Political Class Dismissed

Jack Hunter

But if the question is “Is Sanford of some value to the Ron Paul Revolution?” the answer seems to be an unqualified “yes.” Groups like Campaign for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty, and other Paul-oriented organizations never need to lose their radicalism, which gives them their drive and quite frankly, their charm.

But in pushing politics, public opinion and the Right toward Paul-oriented goals, yesterday’s radicalism stands a better chance of becoming tomorrow’s “fresh new ideas” by making alliances with figures and movements that make those ideas more palatable to a mainstream audience.

Which is why I will continue to tout Sanford when it makes sense. In the much-speculated upon 2012 presidential elections, I could easily envision a feisty Ron Paul still sticking it to the GOP establishment, hopefully former New Mexico Gary Johnson Governor will help carry on the Paul banner, and Sanford would certainly be preferable—not incrementally, but far and away, more preferable—than Romney, Palin, Gingrich and any of the other pro-empire, warmongering candidates that are sure to stink up the Republican ticket.

Western New York Avenger (my new proposed moniker) says “wait and see what Sanford says about NATO.” He dodged my NATO question when I interviewed him for THE NEW AMERICAN. Support for expanding NATO separates the men from the boys. Also, I believe he’s a member of the CFR and he has made statements that he accepts the propaganda about man-made global warming so I’m watching him closely.

Takimag’s Richard Spencer wonders if Newt Gingrich is the Chancellor Palpatine to Mark Sanford’s Anakin Skywalker. (Without the dorky Star Wars analogy)

Sanford has definitely been impressive so far but once he exposes even a hint of the neocon/beltway right influence … I’ll be as critical of him as I’ve been of that bloodthirsty warmonger Obama.

My latest from THE NEW AMERICAN on Sanford’s non-rejection and the blind Obama-worship from politicians and the statist media.
An excerpt:

Although Sanford’s proposal was not the type of rejection that some had anticipated, the mainstream media, fellow politicians, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reacted as if it was. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) decried Sanford’s stance as “fringe.” U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, South Carolina’s highest-ranking Democrat in Washington, reacted with outrage at the governor’s alleged “rejection” and brought racial politics into the debate. Click here for the full article…

I interviewed Governor Mark Sanford (R) of South Carolina for THE NEW AMERICAN print magazine. The full interview is now available online here. Here’s an excerpt:

TNA: You have gone on record as saying that you do not support preemptive warfare. One of the biggest expenses our country faces is so-called “defense” spending, used to maintain U.S. military forces around the globe. Obama was perceived as the peace candidate on the election trail, but he is already escalating the Afghanistan war by 17,000 troops. He also plans to station up to 50,000 troops in Iraq through 2011, and maintain all our numerous other commitments around the world. With so many economic problems facing our nation, do you think we can afford to continue the same big-government foreign policy?

Gov. Sanford: I think the answer is that our economic conditions are going to drive a change there. Paul Kennedy wrote an interesting book called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and he talked about how economic supremacy was a precursor to military supremacy and that any government who tried to sustain one without the other ultimately fell. The Soviet Union ran very significant military expenditures that they couldn’t sustain based on where their economy was — what Kennedy called “imperial overstretch.” It’s the tendency of every national power to at some point get there. Britain got there many years ago. We got there a long time ago. Click here for the full interview…

Here’s Episode 2 of The Constitutional Coalition! Besides some minor technical glitches at the beginning and the fact that my bumper music was too loud to hear me opening and closing the show, I give myself an A for effort! Also my analysis might be too “inside” to be accessible by the average person but if you’re checking out Constitutional Coalition on BlogTalkRadio(BTR), you’re probably a bit “inside” yourself. Like a fine wine, the show will only improve with age…….

So far, so good from South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.

Though the rampant corruption of our leadership class has led to the term “political” being a curse word in nearly any context, “playing politics” does not preclude someone from being principled. In fact, if sound principles on things like fiscal responsibility and size of government are ever to be translated into political victories, someone is going to have to “play the game.” A popular Southern governor - with a voting record that matches Ron Paul’s—might be just the man to talk the talk, and walk the walk.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford sounds quite Paulian here.

First, this package will ultimately mean less, not more, economic activity. The Congressional Budget Office has found that this bill will lead to a real 0.1 to 0.3 percent reduction in gross domestic product by 2019. That translates into our economy losing tens of billions of dollars.

Second, spending does not equal stimulus. …. Neither the Great Depression nor Japan’s experience in the 1990s suggests that government spending alone creates jobs or economic growth. Billions in taxpayer dollars spent in the 10 years following the 1929 stock market crash didn’t push the U.S. unemployment rate below the high teens. And despite no fewer than 10 stimulus packages implemented by the Japanese, their unemployment rate more than doubled during the “lost decade.”

Third, if you print enough money, you devalue it. We’re moving to a tipping point of devaluing every American dollar and, as a consequence, rendering any short-term economic stimulation moot.

Read more »

My latest from THE NEW AMERICAN:

Obama’s economic stimulus package is causing quite the stir among America’s governors, particularly the Republican ones. The New York Times reports: “Republican governors split sharply over the weekend over how to respond to the economic crisis, a debate whose outcome will go a long way toward shaping how the national party redefines itself in the wake of its election defeats of recent years.” Click here for more…

Palin and other Republican Governors sold out to get some funny money from the feds … except for one Governor of South Carolina who stood head above the rest in his opposition:

The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama’s plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.

“It’s incumbent on me as one of the nation’s governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar,” Sanford said in an interview. “This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession.”

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama’s plan.

For those of you not familiar with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), it is a globalist* minded organization whose membership roster consists of a political elite which are disproportionately represented in our government. Much has been written about the CFR in the alternative media (while it is virtually ignored by the mainstream press) to the point it has taken on a sort of urban legend status. Even the mention of the CFR is sometimes dismissed as mere conspiracy babble. This is too bad considering that such an influential organization should be openly discussed. Here are some good sources for information on the man who helped found it as well as its influence on our nation’s leaders. I highly recommend the last piece which includes a thorough explanation of the CFR by libertarian pioneer Murray Rothbard.

So, my question is this: does a politician’s membership in the CFR automatically mean that they are a big government globalist? I ask because my present personal favorite for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is conservative South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford, BUT he’s also a member of the CFR (I believe I read that somewhere but can’t find it). I’m also weary because I read some wishy-washy op-ed he wrote about “climate change” which sounded like he was ready to jump on the establishment bandwagon. Your thoughts?

*I use the word “globalist” to refer to the worldview that you need an activist foreign policy coupled with big government solutions across the board while completely discounting individual rights or natural law.