The Mark Sanford Revolution?

[bobbyw24]

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/the_mark_sanford_revolution.php
The Mark Sanford Revolution?


The American Conservative, founded by Patrick Buchanan to serve as a voice for anti-war, anti-immigration conservative nationalists, plays an interesting role in conservative politics. Though not as widely read as National Review, which aims to set the tone for the movement conservative mainstream, TAC has gained a devoted following as a sharp critic of the conservative mainstream, a stance reflected in its ardent embrace of Ron Paul's quixotic yet very impressive presidential campaign.

And so Michael Brendan Dougherty's mostly admiring profile of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford in TAC is worthy of note.



Dougherty does an excellent job of highlighting Sanford's potential appeal to the libertarians and paleoconservatives who backed Paul.

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?"

Yet in describing Sanford's Paul-like appeal, Dougherty also gestures towards Sanford's vulnerabilities in appealing to the wider Republican primary electorate. As the politics of the Obama foreign policy evovle, one wonders what Republicans will make of Sanford's apparent dovishness.
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."

As President Obama comes to "own" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is easy to imagine anti-war sentiment building among grassroots Republicans beyond Ron Paul's fervently anti-war base. Sanford's position could thus represent shrewd political judgment. That said, it could also marginalize him, particularly if conservatives come to criticize Obama from the hawkish right.

Doughtery also makes note of Sanford's personal quirks, which might resonate with staunch fiscal conservatives.
And Sanford's penny-pinching, while appealing in an era of excess, occasionally defies all common sense. While he lived in Columbia as governor, the state classified his mansion on Sullivan's Island as a second residence and taxed it at the higher rate of 6 percent as opposed to 4 percent for a primary residence. It was only a difference of $3,300, but Sanford fought the classification even though he was renting the house out at the time.

More broadly, Sanford makes for a striking contrast with President Obama's activism. Best known for his penchant for using the veto pen, Sanford is an anti-activist, who deeply believes in the notion that the government that governs best governs least, thus explaining his resistance to accepting key stimulus funds. Moreover, whereas Obama is known for his personal magnetism, Sanford, in Dougherty's view, is not exactly a backslapping pol.
He can regale you with long stories details about a budget skirmish with the legislature, but he has almost nothing to say about USC basketball. He draws lessons from Ayn Rand's work ("She doesn't believe in the social compact really"), but is unfamiliar with basic sports metaphors, claiming, "We got the proposal to the 99-yard line."

In a sense, a Sanford campaign would represent a bet that the Ron Paul movement is a real and enduring phenomenon, one that will have lasting consequences in Republican primary politics. As a governor and former congressman with a long track record of pressing for limited government, Sanford is a far more conventional choice. At the same time, Sanford seems to share many of Paul's radical instincts. Many of Paul's fans saw him as a Goldwater figure, a candidate who would lose but who would go on to revitalize a distinctive Old Right tradition that has mostly faded in American politics. Sanford could thus be the heir who broadens the appeal of that message, not unlike Ronald Reagan. Right now, this seems rather unlikely. But a lot can change over the next few years.

With his sweeping agenda, Barack Obama has, it often seems, single-handedly broadened America's ideological spectrum, shifting the political center to the left. It seems natural that this would lead to a reaction on the right. The danger for Republicans is that a strongly anti-government turn might, as in Goldwater's 1964 defeat, further entrench the Democrats as the party of the broad middle.

Permalink :: Comments (0) :: TrackBacks (0) :: Share This
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/1359
Post a comment
Sign in to comment.

[acptulsa]

Gotta love the shameless way Yahoo!'s spinning Sanford in their headline:

Denying stimulus money?
One governor plans to reject the stimulus money while his state suffers record unemployment.

Never mind that the stimulus packages are causing at least as much unemployment as they are creating employment.

[Truth Warrior]

Bilderberg!!! :p

[weslinder]

Gotta love the shameless way Yahoo!'s spinning Sanford in their headline:

Denying stimulus money?
One governor plans to reject the stimulus money while his state suffers record unemployment.

Never mind that the stimulus packages are causing at least as much unemployment as they are creating employment.

I should get a headline writing job for an aggregator - I can spin just as much. Here's mine: "Because of Record Unemployment, One Governor Refuses to Pay Even More People to Not Work"

[Dripping Rain]

im not sure about this guy he doesnt smell right.
how much of the stimulus did he deny?
I just read the Governor Texas also rejected the stimulus and Gov Jindal
one thing I know for sure. theyre all Bilderberg groupies

[JoshLowry]

Sanford needs to do a little more than roll his eyes at the drug war and call the Fed "opaque" before he will get Revolution added to his last name.

[anaconda]

Sanford needs to do a little more than roll his eyes at the drug war and call the Fed "opaque" before he will get Revolution added to his last name.


Ya. I'm afraid that someone like Sanford may be the great comprimise that the GOP works out in 2012. He will be allowed a few conservative talking points and smallish agenda as long as the military-indutrial-banking complex gets it's way.

[tremendoustie]

I should get a headline writing job for an aggregator - I can spin just as much. Here's mine: "Because of Record Unemployment, One Governor Refuses to Pay Even More People to Not Work"

Or how about, "In the face of the nationwide debt and banking crises, one governer takes a stand against even more waste"

[angelatc]

Sanford needs to do a little more than roll his eyes at the drug war and call the Fed "opaque" before he will get Revolution added to his last name.

Would a Ron Paul endorsement do it?

[Jeremy]

Would a Ron Paul endorsement do it?

I guarantee if Sanford ran Ron Paul would consider endorsing him and would endorse him right away if he was the only pro-liberty person in the race.

[angelatc]

I guarantee if Sanford ran Ron Paul would consider endorsing him and would endorse him right away if he was the only pro-liberty person in the race.

I don't know if I would guarantee it, :) but I think there's a good chance he might.

[tremendoustie]

I don't know if I would guarantee it, :) but I think there's a good chance he might.

He's definitely better than your average GOPer, but he's no where near Paul. I'm not sure if I'd support him, I'd have to see.

[JoshLowry]

Would a Ron Paul endorsement do it?

No, not at all.

Ron Paul endorsed my congressman, McCaul, over the Dem in the 08 election.

He's a neocon who supports both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

McCaul also supports the war on drugs and our current banking/monetary system.

Those are all things I'm opposed to. If Sanford is the same on some or all of those issues then he won't get my support of course.

[torchbearer]

Bilderberg!!! :p

This fact actually does make me distrust him.
Palin was the talk of this forum until she came out neocon.
I have a feeling Sanford fits the same mold.

[JoshLowry]

Sanford was also recently made chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

He is a huge part of the GOP machine because he plays the game the way the elite want him to play it.

[Lucille]

You know what else I like about Sanford? That he mocked Palin (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fdf_1227642752). Heh.

[JoshLowry]

You know what else I like about Sanford? That he mocked Palin (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fdf_1227642752). Heh.

In that same interview he mentions Rick Perry as one of the people bringing conservatism back to the party.

*puke*

[tremendoustie]

Sanford was also recently made chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

He is a huge part of the GOP machine because he plays the game the way the elite want him to play it.

Yeah, he definitely strikes me as an insider.

[anaconda]

I guarantee if Sanford ran Ron Paul would consider endorsing him and would endorse him right away if he was the only pro-liberty person in the race.

I would think RP could not endorse unless Sanford at least met the "Big Four" that the 3rd Parties endorsed last year at the National Press Club: 1) Foreign entanglements 2) audit the Fed 3) Balanced budgets and 4) Civil liberties.

[Truth Warrior]

This fact actually does make me distrust him.
Palin was the talk of this forum until she came out neocon.
I have a feeling Sanford fits the same mold. I don't think Sarah really "came out a neocon". She was just offered a job opportunity and then told what to say.<IMHO> ;)

[JoshLowry]

I would think RP could not endorse unless Sanford at least met the "Big Four" that the 3rd Parties endorsed last year at the National Press Club: 1) Foreign entanglements 2) audit the Fed 3) Balanced budgets and 4) Civil liberties.

I would hope he would maintain that quota for a Presidential candidate.

He was throwing all sorts of emails out for Republican Congressman in the '08 election that did not meet all four.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think Sarah really "came out a neocon". She was just offered a job opportunity and then told what to say.<IMHO> ;)

Neocon or no, I don't trust anyone that's willing to "take a job opportunity and then be told what to say" politically.

[Brian4Liberty]

I refuse to vote for anyone I don't agree with 100%. :rolleyes:

Thank god Sanford won't be a GOP candidate. It will make me feel much better about not voting for the Romney/Jindal ticket...

[nbhadja]

Sanford is a plant. He works for the establishment and they are using him to try to fool RP supporters into believing in him so we will delay our revolution at a critical time.

He was invited to the Bilderberg meeting- That is all you need to know. He is a globalist plant. Do not be fooled!

[Alawn]

I don't trust Sanford.

[Bradley in DC]

Sanford needs to do a little more than roll his eyes at the drug war and call the Fed "opaque" before he will get Revolution added to his last name.

He said the Fed works fine as long as you can take human nature out of it. :p

[Dripping Rain]

I guarantee if Sanford ran Ron Paul would consider endorsing him and would endorse him right away if he was the only pro-liberty person in the race.

easy
I remember reading a thousand blogs saying Ron Paul will endorse Bob Barr before
it never happened.
It looks to me like Sanford is another Barr
Bob Barr 2.0
just his bilderberg affiliation will kill him with a large group
then you have his video laughing at Sara Palin. I dont like Palin but that is very disrespectful and not classy at all. He reminded me of Romney laughing at Ron Paul and that alone will make him lose many supporters. He also goes on praising Proven NeoCons and alleging theyre the "future" of the party like Perry and Jindal. his Bilderberg groupies
that video I saw made me hate him more. its somewhere on this thread i think

[anaconda]

I don't think Sarah really "came out a neocon". She was just offered a job opportunity and then told what to say.<IMHO> ;)


This has been my sense of that whole VP situation last year. That's why I am still curious to see what Palin's talking points become when she's done with her studies in 24 months or so. She might be a rogue Constitutionalist or something that more closely approximates Ron Paul than anything we've seen from a national candidate. In fact, a Palin/Paul ticket might br very popular with the traditional GOP base. Especially after this economy and an Obama administration.

[anaconda]

I don't trust Sanford.

Smart.

[Lucille]

I don't trust Sanford.

Ron Paul does.

[He Who Pawns]

Call me when he vows to end the federal "war on drugs" and cut federal spending until the budget is balanced. Or better yet, cut it far enough to start paying down our debt.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gary Johnson Revolution. ;-)

[Stary Hickory]

Sanford is likely to move government in the right direction...he will fight to shrink it, he understands monetary policy ( he seems to). He may not be Ron Paul but if it is between him and say Romney, please let Sanford win. He is a good pro freedom, pro free market guy.

After 4 years of Obama we will need it.

[Indy4Chng]

Sanford is likely to move government in the right direction...he will fight to shrink it, he understands monetary policy ( he seems to). He may not be Ron Paul but if it is between him and say Romney, please let Sanford win. He is a good pro freedom, pro free market guy.

After 4 years of Obama we will need it.

+1000

I guess it comes down to your lessor evil. Obviously for most of us there was not a significant difference between McCain and Obama, but to me there is a huge difference between Obama and Sanford, enough for me to pull the trigger. You are always voting the lessor evil, unless you vote for yourself, the question is how much lessor evil will you take. I honestly think Sanford believes in most the principles we here believe it, and would try to implement them to the extent possible, but do it within our system... for that he will get my support.

[TheTyke]

We need to be very, very careful in who we support. This is great movement, but it can be derailed if we aren't cautious, and Ron Paul knows this best of all.

You will recall that Ron Paul supported Reagan... who gave awesome speeches, seemed to match our philosophy quite well, and constantly said things like "Government isn't the solution.. government is the problem." Yet once elected, Ron Paul found himself voting against Reagan's spending increases, bailouts, drug war etc. And all the work of those well intentioned folks who got him into office was wasted - as government expanded anyway.

The "lesser evil" argument is a losing strategy. Government expanding isn't acceptable, and the candidate who will "expand it less" isn't acceptable, either. Anyone can SAY whatever they want. The only way we are ever going to get back on track is to scrutinize candidates very carefully, find out who pulls their strings, and research to find out what the difference between what they SAY and what they DO.

If we don't do this, we are inviting the ruin of our own movement, and with it, the country. And from what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, Mr. Sanford has some pretty troubling connections.

[nbruno322]

Also, did you see this recent article on CNN where Sanford compares the US to Zimbabwe in that we cannot solve our problems by "printing money". Good stuff

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/11/stimulus.sanford/

[Bradley in DC]

Also, did you see this recent article on CNN where Sanford compares the US to Zimbabwe in that we cannot solve our problems by "printing money". Good stuff

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/11/stimulus.sanford/

Nice, hadn't seen that, but I've been making the same argument.

[puppetmaster]

We need to be very, very careful in who we support. This is great movement, but it can be derailed if we aren't cautious, and Ron Paul knows this best of all.

You will recall that Ron Paul supported Reagan... who gave awesome speeches, seemed to match our philosophy quite well, and constantly said things like "Government isn't the solution.. government is the problem." Yet once elected, Ron Paul found himself voting against Reagan's spending increases, bailouts, drug war etc. And all the work of those well intentioned folks who got him into office was wasted - as government expanded anyway.

The "lesser evil" argument is a losing strategy. Government expanding isn't acceptable, and the candidate who will "expand it less" isn't acceptable, either. Anyone can SAY whatever they want. The only way we are ever going to get back on track is to scrutinize candidates very carefully, find out who pulls their strings, and research to find out what the difference between what they SAY and what they DO.

If we don't do this, we are inviting the ruin of our own movement, and with it, the country. And from what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, Mr. Sanford has some pretty troubling connections.
agreed

[Indy4Chng]

We need to be very, very careful in who we support. This is great movement, but it can be derailed if we aren't cautious, and Ron Paul knows this best of all.

You will recall that Ron Paul supported Reagan... who gave awesome speeches, seemed to match our philosophy quite well, and constantly said things like "Government isn't the solution.. government is the problem." Yet once elected, Ron Paul found himself voting against Reagan's spending increases, bailouts, drug war etc. And all the work of those well intentioned folks who got him into office was wasted - as government expanded anyway.

The "lesser evil" argument is a losing strategy. Government expanding isn't acceptable, and the candidate who will "expand it less" isn't acceptable, either. Anyone can SAY whatever they want. The only way we are ever going to get back on track is to scrutinize candidates very carefully, find out who pulls their strings, and research to find out what the difference between what they SAY and what they DO.

If we don't do this, we are inviting the ruin of our own movement, and with it, the country. And from what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, Mr. Sanford has some pretty troubling connections.


Yeah cause our voice is strong right now, imagine what this country would look like without us holding it together. :rolleyes:

Sanford to me is a huge step in the right direction. Could he be another Raegan, sure, but where we sit today that's a chance I'm willing to take.

[nbhadja]

Yeah cause our voice is strong right now, imagine what this country would look like without us holding it together. :rolleyes:

Sanford to me is a huge step in the right direction. Could he be another Raegan, sure, but where we sit today that's a chance I'm willing to take.

Sanford was invited to the Bilderberg conference, he endorsed McCain, and thinks Rick Perry is one of the faces of the GOP.

Gary Johnson>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanford.

[anaconda]

Call me when he vows to end the federal "war on drugs" and cut federal spending until the budget is balanced. Or better yet, cut it far enough to start paying down our debt.

Hear, hear!

[anaconda]

+1000

I guess it comes down to your lessor evil. Obviously for most of us there was not a significant difference between McCain and Obama, but to me there is a huge difference between Obama and Sanford, enough for me to pull the trigger. You are always voting the lessor evil, unless you vote for yourself, the question is how much lessor evil will you take. I honestly think Sanford believes in most the principles we here believe it, and would try to implement them to the extent possible, but do it within our system... for that he will get my support.

Please not the "lesser-of-two evils" argument again. If you end up voting for them then they will never change their platform. Let's keep growing the Constitutionalist movement and make them come to us and earn our vote. If not, vote 3rd party until they do. All the while we continue to add numbers to the Revolution. If our movement gets much bigger the GOP will not be able to win an election without our vote. If we cave after the primaries and vote for the military-industrial-media GOP stranglehold candidate, then we fail completely. Don't fall into that left-right lesser-of-two evils trap. The high-level power brokers are counting on you to get sucked in by this charade.

[Smoke the Liberty Tree]

I refuse to vote for anyone I don't agree with 100%. :rolleyes:

Thank god Sanford won't be a GOP candidate. It will make me feel much better about not voting for the Romney/Jindal ticket...

A mormon/catholic (former hindu) ticket.

i will be surprised to see how the conservative christians of the GOP will respond to that. Makes no difference to me though, i could care less about religious affiliatioin unless it is some kind of cult (which i guess you could argue that all organized religions are cults, but for the sake of time lets not argue it lol ).

[ClayTrainor]

"Mark Sanford Revolution" doesn't even have a good sound to it.

I'm sorry, but i'm so not inspired by sanford. I don't really have a really good reason for this, but i don't trust him. He's a good conservative, and an ally but, there's something about him really don't trust. It's just my gut.

[Smoke the Liberty Tree]

"Mark Sanford Revolution" doesn't even have a good sound to it.

I'm sorry, but i'm so not inspired by sanford. I don't really have a really good reason for this, but i don't trust him. He's a good conservative, and an ally but, there's something about him really don't trust. It's just my gut.

I felt the same way after watching the video of him trying to explain his attendance at the BILDERBERG (sp?!) meeting. He came off as trying to hide something, he finished his statement well at least i'll give him that. I Need to do some more reading up on him.

[devil21]

Its a shame that no other "Liberty" candidate will have the pedigree of RP. It makes that person very hard to trust like I trusted RP. I like Sanford one minute but then Im reminded of GWB's 2000 campaign rhetoric. Then I start to distrust again.

Does anybody in SC have any thoughts on him?

[angelatc]

I felt the same way after watching the video of him trying to explain his attendance at the BILDERBERG (sp?!) meeting. He came off as trying to hide something, he finished his statement well at least i'll give him that. I Need to do some more reading up on him.

You also need to watch him speak. ONn of his downfalls is that he isn't slick and polished.

[Brian4Liberty]

Reagan... who gave awesome speeches, seemed to match our philosophy quite well, and constantly said things like "Government isn't the solution.. government is the problem." Yet once elected, Ron Paul found himself voting against Reagan's spending increases, bailouts, drug war etc. And all the work of those well intentioned folks who got him into office was wasted - as government expanded anyway.

The "lesser evil" argument is a losing strategy. Government expanding isn't acceptable, and the candidate who will "expand it less" isn't acceptable, either. Anyone can SAY whatever they want. The only way we are ever going to get back on track is to scrutinize candidates very carefully, find out who pulls their strings, and research to find out what the difference between what they SAY and what they DO.

If we don't do this, we are inviting the ruin of our own movement, and with it, the country. And from what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, Mr. Sanford has some pretty troubling connections.

A President alone can't do anything except veto. You can't do anything with a Congress (and your own cabinet) against you. Reagan faced that. Sanford has faced that as Governor. Ron Paul would face it if he was made President tomorrow. The Congress needs to be mostly voted out before any change occurs.

[fj45lvr]

Sanford is NOT OUR FRIEND......how could he be?? when he endorsed McCain???


that should tell you all you need to know. Dr. Paul would not endorse McCain or Bush because he is an HONORABLE MAN and not a sleezy politician and he actually believes that what people believe actually matters (thus he couldn't endorse McAmnesty or GW)....

Sanford doesn't share that principle. (maybe he is a "lesser of evils" guy....which is the same as an ENEMY of liberty: TRAITOR

Don't be fooled by Sanford.

[NYgs23]

I just hope no one fools themselves into thinking that Sanford is as pure as Paul, and if he were to become President and if he were to institute policies that were anti-freedom or quasi-anti-freedom, we wouldn't hesitate to drop him like a hot potato. We don't want to be taken in by some "controlled opposition" pied piper.

[Elwar]

I guarantee if Sanford ran Ron Paul would consider endorsing him and would endorse him right away if he was the only pro-liberty person in the race.

Ya, like how Ron Paul was the only pro-liberty in the last race and Sanford just sat on his hands...


In that same interview he mentions Rick Perry as one of the people bringing conservatism back to the party.
*puke*

Imagine that...Rick Perry also went to the Bilderberg meeting. And he is a total tool.

[Elwar]

Mark Sanford is to the Ron Paul R3volution what Bob Barr was to the Libertarian Party.

A "former" neo-con who magically converted who has more name recognition than the other guy who is an actual principled libertarian (ie. Gary Johnson).

[Xenophage]

I don't think Sarah really "came out a neocon". She was just offered a job opportunity and then told what to say.<IMHO> ;)

Sarah didn't "come out" as a neocon. She was a neocon from day 1. The infatuation on here for her by some members still confounds me.

Sanford is different.

Quite contrary to popular wisdom, you can tell a politician by the words they use. Sanford has correct philosophy. I may disagree with him on some issues the same way I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues, but overall I believe his philosophy is sound. When someone says they believe in the sovereignty of the individual, there can be no misconstruing that point unless someone is simply a liar. Based on casual observation of Sanford's political actions, he is not lying.

Sarah Palin never said anything that made me perk up

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Ron Paul walks the walk. Even if Sanford talks the talk, I have yet to see him live up to it. We need someone bold and willing to stick their neck out, like Ron Paul has done countless times in the defense of liberty.

Where was Sanford when the criminal war was launched? Where was Sanford during the Republican primaries, when he really could have made a difference by coming out for Ron Paul? Where is Sanford now when many states are moving to reassert their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment?

[RCA]

Anyone who attends Bilderberg is guilty until proven innocent in my book.

[trey4sports]

Sanford doesnt deserve to breathe the same air as Paul

[Bradley in DC]

Mark Sanford is to the Ron Paul R3volution what Bob Barr was to the Libertarian Party.

A "former" neo-con who magically converted who has more name recognition than the other guy who is an actual principled libertarian (ie. Gary Johnson).

Could you please cite something in Sanford's record to show he was a neo-con? The only war related record I've seen was his vote AGAINST war in Kosovo with Dr. Paul. There is nothing else in his record indicating otherwise, no matter how many times it's repeated here. :(

[haaaylee]

Mark Sanford is to the Ron Paul R3volution what Bob Barr was to the Libertarian Party.

A "former" neo-con who magically converted who has more name recognition than the other guy who is an actual principled libertarian (ie. Gary Johnson).

Uh, Sanford wasn't a neo-con. He has been libertarian leaning his whole career....

[nbhadja]

Uh, Sanford wasn't a neo-con. He has been libertarian leaning his whole career....

Yeah but he was invited to Bilderberg and endorsed McCain and thinks Rick Perry is great.
He is no liberty lover. Gary Johnson is much better.

[NYgs23]

Sanford's record suggests he's a libertarian-leaning conserative, but only libertarian-leaning, not libertarian.

[Bradley in DC]

Yeah but he was invited to Bilderberg and endorsed McCain and thinks Rick Perry is great.
He is no liberty lover. Gary Johnson is much better.

So the question stands:

What is there in Sanford's record to indicate he is a " 'former' neocon"? :confused:

Voted against war, led the charge against Bush's Real ID, etc....

[Bradley in DC]

[Sanford's] bilderberg affiliation will kill him with a large group
... his Bilderberg groupies
that video I saw made me hate him more. its somewhere on this thread i think

Affiliation? that's new.

A group invited him to speak (if I remember right, it was ex officio of being elected Republican governors association leader). Do you think Dr. Paul is "affiliated" with every group he's spoken to? By that logic, Dr. Paul is the biggest neo-con out there! :p

[Elwar]

Sanford supported the Bob Barr Amendment to stop Washington DC from tallying the votes for a medical marijuanna initiative.

They had to white out the election results that they had already gathered just to please Bob Barr and his ilk.

[trey4sports]

looooooook
if you guys are balls crazy over Sanford, i reccommend going to issues2000.org and look at his voting record.......

just to name a few slipups....

voted against medical marijuana in DC
voted against decreasing the gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 day

[trey4sports]

Barry Goldwater Jr. endorsed John McCain, and he is our friend.

Those who want Gary Johnson want to be at the same place where we are now, crying and complaining he didn't win, and waiting till 2016. Those of us who want Sanford, will get him to be president in 2012. Join us or get out of the way, Mark Sanford can win, and CAN choose Ron Paul as his VP.

might as well choose Palin.......

[tremendoustie]

Barry Goldwater Jr. endorsed John McCain, and he is our friend.

Those who want Gary Johnson want to be at the same place where we are now, crying and complaining he didn't win, and waiting till 2016. Those of us who want Sanford, will get him to be president in 2012. Join us or get out of the way, Mark Sanford can win, and CAN choose Ron Paul as his VP.

The first and most important question is not whether we can win, but who should win.

This is the trap the "conservatives" have fallen for for years. Pick the guy who you think can beat the big bad democrats, even though he may not stand for your ideals.

I would rather lose supporting the right man, and get the right message out, than win supporting a neocon, and cut our own legs out from under us when he turns out to be just another politician.

Win free or lose. Losing is not the worst of evils.

[Elwar]

Barry Goldwater Jr. endorsed John McCain, and he is our friend.

Those who want Gary Johnson want to be at the same place where we are now, crying and complaining he didn't win, and waiting till 2016. Those of us who want Sanford, will get him to be president in 2012. Join us or get out of the way, Mark Sanford can win, and CAN choose Ron Paul as his VP.

Those of us who want Gary Johnson are the same ones who wanted Ron Paul before anyone knew anything about him.

[tremendoustie]

Those of us who want Gary Johnson are the same ones who wanted Ron Paul before anyone knew anything about him.

I like Gary Johnson as well, certainly more than Sanford.

[nbhadja]

So the question stands:

What is there in Sanford's record to indicate he is a " 'former' neocon"? :confused:

Voted against war, led the charge against Bush's Real ID, etc....

Mark is unprincipled and a friend of the neocons, as he frequently shows by endorsing neocon scum.

Why support him when we have Gary Johnson, who has principles and endorsed Ron Paul??

You don't get invited to Blinderberg if you are a friend of liberty. He is obviously some type of plant.

[nbhadja]

Affiliation? that's new.

A group invited him to speak (if I remember right, it was ex officio of being elected Republican governors association leader). Do you think Dr. Paul is "affiliated" with every group he's spoken to? By that logic, Dr. Paul is the biggest neo-con out there! :p

The GOP leadership named Mark one of the faces of the GOP along with Palin and one other person.

The GOP leadership only picks globalists. There is a reason they are not backing Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.