Redstate

else about him before other than the 2 hogs her brought into the Capitol, but I like what I hear so far....

A veto, what a novel idea, someone ought to tell that to the current resident at 1600 Penn Ave.

Sanford is the guy I started to consider backing.  If Rice ends up keeping her word, I'd probably vote for Sanford in a primary.

that Sanford declared he wasn't running, though... I have not been able to find any evidence of this, however.  Anyone have any other details?

Sanford.  Let me know if you hear differently.  But I think that he's leaving the door open.

StevenK, on his diary here, said Sanford has declared himself a "non-candidate."  That's all the info I've got, and haven't been able to find anything other than this statement.

http://stevenk.redstate.org/story/2005/7/20/205623/137

It is not just his conservative stance on the issues, but it is the manner in which he is governing.  The state legislature is heavily Republican, and yet Sanford continues to wield his veto pen.  He is aggressive, and he maximizes all the tools at his disposal (including the media with the piglet stunt).  What a good education for a future GOP President that we hope will have to deal with GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate for years to come.  

If ever there was a project worthy of the RedState community, it would be a draft Sanford campaign.  Without Jeb Bush in the race, he really is the only small-government, fiscal conservative candidate that is also solid on the important social issues.

It is still very early, and I'm still trying to get my mind around a lot of the short list candidates and the dynamics of the 2008 race before commenting too heavily on it.  That said, however, Sen. John Kyl would be an absolutely phenomenal candidate (hat tip to Leon) because he is both sound on the fiscal and the social issues and agressive on the Senate floor (using holds often). In addition, he strikes me as a be big-thinking kind of politician.  Now, I don't think anyone would suggest that Kyl has any interest in running for President in 2008 or ever, but so long as we are talking about who we wish would run, he deserves to be in the conversation.  

But I'm still not convinced.

The way that Cheney, Rice, and Jeb declared themselves to be "non-candidates" was much more convincing.

Sanford may be a "non-candidate" now, but if the right people were to talk to him, he may become a candidate. (Something that non-candidates are allowed to do.)

The Republican Liberty Caucus has started a "draft Sanford" movement: http://www.republicanliberty.org/Sanford08/

Another 'unknown' blogger has also started a site: http://www.geocities.com/draftsanford/news001.html

You guys have got to be kidding! Running a Republican from SC is like running a Dem from Berkeley.

I live in SC and the reason Sanford is able to veto all that "pork" is because the state is larded up with federal pork.

SC is a backwards fundamentalist state that is still arguing over confederate flags and the civil war.

Please don't use the word "fundamentalist" unless you understand what it means.

While you may have a good point, this is perhaps not the best way to go about saying it.

What is wrong with that? I mean the state is the home to Bob Jones and lots of other fundamentalists. Is fundamentalist now a bad word?

And it doesn't apply to most of the inhabitants of that state.

Used perjoratively, it's a sign that you're not here to engage in good faith debate, but rather to insult posters and spew Known Facts.

I called no one here a fundamentalist.

Hey, I live here, day in and day out. I work with residents of SC, all my family is here and the fact is that the residents of the state are largely fundamentalist.

This guy would probably take issue with being called a no one. As would this one. Drop your shovel, climb out of your hole, and move on to another topic.

What do you think a fundamentalist is? I have friends and family in South Carolina, and I checked out the religious breakdown. I assert that you are literally wrong.

It is also clear that you connote "fundamentalism" with rascism and with being "backwards."

SC is a backwards fundamentalist state that is still arguing over confederate flags and the civil war.

While the term fundamentalism may have been completely hijacked by liberals by now, historically it has simply meant in the religious setting someone who is an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible is fundamental or inerrant.  Now you may disagree with that theology, but it is a valid viewpoint.  Please see J.I. Packer's, "Fundamentalism and the Word of God."

By mentioning Bob Jones in particular, my guess is that you are referring to his school's past policies with regard to race.  I don't agree with these policies nor do I believe they are faithful to a proper understanding of scripure.  So kindly, please understand your terms and do not equate fundamentalism with being backwards and/or rascist simply because you disagree with the viewpoint.  

is seeing everything in black and white. People here seem to have a canny inability to discern the truth from fiction. Rumors are held as truth and truth as a rumor.

I guess the biggest and clearest definition of a fundamentalist is one who takes a bible verse and makes it mean what they want it to mean. Or they use a bible verse out of context to use.

There was a big deal here a number of years ago when Jesus Christ Superstar was in a traveling show. People bought ads denouncing the show as a product of the devil. Do you think that kind of thing is mainstream?

I wasn't equating all three together. Of course, there is overlap i.e. some fundamentalists are racists but because someone is a fundamentalist does not mean they are a racist.

I see fundamentalism as separate from evangelicism, though, there is some overlap here too.

Simply put, fundamentalism is respecting words in scripture for what they are in their proper context.  It is most certainly not proof texting or taking a Bible verse out of its context and wielding it in debate to prove a particular viewpoint.  Learn what you are talking about; don't just spew.  

And what does your Jesus Christ Superstar blurb have to do with anything?

And you clearly do not. This is a very good, if brief, exposition. Don't bother with Wikipedia; it got overrun at some point.

What "fundamentalism" is not:

Fundamentalism is seeing everything in black and white. People here seem to have a canny inability to discern the truth from fiction. Rumors are held as truth and truth as a rumor.

This is mere bigotry speaking.

This:

I guess the biggest and clearest definition of a fundamentalist is one who takes a bible verse and makes it mean what they want it to mean. Or they use a bible verse out of context to use.

Isn't even good enough to be called that.

There was a big deal here a number of years ago when Jesus Christ Superstar was in a traveling show. People bought ads denouncing the show as a product of the devil. Do you think that kind of thing is mainstream?

I suspect most Americans would approve, shrug, or not even notice. That would be a good definition of "mainstream" to my mind.

as in Redstate. Are you saying that particular guy is a fundamentalist?

you ever been to a fundamentalist church? Your definition is the textbook definition but not the real world application.

I truly wish it was bigotry. I would feel a lot better if it were that simple.

Did you know that Bob Jones tells its students that Jesus didn't really drink wine? I had a BJU grad working for me for quite a while and I learned more than I probably wanted to know about this stuff.

Seems to me that's pretty much twisting a bible verse to mean what you want it to mean.

And have been to many Protestant churches, most of which you'd incorrectly describe as fundamentalist.

You're still wrong.

Keep trying.

He wasn't a fundamentalist.

to draw a sweeping characterization of SC.

"SC is a backwards fundamentalist state that is still arguing over confederate flags and the civil war."

Sounds to me like you have issues with a few things.

I'll leave you to Thomas and Leon.

but undeniably true. Sometimes the truth hurts.

I go to a church committed to the doctrine of inerrancy.  So according to a proper historical understanding, I go to a fundamentalist church.  The real world application of the term is wrong and insulting, and we ought not to perpetuate its misuse.  That's my point. I certainly share your frustration with evangelical churches who claim faithfulness to the Bible but do shoddy exegesis.  Let's just be more precise in our terms.

And that's your one bite. If you'd actually like to debate here, be polite. That doesn't mean "agree," it means "spare us the stupid snark." You're too new here to get by with that.

By the way, the Life is Not Fair Principle applies here.

Baptist?

We do exist. And we also know what is, and is not, a Fundamentalist.

I have mainline, Mormon, Baptist, pentecostal, evangelical, and, yes, fundamentalist relatives, as well as God only know what else.

Hi Caroline, I hope you are the same person from Gerry's site (plug for dalythoughts.com)....

Now, play nice here :)

Cheers!

as you continue to spew forth your nonsense, you are only digging yourself a deeper hole.

You might want to read the sight a while and get to know those of us that visit on a regular basis.  Some of us happen to hail from the South, and have even lived in the Carolina Lowcountry.  We don't take kindly to those that would insult us and our heritage.

Maybe before you crap on our carpet again, you should recompose your posts into something a little more worthwhile.

My number one choice.

1. He's a FISCAL Conservative.
   
   
2. He's Pro-2nd Amendment.
   
   
3. He's pro-life.
   
   
4. He's a governor - and governors win.
   
   
5. He'll stand up to his own party if he has too - and from the right wing.

that fundamentalism is most prevalent in Southern Baptists but some of my family members are Presbyterians. One presbyterian church is fundamentalist and one is not.

so if he engaged in some "triangulation" you would support him? That's what your statement says to me.

using the term as an insult, but this post is actually very accurate.  I would just take out "most" out of "most prevalent." Some Southern Baptists are committed to inerrancy and some just think they are.  The same goes with Presbyterians churches.  

me. I live in SC and grew up here. Perhaps you should read my other comment where I state that information.

BTW, the Lowcountry is different from the upstate.

Pretty soon your hole is going to swallow you.

I'm not using the term as an insult. Is there another term to use? I meaning to use it as a descriptive adjective but I have no other word. Do you have one?

comments.  All of them.  Just because you happen to be a resident doesn't mean you can trash the state or unfairly characterize it.

Last time I checked, the lowcountry was still very much a part of that state you just called backwards.

Not trying to be insulting?

Your first post on here was nothing but one big insult to everyone posting in this thread.

Did you learn your manners from Markos or Atrios?

Someone who used to live here and visits sometimes thinks I don't have a right to criticize my state? Well, I would have to say it looks like your the one digging the hole.

Take your pick.  You get the point.  

I don't see anything triangulation there. Those are mainstream conservative issues where I'm from - a strong fiscal conservative, and center-right on social issues.

It's more likely he would keep the triangulators in check in Washington - except that the piglets would be too small there after the recent pork barrelled bipartisan boondoggle.

That's like saying did you learn manners from Free Republic?

So no one is allowed to state their opinion. Okay, gotcha.

you have a different understanding of triangulation than I do. I understand triagulation as standing up to the extremists in the party base.

c17wife has earned her snark. You have not. If you actually want to post here, back off, walk away, and try posting nicely. You do not need to agree, you need to be polite in your disagreement.

Put differently, your next piece of snark is your banning.

right to show up here, insult those participating in the thread and then take the high ground because you live in the state.

That would be like me saying that Washington is full of nothing but pinko-commie moonbats.  An unfair characterization of the state, but representative of some of the residents of King County.

Are you so dense that you don't get it?

Should we warn her that I did learn my manners at Free Republic?

Nick, I've learned some of my best snark from you.  :)  Not that Thomas hasn't helped too.  :)

I know, I've still got along way to go though.

Let's just say, ya'll inspire me.  :)

don't think the party base is extreme.  We think the party faithful generally represents conservatism pretty well.  If you think conservatism = extremism, then RedState may seem like foreign land for you.  

Mark Sanford is simply not a triangulator.  If we had to come up with a Republican example, you would probably look to Guiliani or McCain or even perhaps Santorum (I'm thinking of his love for the steel bailout and tariffs, minimum wage hike, etc.).  

President Bush is social conservative on the life issue to get the pro-life vote and leans right on guns.

He's anti-tax, but is a big spender to placate some of the economic liberals and reduce the dems charge of "Starving kids" which the dems tried to do to my governor John Engler in 1994.  

It was able to help him win states like West Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

Triangulation to me = mushy moderate.

And there's only two things in the middle of the road. Roadkill, and a yellow stripe. :)  

Well if you've read my diary, that means that you know that I'm a huge supporter of a Sanford presidency, as he is one of the "Big Four" as I like to call it.  Any of these four would be able to unite all the wings of the Republican Party.

Bill Owens, Jeb Bush, Mark Sanford, and Tim Pawlenty

However, I'm going by politics1.com on his candidacy.

You can email them for clarification if you want, like I did for Bill Owens, but they were able to back up their claim for Owens.

I'd say he'll probably not run because of his four sons (all under the age of 12) - Marshall, 11, Landon, 10, Bolton, 8 and Blake, 5.

Off topic, but Bolton Sanford... is that a good or bad name?  Either way, pretty sweet nickname: Bolt.

Here's a little conspiracy I've cooked up:

Who owns sanford08.com?

Its the Republican Liberty Caucus, a "national grassroots organization affiliated with the Republican Party".  It currently has eight members elected in congress.  So it's not really that big a deal.

The disheartening other conspiracy I have is that Sanford is very much so not considering a 2008 run.  Why?  Because he seems to not have any relationship with any of the owners of the other obvious campaign sites, unlike most politicians who are even considering a run.

this would work if they were untaught. My cousins were taught in their Southern Baptist Churches that african americans are the spawn of the devil. So would you say taught wrong?

So I guess I could say SC is a state where the majority of people have been taught wrong?

But Sanford has been standing up to the pork politics of both parties, not to his extreme.  Although I do wish being a pork politician was considered extreme, alas, it is commonplace.

Sanford has shown that his principles are stronger than his partisan loyalty.  Since I agree with his principles, that is very inspiring to me.

live in SC? If you do, I'm curious to know what you think about the residual bitterness from some of the Peeler supporters? I was surprised to find it still exists.

Umm.. they're both from South Carolina. You called them fundamentalists, whether they are or not.

I don't have the great pleasure to live in such a beautiful place.  I'm originally from OK (where my allegiances lie), live in DC now, and I'm moving to Chicago imminently.

I have been to SC and spent a bit of time there (as well as all over the South).  But alas, I don't know much about the overall political scene.  Sanford caught my eye when he brought the pigs, "Pork" and "Barrel", to the state legislature.  I started reading up more on him.  When I saw this article detailing more of his longstanding fiscal conservatism and especially his use of the veto, it seemed like a good diary to talk about the need for a committed fiscal conservative to be our nominee in 2008 before we totally lose our claim to fiscal conservatism.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the local scene here or in your own diary entry.  I know Sanford has a re-election bid in 2006 where he faces a primary challenger but I don't know much about the situation.  I presume we won't hear about his '08 prospects until well after the 2006 election.  But that won't stop me from pushing him along with Jeb Bush, Bill Owens, Tim Pawlenty, and John McCain as fiscal conservatives who can win.

of the primary challenger. I will have to read up on that some more.

I see Sanford going down the same road as Carroll Campbell. Campbell went to NH and tried to get traction but he couldn't make a sell there.

It seems like Sanford would have a hard time selling "fiscal conservation" being he's from a state that is heavily dependent on the Federal Government to balance his budget. I would imagine that Pawlenty would have a better chance at selling that idea than Sanford based strictly on the fact that MN is not a "receiver" state.

That may be true, although I think it would hurt a SC Senator more than a Governor.  A Governor can't really control whether his state gets mucho federal dollars (most of which are dependent on how poor and how many minorities are in your state).  Within his abilities, he has made many unequivacol fiscally conservative moves.  I'm unaware of what Mr. Campbell did, but vetoing 100 spending bills and bringing pigs into the state legislature is definitely going above and beyond the call.

I think NH is exactly where Sanford would do well, although he will have to wrestle with McCain's popularity there.  Obviously the SC primary shouldn't be too difficult for him.  So if he could be top 2 in IA and top 2 in NH, he could be in the running.  His main drawback is coming from a staunch Republican state (although our curret Pres is from TX and VP from WY) while Pawlenty is a swing stater.  Unless Jeb runs, the homestate issue won't be too big of a deal.

It's quite a ways away, but I will keep my eye on him.

Finally Caroline gets something Right.None of Bob Peeler's base will get behind Sanford alas Sanford can not win the Religious Right(assuming SC is a model for the rest of the country),I do not think he even wants the support of the Religious Right.

I looked at Sanford long and hard before I picked Pence and this is what I found.The man is NOT a supply sider,he is a McCain style deficit Hawk.He voted against Tax Cuts in the House.He is not a "libertarian" but an authoritarian.His support for Campaign Finance Reform proves that.His position on Illegal immigration is radically libertarian and he is to the "left" of McCain,Brownback,and GWB on this issue.

What I found is(IMO)

1 can't get Christian Right

2 Can't get immigration wing

3 can't get true big L libertarians

4 can't get true supply siders

It does not matter anyway because Sanford said he "absolutely" is not running,and is lining up support behind McCain.Pence is to the right of Sanford on every issue except ONE time(I repeat ONE TIME) spending bills.(Pence is better on long term entitlements)Sanford is my favorite Governor,but I do not think he could win the SC primary.

and I believe that you are bigot.

You don't know me at all, yet you called me a backwards fundamentalist.  That is the definition of bigotry.  I am as fundamentalist as they come and I am NOT backwards, whatever you may believe from your highly enlightened position.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church, where I was saved and baptized.  I was baptized in the Holy Spirit in a Pentecostal church as an adult.  I don't believe that Jesus turned the water into fermented wine for His first miracle.  The cause for this belief is too long to go into here, on a Republican web site, but it involves, among other things, the Greek work "oinos", which is expressed as "wine" in English, though in the original Greek it is used to refer to both fermented and unfermented grape juice.

Interpreting the entire Bible, written in other languages, with hundreds of years intervening, was not an easy task.  In that period of time the common usage of many words changed, and even died out.  Differences in our interpretation of small points like this too often distract us from the broad, overall, undisputed beliefs among all Christians that include, among other things, the reason for Jesus' birth and death, and our need for a Savior.

If you have had some bad experiences in your dealings with Christians in the past, I am sorry.  But don't paint us as backwards idiots just because you have known some who offended you, or who didn't accurately reflect the God they purport to serve.

Keep in mind that the Christian right couldn't get excited about Phil Gramm in 1996, warming to Dole instead, even though he was good or better on every single one of their issues.  So you may be right on that, but it doesn't mean he couldn't attract the rank and file social conservative.  

More importantly, can you provide a link on his voting against the tax cuts?  I'd like to get a better sense for the context, specifically which tax cuts you are talking about.  

mean to offend you. I'm simply stating my experiences. Good grief, I'm a Christian too. \

If people who do things such as above are not fundamentalists then what are they? From my experience they call themselves fundamentalists.

I hadn't realized that fundamentalist had such a negative connotation until I came here and used the word.

It doesn't have a negative connotation unless you stick backwards in front of it.  Then the implication is clear:  stupid, unenlightened, idiot.

states that have military bases receive a lot of federal funds

Yes, Sanford would be a good candidate.  He's like a Southern version of Pawlenty.  But will either run?  That's the question right now.  My guess is that either would need someone like Rove to really help them go national.

In other news, a new IA poll shows, guess who, Rudy and McCain tied for first place, with Newt the only other candidate scoring double digits.

Rice actually leads when included and by a good margin.  When she is left out, then McCain and Guiliani jump to the front... FWIW, on name recognition alone that would be true.

AF base.  Charleston is AMC's premier C-17 base and the AF has spared no expense in improvements to the infrastructure of the facility.  It is also the site of one of the more successful joint use facilitites for civilian/military assets.

SC has one other AF base and the Army and Marines have a decent presence in the state as well.  The Navy presence is still there in a small degree, I think, but the antiquated facilities of NAS Charleston have long since closed.

SC is also home to a large retiree population and a large minority population that benefit greatly from federal dollars.

I hate the characterization of the state as a "user" though.  CAFB provides vital airlift to our national defense.  The other military installations contribute greatly as well, I'm just not as familiar with their mission.  You might say I have a soft spot for CAFB.  

when my husband was in the Navy, back before they shut down the Shipyard and base, and we used to do our shopping at the exchange/commissary there.  I always thought the Air Force did a much better job at creating an appealing and clean base compared to the Navy-there were Navy commisaries I wouldn't even go to, and the housing on the AFB's always seemed far nicer.

Our first child was born at the Naval Hospital down there-which was an interesting experience.

I was stationed at the Naval Weapon Station in Goose Creek and then the base in CHAS.  CAFB was much nicer.  

I remember complaining about the smell of the paper mill when I was there.  Though, I kind of miss it now.

than the Charleston base.

My husband was mostly at Goosecreek with about 6 months at the shipyard busting up the Daniel Webster to turn it into a training boat (don't remember the number, but he is a plankowner lol).

the Webster went on to join Sam Rayburn as nuke prototype trainer.  I was there at the same time.  Small world.

Gov. Mark Sanford is a second Ronald Reagan.

A consumnate campaigner, he has entered two very difficult primaries, and won them both. Both the Democrats and the Republican smear machines threw everything they had against him, but all the dirt failed to stick. While Gov. Sanford is a strong conservative, he has the distictly moderate, populistic appeal of McCain, and the socially compassionate conservatism of Bush.

 His youth, height, and charisma, combined with a record of strict integrity and competency can and will endear him to voters.

He has no skeletons in his close, few political liabilities.

He is a member of the armed forces,  a successful businessman and, that rarity of rarities...an honest politician.

And, after all, who else is there? We may safely rule Rice, Guiliani, McCain, and probably Sanantorum off the Presidential candidate's short list.  George Allen, (the porkmaster in chief) seems of to be the strongest and most likely candidate, but he's no conservative.

Conservatives ought to exercise a little fore-sight for once. Who thought Reagan could win, back in 1978? Hillary Clinton is the Democrat to beat, and Mark Sanford in the man to do it.

Gov. Sanford has declared that he doesn't desire the Presidency? Just fine. We don't want a candidate who lusts after political power.

Sign the Petition Today, to Draft Mark Sanford for President and check out the DraftSanford4President daily blog.

I'm a SC resident and a big fan of our governor. As a previous post indicated, he is a terrific campaigner; when he talks to the camera, he is an extremely powerful communicator. I produce political advertising for a living, and IMO this guy is really good.

I don't know the governor personally, but I live about six blocks from him on a little barrier island outside of Charleston. This one example is why I respect him so much:

The island, and several others around it, have been suffering from erosion pretty badly. The governor is an island guy, so everybody went to him and expected that he would support funding for "renourishing" the beaches with more sand, a really expensive process.

When the money was inserted into the budget, Sanford vetoed it. He said that he wanted no part of throwing millions of dollars in the ocean, and that trying to tell the ocean where to put its sand is a losing proposition.

Of course most of the neighbors were furious...how could he veto money for his own home town like that? But that's what you really have to love about Governor Sanford. He believed the money would be wasted, even money spent directly (he lives beach front) in his back yard.

He has the political skills to go all the way. He also has principal and backbone. That's why he SHOULD go all the way.