Until last week, we’d never heard of The American Conservative magazine.
We’re not trying to be rude or anything, because they’d probably never heard of us, either.
Apparently quite a few people read the publication, though, because within moments of their story on S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford hitting the web yesterday afternoon, our phone lines lit up like the proverbial crack man’s pager.
Written by reporter Brandon Michael Dougherty, the piece is one of the first in what is sure to be a long line of Sanford feature stories to be written as the Republican Party makes a fundamental determination.
Simply put, does the GOP’s path back to power go “left” or “right.”
You’d think “left” could be ruled out based on the fiscal excesses that cost Republicrats so dearly in 2006 (and again in 2008), but that’s obviously not the case.
In fact, the GOP’s mooring is so shot these days that “left” and “right” have probably lost a lot of their former geography, which means – and we know people think we’re crazy when we say this – there may really not be a path back to power for Republicans.
Assuming there is, though, we believe it will run through the Sanford ideology – if not Sanford himself – which is why Dougherty’s piece is so substantial at the national level.
Here’s the lead …
Mark Sanford is easy to overlook. If Republicans need a champion in the Obama era, there are more colorful candidates than the South Carolina governor. He doesn’t play electric bass, or to the Religious Right, like Mike Huckabee. He has made no attempt to rewrite the GOP’s almost forgotten small-government playbook like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty or Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal. Though he is popular, Sanford seems incapable of playing a red-meat populist like Sarah Palin. He looks plain, his philosophy is old, and he has an elegiac demeanor that seems incompatible with electoral politics.
But unlike many other Republican politicians of his stature, Sanford recognizes that there are limits to ambition, that government treasuries are not bottomless, and that no ideology can captain the globe. If the promise of “hope” in the form of bailouts fails to revive the American economy, Mark Sanford will be the GOP’s most dangerous man in 2012.
In recent weeks, he has become the unofficial spokesman against Obama’s trillion-dollar economic stimulus plan. Other Republican governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger beg for more federal subsidies, but Sanford has threatened to decline large portions of the bailout, preferring not to bridle South Carolinians with the accompanying obligations. While cable’s talking heads shout at him, he somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. He worries aloud that the bailouts represent a “crisis of American civilization.”
As much as we go back and forth with Mark Sanford sometimes – and as much as he got ripped for that very quote by the New York Times two days ago – the fact is he’s right.
This is a crisis of American Civilization, and we’re t-t-t-totally f*cking it up.
But while Sanford can quote chapter and verse from the libertarian liturgy to impress the D.C. crowd, we remain convinced that the key to his effective positioning lies more in the mass appeal he has with common folk.
Because let’s face it, folk don’t get any more common than they do here in South Carolina. And as much as we like to think our opinion matters, talking heads are a dime a dozen these days and there’s no changing the mind of somebody who’s made a personal connection with a candidate (or vice versa).
Seriously, quoting Tytler and Ayn Rand is great for the talk shows, but Sanford wins people with stuff like the piglets.
Plus, as Sic Willie told Dougherty when he interviewed with him last week, “if Sanford can peel back the scab at the national level the same way he’s peeled back the scab here in South Carolina, it would be a great thing for this country.”
Now the only question is “can he?”
Loading ...
By Sanford and the war in Iraq March 3, 2009 at 2:49 am
The article mentioned says Sanford was against preemptive war . Yet Sanford ended up supporting McCain(with lapdog Lindsey Graham) – the biggest neocon war monger on the “Republican” ticket .
Sanford kept quiet on the most important foreign policy issue of our time and supported someone diametrically opposed to his core belief.
The Republican party is correctly viewed as the neocon war party and Sanford just went along.
Where was the courage to speak truth to power ?
By Dave T. March 3, 2009 at 7:47 am
Pretty sure I don’t want him to do for the United States what (pathetically little) he’s done for South Carolina. I hope he does run, though. I love seeing him flounder when asked a question he hasn’t been prepped for…
By lou March 3, 2009 at 8:01 am
I believe that first line says it all….
“Sanford is easy to overlook”. Yes…. KEEP LOOKING>*duh*
By Toyota Kawaski March 3, 2009 at 8:09 am
Like Sen. Ford said he will make a great college professor
By Gary March 3, 2009 at 8:36 am
Hey, anyone could do a better job than the crack-head we have running things now.
By Whoa March 3, 2009 at 9:34 am
you dumb shit….sanford didnt endorse in the primary…..and what republican wouldnt support the republican nominee when put up against Barack Stalin Obama?
By Elmo March 3, 2009 at 10:40 am
Whoa- you mean you would throw away your core beliefs and principles to endorse McCain because he is simply the Republican party candidate- even though the party believes in preemptive war, massive federal deficits, spying and torture?
What you really mean is you should not be voting for either party- McCain was frothing at the mouth to give billions away to banks who ran their business in to the ground with no strings attached. He and Obama are both deficit spending socialists .
Why vote for either one of them? A two party system only offers one more choice than Russia.
Principles first and party last is the way to keep democracy strong
By Brandon March 3, 2009 at 10:46 am
I haven’t read the article, but I’ll say this about Sanford. The first time I ever heard of him he was the speaker at a civic club meeting I attended in Charleston. This was during his initial campaign against Van Hipp. A friend asked me what I thought. My reply was “I agree with every word that came out of his mouth, but I don’t give him a snowball’s chance in hell to win”.
Now, after 5 successful elections, I think he has credence.
Combine that with the growing angst in the middle and downright anger on the right, he may get some traction. The point is he’s one of the few who can say he’s a fiscal conservative and not have to defend that statement. And that is what the entire country is going to be starving for by 2012.
By Just Checking March 3, 2009 at 11:41 am
What no one talks about during this “bailout” is that whether or not Sanford accepts the money, the taxpayers of SC will still have to pay for it, so unless that changes, hell get something out of it. Also, why are the Republicans not decrying the almost 1 trillion dollars spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?? Oh yeah, because war and defense = good … helping people on the homefront = bad
By Crooner March 3, 2009 at 11:56 am
A Sanford presidency? See Carter, Jimmy. Another idealist who thought he was right on the issues and smarter than the legislature. We all saw how that worked out.
On the bright side, at least he’d be able to sleep at his “office” without looking like a complete idiot again.
By Natasha March 3, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I like Sanford. I’d like to think I’m a libertarian, which is probably why I like the guy’s positions so much…
By free marketer March 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm
he has never lost a political race. ever.
By Joe Mama March 3, 2009 at 2:01 pm
NO to Sanford!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By BC March 3, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Gov. Mark Sanford lacks the ability to provide true leadership in the face of difficult times such as these or any other. The SC Governor has not shown an ounce of vision or direction for the state. Yes, he has strong views but no mechanisms to bring them to life. Yes, he opposes President Obama’s spending in times of a clear recession but offers no alternative solution to the problem. Yes, he will not take some of the stimulus money because he feels (not factual but an opinion) that the state will be saddled with an obiligation but if you read the ARRA (the stimulus bill) it clearly states most of the provisions are temporary and will expire in 2010-11. So, why is Gov. Sanford opposed to this new federal law? Oh, that’s right many of you assume that I forgot about the mountain of debt that will placed on generations. Well that will probably be knocked down to only 2 generations or even only one if the current budget passes the Congress. Many of the tax cuts set by the Bush Administration…you know the group responsible for the current mess…will expire as well and that means additional tax revenues to handle the national debt.
The long and short of this is simple. If Gov. Sanford wants to run in 2012 he needs to spend this time coming up with viable solutions to counter President Obama’s current course of action. These solutions must be real and applicable and not merely rhetoric that has no substance.
By me March 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm
him or ron paul are the only GOP candidates i will vote for. Whats the point in voting for a neo-con?
By Brandon March 4, 2009 at 11:15 am
BC
I don’t think it matters about whether he can lead. What matters is what the country will be craving in 2012. We will be taxed and spent to the poor house by then. Sanford needs to keep up the visibility, keep his credibility as a fiscal conservitive in tact, and under no circumstances use the word makaka.
By BC March 5, 2009 at 10:46 am
Brandon,
I concur with the sense of perception related to want from the masses, but I do not concur with the comment on leadership. Sadly, that has been our greatest problem with elected officials. We have given them a pass to be poor leaders but great speakers. During these difficult times we need clear and viable leadership that is capable of doing just that. We cannot continue to give different rules to different players but expect the same result. Look at the City of Columbia for example. We expect the mayor and city council to work together on various issues and topics but no clear leadership from either faction; but yet we expected the city manager to be the leader without any clear mission from the elected officials. This cannot and should not continue regardless. Many of us can say plenty about the new President but I must give him credit for taking a strong leadership role in facing this economic crisis. The democrats will highlight that during the 2012 election and depending on how the economy reacts will determine with or not he is re-elected.