Mark Sanford refers to Newt Gingrich as "my former boss, so to speak?"

[max]

What a total ass-clown Sanford is. He deprecates his Congressional tenure as being "a young pup while Newt was my boss so-to-speak." He is still deferring to Newt.

You can't take an oath to obey the Constitution and obey a party boss, neo-con shithead like Newt at the same time.

Where in the constitution does it say that a congressman takes orders from party leaders? A "pup freshman" is not subordinate to another Congressman anymore than a given district is subordinate to another district.

This party loyalty crap that washington warned us about is going to destroy us..

Sanford is still submissive to Newt. Listen to the tone and body language that he displays to his master......"young pup"...about a minute in...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gingrich-attack-north-korea-with-electromagnetic-pulse.html

[0zzy]

wow. really? calm down. Newt was the HOUSE SPEAKER. He was the "boss, so to speak." It isn't about party loyalty.

And he was a young pup, geewizz, calm the hell down. people overreact here too much.

[RSLudlum]

wow. really? calm down. Newt was the HOUSE SPEAKER. He was the "boss, so to speak." It isn't about party loyalty.

And he was a young pup, geewizz, calm the hell down. people overreact here too much.

I hear ya loud n clear but both Newt and Sanford were suggesting pre-emptive acts of war on NK. If that's not something to get worked up about, I don't know what is.

[ChickenHawk]

wow. really? calm down. Newt was the HOUSE SPEAKER. He was the "boss, so to speak." It isn't about party loyalty.

And he was a young pup, geewizz, calm the hell down. people overreact here too much.

We need to discredit anyone with a strong libertarian agenda that might break into the mainstream. If this movement becomes mainstream it will ruin it. We can only support "pure" libertarians because they have no way of becoming mainstream.

[max]

wow. really? calm down. Newt was the HOUSE SPEAKER. He was the "boss, so to speak." It isn't about party loyalty.

And he was a young pup, geewizz, calm the hell down. people overreact here too much.

if you watch the video...u can see how pathetically submissive Sanford remains towards Newt.....

i know the GOP establishment and the NY Times are going to exhalt Jindal or sanford as the "conservatives" in 2010

we don't need guys like that..

[max]

We need to discredit anyone with a strong libertarian agenda that might break into the mainstream. If this movement becomes mainstream it will ruin it. We can only support "pure" libertarians because they have no way of becoming mainstream.

nobody "breaks into the mainstream"....they are pulled in by the powers that be.

I forget who once wrote..."All that is necessary to maintain power is for the elites to occasionally open the trap door to paradise and let some of the dissidents in."

The fact that a POS like Chris wallace would even have sanford on and be so cordial towards him is all the proof you need that sanford is a sellout....(not to mention his attendance at last year's Bildeberg meeting)

[ChickenHawk]

nobody "breaks into the mainstream"....they are pulled in by the powers that be.

I forget who once wrote..."All that is necessary to maintain power is for the elites to occasionally open the trap door to paradise and let some of the dissidents in."

The fact that a POS like Chris wallace would even have sanford on and be so cordial towards him is all the proof you need that sanford is a sellout....(not to mention his attendance at last year's Bildeberg meeting)

If you believe that then why would you ever be involved in politics? Also, you would have to call Ron Paul a sell-out too. After all he is a elected member of Congress an institution run by the powers that be. The real reason people that agree with you on the most important (to you) issues is because those positions are wildly unpopular and probably always will be.

[MCockerill08]

If you believe that then why would you ever be involved in politics? Also, you would have to call Ron Paul a sell-out too. After all he is a elected member of Congress an institution run by the powers that be. The real reason people that agree with you on the most important (to you) issues is because those positions are wildly unpopular and probably always will be.

It's fine "breaking through" to the MSM and w/e, and trying to change their ideas.

the problem is when we acqueisce to evil, and change OUR OWN IDEAS to match the state's evil ones. Sanford clearly is doing this with his pathetic brown-nosing to the morally bankrupt Gingrich.

We don't need another Reagan. i'd rather wait for Schiff, Rand, or whoever than vote for a pro-war person.

[max]

If you believe that then why would you ever be involved in politics? Also, you would have to call Ron Paul a sell-out too. After all he is a elected member of Congress an institution run by the powers that be. The real reason people that agree with you on the most important (to you) issues is because those positions are wildly unpopular and probably always will be.

RP is where he is in spite of the establishment trying to keep him out of congress.
But congressional districts are small, so every so often a good man can still sneak in and hold a seat..

But on a national level, you get nowhere unless the MSM promotes you, and annoints you as one of the "front runners". That's why RP was ignored in spite of his historic fundraising....the elite hate him

Trust me. You will know a good man by the amount of abuse, ridicule, and/or deliberate silence that his campaign receives.

By this simple test, as well as his words....sanford has already proven himself unworthy to RP's legacy.

[silverhawks]

We need to discredit anyone with a strong libertarian agenda that might break into the mainstream. If this movement becomes mainstream it will ruin it. We can only support "pure" libertarians because they have no way of becoming mainstream.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

You call this libertarian? You're watching a bit too much Glenn Beck :)

# No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
# Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)
# Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
# Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
# Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
# Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
# More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
* Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
* Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
# Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
# Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
# Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Oh, and libertarians are for pre-emptive strikes on other nations as well. That Bush guy, what a great libertarian.

What does everyone know Sanford for? Because several news networks have reported he is "trying" to pay down the debt of his state with TARP, and he tried to get a free market voucher system for education installed in South Carolina...however, I can't find legislation that says that, but I can find:

# Endorses teacher-led prayer & displaying Ten Commandments. (Nov 2002)
# Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
# Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

And of course, we know him because he endorsed and campaigned for John McCain.

What I see when I look at this isn't a libertarian - its a borderline neo-con conservative with enough libertarian "leaning" to look like a libertarian - in other words a LINO.

Want to see a REAL libertarian agenda?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Michael_Badnarik.htm

[silverhawks]

What a total ass-clown Sanford is. He deprecates his Congressional tenure as being "a young pup while Newt was my boss so-to-speak." He is still deferring to Newt.

Well of course, that's because Sanford is the "youthful enthusiasm" to Gingrich's "wisdom and experience" for the Presidential ticket of the neo-con/libertarian party you'll see materialise before 2012, when they develop "irreconcilable differences" with the dead-on-its-feet Republican party.
I mean come on, how much more obvious do you want the networks to make it? People are asking Newt: "What would President Gingrich do?"

[angelatc]

It's fine "breaking through" to the MSM and w/e, and trying to change their ideas.

the problem is when we acqueisce to evil, and change OUR OWN IDEAS to match the state's evil ones. Sanford clearly is doing this with his pathetic brown-nosing to the morally bankrupt Gingrich.

We don't need another Reagan. i'd rather wait for Schiff, Rand, or whoever than vote for a pro-war person.

You're going to wait forever. We got to this point incrementally. We're not going to change back overnight.

[MCockerill08]

You're going to wait forever. We got to this point incrementally. We're not going to change back overnight.

I don't know whether it will take forever, but I do know I'm not getting behind someone who supports John McCain and bombing countries that haven't attacked us.