Gov. Mark Sanford on CNBS this morning sounds like the NEXT RON PAUL !!

[Misesian]

I'm still confused why Ron Paul supporters wanted Keynesians to run for President.............

 

[mudhoney]

It's sad how misleading that ontheissues.org site is...

Wait a minute! Ron Paul voted against it too?

Hmmm... Interesting... Let's dig a little deeper.

According to ontheissues, that refers to H.R.2122, voted on 6/18/99. This bill was also known as the "Omnibus Gun Control Bill".

It dealt mostly with gun shows. While it is true that it would allow for 24 hour background checks at guns shows, it also would have made it illegal for private individuals to sell firearms to each other at or near a gun show and given the BATF unlimited access to search any vendor at a gun show without a warrant.

Here's the GOA page on the bill:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=244&chamber=H&congress=1061

You'll note they say, "In sum, the bill took more negative steps than positive ones" and gave members voting AGAINST the bill a positive score.

Overall, the GOA gives Sanford an A rating: http://gunowners.org/106hrat.htm



This was a budget bill, and the amendment Sanford voted for didn't "prohibit needle exchanges", it prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs in DC.

The other amendment he voted to approve in this case did not "ban medical marijuana". It prohibited the use of federal funds granted under the budget to legalize "any schedule I substance".

This amendment was also known as the Barr Amendment, after its author, Representative Bob Barr (R, Georgia).



This was another amendment to the above budget bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to subsidize gay adoptions.


I would highly advise people not to take ontheissues.org at face value. It can point you in the right direction if you're willing to read the fine print and then do some actual research, but their one-sentence summaries of the bills in question are ultimately very misleading.

Thanks for doing some research. Interesting stuff.

 

[nbhadja]

mark sanford= keynesian war hawk scum bag

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Thanks for doing some research. Interesting stuff.

I agree, the same problem is found in a lot of issue questionnaires sent to candidates during a campaign. The orgs that do so are usually pushing a certain cause and may couch the issues misleadingly, causing the candidate to look bad answering them, or 'duck' the questions by not answering them and risk looking evasive.

The issue is not whether Sanford 'sounds' like Paul, but will ACT like a Paul if elected. Look at the betrayal already in evidence with the Obama transition. Do we want 'our' candidate to crush us emotionally in the weeks after the election, with "McCain will be my this, Guiliani will be my that" cabinet announcements? How Paulite or movement populated is Sanford's current entourage and administration?

 

[pastortony]

What I'm hoping is that this "movement" isn't just a Ron cult.

From what I have observed (and I have been here far longer than my post count would indicate) it is a Ron cult.

Ron Paul attracted two types of people. First are paleocons that came out of the GOP, CP and even the LP. Then there were the pro-drug, pro-porn, anti-defense modern day anarchists that came out of various fringe movements. These two groups that would never normally meet came together (in one way or another) to support Ron Paul.

While on fourms like this and other Ron Paul sites it may seem like the groups are about equal in size, in the grand scheme of things those on the fringe make up a miniscule part of the overall electorate.

So yes this "movement" will likely split. There will be a candidate or two that will be attractive to the paleocons and while they may not agree with him/her 100% they realize that incrementalism will work. They will find themselves allying with other Republicans that may have supported Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo or one of the others last time out and will work to get those candidates through the nomination process. A lot of people in the GOP right now are looking at where the GOP went wrong and realize the answer is to go back to traditional conservatism, so they are a lot closer to what Paul stands for then they were in the primaries. Sanford looks like he will be one of those candidates that will be looking for support from this crowd.

To the other faction no mainstream candidate will be good enough so they will eventually ally themselves with someone who's ideas are so extreme that he/she has no chance of winning an election and they will go back to the obscurity that they once came from.

 

[Misesian]

From what I have observed (and I have been here far longer than my post count would indicate) it is a Ron cult.

Ron Paul attracted two types of people. First are paleocons that came out of the GOP, CP and even the LP. Then there were the pro-drug, pro-porn, anti-defense modern day anarchists that came out of various fringe movements. These two groups that would never normally meet came together (in one way or another) to support Ron Paul.

While on fourms like this and other Ron Paul sites it may seem like the groups are about equal in size, in the grand scheme of things those on the fringe make up a miniscule part of the overall electorate.

So yes this "movement" will likely split. There will be a candidate or two that will be attractive to the paleocons and while they may not agree with him/her 100% they realize that incrementalism will work. They will find themselves allying with other Republicans that may have supported Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo or one of the others last time out and will work to get those candidates through the nomination process. A lot of people in the GOP right now are looking at where the GOP went wrong and realize the answer is to go back to traditional conservatism, so they are a lot closer to what Paul stands for then they were in the primaries. Sanford looks like he will be one of those candidates that will be looking for support from this crowd.

To the other faction no mainstream candidate will be good enough so they will eventually ally themselves with someone who's ideas are so extreme that he/she has no chance of winning an election and they will go back to the obscurity that they once came from.

Yes, I will align myself with the cult of Lew Rockwell type libertarians that reject statism. Please tell me when the last time incrementalism has restored liberty?

If you're going to group individuals, I think you need to come up with much better factions. I would think that MOST of us here are classical liberals as opposed to paleocons like Pat Buchanan types who still really did not support Ron Paul.

 

[pastortony]

Yes, I will align myself with the cult of Lew Rockwell type libertarians that reject statism. Please tell me when the last time incrementalism has restored liberty?

If you're going to group individuals, I think you need to come up with much better factions. I would think that MOST of us here are classical liberals as opposed to paleocons like Pat Buchanan types who still really did not support Ron Paul.

You mean the Lew Rockwell type that has been so incredibly successful at electing LP parties to office?

 

[Misesian]

You mean the Lew Rockwell type that has been so incredibly successful at electing LP parties to office?

When has Lew Rockwell, or even LewRockwell.com ever stated that the mission of the Mises Institute, and LRC, is to get people elected to office?

I think they were pretty successful with Ron Paul don't you?

 

[pastortony]

When has Lew Rockwell, or even LewRockwell.com ever stated that the mission of the Mises Institute, and LRC, is to get people elected to office?

I don't know if they have or not, but the way we affect change in this country is at the ballot box, so if government and economics is your issue the only way you can truly have an effect is by getting candidates elected to office that are aligned with your views.

I think they were pretty successful with Ron Paul don't you?

Not at all. Ron Paul did not win the nomination.

 

[Misesian]

I don't know if they have or not, but the way we affect change in this country is at the ballot box, so if government and economics is your issue the only way you can truly have an effect is by getting candidates elected to office that are aligned with your views.

So if you sacrifice liberty for winning elections what do you end up with?

Not at all. Ron Paul did not win the nomination.

If Ron Paul wasn't not in Congress since 1976 then we wouldn't have had a R3volution to begin with now. I'd certainly think the classical liberals were successful with Ron Paul.

 

[pastortony]

So if you sacrifice liberty for winning elections what do you end up with?

I am not suggesting that we sacrifice liberty, but am instead saying that if we look at every candidate under such a high powered microscope then no one is acceptable. We are removing ourselves from the process. Sanford might not be perfect, but he is certainly on the right track and if the options are between a viable candidate that I agree with 90% and a fringe candidate that I agree with 100%, I'll take the viable candidate so that I have the ability to influence the system.

 

[Misesian]

I am not suggesting that we sacrifice liberty, but am instead saying that if we look at every candidate under such a high powered microscope then no one is acceptable. We are removing ourselves from the process. Sanford might not be perfect, but he is certainly on the right track and if the options are between a viable candidate that I agree with 90% and a fringe candidate that I agree with 100%, I'll take the viable candidate so that I have the ability to influence the system.

Being compatible with the 5 enumerated mission statement issues of the C4L is NOT putting people under a microscope.

If they reject any of these viewpoints outright, they should be rejected for our support. Compromise is what has gotten us to this situation to begin with. I'm sorry but I will not waste my time, money, and efforts to a candidate that SIMPLY believes in Free markets (yet may not even understand that free markets means ZERO government interference!) but don't get the rest.

It's rather insulting I think to suggest that those who are truly Paulian in nature should back somebody only because they're the least of the evils. On a pure evil scale I doubt anybody here would argue that Ron Paul is on one side of the spectrum while Obama/McCain were on the other (PURE).

 

[pastortony]

Being compatible with the 5 enumerated mission statement issues of the C4L is NOT putting people under a microscope.

If they reject any of these viewpoints outright, they should be rejected for our support.

While I agree with the C4L's positions on those issues, you would be hard pressed to find a candidate that agrees with Paul 100% on all of these in the mainstream of politics. This last election should have taught people here something - you need solid ideas, but you also need to be a viable candidate. If ideology were all that matterd then Paul would be the president elect right now. Paul's poor ability to sell his ideas to the GOP voters prevented him from being able to advance his agenda.

So depending on how you define "compatible" will determine whether you will have an effect on the process or that you will be sitting on the sidelines supporting a fringe candidate with a minor amount of support.

It's not a matter of supporting the lesser of two evils in the case of supporting someone like Sanford. It's a matter of supporting someone who one might agree with on 80-90% of the issues so that at a point in the future they can eventually get someone elected with whom they agree with on 100% of the issues.

However, if you feel that you can only support someone that's with you 100% then you should be aware that you are likely to never have a positive impact on the process.

 

[Misesian]

It's a simple matter of math. If Gov. Sanford believes in only 1 out of the 5 issues that's not a 90% candidate.

You forget that the Old Right became the GOP today because of compromising and picking the lesser of the evils.

I'd be honored to campaign and fight for liberty like Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, Walter Block, Laurance Vance, etc. have done while being principled non-voters. You seem to think that you have to support a candidate in order to spread the message of liberty.

I would lose all credibility if I campaigned for and supported a candidate that I wasn't certain was dedicated to defending liberty. What is the proof of this regarding Sanford? The most I'm given so far is that he's "conservative".

 

[pastortony]

I would lose all credibility if I campaigned for and supported a candidate that I wasn't certain was dedicated to defending liberty. What is the proof of this regarding Sanford? The most I'm given so far is that he's "conservative".

Look at his voting record in the house and the way in which he governed SC. And don't just look at the ontheissues page because it's been shown already how that can be misleading. I would hardly say that he is 1 out of 5. However, depending on the level of "Paulian" adherance to those principles one must hold your findings may show otherwise. As I see the man, I feel that he is one of the few viable candidates that is sympathetic to paleoconservative ideals and holds to the general principles that we support. Therefore, as it stands today I would be encouraged to see him run for the nomination and would support him over the other names that have been throw out so far as potential candidates (Palin, Jindal, Romney, etc)

 

[Misesian]

Look at his voting record in the house and the way in which he governed SC. And don't just look at the ontheissues page because it's been shown already how that can be misleading. I would hardly say that he is 1 out of 5. However, depending on the level of "Paulian" adherance to those principles one must hold your findings may show otherwise. As I see the man, I feel that he is one of the few viable candidates that is sympathetic to paleoconservative ideals and holds to the general principles that we support. Therefore, as it stands today I would be encouraged to see him run for the nomination and would support him over the other names that have been throw out so far as potential candidates (Palin, Jindal, Romney, etc)

I would give to Sanford that he's probably not a neocon, though again, is he going to be dedicated to restoring liberty? That's the utmost important goal of what we're trying to do. The Constitution is always secondary to liberty since it's the document that is supposed to be protecting it. When it comes to ISSUES what are more important at this point in time than sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy too?

If Sanford is onboard with sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy I would support him. By onboard I mean selling these issues to the public too, not say he supports it as scraps thrown to the Ron Paul dogs.

 

[dr. hfn]

fuck sanford...go Johnson! go Ventura! go Lawson! go Ron Paul!

 

[pastortony]

I would give to Sanford that he's probably not a neocon, though again, is he going to be dedicated to restoring liberty? That's the utmost important goal of what we're trying to do. The Constitution is always secondary to liberty since it's the document that is supposed to be protecting it. When it comes to ISSUES what are more important at this point in time than sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy too?

If Sanford is onboard with sound money and a noninterventionist foreign policy I would support him. By onboard I mean selling these issues to the public too, not say he supports it as scraps thrown to the Ron Paul dogs.

His foreign policy is yet to be seen, as he wasn't in the house when the Iraq votes were taken. I think you will see a lot of GOP politicians now swing back to the non-interventionist side now that this war is Obama's instead of Bush's. The problem with Iraq is that we are over there now and imbedded. Iraq is a huge mess that's going to need a lot of work to clean up. Theoretically it is nice to say that we will bring the troops home immediately, but there is a practical side to it to consider as well. What is more important that how he would handle Iraq is how Sanford, or any candidate will deal with future foreign policy matters.

Sound money is a tough sell at this point, because there arent many politicians talking about it. It's an issue the American people are clueless about, so it will take a lot of education to accomplish anything. Sanford's recent writing on the bailout shows me that he is not supportive of the way the fed has been managing things. If he is not championing the abolition of the Fed from what I have read he certianly would be receptive to the position.

In my 20+ years of being involved in this, I have learned that it is far easier to elect someone who is sympathetic to your positions that it is to elect someone who holds to all your positions, especially when some of the positions we hold are somewhat radical in today's climate.

So from what I know about Sanford, he isn't lockstep with Paulian ideology, but he is certainly sympathetic to the views. And considering he is one of the few viable potential candiates that is, we shouldn't write him off.

 

[Goldwater64]

From what I have observed (and I have been here far longer than my post count would indicate) it is a Ron cult.

Ron Paul attracted two types of people. First are paleocons that came out of the GOP, CP and even the LP. Then there were the pro-drug, pro-porn, anti-defense modern day anarchists that came out of various fringe movements. These two groups that would never normally meet came together (in one way or another) to support Ron Paul.

While on fourms like this and other Ron Paul sites it may seem like the groups are about equal in size, in the grand scheme of things those on the fringe make up a miniscule part of the overall electorate.

So yes this "movement" will likely split. There will be a candidate or two that will be attractive to the paleocons and while they may not agree with him/her 100% they realize that incrementalism will work. They will find themselves allying with other Republicans that may have supported Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo or one of the others last time out and will work to get those candidates through the nomination process. A lot of people in the GOP right now are looking at where the GOP went wrong and realize the answer is to go back to traditional conservatism, so they are a lot closer to what Paul stands for then they were in the primaries. Sanford looks like he will be one of those candidates that will be looking for support from this crowd.

To the other faction no mainstream candidate will be good enough so they will eventually ally themselves with someone who's ideas are so extreme that he/she has no chance of winning an election and they will go back to the obscurity that they once came from.

This is the credited answer.

 

[Goldwater64]

I would lose all credibility if I campaigned for and supported a candidate that I wasn't certain was dedicated to defending liberty. What is the proof of this regarding Sanford? The most I'm given so far is that he's "conservative".

Lose credibility with who? Just wondering.