Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sanford to run for president?
The Newsless Courier ^ | 11/14/08 | Yvonne Wenger

Posted on 11/14/2008 10:43:59 AM PST by Salo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: upchuck

If Obama gives us a repeat history of the 4 years of Jimmy Carter, as I think he will, it will be time in 2012 to throw the bums out. In fact, its already time to throw them out. Sanford would be great but there may be many great candidates. How about Gen. Petraeus for one?


41 posted on 11/14/2008 8:04:14 PM PST by doosee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

There isn’t a single Republican who isn’t stodgy and boring. We have no one who is charismatic enough to lead the party much less the country. We need youth and charisma plus knowledge to win the White House again. We can’t even control Congress with in fighting. Republicans need to learn that there is no such thing as absolute black or white but infinite shades of black, gray and white. Sometime you have to give to get.


42 posted on 11/14/2008 8:54:41 PM PST by dixie sass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued

Where the heck was Sanford? If he ran for President, he would have easily won over 50% of the GOP primary and sent Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain packing after Super Tuesday.

Could he have defeated the False Messiah? Hard to say. Sanford would have had much more grass root support and money than McCain. Plus Sanford’s outside status with DC would make it more difficult for Obama to tie him with Bush. Sanford left Congress when Bush was sworn in. OTOH, the economic crisis made people angry with all Republicans. So Sanford could have been drowned by anti-GOP sentiment.

For the future, I think the GOP should have a by-law forbidding current Senators and US House reps from running for Presidents. Republicans do best when they nominate outsiders from DC.


43 posted on 11/14/2008 9:06:56 PM PST by yongin (Converting people to Mormonism makes the world more conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: yongin

Sanford didn’t run because he’s not an egotist. He served his 6 year sentence in DC and got out. We’d have had to draft him to run for President. Always remember the ones who really DON’T want to serve are the ones we want as President.

I’ll take it a step further and say no Republican should even be allowed to declare for President. There should be an individual draft movement for each candidate... and they CANNOT be paid by said candidate or fund traced to them (meaning NO Slick Willards).


44 posted on 11/14/2008 9:15:44 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Gov. Sanford is the real Maverick, from Wikipedia:
In 1994, Sanford entered the Republican primary for the Charleston-based 1st Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. The seat had come open after four-term incumbent Arthur Ravenel gave it up to make an unsuccessful run for governor. Despite having never run for office before, he finished second in a crowded primary behind Van Hipp, Jr, a former George H. W. Bush Administration official. Sanford defeated Hipp in the runoff, and breezed to victory in November. He was reelected twice, both times facing only minor-party opposition.

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. 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 was listed in the House roll as “R-Charleston,” even though he lived on Sullivan’s Island.[3][4][5]


45 posted on 11/15/2008 4:54:01 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Salo

Sanford/Palin or Jidal could be the ticket...I especially like the outside the beltway and “citizen-legislator” flavor of this type of Conservative GOP. Sanford is not hungry for political power and will need to be pulled into a run for the Presidency...much like Reagan.


46 posted on 11/15/2008 4:57:30 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixie sass
Stodgy and boring is not an issue. Its Sanford's lack of imagination and commitment to Republican principles that date back to the time of Lincoln.
47 posted on 11/15/2008 5:09:19 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush

More important than speaking ability Mark Sanford has the rare aility to truly listen. I know this personally from discussions with him on several occasions.


48 posted on 11/15/2008 5:18:52 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salo

Mark Sanford is to real for America. We are looking for handouts and B/S. Mark Sanford is well before his time and the one thing that most do not want,he speaks the truth and is to realistic for our make believe country.


49 posted on 11/15/2008 5:27:55 AM PST by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush

Look what a smooth talking Liberal with Zero experience can get you....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually, uh, a liberal, uh, doesn’t, uh, really, uh, wait a minute, uh, I can’t hear myself, uh, I’m glad youre fired up though, uh, sometimes, uh can be, uh, is this Porky Pig syndrome or, uh what is it, uh, it would cost, uh, it would cost about, uh, where is my cocaine?


50 posted on 11/15/2008 6:15:15 AM PST by RipSawyer (Great Grandpa was a Confederate soldier from the cradle of secession.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: personalaccts

Hey, some of us Yankees are rabid conservatives and moved south to get away from the liberal mess the north has made. Please don’t label us all the same.


51 posted on 11/15/2008 9:44:56 AM PST by Lynne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

What specific Republican principles does he lack?


52 posted on 11/15/2008 9:59:22 AM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Historically, the Republican Party has never been a Jeffersonian Party committed to minimalist government. Lets not forget the Lincoln was a Whig, the political descendants of of Alexander Hamilton. Whigs believed in a federal government that could act, that could make internal improvements when needed. Sanford is far more of a Jeffersonian Democrat than Lincoln Republican.
53 posted on 11/15/2008 10:17:31 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

It would seem then that Goldwater and Reagan we Jeffersonian Democrat as well.


54 posted on 11/15/2008 10:30:30 AM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Not so. Both Goldwater and Reagan recognized the need for strong government, for a government that could act. They opposed a government acting in a way that was guaranteed to fail. Ever since the govt got into the health care business, the system has lurched from one crisis to another, a fact that both men predicted.
55 posted on 11/15/2008 11:21:21 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

Huh?


56 posted on 11/15/2008 2:26:40 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Then don’t patronize threads such as these.

We political junkies can’t help ourselves. :o


57 posted on 11/15/2008 2:27:55 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2132659/posts

Palin or Sanford, much better choice than McLame or Hominy.


58 posted on 11/15/2008 2:30:10 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

He’s not a liberal statist. That’s why he’s one of our best, if not the best, Governor in the country.


59 posted on 11/15/2008 4:37:30 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

I wasn’t speaking of just Sanford. I was speaking of the party in general. About Palin, well, the “good old boys” in the party did same thing that is done in both parties when it comes to a smart savvy woman who is better equipped to run for president than any man available.


60 posted on 11/15/2008 6:40:15 PM PST by dixie sass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson