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.
