Mark Sanford is by all accounts one of the few real fiscal conservatives in the GOP. When he was in Congress he often joined Ron Paul on 433-2 votes, and when the state legislature overruled his budget vetoes he let live pigs loose on the floor of the state House chamber.

Don't get me wrong, he's still right-wing, but at the same time he is part of the quasi-libertarian limited-government wing of the GOP. If the GOP really intends to rebuild itself as a serious intellectual distinction from the Democrats, and not just a big-gov't party with a conservative twist, then it needs to be let itself be led by guys like Mark Sanford and Jeff Flake. The GOP will never become what Ron Paul wants it to be, but it can move in that direction by becoming a party that stresses individual freedom and cutting government rather than focusing on whipping up hate, fear, and intolerance.

It's either that or Huckabee/Palin. Which do you prefer?

Oh, and I forgot just one other name I wanted to toss out there: Gary Johnson, former governor of NM. He's seriously eying a 2012 Presidential run as a more mainstream, credible continuation of Ron Paul's efforts.

Fail: Though everyone thinks he's noble (RON PAUL), both he and they are simply letting their politics get in the way of the good of the people, just from a different direction.

/Don't fall in love with your ideology so much that it blinds you to what's wrong with it.

IlGreven: Fail: Though everyone thinks he's noble (RON PAUL), both he and they are simply letting their politics get in the way of the good of the people, just from a different direction.

/Don't fall in love with your ideology so much that it blinds you to what's wrong with it

That's a non-argument. That's just a wordier way to say that you disagree with them.

Besides, my point wasn't even really about the ideology of these people. I was talking about the realpolitik of where the GOP is going to go from here.

Sanford is saying this because he knows SC will get bailed out anyway. He's not the worst Governor we've ever had, but I don't buy this. It's just an attempt to shore him up against the anti-bailout sentiment that screwed so many GOP senators and congressmen in the election.

IlGreven: Fail: Though everyone thinks he's noble (RON PAUL), both he and they are simply letting their politics get in the way of the good of the people, just from a different direction.

/Don't fall in love with your ideology so much that it blinds you to what's wrong with it.

So where is the federal government going to get this money? Magic, Fairy Dust, Genie in a bottle? We already blew quite a bit of money we don't have on Wall Street. Printing money didn't work well for Germany and it won't work here.

There are some states, like ND, that made wise spending, took action to develop and diversify the state economy, and resisted urges to go on a spending orgies. Why do the irresponsible states get more money and the responsible states get a poke in the eye? ND is looking at a one billion dollar surplus this biennium.

We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.

I like the way this guy thinks.

However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security's REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.

I bet there is even more that could be done.

Was he the guy who was on the McNeil newshour late last week? Republicans need more like him.

jimmyhaha: Sanford is saying this because he knows SC will get bailed out anyway. He's not the worst Governor we've ever had, but I don't buy this. It's just an attempt to shore him up against the anti-bailout sentiment that screwed so many GOP senators and congressmen in the election.

Part of his argument seems to be that some states were reckless while some states were fiscally responsible, and that it's wrong to reward the latter at the cost of the former. How's SC's budget situation? I know he's really clashed with the legislature over fiscal matters.

Make that Lehrer newshour. It used to be McNeil.

Anyway, that PBS news/interview show.

One of Sanford's greatest moments was leaving the country during the budget stand-off and going on a junket to the Bahamas. Classy. In terms of clashes with the legislature, Sanford has run a politically smart game of talking fiscal conservativism while eventually caving into the overwhelmingly Republican legislature. He biatches and moans, but doesn't veto. He's having his cake and eating it too. Again, I don't think he's a terrible governor, but this article seems like more of the talking a fiscal conservative game while still taking the money or signing off on the spending. I'll believe him when he rejects the allocated money and sends it back.

jimmyhaha: One of Sanford's greatest moments was leaving the country during the budget stand-off and going on a junket to the Bahamas. Classy. In terms of clashes with the legislature, Sanford has run a politically smart game of talking fiscal conservativism while eventually caving into the overwhelmingly Republican legislature. He biatches and moans, but doesn't veto. He's having his cake and eating it too. Again, I don't think he's a terrible governor, but this article seems like more of the talking a fiscal conservative game while still taking the money or signing off on the spending. I'll believe him when he rejects the allocated money and sends it back.

Isn't that what lead to the whole pig stunt? He vetoed the entire budget?

Dear lord. That was a great moment for Carolina dignity. Yes, he did veto that budget, which he had ample opportunity to comment on as it was being formed. But, during the debate, he was in the Bahamas. That was his first year in office. Since then, he's signed off.

ZAZ: Was he the guy who was on the McNeil newshour late last week? Republicans need more like him.

Rip Van Winkle, did you just woke up from your 20 year sleep? Jim Lehrer hosting it now.

jimmyhaha: Dear lord. That was a great moment for Carolina dignity. Yes, he did veto that budget, which he had ample opportunity to comment on as it was being formed. But, during the debate, he was in the Bahamas. That was his first year in office. Since then, he's signed off.

Hmm. Well, I'm more than willing to consider that he's like that. I don't know a whole lot about him in particular. I just know I've heard his name bandied about along with those who want to move the GOP away from both Bush/McCain "national greatness" big gov't conservatism and Huckabee/Palin social conservative populism. And from my perspective a true small-gov't, right-libertarian GOP is easily the most palatable GOP to imagine in power and the only GOP I could respect.

But, say what you will about the man, he's at least better than SC's last Republican governor, David Beasley. He pissed off the non-Evangelicals by being a fundamentalist farkwad, and pissed off the Evangelicals by being utterly corrupt. Great combo there.

jimmyhaha: He pissed off the non-Evangelicals by being a fundamentalist farkwad, and pissed off the Evangelicals by being utterly corrupt. Great combo there.

You could say that about the GOP as a whole the past eight years.

Well, aside from the fact that the evangelicals are rarely that bothered by corruption if they happen to agree with the guy.

My take on Sanford is that he talks a good game, but he's a tad deficient when it comes to the whole "action" thing. His name is being bandied about now, but I've got my doubts. They said the same things about Carrol Campbell, SC's last two-term Governor, and they didn't pan out. I'd love to see the GOP get back to it's Goldwater roots as well, but I don't think Sanford will wind up being the standard-bearer.

By the way, what does "right-libertarian" mean to you? Just curious.

he will run in 2012 im guessing.

jimmyhaha: By the way, what does "right-libertarian" mean to you? Just curious

Oh, I don't know if I can nail down an exact definition. Thinking of political ideologies broadly as a continuous multi-dimensional spectrum, a la the Nolan Chart, I guess "right-libertarian" would simply be between "right-conservative" and "libertarian". I suppose it'd be something alone the lines of a strong focus on fiscal conservatism and personal freedom in some 'conservative' areas like education, private property, etc. and an ambivalent or talking-points-only attitude towards more "libertine" social freedoms- things like sexuality, profanity, "family values", etc. They'd also tend to have a strong, quasi-traditionalist-based support of personal privacy, being opposed to things like REAL ID and being much more supportive of the 4th Amendment.

mesohorny: he will run in 2012 im guessing.

He would get more votes than Romney.

/He is a LINO mostly
//made that term up for him
///but he is very very anti tax at all costs

Does anyone know where the figure of $52 trillion comes from?

Govenor?

Bucky Katt: Does anyone know where the figure of $52 trillion comes from?

Yes the 52 trillion dollars come from the budget short falls for medicare, medicaid, and social security over the next 30 years i believe if all estimates are correct but the GAO has a pretty good track record.

Churchill2004: Oh, and I forgot just one other name I wanted to toss out there: Gary Johnson, former governor of NM. He's seriously eying a 2012 Presidential run as a more mainstream, credible continuation of Ron Paul's efforts.

Add Senator Tom Coburn to the list of GOPers who want to rein in government. He's the one who pissed Ted Stevens off by trying to kill "The Bridge to Nowhere".

'ello Govenor.

jimmyhaha: One of Sanford's greatest moments was leaving the country during the budget stand-off and going on a junket to the Bahamas. Classy. In terms of clashes with the legislature, Sanford has run a politically smart game of talking fiscal conservativism while eventually caving into the overwhelmingly Republican legislature. He biatches and moans, but doesn't veto. He's having his cake and eating it too. Again, I don't think he's a terrible governor, but this article seems like more of the talking a fiscal conservative game while still taking the money or signing off on the spending. I'll believe him when he rejects the allocated money and sends it back.

Sanford uses the veto pen all the time, what are you talking about? He vetoed 69 items from the 2008 budget alone.

jjorsett: Add Senator Tom Coburn to the list of GOPers who want to rein in government. He's the one who pissed Ted Stevens off by trying to kill "The Bridge to Nowhere".

True, but in addition to his extreme fiscal conservatism he's also a pretty strong social conservative. He has come out against the Iraq war, though, including voting against war appropriations. So I suppose I'd include him broadly in the type of people I'm talking about.

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: South Carolina is a Beneficiary State
South Carolina taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, South Carolina citizens received approximately $1.35 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 16th highest nationally and represents a slight rise from 1995, when South Carolina received $1.20 per dollar of taxes in federal spending, ranking it 18th highest nationally. Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes collected were: North Carolina ($1.08) and Georgia ($1.01).
-source

why is it always the redstate welfare queens biatching about someone taking their tax money and giving it to someone else?

Take that state troopers, highway crews, utility workers, teachers, scientists, free clinic doctors, mental health workers and all other state employees (and those that depend on them) that had absolutely nothing to do with the budgetary mismanagement. That'll teach you to... uh... work.

Tetrasodium: why is it always the redstate welfare queens biatching about someone taking their tax money and giving it to someone else?

Without breaking it down by purpose that statistic doesn't really show anything.

Without breaking it down by purpose that statistic doesn't really show anything

Only if you ignore the fact that the states spending more than they get back are mostly blue states and the states getting more than they give out are mostly red states or the fact that getting more than they give is pretty normal. If this schmuck is so hellbent on not recieving 'welfare' for his state, then he should start with the 'welfare' his state is already getting. As it is it's pretty obvious that his bullshiatting isn't going to change anything for the people of his state, Paulson isn't going to tell some bank to fark off because they are in South Carolina or have branches there.

If he's against the bailout, then he gets more respect from me than either the outgoing or incoming Presidents.

Take that state troopers

Massachusetts didn't fire its state troopers, it upped their ticket quota to help fill the budget gap.

Tetrasodium: Without breaking it down by purpose that statistic doesn't really show anything
Only if you ignore the fact that the states spending more than they get back are mostly blue states and the states getting more than they give out are mostly red states or the fact that getting more than they give is pretty normal. If this schmuck is so hellbent on not recieving 'welfare' for his state, then he should start with the 'welfare' his state is already getting. As it is it's pretty obvious that his bullshiatting isn't going to change anything for the people of his state, Paulson isn't going to tell some bank to fark off because they are in South Carolina or have branches there.

Yeah, but how much of that is stuff like Federal land management (a lot more Federally owned land in red states, often with the opposition of "red staters" in the Mountain West and Alaska) or military spending or other stuff no one would really consider "welfare"?

I'm not denying that the red states get more money, I just don't think you can transfer this fact into an accusation of hypocrisy against any one in a red state who wants to cut Federal spending.

clgrin: Take that state troopers, highway crews, utility workers, teachers, scientists, free clinic doctors, mental health workers and all other state employees (and those that depend on them) that had absolutely nothing to do with the budgetary mismanagement. That'll teach you to... uh... work.

If a state is short on money, it should either raise taxes or cut spending (I'd personally choose the latter). Getting bailed out by Congress, in essence nationalizing the cost of their own mismanagement, should not even be an option.

Tetrasodium: Without breaking it down by purpose that statistic doesn't really show anything
Only if you ignore the fact that the states spending more than they get back are mostly blue states and the states getting more than they give out are mostly red states or the fact that getting more than they give is pretty normal. If this schmuck is so hellbent on not recieving 'welfare' for his state, then he should start with the 'welfare' his state is already getting. As it is it's pretty obvious that his bullshiatting isn't going to change anything for the people of his state, Paulson isn't going to tell some bank to fark off because they are in South Carolina or have branches there.

Yep. It drives me crazy because I live in California, where we only get back .80 cents on the dollar for the federal revenue we generate. And yet, red states have the farking gall to complain about how "socialist" we are -- if I had it my way, the first "socialist" thing we'd stop doing is supporting shiatty flyover states.

keflex: Yep. It drives me crazy because I live in California, where we only get back .80 cents on the dollar for the federal revenue we generate. And yet, red states have the farking gall to complain about how "socialist" we are -- if I had it my way, the first "socialist" thing we'd stop doing is supporting shiatty flyover states.

Fine, but the only way to do that would be to cut many government programs that the blue staters support the strongest.

I'm not denying that the red states get more money, I just don't think you can transfer this fact into an accusation of hypocrisy against any one in a red state who wants to cut Federal spending.

Then surely he's spoken out and attempted to refuse federal money bound for his state where his words have the possibility of actually preventing money from reaching his state. What's that? He only seems to do it when his opposition to federal funds is nothing more than hot air and has zero chance of being taken into consideration?

Churchill2004: Fine, but the only way to do that would be to cut many government programs that the blue staters support the strongest.

Considering we pay for most of the programs ourselves (after all, we get less back than we pay to the government), I imagine it would be a net gain.

Churchill2004
Fine, but the only way to do that would be to cut many government programs that the blue staters support the strongest.

You mean like farm subsidies?

Sanford says the right things, which is already better than 90% of politicians.

When it comes to doing things, it looks like he actually gives it a good and honest shot, which is again better than 90% of politicans.

But he is absolutely terrible at picking his battles; one of his spending project fights was about not wanting to use a budget surplus to replace the oldest state school bus fleet in the nation.

He's also an absolutely terrible speaker on camera; go find the clip of Colbert interviewing him; he's got no screen charisma at all.

I've gotten to shake his hand a few times and attended a small Q&A session that the USC college republicans hosted with him as a guest. In person he's very knowledgeable and engaging about a wide variety of topics and policy issues, and has a good knack for trimming away the sound-bite BS that surrounds most issues and framing them in a way that most reasonable people would both understand and agree with.

He gets a bit of flak from the south carolina good-old-boys type republicans because he sometimes doesn't support republican incumbants in primaries; especially the ones in the state house that make the spending cuts difficult. I see this as a positive quality.

By career he's a real estate developer, and I've heard a few rumors of him trying to influence some state development deals, so I don't completely trust him but that's again alot more reasonable than the kind of crap most politicians pull behind the scenes.

If Sanford were one of the people guiding the Republican party in upcoming years then I'd be fully supportive of it.

Tetrasodium: You mean like farm subsidies?



Yup, those hardcore red states like California, Illinois, and Minnesota.

Farm subsidies are a big problem, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Federal budget. I really doubt they're affecting these numbers.

No, the simple reason is that the red states tend to be poorer, and our government taxes the poor less and spends more money on them.

Churchill2004: No, the simple reason is that the red states tend to be poorer, and our government taxes the poor less and spends more money on them.

And yet they elect politicians who don't want to use the government to help people and spout self-reliance memes.

They are poor because anti-intellectualism leads to low rates of education which leads to poverty. Most red states are the descendants of secessionists that never had to become good at anything except the exploitation of slaves.

Basically red states are what happens when you elect leaders like Palin and think she is qualified to be president.

bartink: And yet they elect politicians who don't want to use the government to help people and spout self-reliance memes.

They are poor because anti-intellectualism leads to low rates of education which leads to poverty. Most red states are the descendants of secessionists that never had to become good at anything except the exploitation of slaves.

Basically red states are what happens when you elect leaders like Palin and think she is qualified to be president.

You're treating states as if they were individual persons, or some kind of monolithic homogeneous bloc. You're painting with an absurdly broad brush. Some of the heaviest concentrations of poor, Democratic-voting blacks are in "red states", and many "red states" have Democratic state/local governments that are huge spenders on social programs, for just one example of how disconnected from reality your train of logic is here.

the problem wasn't caused by too much government debt. the problem is caused by too much private debt, but what he said was basically it's funny to solve a problem with apples that was caused by too many oranges.

and either way, the drop in state tax revenues is wholly unrelated to federal debt.

basically, what he said sounds nice but doesn't mean anything.

I know the guy. He tends to believe the right stuff (from my perspective) but he has accomplished practically nothing as Governor.

Crosshair: So where is the federal government going to get this money? Magic, Fairy Dust, Genie in a bottle?

Jesus H.B. Christ, Churchill2004: clgrin: Take that state troopers, highway crews, utility workers, teachers, scientists, free clinic doctors, mental health workers and all other state employees (and those that depend on them) that had absolutely nothing to do with the budgetary mismanagement. That'll teach you to... uh... work.

If a state is short on money, it should either raise taxes or cut spending (I'd personally choose the latter). Getting bailed out by Congress, in essence nationalizing the cost of their own mismanagement, should not even be an option.

Or...or better yet, make all of the states autonomous, with just a loose federal government without even the power to declare war!

...we tried that once. It lasted about 8 years. The next version has lasted 221 years.

...we tried that once. It lasted about 8 years. The next version has lasted 221 years.

It lasted 71 years.

IlGreven: Or...or better yet, make all of the states autonomous, with just a loose federal government without even the power to declare war!

...we tried that once. It lasted about 8 years. The next version has lasted 221 years

Right, because "state governments should pay for their own operations through their own taxes" is clearly the same as wanting to dissolve the United States.

Talk about hyperbole.