- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
The Sanford Revolution?
Dave Weigel has a piece about how wealthy Republican donors, especially those in the Club for Growth crowd, are starting to look at Mark Sanford as their potential 2012 candidate in reaction to his consistent defense of limited government and principled stands against the bailouts, the stimulus package, and other aspects of Washington's economic agenda. Especially interesting is that Sanford has the potential to tap into the grassroots Ron Paul fundraising network, which amassed a $35 million war chest in 2008.
Weigel reports:
Paul and Sanford had been friendly when both men served in the House, said Paul’s spokesman Jesse Benton, the congressman’s grandson-in-law. “If Dr. Paul voted no on a bill and Sanford voted yes,” said Benton, “Sanford would come up to Dr. Paul afterward and talk it over. He would give a thoughtful consideration to why he’d voted the other way.”
According to Benton, Sanford is one of the only Republicans Paul might outright endorse if he ran for president—and if Paul doesn’t mount his own bid. “He’s the type of candidate that Dr. Paul could get excited about,” said Benton. “A lot of the people from our movement could find a lot to like in Mark Sanford.”
One of the biggest questions affecting Sanford's chances in 2012 is how he'll navigate foreign policy issues. In a recent American Conservative profile, Sanford said he was against preemtive war. In 1998, he didn't vote for the resoltion making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. Should he run, GOP rivals won't be able to attack him on economic or social issues, so they'll try to pin him as weak on national security. How he responds to those charges will determine whether he can cobble together a coalition of Paul supporters and mainstream Republicans. Should Sanford respond to attacks on his foreign policy views by explaining away his past stands and offering hawkish rhetoric, he'll alienate the Paul crowd, whereas if he takes his views on non-intervention as far as Paul did, he risks losing support among the rest of the party.
Of course, much of this will depend on what issues are important two to three years from now. Right now, foreign policy issues are taking a back seat to size of government issues among conservatives. If this continues to be the case, it will be easier for Sanford to skate by similarly to the way Bush did in 2000 -- present himself as somebody who wants a strong military but opposes nation building. However, by the time the primaries roll around, the world may look a lot different, and a terrorist attack or another international crisis will make foreign policy and national security issues much more important in the GOP primaries. Under those circumstances, it would be difficult for Sanford to unite the Paulites with the rest of the party, because the ideological divisions are simply too great between non-interventionist conservatives and those who support an agressive military response to security threats. If Sanford sides with the Paulites, he risks being seen as a softie by the rest of the party, and yet if he sides with the rest of the party, Paulites will see him as another bellicose neocon. But if he does find a way to navigate national security issues and manages to build a broad coalition of limited government voters, then he'll be a very formidable candidate, especially in New Hampshire.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- Joe Being Joe
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- Feeding the Beast
Pingback| 3.23.09 @ 12:20PM
The Sanford Revolution? — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
CD| 3.23.09 @ 12:54PM
conservatives are against big government foreign policy. Republicans will wake up to that only after our foreign policy has bankrupted the country and a million have died. Pathetic. RP supporters will not support anyone "navigating" an issue. Stand on principle, Sanford, and you'll be unstoppable. Mainstream republicans change with the wind; they'll listen.
Red Phillips| 3.23.09 @ 1:12PM
"because the ideological divisions are simply too great between non-interventionist conservatives and those who support an aggressive military response to security threats."
I have been trying to figure out a way for these two sides to come together, but like you, I just don't see it. Either non-interventionism is going to overtake interventionism or it will remain a vocal minority. There really is very little middle ground. Foreign policy realism maybe, but its presumptions are still internationalist. Look at Iran and Georgia. The responses of each side are poles apart.
Interventionism isn't just a policy; it is a mindset that results in essentially knee-jerk, formulaic responses. This explains why the interventionists see the non-interventionists as "weak" or "softies." It is an emotional response. I have never been convinced that the rank-and-file buy the whole neoconservative grand scheme. Their support for war is primarily a carry over from the Cold War and the conservatism that developed in response to the excesses of the 60's. Supporting wars and aggressive intervention is just what conservatives are supposed to do. Protesting wars is what long haired radicals who need to take a bath do. But just one generation before, it was the level headed conservatives who wanted to keep us out of war and the liberal internationalists guided by their grand visions who wanted to entangle us. Which policy is the more intuitively conservative seems obvious to me.
But as we approach 2012, the more it becomes obvious that we are broke, the more people are going to realize that we just can't afford to police the world. I think a lot of interventionists are going to drift toward a realism that is almost a de facto non-interventionism. Aggressive interventionism is becoming almost prima facie untenable for a country that can’t pay its bills.
William R| 3.23.09 @ 3:05PM
If Sanford runs he'll get the nomination. New Hampshire is made for him and South Carolina follows. As for being attacked by his rivals on foreign policy he just has to say he's against big government at home and abroad. We don't need to police the world which was the traditional Conservative position before Bush and the NeoCons. Time to throw the Weekly Standard crowd over the cliff.
SC Southpaw| 3.23.09 @ 4:38PM
Gov. Sanford's Achille's heel is employment. Since he has been governor, SC has ranked in the top three or four states for unemployment. While there are legitimate issues beyond his control for this, he has done little to address those instead focusing on lowering taxes, private school tax credits, and limiting government. While that may excite the Club for Growth, other GOP governors will eat his lunch.
Gene Corrigan| 3.23.09 @ 5:06PM
There is a resolution of the non-er and interventionist positions...go beyond intervention to bring protectorates into the United States. There is a resolution to the inability to afford world policing: charge for it. Tax as new states of " the United States of the World" those nations which request our aid or are falling under regimes hostile to our interests. No world power ever conquered enemies and -- rather than taxing them heavily -- poured aid upon them like the Marshall Plan and subsequent free market policy. This is not neo-, it's real American conservatism in the Teddy Roosevelt school. And, it's a winning position for Mark in 2012.
yoikes| 3.23.09 @ 5:19PM
Sanford supported McCain not Paul in 2008.
Sanford attended the 2008 Bilderberg meeting and downplayed the influence of the attendees.
Search youtube.
I can see why people want to attract the financial support of Ron Paul's backers, but I can't see why they would give it to Sanford.
William R| 3.23.09 @ 5:52PM
Before the South Carolina Primary Sanford didn't endorse anyone. The hideous Lindsay Graham went to the South Carolina Governor asking him to endorse the Straight Jacket Express Juan McCain saying McCain would put him on the short list for Veep. Sanford fired back he doesn't need to endorse anyone to be on a short list.
yoikes| 3.23.09 @ 6:20PM
But Sanford did ultimately support McCain in 2008.
Tom in Alabama| 3.23.09 @ 6:22PM
Mark Sanford is just another in the long line of southern/regional "states righters" in the mold of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and George Wallace. Sanford will no doubt be an impact player in the GOP but the rest of the country has had enough redneck style polarizing politics.
Dolly| 3.23.09 @ 8:03PM
The far right may like Sanford, but any thinking person would look at his record as Gov. and know that he is the worst Gov. SC's history. It is laughable that he would make anyone's short list.
William R| 3.23.09 @ 8:49PM
The Cato Institute gave Governor Sanford an {A} rating for his fiscal report card. One of only 3 Governors to get an A. So Dolly, methinks you're clueless.
Paul from Pendleton| 3.23.09 @ 9:24PM
William R, Sanford rates a "D" according to the Pendleton Institue. Methinks, William, maybe you are clueless.
I really doubt Lindsey Graham would have begged Sanford for a McCain endorsement in 2008. Considering some of Graham's best buds were on the Sanford "hit list"
Sanford has gotten bogged down with petty party politics and meanwhile....nothing worth noting has been done by the governor in this state, see Unemployed for quote.
Sanford's land deals while in office were questionable in my book. He should have worked harder on bringing in Industry and ironing out the Port issues.
...and believe me, I wanted to like the guy. The governors words compared to his actions....ring very hollow.
Sanford is not Veep or Peep or Gov material...try city council member for ISLE of Palms.
William R| 3.23.09 @ 9:40PM
Well the Pendleton report is for knuckle draggers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa-624/pa-624index.html
William R| 3.23.09 @ 9:48PM
Though he had endorsed John McCain in 2000, Sanford stayed out of the Republican contest in 2008. Two days before the primary, Sen. Lindsey Graham was dispatched to Sanford’s office with a plea and an offer. Graham told Sanford that an endorsement from the popular governor could put McCain over the top in the key primary state. In return, he promised a spot on McCain’s veep shortlist. Sanford responded cooly, “I don’t need your help getting on the shortlist” and declined.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/09/00006/
AnotherMan's Opinion| 3.23.09 @ 11:11PM
Everyone has a dog in the fight!
Regardless of what you may say or think!
Who's your dog?
My Dog is a "real" JunkYard Dog!
Lots of folks don't like him! He's scrappy!
Very dependable!
Bits when necessary!
Defends his turf! I like that!
Note: His turf is the state of sc and its people!
Mark Sanford is the "best" governor South Carolina has had in my humble opinion since I returned home in our great state of south carolina twenty eight years ago!
Many dealings with Governor Sanford have only encourage me to say thanks, Mark!
A state needs less federal intervention.
How about the re-application of the 9th & 10th amendments.
Save our republic!
Davis, D| 3.24.09 @ 12:00PM
Sanford is Jiminy Cricket. SC Legislature is Pinocchio. Pinocchio and his friend are picked up in a wagon by men promising to take them to a place of fun and frolic. No work, no school, no chores, no parents. All cake, candy, and fun in this promised utopia. The drivers of this wagon to a land of hedonism is Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. When Pinocchio and the boys arrive at the “promised land,” they suddenly begin to change to Donkeys (what a hoot, donkeys). They are now slaves to the wagon driver.
There is no free ride. Someone is going to pay. SC legislature, please don’t sell you constituents into slavery.
Thank God for Mark Sanford! The only sane person left in Columbia.
yoikes| 3.24.09 @ 12:45PM
Mark Sanford wrote an article in support of John McCain on 15-March-2008, when Ron Paul was still running for the GOP Presidential candidate nomination: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120553936399438277.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
So, Sanford endorsed McCain over Paul. Paul did not endorse McCain but instead endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
Obama and McCain both voted for H R 1424 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, also known as the bailout bill. Paul voted against it.
You can try to make over Mark Sanford as a Ron Paul Republican, but I'm not buying into the Mark Sanford revolution.
Dolly| 3.28.09 @ 3:05PM
Just because some right wing Institute gives him an A, only gives my comment more importance. The man is clueless, not me. By the way, want to buy a nice mansion by the sea?
Rhett| 4.5.09 @ 11:01AM
Sanford is a Libertarian Pary ideologue in a Republican Party mask. The revolution will be one against him if he tries a run at President. He is Darwinian in his attitude about government. Cut eveything and leave every person on their own, promote corporate socialism, oppose social security, do away with Medicare, oppose support for public education, support private school tuition tax credits, eliminate environmental regulations, and trust everyone to do what's right. His attitude also fits well with his dodging Air Force Reserve call up for Iraq or Afghanistan related duty.