Sanford: The Realignment Candidate

Adam Weinberg said:
I'm not sure he's much more socially conservative than Ron Paul. He's not a Mike Huckabee from what I can tell.

Obviously, I think we should live and let live myself, but I'm unsure if that's something the party will achieve in only four years. The only really socially liberal candidate in '08 was Giuliani, and how socially liberal can you really be with a civil liberties and war position like that?

I'd rather the candidate be ostensibly conservative on some cultural issues as long as they were a President focused on other priorities for the country, than to be an outright liberal and not stand for anything else important.
Click to expand...

Go with Joe the Plumber. He's your best chance.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/09/00006/

It's been a point of discussion for years that Sanford might be the next standard bearer for the limited-government wing of the conservative/libertarian movement.

I found the above article from the American Conservative to be some of the most reassuring material on his potential in quite a while. As you all know, much as I like free markets and low taxes, questions of foreign policy and civil liberties are a litmus test for me for what should be representative of the Republican/Conservative brand.

It appears for the moment that Sanford has many of the same views on the issues (opposition to Iraq and civil libertarianism) and has simply been prudent in not yet taking to the national Republican stage to articulate them before their time for the mainstream.

On the economic front, as I expected, the bailout (they call it TARP now) was not a one-time intervention that would prevent financial panic and save the marketplace for future generations. Sanford at the moment may be the most visible opponent of the current pro-debt, pro-corporate economic policies being pursued in Washington as a Governor who is bucking the stimulus for reasons he considers of national importance outweighing even his duties in state office.

If you read the article, you'll see that he certainly isn't perfectly polished, but I think that's a redeeming quality in some ways. The GOP would be mistaken for continuing much longer with the idea that they need a new Ronald Reagan.

He just needs to be a problem-solver for the times who can demonstrate independent thought from party and large interests. If he doesn't break the mold for the Republican Party, he has no business being its candidate in 2012, nor does anyone else.

And with that said, it's okay if a candidate like Sanford loses in the general election as long as he's able to demonstrate a change in priorities for the party. A loss will still move the party forward if it loses on the right issues.

The Republican Party's vision for the future has to be critical, but it also has to be downright practical.

Sanford could be an anti-Obama who can level with people more effectively than a Ron Paul. He lacks all of Obama's grandiosity, and all of Ron Paul's bookish nature without acting in ignorance of the country's real and many problems.

Quite possibly the most important attribute that Sanford and the sitting President share, which the conservative movement needs in order to expand, is the ability to practically and rationally explain why their policies will help average people of all backgrounds to improve their lives.

The whole playbook has to be thrown out and the Republicans have to find the populist message that can create a realignment for themselves and the country.
Click to expand...

SANFORD? Mark Sanford from South Carolina?

Adam you've got to be kidding me, right?

He's an ideologue. We need another ideologue like we need a hole in the head. How about some one with a platform on governing affectively, efficiently, competently and not ideologically.

Besides, I've heard the man talk in Cola when he was running for Governor. I was deeply impressed by his not being the sharpest pencil in the box. I was amazed that he was elected Governor and flabergasted that he was elected Senator. Say what you want to about Strom Thurmond, the man was very competent and was a master at constituent service. Mark Sanford? How could you possibly expect anything but a slightly less competent version of George W. Bush?

Come on Adam, you can't be serious? You're pulling our legs, right?
 
The republican party is a joke now. Now that we're embedded in the middle east, the repukes are no longer needed. The r's will only put up joke candidates from here on in.
 
Damocles said:
I don't know enough about him to take a solid point of view on his candidacy.

If he is fiscally conservative and doesn't care about Adam and Steve he'd likely get some strong support from me.
Click to expand...

He's pretty much a George W. Bush conservative on social issues. Not as far to the right as the Huckster but one hell of a far cry from the center.

I would make this comparison. Sanford, George W Bush and I have this in common. Were all 3 dangerously underqualified to be president.
 
Mottleydude said:
I would make this comparison. Sanford, George W Bush and I have this in common. Were all 3 dangerously underqualified to be president.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I jumped the gun. I'm not saying the guy is absolutely the right candidate. But I hope you understand if I'm excited that the GOP has an actual chance to nominate a candidate who can leave the policies of the 2000s behind, namely on foreign policy, civil liberties and the economy.

I appreciate the input about your perspective on Mark Sanford, because I really don't know more about him than is generally available information.

I understand also the concern about having an ideologically rigid President, but right now I would much rather have a stubborn ass with veto pen than a President who is soliciting so much unprecedented legislation without a Congress questioning what he is doing.

And as I've said before, I think this happened in the Bush years and will happen again in the Obama years.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Well, maybe I jumped the gun. I'm not saying the guy is absolutely the right candidate. But I hope you understand if I'm excited that the GOP has an actual chance to nominate a candidate who can leave the policies of the 2000s behind, namely on foreign policy, civil liberties and the economy.

I appreciate the input about your perspective on Mark Sanford, because I really don't know more about him than is generally available information.

I understand also the concern about having an ideologically rigid President, but right now I would much rather have a stubborn ass with veto pen than a President who is soliciting so much unprecedented legislation without a Congress questioning what he is doing.

And as I've said before, I think this happened in the Bush years and will happen again in the Obama years.
Click to expand...

Time will tell with Obama, he's only been in office a very short time and is dealing with an inherited crisis. I'll give him two years as I did Bush. I didn't become proactively hostile towards Bush until the dumb ass invaded Iraq.

Being a stubborn ass isn't an issue. Truman was a stubborn ass and a highly affective one at that although in his time he was nearly as unpopular as Bush. But come on. Being able to run a government effectively, to deliver the mail on time, build roads, repair bridges, educate my kids, defend our shores and understanding the administration of the law are important services to be done competently. I just don't see that ability in Mark Sanford. Mark Warner yes but Mark Sanford? I don't think so! LOL
 
Adam Weinberg said:
But I hope you understand if I'm excited that the GOP has an actual chance to nominate a candidate who can leave the policies of the 2000s behind, namely on foreign policy, civil liberties and the economy.
.
Click to expand...


Translation:

All I care about is Zionism, Discriminating against white people, and globalization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top