Amid speculation, editor might consider No. 2 spot on UnParty ticket
By JOE DOAKES
[email protected]
EPE Brad Warthen says he’s not running for president in 2008.
That’s the official line.
But nearly every week there’s another sign that Warthen might be running for something.
The Midlands Unpartisan calls speculation that he’s planning a bid for the GOP nomination in 2008 “stupid.”
That, he said, is “stupider even than the idea that Mark Sanford is a viable candidate for president. I mean, what have I done to brag about? What has he done to brag about? Fuhgeddaboudit,” Warthen added in what could only have been a naked attempt to generate interest in his campaign in the New York area.
“I mean, what is it with this constant speculation that governors and editorial page editors are worth talking about for the White House? I heard it about Campbell, Hodges and Beasley. I’m serious. It was just as ridiculous each time. I wrote a column knocking down the idea of Campbell running way back when, and he was twice as viable as Sanford.”
As for considering the vice presidential slot on a ticket of any party, Warthen said “I’m completely open to it, as I understand the vice president doesn’t actually have to do anything.
“Of course, that makes Sanford a lock for the No. 2 position if he wants it. Nobody can touch his qualifications in that regard.”
Therefore, Warthen said he would probably stay out of consideration if the S.C. governor expresses strong interest. Nevertheless, he encouraged his supporters, wherever they are, to form an exploration committee.
Specifically, “I’d like them to explore how much the job pays,” Warthen said. “If I can’t be paid for doing nothing, why bother?”
Warthen said a lot of other things, but all of it was as stupid as the original rumor, so we’re not wasting any more space on it.
Related Posts
OK, let’s try that again.
This post is about — and I hope I’m not straining your powers of reading comprehension here — reports that Mark Sanford’s name keeps coming up as a presidential contender.
MY opinion, in case it wasn’t stated clearly enough, is that such speculation is as ridiculous as … well, you figure out the rest.
What this blog is inviting you to do in this case is offer YOUR opinions on the subject of Mr. Sanford and the presidency, or some closely related subject.
It is NOT seeking your thoughts on the fourth anniversary of the Iraq invasion. You may wonder why I would even have to explain that. Well, you see, I just had to unpublish two wildly off-the-subject comments that complained that this subject was NOT that subject, and — I am not making this up — took ME to task for not thinking about what THEY were thinking about at this given instant.
Tell you what I’ll do, folks. On the actual DAY of the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq invasion (I’ve got it as the 20th; I don’t know what you have), I’ll put up a brief post inviting your comments.
But until then, how about the crazy talk about Mark Sanford and the White House? That’s what this blog is about at this particular moment. The lines are open.
I think your family should explore some outpatient treatment. We’d be glad to initiate an exploratory committee for this.
I think my dog,Baby would be a more viable candidate.There’s a “Draft Sandford For President” petition online.Last I checked,he has 545 signatures with only a couple of people voting “NO”.The tension is mounting.
BTW-Baby’s a loyal Independent.
He can’t get along with a Rep. senate or the Rep. house, the Rep speaker of the house nor the Rep Lt Gov…how the hell is he supposed to get along with ANYBODY in DC?
His crowning monment in SC was when he carried the pigs in the statehouse. That plays well in rural and poor SC…outside the south, not so good.
He should have learned how to share and play well along time ago.
If you’re going to support a war at least learn a little something about it. If you watched TV news you’d know that March 19, 2003 was the date our imperialistic adventure in Iraq started. All the major networks had stories on it. I think it’s a fair point of discussion to critique the choice of postings on this blog.
As for the Sanford news, I’ll comment on that when there’s actually some news to comment on.
See AP Associated Press Videos.It’s featured in the online version of a newspaper called “The State”.
The start of the Iraq war was on March 20, 2003. It was still March 19, 2003 in the US when the invasion started.
Perhaps you should stop watching the Al-Queda lovers in the liberal media.
Lame
What’s lame is Brad eliminating at least two comments– not because they were “uncivil” or rude or any other rational justification, but because they didn’t follow the theme that he mandated.
Brad’s 30 years as news gatekeeper has left him with a bad case of superiority.
He doesn’t understand blogging much as George III couldn’t comprehend a republican democracy.
Brad, There was a founding father who said something like less government is better government. To the big government big spender types Sanford is definitely a failure. To many of us out here in taxpayer land, he is a hero, and a principled one at that. If those who think like you on the tax and spend issues had full control of this state, we would soon become the New Jersey of the south, worse yet, Massachusetts. The reality is Sanford has to co-exist with big spenders in his own party, like Knotts and Leatherman for example, thus he does have his own party thwarting many of his programs. So to me the man is getting things accomplished by slowing and/or stopping the big spenders. That would make him an excellent choice for the national ticket. Go ahead and laugh, it may happen yet.
OK, from what Dave says, it appears that this “Mark Sanford” person has something to do with the government of South Carolina. Thus, he would be in part responsible for the conditions and quality of life prevailing in South Carolina, is that right? Can anyone explain to me how that is any kind of recommendation for electing someone to the presidency of the United States? Does anyone seriously want the United States as a whole to be like South Carolina?
Dave writes:
******************
To many of us out here in taxpayer land, he is a hero, and a principled one at that. If those who think like you on the tax and spend issues had full control of this state, we would soon become the New Jersey of the south, worse yet, Massachusetts.
*******************
If Brad could make SC more like Massachusetts then I would enthusiastically endorse his candidicy. We’d have lower crime rates, a higher standard of living and a much longer life expectancy. Somehow Dave thinks those are bad things.
Ok, let’s talk state issues. Here are my top 10:
1. Reform the DOT (but not like we did in 1993). Once done raise the gasoline tax to fund needed road improvements.
2. Raise the cigarette tax and use part to reduce other taxes and part to fund health care.
3. Change state law to make it much easier to expel problem kids from public schools. At the same time increase funding for schools that focus on problem kids.
4. Eliminate the lottery, bring back video poker and legalize casino gambling.
5. Repeal the death penalty. (OK, this is my wish list)
6. Create a unique funding source similar to the infrastructure bank to fund safety projects, especially with regard to our roads.
7. Increase highway patrol trooper strength for our highways.
8. Eliminate pension fund for general assembly. This would be a start to returning this body to the part time status that it should be.
9. Increase state funding for environmental improvements.
10. Pass a medicinal marijuana law.
Well, you and I are in agreement on about 83.3 percent of those positions. I just wouldn’t legalize the other forms of gambling if we ever managed to get rid of the lottery. And while I don’t feel all that strongly about it, I’m not inclined to advocate the medicinal marijuana law.
83.3 percent is pretty good. And I’ll bet we could find a majority of people in S.C. agreeing with a lot of those shared positions. And yet South Carolina’s “leaders” refuse to act on those things. That’s one reason I believe a blog dedicated to state issues is a lot more needed than yet another one on national politics. We need any and every kind of forum we can find to push reform in South Carolina.
I suggest the addition of a really, really serious adult literacy program to Bud’s list, and also an aggressive public health education program. If Sanford was mature enough to deal with the legislature and get business done we could talk about those things seriously. It’s always so strange that someone who claims to be an idealist could rank actually helping people so low on their list of ideals.
Dave your comment about less government reminds me of the Steven Colbert line from last years correspondents dinner: “I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.” Clearly Mark Sanford embraces that model.
Bud and (former), it’s interesting how Massachusetts and NJ continue to lose population, or at least grow at a much smaller rate than SC. I guess all of these people are not as smart as you two regarding great places to live. And the ones who stay there in high taxland are trapped there by family or economic circumstances or they would leave also.
Human nature is a fascinating thing. All evidence, and do mean all the evidence shows that liberal states perform far better than conservative states. Yet whenever this is pointed out to the right wing, Limbaugh followers they simply bring up some non-sequetor. In this case Dave suggests that South Carolina is growing faster than Massachusetts. After all, sub-Saharin African nations are growing faster than South Carolina. So does that make the Sudan a better place to live? Of course not. Even though this has nothing to do with the facts relevant to the argument conservatives somehow are able to take refuge in denying the obvious. And that is, liberal states perform better than conservative states.
It’s interesting how folks use statistics. While South Carolina’s population is growing faster than either the population of Massachusetts or New Jersey, if the growth rates for the period 2000-2005 continue, South Carolina will not have caught up to either of those other states by 2055. It ought to be of at least passing interest that the median household in the US (2003) was $43,418; for MA, the figure was $52,713; for NJ, $56,356; for SC, $38,003. These and other interesting stats are available at http://www.census.gov.