!

i am pretty sure i saw sanford voting for the war,correct me if i am wrong! he voted for mccain which is the opposite of our message ,unless ron paul endorses war and big gov??

in my eyes if you vote for the devil then you become the devil. mccain is no angel

[Bradley in DC]

How many times has Ron been invited and attended Bilderberg?

Exactly my point: make up crazy shit and lie about his actual voting record with Dr. Paul and admirable record as governor...

[Truth Warrior]

Exactly my point: make up crazy shit and lie about his actual voting record with Dr. Paul and admirable record as governor... Did Sanford attend Bilderbeg in Virginia in 2008?

[Bradley in DC]

he voted for the war and continues to, can you show me where he is pro-peace??

Governors vote for war? :confused: :p

[Truth Warrior]

Did Sanford attend Bilderbeg in Virginia in 2008?

[speciallyblend]

Governors vote for war? :confused: :p

he sure hasn't spoke against it ,that is what i meant

he is just talking the talk that is all ,i flat out do not trust him and putting his name with barr doesnt help my trust level.

he has alot more to do to gain my trust!!
i will give him a year or 2 to change his tune!

i give him an A for pandering

after the last 2 yrs my short list of trust with republicans is pretty dam short.

[Bradley in DC]

Did Sanford attend Bilderbeg in Virginia in 2008?

Then just say you don't like he attended a meeting (no idea if it's true). That then is not a justification to just make up crazy shit and lie about voting records, etc.

If one thinks they might be discredited by citing conspiracy theories, then thinking that making up crazy shit lies would be more credible says a lot about the source.

[Truth Warrior]

Then just say you don't like he attended a meeting (no idea if it's true). That then is not a justification to just make up crazy shit and lie about voting records, etc.

If one thinks they might be discredited by citing conspiracy theories, then thinking that making up crazy shit lies would be more credible says a lot about the source.

Did Sanford attend Bilderberg in Virginia in 2008? LOOK IT UP! :rolleyes: www.google.com (http://www.google.com)

[Bradley in DC]

he sure hasn't spoke against it ,that is what i meant

he is just talking the talk that is all ,i flat out do not trust him and putting hhis name with barr doesnt help my trust level.

he has alot more to do to gain my trust!!

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_War_+_Peace.htm

His voting record in the House was one of the most similar to Dr. Paul. Hardly just talking the talk.

Beyond that, he's actually a friggin' governor of state actively and publicly opposing bailouts (against both Bush and Obama), opposing National ID (walking the walk), etc.

"Facts be damned, I'll make up crazy shit and lie because the facts aren't on my side" um, ok.

So, he has a record of voting with Dr. Paul as part of Dr. Paul's Liberty Caucus and then puts his record into action as governor upholding Dr. Paul's philosophy, and the best you've got is the claim that as governor he voted for war. Got it. :rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

Then just say you don't like he attended a meeting (no idea if it's true). That then is not a justification to just make up crazy shit and lie about voting records, etc.

If one thinks they might be discredited by citing conspiracy theories, then thinking that making up crazy shit lies would be more credible says a lot about the source.

he attended, i do remember seeing the threads on this.

we did we both told you we do not trust him. that is my issue with him no trust in the GOP or many of the GOP leaders!

they have no credibility ,

curious did Sanford support the bush bailouts?? if so,then he is no different then obamas bailout all 3 bailouts are why the GOP has no credibility.

the fact republicans supported bushes bailouts then were against obamas bailout is kinda of laughable and basically gives the GOP no legs to stand on! in my eyes

[Bradley in DC]

we did we both told you we do not trust him. that is my issue with him no trust in the gop or many of the gop leaders!

So you've adopted the "lying for justice" approach of the socialists?

Show a ranking of Sanford voting with Dr. Paul against those of their colleagues and explain your rating system please.

[speciallyblend]

So you've adopted the "lying for justice" approach of the socialists?

Show a ranking of Sanford voting with Dr. Paul against those of their colleagues and explain your rating system please.

my rating system is i do not trust sanford. i think he only speaks what we want to hear.
the only ones to blame for my lack of trust is the gop!!

i have heard sanford on tv many times ,and i do not trust him that is all i need after what the gop has pulled the last 2 yrs i hold the gop and sanford and all republicans in power accountable for the actions of the gop leadership.

have they spoke against the gop corruption in the conventions? nope i haven't heard sanford callout the corruption in the gop yet. until then i think he is just pandering to us like steele and the rest of them.
i have plenty of personal reasons not to trust him or anyone in gop leadership! that is not my fault. the gop must look in the mirror!

just our co convention alone and many others and the treatment by gop nationally and everywhere is reason enough not to trust one dam republican

i guess i cannot forgive and forget as easily as you. sanford only speaks want we want to hear now

[Bradley in DC]

he attended, i do remember seeing the threads on this.

we did we both told you we do not trust him. that is my issue with him no trust in the GOP or many of the GOP leaders!

they have no credibility ,

curious did Sanford support the bush bailouts?? if so,then he is no different then obamas bailout all 3 bailouts are why the GOP has no credibility.

the fact republicans supported bushes bailouts then were against obamas bailout is kinda of laughable and basically gives the GOP no legs to stand on! in my eyes

So credibility is the issue, right? Let's see, attending a meeting as a sitting governor then retroactively reverses your voting record in the House (in addition to his gubernatorial pro-war voting record, of course). Yup, I know credible sources when I see 'em.

[Truth Warrior]

:rolleyes: Just picked the FIRST one on Google.


What's New at Bilderberg 2008? (http://www.nolanchart.com/article3995.html)

[haaaylee]

Sanford didn't want to endorse McCain. But he is a Republican Governor. Politics exist. Not everyone is as awesome as Ron Paul.

[acptulsa]

I think I just figured out why I don't trust this guy nearly as much as I trust Ron Paul. Ron Paul jumps off of the party line the moment the truth is confirmed. This guy doesn't get his ass off of the party line until the truth can no longer be denied.

But I don't distrust him nearly as much as I mistrust Barney Frank, either. Bilderberg attendance is damning, but it isn't damning beyond a reasonable doubt. If they were dumb enough to invite me, I'd go just so I'd have something to blog about.

Ron Paul is as close to perfection as we're likely to see in a candidate. And he sure isn't charismatic enough to be perfect.

Now that we've played out this hijack, is anyone here denying that Dubya and crew damaged the 'brand'?

[Truth Warrior]

But I don't distrust him nearly as much as I mistrust Barney Frank, either. Bilderberg attendance is damning, but it isn't damning beyond a reasonable doubt. If they were dumb enough to invite me, I'd go just so I'd have something to blog about.

Ron Paul is as close to perfection as we're likely to see in a candidate. And he sure isn't charismatic enough to be perfect.

Now that we've played out this hijack, is anyone here denying that Dubya and crew damaged the 'brand'? Then you just haven't yet learned ENOUGH about Bilderberg.<IMHO> :(

[speciallyblend]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_War_+_Peace.htm

His voting record in the House was one of the most similar to Dr. Paul. Hardly just talking the talk.

Beyond that, he's actually a friggin' governor of state actively and publicly opposing bailouts (against both Bush and Obama), opposing National ID (walking the walk), etc.

"Facts be damned, I'll make up crazy shit and lie because the facts aren't on my side" um, ok.

So, he has a record of voting with Dr. Paul as part of Dr. Paul's Liberty Caucus and then puts his record into action as governor upholding Dr. Paul's philosophy, and the best you've got is the claim that as governor he voted for war. Got it. :rolleyes:

got it,i still do not trust him. he hasn't come close to calling out the corruption in the party. i have a general distrust of any elected republican, thank the gops actions the last 2 yrs for that!

[speciallyblend]

Sanford didn't want to endorse McCain. But he is a Republican Governor. Politics exist. Not everyone is as awesome as Ron Paul.

well the gop better correct that like yesterday or their future is not good!!

[speciallyblend]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_War_+_Peace.htm

His voting record in the House was one of the most similar to Dr. Paul. Hardly just talking the talk.

Beyond that, he's actually a friggin' governor of state actively and publicly opposing bailouts (against both Bush and Obama), opposing National ID (walking the walk), etc.

"Facts be damned, I'll make up crazy shit and lie because the facts aren't on my side" um, ok.

So, he has a record of voting with Dr. Paul as part of Dr. Paul's Liberty Caucus and then puts his record into action as governor upholding Dr. Paul's philosophy, and the best you've got is the claim that as governor he voted for war. Got it. :rolleyes:

all i can tell you is i do not live in south carolina and everytime i have seen him on tv. he wasn't going after the corruption in the gop.

i want these republicans to call out the corruption not sleep with them!

no matter what you say i do not trust the guy,maybe that will change in the future.
when will sanford call out the corruption?? i will be waiting for him to speakout against our failed leadership. why doesn't he hold other republicans accountable instead of sucking up to the corruption. we have yet to address the corruption until then the gop is the same ole gop to me with the same ole talking faces who have no credibility

i have seen some positive things from him,but that doesn't mean i have to trust him. before the election i do not remember him opposing the war,love to see him opposing the war?? you have any links of him calling our bush or waterboarding?? before the election when he wasn't trying to suck up to the movement,please show me where he opposed the war while bush is in office??

and please explain away bilderburg association

i doubt he will ever call the GOP corruption out,then he would have to apologize to our new leaders rush/steele!

maybe the gop is working for a rush/steele 2012???

i cannot explain why i trust Ron Paul but i know he is honest! but something inside me says do not trust sanford,sorry that isn't enough for you,but it's enough for me!

sanford will have to do alot more for me to justify sending my paycheck to him!

[haaaylee]

specially blend, are you drunk?



here is sanford on war:

Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.

"He also deviates from the Republican line on foreign policy. In Congress, he opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. And he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the 1998 resolution to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. He says that it was a 'protest vote' in which he tried to reassert the legislature’s war-declaring powers. When asked about the invasion of Iraq, he extends his critique beyond the constitutional niceties. 'I don’t believe in preemptive war,' he says flatly. 'For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive.'"


and here he is on Bilderberg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtuFERbbPY


like i said, not everyone is Ron Paul. but if you cut out everyone who isn't exactly like him then we are left with no one. the man is unique. if we are going to make a positive difference we have to work with people. not everyone has the balls to call out the GOP on everything. he is a Governor right now after all. remember when we acted sneaky and some of us hid being Ron Paul supporters to be delegates? do you not trust us ?? the man took live pigs in protest of pork! come on! that's pretty awesome.

[speciallyblend]

specially blend, are you drunk?



here is sanford on war:

Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.

"He also deviates from the Republican line on foreign policy. In Congress, he opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. And he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the 1998 resolution to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. He says that it was a 'protest vote' in which he tried to reassert the legislature’s war-declaring powers. When asked about the invasion of Iraq, he extends his critique beyond the constitutional niceties. 'I don’t believe in preemptive war,' he says flatly. 'For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive.'"


and here he is on Bilderberg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtuFERbbPY


like i said, not everyone is Ron Paul. but if you cut out everyone who isn't exactly like him then we are left with no one. the man is unique. if we are going to make a positive difference we have to work with people. not everyone has the balls to call out the GOP on everything. he is a Governor right now after all. remember when we acted sneaky and some of us hid being Ron Paul supporters to be delegates? do you not trust us ?? the man took live pigs in protest of pork! come on! that's pretty awesome.

well if it makes you feel better sanford looks like gold compared to steele!

great against one war and for another yippie and no im not drunk. i have heard sanford manytimes on tv. i still do not trust him. i will be waiting for him to callout the scum of the gop!! will be waiting along time i bet!!

i wasn't talking kosovo but great to see that. now what about iraq during bushes empire?

thanks for video,i never saw that !! typical political blowoff answer though!! not impressed with his answer what so ever

i think he was dishonest in the answers. some of the richest brokers in the world and to act like they have no power or an agenda, yeah sure. i wouldn't show that video to prove sanford is a good guy. that video muddies the water more in my eyes...

[fj45lvr]

You guys need to reasess your attitude. Just because the guy's in the GOP, that doesn't mean you can assume he's a bad guy. Ron Paul is a Republican, but you don't automatically hate him, do you?

Take a look at the guy's voting record. He's more RonPaulesque than any other politician I've heard of, aside from the man himself.

If you just take the attitude that you hate everyone and everything and all you ever want to do is bitch and moan, then that's all you'll ever do. You're never going to change the world that way.


Endorsing John McCain has nothing to do with what you are saying.

That action by Stanford proves that he is not a man of principle but is a POLITICIAN.

The reason why I have always supported Dr. Paul is that he is a man of principle PERIOD ....he had enough balls to tell the press he didn't vote for George Bush!!! And furthermore TOLD THE PRESS hundreds of times he would not support JOHN MCAMNESTY

sanford is a LOSER. I would never support a guy that would support John McCain (the same McCain that believes in global warming TAXES, foreign wars, etc. and etc.)

[haaaylee]

well if it makes you feel better sanford looks like gold compared to steele!

great against one war and for another yippie and no im not drunk. i have heard sanford manytimes on tv. i still do not trust him. i will be waiting for him to callout the scum of the gop!! will be waiting along time i bet!!

i wasn't talking kosovo but great to see that. now what about iraq during bushes empire?

thanks for video,i never saw that !! typical political blowoff answer though!! not impressed with his answer what so ever


There you go again, assuming he is for the Iraq war. Where do you get this? Do you just make things up in your head. Plus, my response did include his stance on Iraq. Maybe you didn't read it all?

& I know you meant only Iraq, but you also said you thought he was anti-peace. Or wanted proof he wasn't.

Plus his response in regards to Bilderberg was actually pretty good if you ask me.

[speciallyblend]

There you go again, assuming he is for the Iraq war. Where do you get this? Do you just make things up in your head. Plus, my response did include his stance on Iraq. Maybe you didn't read it all?

& I know you meant only Iraq, but you also said you thought he was anti-peace. Or wanted proof he wasn't.

Plus his response in regards to Bilderberg was actually pretty good if you ask me.

in 8yrs i haven't heard him speak once against the iraq war! until after the gop lost the election.

thanks for the kosovo link though

i would love to see sanford speaking against the war while bush was in office!

his response wasn't bad on bilderburg(typical political response), but i found him to be naive about why they were there and for him to be a governor and not know about the controversy seems unreal to me at least! and for him to act like they have no power?? they are pretty much the power brokers of the world!

my opinion is changing somewhat, but we willsee in the future. i am somewhat politically active,so the problem really is the perception of the gop and party(which is not good).

as a republican i feel sanford and many republicans are failing on calling out the real corruption in the party. to me they seem to candy coat it and act like it isn't there.

they seem to act like the 100 pound gorilla isn't there when the gorilla is still calling the shots!

[Feenix566]

People voted for Barack Obama because he wasn't Bush. Most of the votes the Democratic party got this election cycle were not votes FOR the Democratic party platform, but rather they were votes AGAINST the Republican platform of pre-emptive war, warrantless surveillance, and torture. To say that the Democrats have a mandate to push through their platform would be a lie. The American people don't want bailouts. They don't want corporate welfare. They don't want 1.7 trillion dollar deficits. They don't want pork projects. They didn't vote for that. They voted against Bush.

In a similar fasion, when faced with a choice between Obama, McCain, and Barr, I chose the lesser of three evils and voted for McCain. I didn't vote FOR McCain. I voted AGAINST Obama, because I knew what was coming if he won. It turns out I was right. I don't think there would be much disagreement among readers of this forum that the country would be better off with McCain as President than Obama. Neither choice is a good one, but McCain was the less bad one. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, but he wasn't an option on the generel election ballot. And write-ins aren't counted. You have to choose from among the options you have available to you.

So I can't understand why you're all so upset that Sanford endorsed McCain AFTER McCain had already won the Republican primary. McCain would be better than Obama, right?

[haaaylee]

in 8yrs i haven't heard him speak once against the iraq war! until after the gop lost the election.

thanks for the kosovo link though

i would love to see sanford speaking against the war while bush was in office!

his response wasn't bad on bilderburg(typical political response), but i found him to be naive about why they were there and for him to be a governor and not know about the controversy seems unreal to me at least! and for him to act like they have no power?? they are pretty much the power brokers of the world!

my opinion is changing somewhat, but we willsee in the future. i am somewhat politically active,so the problem really is the perception of the gop and party(which is not good).

as a republican i feel sanford and many republicans are failing on calling out the real corruption in the party. to me they seem to candy coat it and act like it isn't there.

they seem to act like the 100 pound gorilla isn't there when the gorilla is still calling the shots!



The GOP still wants the GOP to stay together. They don't know what to do. And are clearly hanging on, barely. If they all called each other out the party would definitely fall apart. Which they don't want. The ones, like Sanford, who aren't that bad are equally confused on the next step for the party and surely don't want to call the GOP that much because in a way they would be calling themselves out.

And not everyone knows about the Bilderberg stuff. Just 'cos we read Alex Jones doesn't mean Governor's do ... ;)

[Truth Warrior]

The GOP still wants the GOP to stay together. They don't know what to do. And are clearly hanging on, barely. If they all called each other out the party would definitely fall apart. Which they don't want. The ones, like Sanford, who aren't that bad are equally confused on the next step for the party and surely don't want to call the GOP that much because in a way they would be calling themselves out.

And not everyone knows about the Bilderberg stuff. Just 'cos we read Alex Jones doesn't mean Governor's do ... ;)


As close as a mouse click. What's New at Bilderberg 2008? (http://www.nolanchart.com/article3995.html)

:rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

People voted for Barack Obama because he wasn't Bush. Most of the votes the Democratic party got this election cycle were not votes FOR the Democratic party platform, but rather they were votes AGAINST the Republican platform of pre-emptive war, warrantless surveillance, and torture. To say that the Democrats have a mandate to push through their platform would be a lie. The American people don't want bailouts. They don't want corporate welfare. They don't want 1.7 trillion dollar deficits. They don't want pork projects. They didn't vote for that. They voted against Bush.

In a similar fasion, when faced with a choice between Obama, McCain, and Barr, I chose the lesser of three evils and voted for McCain. I didn't vote FOR McCain. I voted AGAINST Obama, because I knew what was coming if he won. It turns out I was right. I don't think there would be much disagreement among readers of this forum that the country would be better off with McCain as President than Obama. Neither choice is a good one, but McCain was the less bad one. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, but he wasn't an option on the generel election ballot. And write-ins aren't counted. You have to choose from among the options you have available to you.

So I can't understand why you're all so upset that Sanford endorsed McCain AFTER McCain had already won the Republican primary. McCain would be better than Obama, right?

neither was the better option;) i totally agree on the rest of your statement. the gop is still clueless on why they lost hehe, this is good news i think.

i truly think we keep moving forward and if the gop doesn't get on our bandwagon, then they will have no wagon.
We keep moving forward, the gop can join us or die really!

If the gop doesn't follow us,i doubt the voters will be like hey the gop is conservative now lets vote them back in.That will not happen if the gop thinks it will. what will happen is people will hear our message and join us. the gop no longer has anything worth buying, WE DO, that is why they are trying their best to suck up to our message.

we just need to hold them accountable and vote the fakes out ,the rest of the voters will keep the gop in check. they already sent them packing.
It will be upto us to keep them out until they join our republican message!

The future is our MESSAGE and if the gop fails to address this,then there will be NO FUTURE FOR THE GOP. You can count my vote on that!! unless the gop wakes up and we are not gonna buy their fake cookie cutter republicans!

[nbhadja]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_War_+_Peace.htm

His voting record in the House was one of the most similar to Dr. Paul. Hardly just talking the talk.

Beyond that, he's actually a friggin' governor of state actively and publicly opposing bailouts (against both Bush and Obama), opposing National ID (walking the walk), etc.

"Facts be damned, I'll make up crazy shit and lie because the facts aren't on my side" um, ok.

So, he has a record of voting with Dr. Paul as part of Dr. Paul's Liberty Caucus and then puts his record into action as governor upholding Dr. Paul's philosophy, and the best you've got is the claim that as governor he voted for war. Got it. :rolleyes:

The problem I have with him is that he:

1. Endorsed McCain.
2. Attended the Bilderberg meeting.
3. Is being backed by the MSM (the MSN NEVER backs anti war, anti federal reserve politicians)
4. Was called one of the upcoming faces of the GOP by the GOP spokesperson along with Liberals Palin and Jindal.
5. His speeches are of empty conservative rhetoric, seldom about particular topics like ending the federal reserve and the overseas empire (which I have not read anywhere that he wants to end it).

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Federal deficit weakens dollar against foreign currencies

In 1995 the budget debate led to a government shutdown. At the time of the debate, our nation’s debt was nearly $5 trillion and growing faster than the economy. Even today, in the era of “balanced budgets,” that is still the case. If we stay on our current course, we’ll continue to see our dollar, and consequently, everything you and I own, fall in value.
Twenty years ago, the dollar was worth 360 yen. Today it’s worth slightly more than 100 yen. In official Washington, this fact is indeed cause for alarm. But far from worrying that our currency has lost more than half its value during that time. Government policymakers often tell us our currency is too strong--and should be weakened even further.
Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 52 Nov 4, 2000

[Bradley in DC]

His speeches are of empty conservative rhetoric, seldom about particular topics like ending the federal reserve and the overseas empire (which I have not read anywhere that he wants to end it).

I remember him mostly from when he was a Congressman and I was working on the Hill, and he did speak and vote on these questions (pre-Iraq, etc.).

No, governors generally aren't very active, vocal on monetary and foreign policy. Sitting governors, especially one chosen to head the Republican governors, do get MSM coverage.

If, and I don't know, he becomes a candidate for president, then he will again have to address more national and international concerns.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Federal deficit weakens dollar against foreign currencies

In 1995 the budget debate led to a government shutdown. At the time of the debate, our nation’s debt was nearly $5 trillion and growing faster than the economy. Even today, in the era of “balanced budgets,” that is still the case. If we stay on our current course, we’ll continue to see our dollar, and consequently, everything you and I own, fall in value.
Twenty years ago, the dollar was worth 360 yen. Today it’s worth slightly more than 100 yen. In official Washington, this fact is indeed cause for alarm. But far from worrying that our currency has lost more than half its value during that time. Government policymakers often tell us our currency is too strong--and should be weakened even further.
Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 52 Nov 4, 2000

And the POTUS and the COTUS patched up their squabbles PDQ, since not many people were complaining about the shutdown. :D

[Bradley in DC]

If they [Bilderberg] were dumb enough to invite me, I'd go just so I'd have something to blog about.

too funny :)

[nbhadja]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Federal deficit weakens dollar against foreign currencies

In 1995 the budget debate led to a government shutdown. At the time of the debate, our nation’s debt was nearly $5 trillion and growing faster than the economy. Even today, in the era of “balanced budgets,” that is still the case. If we stay on our current course, we’ll continue to see our dollar, and consequently, everything you and I own, fall in value.
Twenty years ago, the dollar was worth 360 yen. Today it’s worth slightly more than 100 yen. In official Washington, this fact is indeed cause for alarm. But far from worrying that our currency has lost more than half its value during that time. Government policymakers often tell us our currency is too strong--and should be weakened even further.
Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 52 Nov 4, 2000

It's good that he talks about the dollar value, but I am curious as to what he says about the dollar value and foreign policy under Bush?? And he still does not mention ending the Federal Reserve in that text.

He voted for McCain so I have a feeling he might be one of those politicians that is conservative when the liberals control DC yet liberal when the GOP itself controls DC.

It is possible that he was bought off in the Bilderberg meeting. Or maybe he is for liberty and is trying to fool the establishment. It's unclear right now and I won't support him until it is.

I'm glad most RP supporters are very cautious in supporting any candidate.

[Truth Warrior]

too funny :) I USED to have some respect for you. :( Oh well. < shrug >:rolleyes:

[Bradley in DC]

curious did Sanford support the bush bailouts?? if so,then he is no different then obamas bailout all 3 bailouts are why the GOP has no credibility.

the fact republicans supported bushes bailouts then were against obamas bailout is kinda of laughable and basically gives the GOP no legs to stand on! in my eyes

Sanford was the highest profile opponent of Bush's bailouts. There were threads about it here...

[anaconda]

Sanford is a party hack. He needs to go the way of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, Michelle Malkin, and Bobby Jindal (the scrap heap).

[paulitics]

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mark_Sanford_War_+_Peace.htm

His voting record in the House was one of the most similar to Dr. Paul. Hardly just talking the talk.

Beyond that, he's actually a friggin' governor of state actively and publicly opposing bailouts (against both Bush and Obama), opposing National ID (walking the walk), etc.

"Facts be damned, I'll make up crazy shit and lie because the facts aren't on my side" um, ok.

So, he has a record of voting with Dr. Paul as part of Dr. Paul's Liberty Caucus and then puts his record into action as governor upholding Dr. Paul's philosophy, and the best you've got is the claim that as governor he voted for war. Got it. :rolleyes:

Bradley, Where does Sanford stand on the Patriot act, Military Comissions act, Fisa immunity, Wiretapping, Posse Commitatus, Iraq War, Afghanastan War?

Since I know you are a facts oriented person, and would never assume anything (whether he is pro or against) could you please tell me where he stands on these basic principles essential to liberty. Since 2001, where does he stand on the biggest issues of the day. Thank you. :rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

Sanford was the highest profile opponent of Bush's bailouts. There were threads about it here...

i will check that out thanks, i missed that i guess

[anaconda]

GOP is a million miles from an attractive brand. A bailout position is just silly politics in this environment. Who cares what they say after 8 years of monstrous deficits and crapping all over the Constitution?

Attractive Brand = Ron Paul Platform

[paulitics]

GOP is a million miles from an attractive brand. A bailout position is just silly politics in this environment. Who cares what they say after 8 years of monstrous deficits and crapping all over the Constitution?

Attractive Brand = Ron Paul Platform

I agree, it is much easier to make a stand when it doesn't matter. Kind of like heckling from the cheap seats. Obama's heckling on the Iraq War from the bleachers years ago before he was in congress helped him beat Clinton. It was a smart tactical move on his part.

The one thing I do like Sanford on is the Real ID, but I need much more information to know he is a maverick that will challenge his own party not just the democrats, and this means foreign policy and the war on terror.

[anaconda]

I believe both parties will be very unpopular by 2012. This is why I still believe that the integrity and potentially concise platform of a Kucinich/Paul ticket could send a general election to the House of Representatives and force platform changes from both major parties.

[haaaylee]

Just because you don't know where Sanford stands on certain issues (ending federal reserve, etc.) he can't be trusted? How many of us knew anything about how bad the Federal Reserve is a few years ago?



PS. not everyone.

[Truth Warrior]

Just because you don't know where Sanford stands on certain issues (ending federal reserve, etc.) he can't be trusted? How many of us knew anything about how bad the Federal Reserve is a few years ago?



PS. not everyone. Is there any moral responsibility and/or burden of due diligence expected and/or required of the voters BEFORE voting?

[speciallyblend]

Just because you don't know where Sanford stands on certain issues (ending federal reserve, etc.) he can't be trusted? How many of us knew anything about how bad the Federal Reserve is a few years ago?



PS. not everyone.

i guess i ask too much of these people. i expect them to call out the corruption not act like they are not there!!

it burns me up ,that they act like everything is fine in the gop. IT IS NOT.

i guess it's my fault for expecting folks to call out the corruption!!

Ron Paul calls these folks out ,the rest try to act like the 100 pound gorilla doesn't exist!!

I have a high bar thanks to RON PAUL ,but i at least expect these sanfords and ron paul types to not only stand up with ron paul ,but to help call out the neo-cons.

maybe that comes later ,but it makes me not trust them. when they are allowing the crooks in the gop to run around and act like everything is ok within the gop leadership.

[paulitics]

Just because you don't know where Sanford stands on certain issues (ending federal reserve, etc.) he can't be trusted? How many of us knew anything about how bad the Federal Reserve is a few years ago?



PS. not everyone.



Yes, just because I don't know where he stands on certain issues means I do not trust him yet until I know where he stands on certain issues. Call me old fashioned, but I usually like to read the fine print on something before I buy it. Actually, a better analogy would be to say, I would like to be offered the fine print to read before I buy it. With politicians, esp the GOP, I assume I am being sold a big pile of shit until I can see what's inside the package with a pretty bow tie.
With Ron Paul, he is genuine because he gives you the fine print, and it's very simple "OBEY ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION!"

[Bradley in DC]

i will check that out thanks, i missed that i guess

(not currently in Congress, I meant) :o

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

* NOVEMBER 15, 2008

Don't Bail Out My State
South Carolina's governor says more debt isn't the answer.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Sanford_blasts_Bush_plans_on_bailout.html

Sanford blasts Bush plans on bailout

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is warning President Bush to back away from using the $700 billion Wall Street bailout for ailing Big Three automakers, saying doing so would fundamentally alter the nation's economy.

In a letter sent to the White House on Monday, the Republican governor says Bush would be committing a "very great mistake" that would "open the floodgates to federal monies for every distressed industry across this country -- and there will be many in this economic slowdown."

Sanford, a potential 2012 contender for the GOP nomination, is siding with the anti-bailout wing of his party that is furious with Bush for trying to prop up the Detroit automakers and help distressed banks. He also is siding with his fellow Southern politicians who have sparred with Northern Republicans who hail from manufacturing states that are heavily unionized and have a significant Big Three presence.

"And I believe we are at a tipping point in moving from a market-based economy to a politically-based economy, wherein one's success can be determined not by good decisions and hard work, but by the size of one's voice and connection to Washington," he said.

After a $14-billion auto loan package failed in the Senate last week, the White House announced it was considering reversing course and using money originally intended for banks to save the Big Three and the millions of jobs relying on them.

[0zzy]

I don't understand some of you people. Gawd, purist be damned. Find yourself another Ron Paul and run with it! but if you expect change in this world, don't.

[RonPaulMania]

The classless contemptious statements in this thread for a good governor are beyond explanation. Your display isn't free speech, it's calumny and lack of rational thinking. I hope you guys just leave the Ron Paul forums and go someone where you can swear and "hate" whatever person isn't 100% in line with your thinking.

If you don't like politics and hate the men that do it don't discuss it.

[nbhadja]

Gary Johnson has actually said that he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. Sanford has not.

Gary also endorsed Ron Paul, while Sanford endorsed McCain.


And Gary Johnson has never been invited to a Globalist meeting- Sanford has.

Plus Gary Johnson was even more conservative than Sanford as governor, while being socially liberal (Sanford sure isn't). Gary vetoed more bills than all other 49 governors combined at the time.

Gary>Mark

[RSLudlum]

He's no RP but I think he's the best of the candidates that the mainline GOPer's are looking at right now. The only aspect of Sanford I question is, as with most politicians, is his integrity but he has quite frequently stood up to the liberal Repub's in our state capitol during his tenure as governor.



His record as governor is sound by conservative standards, but thin. He proposed a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax within 18 years, but abandoned the project when political compromise that involved an expanded property tax transgressed his ideology. “He won’t take 10 cents of something he dislikes for a dollar of something he loves,” Folks says. But when staffers advised him to tacitly endorse primary challenges against the moderate GOP legislators who stymied his reformist agenda, Sanford played it safe and backed incumbents. There are limits even to his political will.

Sanford’s most notable accomplishment as governor may be eliminating an illegal $155 million budget deficit that was hidden by his predecessor. When trying to find the last $16 million, legislators suggested that he had done enough. Sanford replied, “I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution. It doesn’t say come close and declare victory.” He then vetoed 106 pork projects to make up the deficit and was overruled on 105 of them. The next day, he took two piglets and an array of cameramen into the statehouse—his first and probably last attempt at playing rabble rouser. “I don’t like using political instruments that blunt,“ he admits, “but what’s not remembered is that it worked.”

Though he had endorsed John McCain in 2000, Sanford stayed out of the Republican contest in 2008. Two days before the primary, Sen. Lindsey Graham was dispatched to Sanford’s office with a plea and an offer. Graham told Sanford that an endorsement from the popular governor could put McCain over the top in the key primary state. In return, he promised a spot on McCain’s veep shortlist. Sanford responded cooly, “I don’t need your help getting on the shortlist” and declined.

Once the nomination was settled, Sanford wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed making the case for McCain. But when he was asked to defend McCain’s economic proposals by Wolf Blitzer, his smooth delivery degenerated into a stammering admission that he was stumped. The gaffe was used against him, but the clip is cited by libertarians as a point in Sanford’s favor since for them there was no credible defense of McCain’s economics.

Sanford’s conservative credentials compare favorably to anyone else mentioned as a 2012 presidential contender. He calls the public-education system “a Soviet-style monopoly.” He promoted school choice through tax rebates to avoid the appearance of government control. He passed a “Castle doctrine” bill that was supported by the NRA. He favors a law-and-order approach to immigration, but opposed REAL ID on civil liberties grounds. Though he avoids showy displays of piety, he is reliably pro-life.

But the governor edges closer to pure libertarianism at times. He rolls his eyes at the Columbia sheriff’s department’s zeal in investigating Michael Phelps’s recreational pot use. And he criticizes Alan Greenspan’s management of the “opaque” Federal Reserve. “If you take human nature out of a Fed, it might work,” he explains. “But you can’t. You can have these wise men. But who wants to turn off the spigot at a party that’s rolling?“

He also deviates from the Republican line on foreign policy. In Congress, he opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. And he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the 1998 resolution to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. He says that it was a “protest vote” in which he tried to reassert the legislature’s war-declaring powers. When asked about the invasion of Iraq, he extends his critique beyond the constitutional niceties. “I don’t believe in preemptive war,” he says flatly. “For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive.”

read the rest of the American Conservative article here (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/09/00006/)

[He Who Pawns]

that was a useless article and a waste of time.

[nbhadja]

He's no RP but I think he's the best of the candidates that the mainline GOPer's are looking at right now. The only aspect of Sanford I question is, as with most politicians, is his integrity but he has quite frequently stood up to the liberal Repub's in our state capitol during his tenure as governor.

If the mainline GOPers consider you a serious candidate, you are no friend of liberty.

You don't see the establishment and its MSM hyping Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

[RSLudlum]

If the mainline GOPers consider you a serious candidate, you are no friend of liberty.

You don't see the establishment and its MSM hyping Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

Through that way of thinking then why would Rush allow Walter Williams to fill in for him on occasion? Yes, it is true that Williams isn't running for office but wouldn't it be contrary to Rush's agenda to have a man on that talks of the same ideas as RP and mentions RP's name in connection to those ideas?

I do understand the 'game' but at the same time try to be a realist and take any chance for a pull back in gov't when it comes along, and Sanford has represented it in the past. And I must say I'd still favor Johnson over Sanford, but Johnson has alot of work ahead of him in the 'public recognition' department; it could happen though. ;)

[speciallyblend]

I don't understand some of you people. Gawd, purist be damned. Find yourself another Ron Paul and run with it! but if you expect change in this world, don't.

i cannot help but notice you seem angry at the wrong people. we are not only gonna find ron paul or another ron paul type candidate nationally. we will find them in the state as well.

there alot of good things happening in Colorado:) we are building our base and we have a gentleman running for state chair that i think will be good for our movement!!

when we mention Ron Paul we are talking about more then just Ron Paul. we are demanding a ron paul type candidate.

if the gop does not give us a RON PAUL TYPE CANDIDATE ,then they will not get elected in Colorado!

bottom line is this revolution is moving forward. it is the gop that will be left behind if they do not follow us;)

[speciallyblend]

The classless contemptious statements in this thread for a good governor are beyond explanation. Your display isn't free speech, it's calumny and lack of rational thinking. I hope you guys just leave the Ron Paul forums and go someone where you can swear and "hate" whatever person isn't 100% in line with your thinking.

If you don't like politics and hate the men that do it don't discuss it.

can you please show me one post where anyone says they hate sanford??

there is not a dam thing wrong with questioning anyone or their motives,after what the gop has done the last 2 yrs ,every republican will be held accountable for their actions.

this is a good thing not a bad thing!! after what the gop has pulled the last 12-20 yrs.Can you really blame anyone for not trusting a republican??

if a republican cannot handle the heat,maybe they need to get the hell out of our kitchen!!

this forum is here for debate not cookie cutter statements supporting a corrupt gop!!

remember who your friends are and your enemies!!

though alot of us disagree here and there on issues.

I trust ron paul forum members over much of our gop leadership.

to be honest any republican that voted for mccain should be questioned!!

others were running then the 2 idiots obama/mccain =one in the same.

i hope every forum member here holds the gop accountable for their actions!!

i am still trying to find a post in this thread where anyone said hate?? if i said hate then i miss spoke!! i double checked all the posts here in this thread ,i still cannot find one person saying they hate sanford!! maybe i missed a post??

[speciallyblend]

The GOP still wants the GOP to stay together. They don't know what to do. And are clearly hanging on, barely. If they all called each other out the party would definitely fall apart. Which they don't want. The ones, like Sanford, who aren't that bad are equally confused on the next step for the party and surely don't want to call the GOP that much because in a way they would be calling themselves out.

And not everyone knows about the Bilderberg stuff. Just 'cos we read Alex Jones doesn't mean Governor's do ... ;)

i hear you;)

[angelatc]

I don't think there would be much disagreement among readers of this forum that the country would be better off with McCain as President than Obama.

I think you'd be wrong. I do not think that our country would be any better off with McCain in office.

[angelatc]

ovement!!

when we mention Ron Paul we are talking about more then just Ron Paul. we are demanding a ron paul type candidate.



Like who?

[speciallyblend]

Like who?

well gary johnson is close for national.

we have a state guy running for chair here in colorado. i will get more info for you on him;)

right now there really isn't any options for the republican party at the national level,but that doesn't mean someone will not emerge thru the ranks

so far the only options i see are ron paul or gary johnson or maybe sanford(still not sure about him).

it is a very short list,which to me =trouble for the neo-cons and the gop:)

the way i look at it,if the candidate does not pass the ron paul revolution smell test,then the gop will not win. they cannot win without us;) so if the gop wants to lose,let them nominate a neo-con again and further marginalize themselves. we just need to seperate ourselves as republicans since we are small gov and liberties and pro-peace while the gop stands for bigger government and wars!

[Carole]

"On education, we must continue to push for school choice, one of the great civil rights issues of our time."

No, we must insist on returning education to the venue of local concern and personal responsibility of parents. We must remove it from the federal purview and interference.

On health care, we must fight for portable, flexible care - whether it be by expanding health savings accounts or in some other form."

No, we must get the government out of the health care business, get rid of subsidies and lobbying in the health care realm and return health care to the free market where competition will lower costs and the best providers will rise to the top while the poor providers will disappear.

[Stary Hickory]

I think you'd be wrong. I do not think that our country would be any better off with McCain in office.

Are you kidding? We would not be purposefully heading down a socialist oath. yes McCain is an idiot, and not a true conservative, but he pays more respect to the constitution than Obama. Obama is not trustworthy, and a real socialist.

McCain is a typical politician, however he does have some conservative roots.

[nbhadja]

Are you kidding? We would not be purposefully heading down a socialist oath. yes McCain is an idiot, and not a true conservative, but he pays more respect to the constitution than Obama. Obama is not trustworthy, and a real socialist.

McCain is a typical politician, however he does have some conservative roots.

McCain is a socialist. He is no different than Obama.

[0zzy]

McCain is a socialist. He is no different than Obama.

I dono, we may never know. Obama seems to be the fatter cat.

[Stary Hickory]

McCain is a socialist. He is no different than Obama.

He is much different from Obama, if you cannot see this then it is a shame. I too am jaded with politicians, but I can still tell a dedicated socialist from a political opportunist. McCain is whatever he thinks the people want him to be. Which is much better than a die hard socialist who's goal it is to transform America kicking and screaming into a socialist state.

[scandinaviany3]

Gary Johnson has actually said that he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve. Sanford has not.

Gary also endorsed Ron Paul, while Sanford endorsed McCain.


And Gary Johnson has never been invited to a Globalist meeting- Sanford has.

Plus Gary Johnson was even more conservative than Sanford as governor, while being socially liberal (Sanford sure isn't). Gary vetoed more bills than all other 49 governors combined at the time.

Gary>Mark

You are saying that Johnson is socially liberal...he better not be or we are going to get no chance next primary to get him out of the primaries. We need to get guys in next election...and preferably paul in as vp to secretary of treasury...

Fighting the evangelicals in the primary is a loosing battle. Paul had a big support in this group...it cant be turned on or else we loose before we start.

There is a not a majority of moderates in the primary....so i surely hope you are wrong on johnson being socially liberal.

Do you have proof?

[scandinaviany3]

that was a useless article and a waste of time.

nonsense..that article hits all the points..one would have to be flat out blind or uselessly argumentative to say otherwise.