SC Gov Mark Sanford

[Ebowed]

Does anyone think South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) would make a good candidate in 2008 or possibly 2012?

[Reaganfan]

I am a Sanford 2008 supporter. He will easily win re-election in 2006, is a governor, popular, Reaganesque, can get nomination. and can be a strong candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He seems better than most Republicans, but I found this on him.

(Sanford) Says on Crossfire that Bush's budget provides "strong backing" for veterans.  But when Paul Begala points out that the budget actually slashes vet benefits to the extent that the VFW calls it "disgraceful, harmful proof that veterans are no longer a priority in this administration," Sanford mumbles, "Um...I haven't seen the details yet."  So...you love the budget but you don't know what's in it?  Meet today's winner of the Golden Waffle Award.

[Erc]

He seems better than most Republicans, but I found this on him.

(Sanford) Says on Crossfire that Bush's budget provides "strong backing" for veterans.  But when Paul Begala points out that the budget actually slashes vet benefits to the extent that the VFW calls it "disgraceful, harmful proof that veterans are no longer a priority in this administration," Sanford mumbles, "Um...I haven't seen the details yet."  So...you love the budget but you don't know what's in it?  Meet today's winner of the Golden Waffle Award.

If the biggest problem this guy has is not knowing the particulars of a budget that isn't even his...

* Erc starts humming Hail to the Chief...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He seems better than most Republicans, but I found this on him.

(Sanford) Says on Crossfire that Bush's budget provides "strong backing" for veterans.  But when Paul Begala points out that the budget actually slashes vet benefits to the extent that the VFW calls it "disgraceful, harmful proof that veterans are no longer a priority in this administration," Sanford mumbles, "Um...I haven't seen the details yet."  So...you love the budget but you don't know what's in it?  Meet today's winner of the Golden Waffle Award.

If the biggest problem this guy has is not knowing the particulars of a budget that isn't even his...

* Erc starts humming Hail to the Chief...

I don't even know the guy's positions yet. He seems to have the same old tired Republican positions on a lot of issues.

You do have to admit he got smacked down there.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Don't be too hard on Sanford.  I would be very skeptical of ANYTHING that Begala says or quotes anyone else as saying.

[AuH2O]

He was a cheerleader in college. Actually we made it to the I-AA national championship one year of his cheerleading, but lost to Georgia Southern.

Needless to say, he is a superb candidate, though for other reasons than his cheering.

[opebo]

Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

[nick]

I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.

[AuH2O]

I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.

And he tops Bush on all counts, one way or another. Well maybe not the Governor part since Texas is a lot bigger than SC.

Thing is, Iowa and NH and still very important. Without a decent showing in Iowa (or NH, but I think the former is more likely), the SC win might be discounted somewhat. Ultimately the question is: does the RNC pick him as their guy? And, if not, does he run anyway?

With establishment backing, Sanford is basically a lock for the nomination and an absolutely overpowering general election candidate, possibly as strong as Reagan. And Reagan was probably the strongest of the 20th century-- FDR only really won 1 election in a blowout, and Eisenhower had very weak opposition.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

[nick]

Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

It would be tough, real tough.  I think the only thing the Democrats would have going for them is the American people will probably be hungry for a political change by 2008.  Would Sanford be impossible to beat? No.  But pretty darn close.  The only real blemish I see on his record is he doesnt support absolute right to gun ownership.

[AuH2O]

Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

It would be tough, real tough.  I think the only thing the Democrats would have going for them is the American people will probably be hungry for a political change by 2008.  Would Sanford be impossible to beat? No.  But pretty darn close.  The only real blemish I see on his record is he doesnt support absolute right to gun ownership.

But the NRA will still back him over a Democrat, and it's not like he's pro-gun control. There are some issues he hasn't dealt with too much (obviously foreign policy, but also bioethical stuff). I imagine he's already thinking about his agenda for '08.

I mean, Bush ran as the reformer in 2004, and he was an incumbent. Sanford will easily run as an 'outsider' and I don't think the party label will hurt him, though certainly events could influence that.

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

[nick]

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

Governor Brady Henry, he could almost Neutralize the Southern/MidWestern, Charming, Christian, thing.  I mean, the guy teaches his kid's sunday school class for christ sake.  Plus, the NRA would probably have to stay neutral in this race considering Henry has an A+ rating from the NRA.

[Sam Spade]

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

Governor Brady Henry, he could almost Neutralize the Southern/MidWestern, Charming, Christian, thing.  I mean, the guy teaches his kid's sunday school class for christ sake.  Plus, the NRA would probably have to stay neutral in this race considering Henry has an A+ rating from the NRA.

Very true.  Of course, the fact remains that it will be about a 1,000 times easier for Sanford to win the GOP nomination and get through the primaries than it will be for Henry to get the Dem nomination and get through the primaries.

Which really is too bad, frankly.  I'd like to have two fairly good nominees for Prez for a change.

[AuH2O]

Henry has to be reelected first. He only got 43% in 2002 and... at the end of the day I tend to think less about specific states or regions and more about overall support. Sure, Henry would do better than Kerry in some places as compared to his national average-- but Kerry's national average wasn't too bad- 48% is way more than Clinton got in '92 and only a little less than in '96.

I haven't seen a lot of potential Dems speak, so some might be better candidates than meets the eye. But all of them face the dreaded Democratic Primary... can a moderate come out of that primary? I don't think so, not in 2008. Sanford doesn't need to change his views really, which not only makes him great primary material, but great general election material.

Brad Henry doesn't waltz around Oklahoma talking about upholding abortion rights. I think you might be surprised how fast his support would evaporate in conservative areas once he had to appeal to New Hampshire Democrats. The same applies for other moderates. The Democrats need someone liberal enough to keep a fairly consistent platform, while still not being too far left.

[nick]

Very true.  Of course, the fact remains that it will be about a 1,000 times easier for Sanford to win the GOP nomination and get through the primaries than it will be for Henry to get the Dem nomination and get through the primaries.

Which really is too bad, frankly.  I'd like to have two fairly good nominees for Prez for a change.

The only real problems Henry will face is, he isnt a lock for re-election and fundraising.  The base actually loves the guy from what I can gather. He supports gun rights and the death penalty, but other than that he is pretty progressive.  He stands with the democrats on public education, health care, taxes etc. 

[A18]

What state is Governor Henry from?

I don't think Sanford is as invincible as you guys are making him out to be. I support the man, and I think he'd make a good president, but it's not as if he's a lock to carry 40 states or anything, heh.

[nick]

What state is Governor Henry from?

I don't think Sanford is as invincible as you guys are making him out to be. I support the man, and I think he'd make a good president, but it's not as if he's a lock to carry 40 states or anything, heh.

Henry is governor of Oklahoma.  Sanford isnt invincible, but he is the strongest potential 2008 candidate from either side.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.

Winning the Iowa caucus didn't help Harkin much in '92.

[Rob]

Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

No. He's secular and relatively pro-choice.

[Rob]

Does anyone think South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) would make a good candidate in 2008 or possibly 2012?  I've met Sanford personally and I think he's a great guy.  Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican.  Maybe he'd make a good VP pick.  That could change my standard endorsement of the Democratic ticket for the last twelve elections, assuming the presidential candidate on the Republican side is as acceptable as Sanford.

Sanford would be a great president... see my signature.

[Ebowed]

Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

No. He's secular and relatively pro-choice.

He might be secular politically, but personally he is Christian.  Also, he is not pro-choice.  He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and transporting minors across a state to get an abortion (at least, according to Issues2000.org).

[Rob]

Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

No. He's secular and relatively pro-choice.

He might be secular politically, but personally he is Christian.  Also, he is not pro-choice.  He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and transporting minors across a state to get an abortion (at least, according to Issues2000.org).

Well, that's fine as long as he doesn't try to impose his beliefs on everyone. And for a Republican from the Deep South... he is somewhat pro-choice.

[12th Doctor]

Dear God, NO!


The Governor of South Carolina?


Why don't we just advertise, "White Southerners Only"?


The only candidates I approve of have to meet three of the following crtiria:

1) Must be from north, midwest or pacific west.

2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

3) Must be or have been a governor, mayor, cabinet member or held some leadership possition.

4) Must be right-of-center on most issues

[Notre Dame rules!]

SuperSoulty,

The only problem with you reasoning, is that it is difficult to find someone from categories 1 and 2 that meets the criteria of category 4.  The only one I can think of is Santorum.  Is that where you are trying to steer this?