SC Gov Mark Sanford

[Ebowed]

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

[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).

[Ebowed]

Coleman - this guy has no principles

Agreed.  That whole Senate race in 2002 was really ugly in Minnesota, and this was BEFORE Wellstone died.  Afterwards Coleman and conservatives all over the place were attacking Mondale because he wanted to privatize social security, even though Mondale did not, in fact, want to do this.

[Ebowed]

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

[Ebowed]

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.

Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

[Ebowed]

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.

Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

No, I'm not saying that.  In fact, I don't know what you are worried about.

George W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Bill Clinton: White Protestant male from Texas

Al Gore:  White Protestant male from Tennesse

Bob Dole: White Protestant male from Kansas

George H. W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Jimmy Carter: White Protestant male from Gerogia

Maybe it is time to let some other people in?

Ahem.  Clinton was from Arkansas last time I checked.  I don't consider Kansas Southern; that's Midwestern if anything else.  Guess you aren't counting Ferraro, Mondale, McGovern, Quayle, Lieberman, Kerry, Humphrey, etc.....

[Ebowed]

1964 - Johnson gets 61.05% (Kennedy ass., Goldwater bad candidate)
1972 - Nixon gets 60.67% (McGovern bad candidate)

I don't think McGovern or Goldwater were bad candidates.  McGovern was the victim of a mean conservative media; Goldwater may have been extreme for his day but hey, he was honest.

[Ebowed]

Yes yes BRTD, when you consider that Republicans make a big deal out of Democrats for opposing black/Hispanic nominees, you wonder why Republicans oppose affirmative action

[Ebowed]

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.

Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

No, I'm not saying that.  In fact, I don't know what you are worried about.

George W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Bill Clinton: White Protestant male from Texas

Al Gore:  White Protestant male from Tennesse

Bob Dole: White Protestant male from Kansas

George H. W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Jimmy Carter: White Protestant male from Gerogia

Maybe it is time to let some other people in?

Ahem.  Clinton was from Arkansas last time I checked.  I don't consider Kansas Southern; that's Midwestern if anything else.  Guess you aren't counting Ferraro, Mondale, McGovern, Quayle, Lieberman, Kerry, Humphrey, etc.....

The Clinton thing was a mistake, obviously.  I also said that I didn't want anyone from the plains states either.  That's why I lumped Dole in.  Which would also take care of McGovern.

Listen, I don't hate the south.  I think that if you had been on here long enough you would know that I have defended the south in some of the greatest battles that this forum has ever seen.  I just don't want a white-bread candidate from a traditional GOP state.

I don't think you hate the South.  I just don't see why a viable candidate still can't be Southern after so many Southern candidates.  To me it shouldn't really matter what part of the country the guy comes from, though sadly because of the electoral college it does matter.  I won't complain if both parties nominate Southerners, either.  Imagine John Breaux vs Mark Sanford.  I'd have a hard time choosing.

[Ebowed]

How many times do I have to tell you?  You can not compare the socio-economic structer today to that of 2000 years ago.

Are you saying that all of Christ's teachings are obsolete?

Same question

[Ebowed]

Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

Oh dear. Someone knows less than he likes to let on. Go find out how many people actually voted in SC prior to the '40's...

There were 62,700 catholics or blacks voting in SC in 1928?

don't be stupid.  As it's been said race was too polarizing an issue for MOST whites to care that Smith was a Catholic... and regardless of Smith's opinions on race, SC was a SOLID democrat state and it voted that way... Smith might have lost a few white votes but in SC it didn't matter nearly as much as it mattered in less-Southern states like Texas and Tennessee.