SC Gov Mark Sanford

[AuH2O]

He was a cheerleader in college. Actually we made it to the I-AA national championship one year of his cheerleading, but lost to Georgia Southern.

Needless to say, he is a superb candidate, though for other reasons than his cheering.

[AuH2O]

I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.

And he tops Bush on all counts, one way or another. Well maybe not the Governor part since Texas is a lot bigger than SC.

Thing is, Iowa and NH and still very important. Without a decent showing in Iowa (or NH, but I think the former is more likely), the SC win might be discounted somewhat. Ultimately the question is: does the RNC pick him as their guy? And, if not, does he run anyway?

With establishment backing, Sanford is basically a lock for the nomination and an absolutely overpowering general election candidate, possibly as strong as Reagan. And Reagan was probably the strongest of the 20th century-- FDR only really won 1 election in a blowout, and Eisenhower had very weak opposition.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

[AuH2O]

Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

It would be tough, real tough.  I think the only thing the Democrats would have going for them is the American people will probably be hungry for a political change by 2008.  Would Sanford be impossible to beat? No.  But pretty darn close.  The only real blemish I see on his record is he doesnt support absolute right to gun ownership.

But the NRA will still back him over a Democrat, and it's not like he's pro-gun control. There are some issues he hasn't dealt with too much (obviously foreign policy, but also bioethical stuff). I imagine he's already thinking about his agenda for '08.

I mean, Bush ran as the reformer in 2004, and he was an incumbent. Sanford will easily run as an 'outsider' and I don't think the party label will hurt him, though certainly events could influence that.

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

[AuH2O]

Henry has to be reelected first. He only got 43% in 2002 and... at the end of the day I tend to think less about specific states or regions and more about overall support. Sure, Henry would do better than Kerry in some places as compared to his national average-- but Kerry's national average wasn't too bad- 48% is way more than Clinton got in '92 and only a little less than in '96.

I haven't seen a lot of potential Dems speak, so some might be better candidates than meets the eye. But all of them face the dreaded Democratic Primary... can a moderate come out of that primary? I don't think so, not in 2008. Sanford doesn't need to change his views really, which not only makes him great primary material, but great general election material.

Brad Henry doesn't waltz around Oklahoma talking about upholding abortion rights. I think you might be surprised how fast his support would evaporate in conservative areas once he had to appeal to New Hampshire Democrats. The same applies for other moderates. The Democrats need someone liberal enough to keep a fairly consistent platform, while still not being too far left.

[AuH2O]

Dear God, NO!


The Governor of South Carolina?


Why don't we just advertise, "White Southerners Only"?


The only candidates I approve of have to meet three of the following crtiria:

1) Must be from north, midwest or pacific west.

2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

3) Must be or have been a governor, mayor, cabinet member or held some leadership possition.

4) Must be right-of-center on most issues

I'll just assume this is a joke.

Since every President has been a white male-- and a very large portion have been from the South-- soulty is either joking or not too bright.

[AuH2O]

Frist, the robotic and dull, cat-killing HMO operator, is not going to win the nomination.

I mean, I can't believe someone actually calls themselves a Republican after playing the victim card FOR BEING CATHOLIC! That is unbelievable. Truly remarkable victimology.

And, on top of that, he won't vote for his own party unless they nominate a yankee. Incredible. Especially since his state keeps voting for Democrats... I guess they deserve the reward. Makes sense to me, nominate someone from states that vote against your party.

I mean, what's next? Soulty won't vote Republican unless he personally gets the nomination? I mean, everyone else is a "good 'ol boy" even if their young, professional, and honest. hmm.

You know, we don't need trash like soulty in the party. Just don't need the drama. I'm not sure when people with no influence and no brain starting thinking they call the shots. I guess the Democrats are the party of the people, so soulty will have to support their white male if the GOP should nominate a white male.

What an asshole. Screw the Northeast- that's the only reason our government is full of socialists to begin with. And their thinking has apparently gotten to dumby soulty- who cries out for affirmative action to appease his childish whims.

[AuH2O]

Frist, the robotic and dull, cat-killing HMO operator, is not going to win the nomination.

I mean, I can't believe someone actually calls themselves a Republican after playing the victim card FOR BEING CATHOLIC! That is unbelievable. Truly remarkable victimology.

And, on top of that, he won't vote for his own party unless they nominate a yankee. Incredible. Especially since his state keeps voting for Democrats... I guess they deserve the reward. Makes sense to me, nominate someone from states that vote against your party.

I mean, what's next? Soulty won't vote Republican unless he personally gets the nomination? I mean, everyone else is a "good 'ol boy" even if their young, professional, and honest. hmm.

You know, we don't need trash like soulty in the party. Just don't need the drama. I'm not sure when people with no influence and no brain starting thinking they call the shots. I guess the Democrats are the party of the people, so soulty will have to support their white male if the GOP should nominate a white male.

What an asshole. Screw the Northeast- that's the only reason our government is full of socialists to begin with. And their thinking has apparently gotten to dumby soulty- who cries out for affirmative action to appease his childish whims.

Thank you for misinterpriting what I said.  I said "I won't support anyone in the primary who doesn't match that discription.  Not the general election.

And, once again, anti-Catholic bigotry does exist.  It is very real.  You know why you don't notice it?  Because you aren't Catholic.  If you were, you would notice.  I don't know if I can be polite about this anymore.

Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.

Clearly, you seem to have missed the fact that we live in a country.  This country is called America.  In America, we have 50 states.  There are states that are not South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.  Some of these states voted for Bush.  Some of them didn't, but came very close, like New Hampshire, PA, Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Some of these states might go GOP in '08 if we pick the right candidate.  I'm pretty sure that that candidate is not Mark Sanford, Governor of Nothing and Protector of the Same.  I'm pretty sure that a good candidate from a very Liberal state like MA, like, say, Mitt Romney, might have enough appeal to turn a lot of states over to us.  I'm also pretty sure that "punishing" certain states for not voting for you is a stupid strategy that will only increase the partisan divide in this country.

Where to begin? OK how about this: I am Catholic, confirmed and all. Suck on that. Oh and I go to a college that was affiliated with the baptist convention until 13 years ago and is in the same city as Bob Jones. I've never once experienced, in 21 years, anything resembling an anti-Catholic incident, nor do I know anyone that has.

WHERE candidates are from doesn't matter. Sanford could easily take Michigan and PA and New Hampshire and the like... Pawlenty could take the South... geography isn't the be all and end all, and if you understood politics, you would know that.

But, you don't. You want to disqualify a terrific potential leader because of the state they live in. Sanford, for instance, was actually born in Florida, and he and his wife worked as investment bankers in NYC for a while before he moved back to SC to get into politics.

Romney, actually, doesn't have extensive ties to MA- so he won't win it in a national election, or the other far-left states in the People's Republic.

The main thing is for politically ignorant people to not think they know how to win Presidential elections. Or how to "create a dominant party," even though, if you had knowledge of political theory, you would also understand that isn't really possible in a 2-party system without extenuating circumstances that do not exist, and will not exist.

[AuH2O]

Well, soulty, let me begin by noting it's "medal," not "metal," which of course describes certain types of elements (and, in the vernacular, alloys). Secondly, note that you claimed I "wasn't Catholic," which was actually a lie. Thirdly, Kennedy actually won a good portion of the South, Catholic and all, while losing many Northern states. Actually, Alfred Smith won the Deep South as a Catholic in 1928.

Fourthly, even if bias against Catholics still really existed, which it doesn't, you are racist against Southerners, and thus a worse offender. Fifthly, by pursuing a racist policy against the base of your party, you are essentially a traitor to that party and certainly not welcome in it.

[AuH2O]

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

This "big tent" stuff is hilarious. Guess what, your goal is to get MORE THAN THE OTHER SIDE. Too big of a tent collapses.

The country is only "changing" insofar as we let millions of Mexicans enter it every year. But they aren't as culturally inclined towards victimology, so Democrats hold more limited appeal to them and win a majority of their votes mainly because of economic reasons (i.e. the majority are in lower income brackets).

The idea we "need" California is quite simply laughable, as is the idea we "need" a black woman in charge for the party to survive. As far as my Bush predictions, they were good enough to make 2 grand, which I assume is more than you made off the election-- as the election drew nearer, by the way, my predictions were very accurate, it was merely early ones that did not take a disastrous first debate performance into account.

I mean, some people here maybe don't understand democracy. Unlike North Korea, we don't have to pretend there is 100% consensus. There isn't. And guess what? Conservatives want to actually implement CONSERVATIVE policies. Imagine that fordy. And here you thought the GOP was purely in a game with Democrats to win elections, where ideology doesn't matter at all.

I'm glad these people aren't coaches. 'Hey team, yeah technically our goal is to win, but if we don't win by 10 that isn't good enough, because the game is changing, uh, somehow.' 'Oh, and we can't win by using the same gameplan. Like, we need to use the other's sides plan, because otherwise, we aren't being fair.'

These people should go over to the "emerging Democratic majority" site, where idiots keep saying Democrats have to win because we imported so many Mexicans and because women hate Republicans because of abortion. Oddly, Democrats have been in retreat at all levels since 1994, but I guess that majority will emerge eventually. Just keep people poor and import another 30 million Mexicans. So Republicans should really not run anyone except female minorities-- from the West coast or Northeast-- because otherwise they might keep winning elections by relying on... UGH.. the majority vote. I hate majorities actually, they're terrible politically...

[AuH2O]

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?

[AuH2O]

Southerners should "step aside" for an affirmative action nomination?

Guess what-- that's not 51% of the populations view. They were just afraid of Kerry. If you think most Republicans want amnesty, you're living in a dream world. Most HISPANICS don't support amnesty, let in alone Republicans.

I have this weird notion, where the best candidate should get the nod. Hmm, thought that was America, but "Republicans" like soulty and ford apparently disagree. If I'm going to have a racist government, it may as well be led by Democrats...  Republicans that hate the base of their own party.

Bush slid by because of the war, but that's not happening in 2008. There's going to be a line drawn... protect this country's borders, get our finances back in order. If the Republican won't do that, he won't win-- period. I'll help put a Democrat in the White House before being neutral on a RINO or Affirmative Action pick, and so will a lot of people.

Democrats, they just want to win elections. Republicans, according to traitors like ford, are not interested in winning... we have to surrender on the issues so that we can get some magical number and declare ourselves uniters. So give in to socialist medicine, mayhem on the border, massive deficits, the blocking of good judges... just give in. That's what most people that win do-- surrender.

Then some nitwit tries to lecture me on fallacies? lol, incredible. Almost as hilarious as some turncoat lecturing people on the Republican Party.

[AuH2O]

Rice? Not so much-- she's worked her way up the foreign policy ladder. Was it a factor? Possibly, but since she's fully qualified, it's hard to complain too much.

Gonzales? I dunno, I think Bush trusts him completely, and that's why he gotten his jobs.

The GOP uses affirmative action all the time, but those two cases are not blatant examples. There are more obvious cases. If the GOP keeps it up, it will be a real "minority" party before too long.

[AuH2O]

Now, let me ask you a couple of serious questions, AuH2O.

I don't expect you to answer them if you don't want to.

1) Where do you work?

2) In what kind of activities do you generally participate?

3) Do you live in either Northern Virginia or the Virginia Beach area?

4) How active are you in religious functions?

5) Have you ever been told by a friend or girlfriend that they couldn't see you anymore because you were Catholic?

6) Even worse, has your family been split apart because one side is Catholic and the other is not?

1) Currently? Nowhere.. the last couple years I've worked for a law firm, this summer I'll work in D.C.

2) I'm not sure what "activities" means. I like playing golf, playing guitar, going to concerts, partying, the usual.

3) Virginia Beach but I go to school in Greenville, SC

4) Now? Not very, I just go to Church on holidays. But I used to be more active, particularly during the Confirmation process of course.

5) No. At school, if I find out someone else or a few of us are Catholic in a given spot, sometimes we joke around and are like "yeah for Catholics!" just because it's mostly protestant, but it's all in jest. If there is a division it's between religious/non-religious.

6) No, actually the exact opposite. My dad and his family are Jewish (mom's side Catholic). His mother and my mom's mother (perhaps the fathers but they were more laid back I think) were not overly pleased at first when they were dating-- this was the 60s-- but got over it quickly and have had a good relationship for decades. My parents have been married almost 28 years. My dad attends Church on certain holidays and for special occasions (i.e. first Communion), and we go to Bar Mitzvahs and the like on his side. Never been a problem with anyone of either religion.

Actually, some people think I'm Jewish, and I've never had any kind of negative experience as a result of that either. Though I'm not sure how many people think that-- some people think I'm from the Iberian peninsula, some think Eastern European...