Sanford to run for president?

The Newsless Courier ^ | 11/14/08 | Yvonne Wenger

[flib]

There IS a Republican who isn’t stodgy or boring, but he really did not seem to want the POTUS position enought to fight for it. Fred Thompson. Great speaker, funny, alas he does lack the youth factor. ( His wife has that one covered!)

[quadrant]

I doubt that in any meaningful sense, few in the Republican Party are tire liberal statists, as I would define the term. Republicans have always realized the need for the state to act. The Transcontinental Railroad could not have been developed without state assistance. Nor could most of the port facilities in this country. The great state universities are a product of state initiative, as is public education, even with all its flaws. As do the true statists you confuse prudent state action with a state centered ideology - an ideology that turns to the state when other rational solutions are possible.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’d disagree, as many RINOs are indeed the epitome of liberal statism, and there are far too many of those. They oppose any and all substantial changes that must be made to our government and programs. Frankly, those politicians of either party that have increased the size and scope of the government to the monstrosity it is today are nothing to be proud of. A smaller, more responsive and accountable government, one that is taken out of areas it had no business getting involved with, from health care to education, would make this country, and the people, far more efficient, intelligent and stronger.

[rabidralph]

A Palfordal?

[tang-soo]

On these kind of threads, I always try to guess how long it takes for the picture I’m thinking of to be posted. For this one, I guessed within 5 - right on the button.

[quadrant]

Which substantial changes do you believe has a chance of passing Congress?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Nothing of a positive nature in the coming Congress, that’s for sure.

[quadrant]

Having been a lobbyist, I can tell you the chances are slim of eliminating any program in any administration. One might trim them around the edges but outright elimination is all but impossible.

You have to understand that thousands of bills are introduced each year and only a tiny few survive to be enacted into law; the situation is similar to the dozens of baby crocs that hatch but only one or two survive to adulthood. Those bills that do survive are the fittest of the fit; each has a built in constituency that live on the money and will fight to keep the money flowing.

The only thing you can do is to kill these bills before they're hatched. If you want a program to kill, try the expansion of health care because if that gets passed, it will grow into an all devouring croc.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Oh, I understand. There’s that line about there being nothing more permanent than a DC gov’t program. That’s why it is a terrifying thought what this incoming Congress will do. I expect it to be the most moonbat in history, perhaps tying or exceeding the nightmarish 89th Congress (1965-67) of LBJ’s, and with no real opposition numbers to stop it. But, in saying that, we need to start to recruit, run, and win offices with candidates that have an absolute committment to REAL change and shrinking, reforming, or outright eliminating programs and departments. The Republicans squandered prime opportunities to do so, but there are far too many that believe in massive government. Those individuals need to be swiftly taken out. The era of Republicans merely “managing” bad Democrat programs and policy must end for good.

[quadrant]

I have no objection to what you wish to do. I know that doing it is all but impossible, except in the midst of a great catastrophe, which I cannot wish on the country.

[Impy]

Lincoln and Hamilton would stroke out if they saw what the government has become. Sanford would like to counteract some of that ***t.

[quadrant]

I'm certain Sanford would; Lets see him derail the expansion of health care that is coming.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Catastrophe will occur if we don’t, so either way, it will have to be done eventually. Either do it while the ill-effects are minimal or wait decades until the nation is bankrupt and the ill-effects are substantial.

[quadrant]

Let me explain this to you as simply as possible. Read carefully and think of the consequences of what I write.

National heath insurance - or anything resembling it - would be the greatest fiscal catastrophe ever to hit this country. Once, I was told be a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, that reforming Social Security was easy compared with reforming Medicare. Social Security, he said, was just money, but Medicare involved the health of your grandmother, a far more sensitive subject as one can always get more money but one has but two grandmothers. Anyone who thinks that controlling spending on national health care, he added, would be easy is a fool. Look at countries that have the program: the demands for more spending are all but impossible to resist and trimming spending is all but impossible. If legislators think denying money for education is difficult due to the opposition of teachers, what until they try to cut health care spending in the face of opposition by doctors and nurses.
Simply put: we don't have the money NOW for anything resembling national health care - and in the future we will be less likely than at present to afford such a boondoggle.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Oh, I know, and I do expect the Democrats to move on nationalized health care in the 111th Congress. These liberals don’t care what kind of wreckage it will cause the economy. It’s about breeding dependence and expanding entitlement programs to make the bulk of the citizenry slaves, for lack of a better word.

They have these delusions of Scandinavian-style Socialism (at best) and full on Soviet-style Marxism (at worst), none of which can ever work (and the only reason it “worked” for a brief period in Scandinavian countries was because the population was small, ethnically homogenous, and fairly well-to-do... it’d be like a state-sized program implemented here. But now they’re having to scale back because of the enormous costs and it is nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme, with foreigners (many of which are Mohammadans with absolutely no interest in assimilation — except of the infidels) having to be brought in to keep the scheme going, the cost of which is going to add up to cultural genocide.

It’s truly a shame that the GOP acted so fiscally reckless under Dubya, with Dubya himself doing little to rein it in. If they had acted in a more responsible manner, we might not find ourselves in the horror that is about to be unleashed in January... and with the retention of the same failed Congressional leadership, I have no faith we’ll be able to mount an aggressive challenge to stop it.

[quadrant]

Democrats don't care because they are driven by the puerile desire to have what the want because they want it. They consider health care a right and it a shame that the “US is the only industrialized country without a national health insurance program.” They see national health insurance as the logical and progressive extension of the New Deal programs of FDR.
Democrats don't care what the program cost or the problems that it will cause. They don't care about the evidence to the contrary, especially in other countries. They want the power to regulate this area of national life. They know that once the program is put in place, large parts of the US electorate (esp the middle class) will be bound to the Democratic Party with ties that can never be broken.
National health insurance may be in the worst interest of the country, but Democrats see it in their best interest. In other words they demand to put their party interest ahead of the country's interest - and to wrap their demands in the most moving and emotional rhetoric that the human mind can create.

I agree the Republican Party has not acted responsibly in many instances. In the middle of an unpopular but necessary war, its difficult to maintain party discipline. GWB and the Republicans could have done many things, but this war in Iraq is so essential to the future of the US that making certain that it is won had to take priority.

I agree with your comments about Social Security but the system is with us now. Baring a national disaster, it will remain with us. The task now is to make certain it doesn't grow into an all consuming monster.

[Impy]

A pity Buhs failed at multitasking. At least he tried with Social Security.

[quadrant]

Mutitasking is all but impossible in the middle of a war.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It’s why the Republicans need to fight back relentlessly, not just with facts and figures, but using emotion, too. The former alone just won’t cut it. But we’ve just squandered so much... so many prime opportunities lost...

[quadrant]

I agree. The Party must acknowledge its mistakes, take a deep breath, marshal its strength, and then watch closely. Sooner or later, Obama will make a mistake - he'll overreach himself - then hammer him with everything available.