Because Mark Sanford refused to endorse John McCain ahead of the 2008 South Carolina presidential primary, conventional wisdom mongers have all but ruled out his chances at becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee. What these mongers don't know is that McCain accepted Sanford's non-endorsement early on, and the two had numerous and regular conversations throughout the primary. Sanford believed that his position as governor required him to be neutral; he announced that position, he stuck to it, and McCain respects him for it. There are some McCain advisers who believe that Sanford was hedging his bets, but all the information I have suggests that McCain does not hold a grudge against Sanford. As a national Republican figure, Sanford has kept his profile low, but he has started to increase his visibility. He keynoted the Republican Party of Arkansas's dinner last week; he is hosting the Republican Governors Association summer retreat this weekend in Charleston. He's soon to speak to Republicans in Michigan. Last month, he attended the National Summit on Competitiveness in Chicago and spoke alongside two cabinet secretaries. And he joined Kathleen Sebelius at the Bilderberg Society meeting in Virginia two weeks ago.
« The Atlantic's Boldest | Main | When Mandatory Isn't? » Mark Sanford Stays Relevant16 Jun 2008 03:56 pm Comments (15)
Marc, Governor Sanford effectively ended any chance of becoming McCain's VP this past week when he signed into law extremely controversial legislation that allows not only the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and public buildings, but the Lord's Prayer, as well; a blatant violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. 
Sanford is too smart to be this years Edwards. Sanford is the uniter the Republicans will need in 2012. Acceptable to the RINOS and the RONOS (the Ron Paulers).
Re: Establishment Clause -Perhaps argo isn't familiar with the actual first word of the First Amendment. Let me help: CONGRESS. And for further lessons on the Constitution it binds the FEDERAL government, not the states.
Sanford relevant? He may be relevant to journalists in the dog days of summer wanting to covver aall 200 potential veep candidates as filler for columns but he sure isn't relevant to policy making in his home state.He's accomplished nothing. A major WSJ article on him about a month ago bought his proposals hook-line-and-sinker as "accomplishments." It would be disasterous to the country and the Republican Party if he were the nominee or a heartbeat away.
Sanford relevant? He may be relevant to journalists in the dog days of summer wanting to cover all 200 potential veep candidates as filler for columns but he sure isn't relevant to policy making in his home state.He's accomplished nothing. A major WSJ article on him about a month ago bought his proposals hook-line-and-sinker as "accomplishments." It would be disasterous to the country and the Republican Party if he were the nominee or a heartbeat away.
Sanford relevant? He may be relevant to journalists in the dog days of summer wanting to cover all 200 potential veep candidates as filler for columns but he sure isn't relevant to policy making in his home state.He's accomplished nothing. A major WSJ article on him about a month ago bought his proposals hook-line-and-sinker as "accomplishments." It would be disasterous to the country and the Republican Party if he were the nominee or a heartbeat away.
Sanford relevant? He may be relevant to journalists in the dog days of summer wanting to cover all 200 potential veep candidates as filler for columns but he sure isn't relevant to policy making in his home state.He's accomplished nothing. A major WSJ article on him about a month ago bought his proposals hook-line-and-sinker as "accomplishments." It would be disasterous to the country and the Republican Party if he were the nominee or a heartbeat away.
Sanford relevant? He may be relevant to journalists in the dog days of summer wanting to cover all 200 potential veep candidates as filler for columns but he sure isn't relevant to policy making in his home state.He's accomplished nothing. A major WSJ article on him about a month ago bought his proposals hook-line-and-sinker as "accomplishments." It would be disasterous to the country and the Republican Party if he were the nominee or a heartbeat away.
Sanford is a libertarian, small gov't Repub with Southern seasoning. Apparently he's been a serious deficit-hawk, pork-fighter in both the House of Rep and the Gov'nur's Manor. Wiki hints that he once had a parade of pigs through the chambers of the SouthCarolina House to expose 'pork'. He'd fit well with a western conservative like McCain. Alas, his crowd has very little chance of being the future capo's of the Repub Party.
Re: Establishment Clause -Perhaps mosquitobite isn't familiar with Supreme Court precedent, but the Bill of Rights is generally taken to have been "federalized", ie held to apply to the states, by the 14th amendment. Don't take my word for it; google it for yourself.
"The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Larson v. Valente "When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatist; antagonisms that relate to race or to religion rather than to political issues are generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan. Since that system is at war with the democratic ideal, it should find no footing here." Wright v. Rockefeller "People who share a common religious belief or lifestyle may live together without sacrificing the basic rights of self-governance that all American citizens enjoy, so long as they do not use those rights to establish their religious faith." - Justice Anthony Kennedy, Kiryas Joel v. Grumet "I have always believed, and all my opinions are consistent with the view, that the Establishment Clause prohibits the favoring of one religion over others." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Kiryas Joel v. Grumet
Personally, I'm not 100% sure about Mark Sanford but we need to remember a couple of things regarding picking a running mate: (1) It's a fallacy to think that choosing a running mate should be based on where he's from. Choosing a running mate based solely on his appeal in his home state is a mistake. (2) A running mate should bolster a ticket, not weaken it. Thus, it would be wise for Senator McCain to choose a running mate that has a good, strong conservative ideology, not someone who's known for bucking conservatism like Charlie Crist or Tim Pawlenty. (3) Senator McCain does not want to be seen as trying to 'match' Obama's minority appeal. In other words, choosing someone like Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin might rather be seen as just weakening the McCain ticket because it's an attempt to pander to minorities or to women. Senator McCain should rather bolster his ticket on solid credentials. (4) It's also wise to choose a sitting governor as running mate that, should they win, they won't leave their state governorship in the opposite party's hands. Bobby Jindal would leave Louisiana's goernorship in a Democrat's hands. Also in consideration is how much such a governor has accomplished. This knocks out Jindal, Palin and Crist because they have barely been in office. However, Mark Sanford is term-limited and might not be the worst choice. Thus all in all, Mark Sanford might not be the worst choice but I'm not convinced he's the right choice, either.
"Marc, Governor Sanford effectively ended any chance of becoming McCain's VP this past week when he signed into law extremely controversial legislation that allows not only the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and public buildings, but the Lord's Prayer, as well; a blatant violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause." Obviously, you either hate God or dislike Christianity or both, because the vast majority of Americans have no problem with this. In fact, this could make him more appealing. Are you sure you're not from Canada? Polls show that overwhelming bipartisan majorities support what Mark Sanford did.
Andrew
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Sanford and Sebelius at Bilderberg? If nothing else, it signifies that they have become the Conventional Wisdom picks. I'm a Sebelius fan, to be certain.
Posted by xstryker | June 16, 2008 4:25 PM