One of the main reasons why Mark Sanford keeps getting a lot of veep buzz out of Washington — something that would never arise from those with experience dealing with him in South Carolina — is that he connects well with inside-the-Beltway journalists.
Look at this video at The Washington Post‘s Web site. The governor comes across very well in small doses — he certainly did in interviews with us back in 2002. And if you don’t go deeper, you end up persuaded.
Note particularly how smoothly he handles the question about why most Republicans in the State House can’t stand him. He ties them up in a neat little dismissive box in a way that sounds like the very soul of reason. Of course, you have to accept the premise that most people in the Legislature are worthless — otherwise his words not only don’t make sense, but are highly offensive, the sign of a personality that has serious problems with meaningful social interaction.
Washington journalists come away with such encounters thinking, "What a smooth, reasonable guy." That’s because they don’t go deeper.
Anyway, what I said two ‘grafs back also explains why he wins elections. It’s very easy for a voter to accept the idea that the Legislature as a whole is worthless. That’s because most voters don’t interact with anyone in the Legislature — the overwhelming majority have no dealings with (and too frequently can’t name) their own lawmaker. So what the governor says sounds reasonable. But if voters had the same chance to be exposed to lawmakers, they’d see how much more complicated reality is than the way the governor categorizes it.
Related Posts
So Sanford puts on a good show.
So does Obama.
Might the latter disappoint you, too?
Here’s hoping you the one guy left in the race who doesn’t talk like a snake-oil salesman prevents you from ever having to find out.
I am intelligent enought to know that Gov. Sanford is the best thing ever to happen to the state of S.C. I have met and know most of the legislators in Spartanburg county, yeah the same ones that voted to allow bass pro shops to keep 3% of the sales tax collected if they would come to the upstate, and yeah the same ones that allowed the dot to throw away 100 million dollars and make no changes in the way the dot does busimess, how about 90 million to the hundley restoration. ok i guess i don’t know my legislators.
Governor Sanford is too polite in his efforts to modernize South Carolina, in his dealing with corrupt, self-serving legislators, local fiefdoms, bureaucratic empires, and a news media which serves as apologists for them.
weldon raises a good point — of course, it’s one that is always front of mind for me. As I’ve said before, I put a lot of store by impressions gained in interviews. But I’m wary about letting the ability to interview well count for TOO much — at least, I try.
And charles, if intelligence is all that’s required to see that “Gov. Sanford is the best thing ever to happen to the state of S.C.,” then I must confess to being sorely lacking in that quality. Y’all should stop reading anything I say IMMEDIATELY, lest you all become dumber just by association with me.
Since most republicans in S.C. despise McCain as well then it sounds like a match made in heaven. I don’t see why it matters since neither McCain or Sanford will be dining in the oval office anytime soon.
The tax, tax, tax socialists are going to get their dream come true this November. So, my advice is to get as many of your socialist big government schemes in place in the next 4 years because it will be awhile before you get another chance.
We tax, tax, tax socialists are excited about the prospects of big budget deficits come 2009 and beyond. Oh that’s right, we already have big, and growing, deficits. I gotta hand it to you koolaid drinking conservatives. No matter how much evidence there is to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Republicans spend more (and indirectly through budget deficits tax more) than Democrats you continue to believe the Reagan-era fiction that the GOP is this great bunch of spending pragmatists who provide fiscal discipline to our economy. It wasn’t true during the Reagan years and has not been true during W’s time in office either.
The real mystery is why so many people continue to believe it. Is there some sort of mass hypnotism at work here? Thankfully I must be immune.
You’re still in denial about.
* The huge decline of manufacturing, the stock market crash, technology sector collapse, and recession left by Bill Clinton.
* Bill Clinton running big deficits every year
* Newt Gingrich and the GOP cutting the deficits to smaller than Bill Clinton wanted them to be
* Pelosi, Durban, Reid, Hillary and Obama voting for much higher deficits than what actually passed and was signed by G.W. Bush.
I haven’t had any Koolaid since my daughter was a child, Bud, and that was more than a decade ago.
I also haven’t had enough liquor lately to believe your charge that Republicans spend more than Democrats.
But it is nice to see you admit you’re a “tax, tax, tax” socialist. Confession is the first step toward rehabilitation.
Here’s hoping you’re preaching Reaganomics in no time at all.
The prospect of a McCain presidency is enough to drive a good democrat to drink. And something a bit stronger than koolaid. But I better hurry on down to the liquor store before the price goes up again. With a Republican still in the White House it might take a wheelbarrel full of money to buy something to go in that koolaid.
Most of the price of liquor, cigarettes, and medical care is taxes.
What’s the Social Democrat plan to reduce those tax costs?
I think you’ll find McCain preferable to Bush, Bud.
At least I hope you will.
The reason that you continue to hear about Sanford and the VP’s slot is that Sanford is a shameless self promoter that has spent millions of dollars promoting himself around the country.
The most incredible aspect of all this is that he can say, with a straight face, that this is all news to him, and unexpected.
Wow…what a lie…convincing, self depreciating, smiling…and completely false.
Shameless…and inexcusable. He neglected us for his personal glory. Simply shameless.
Oops, here’s another instance of that whole "charm the D.C. press" thing. This is at National Review Online. Their Byron York actually calls him a "leading contender" for the veep slot. Sheesh.
Brad, do you ever consider the fact that the SC Statehouse is nothing more than a good ol’ boy network that Sanford doesn’t want to be a part of?
Keep blasting him from your reliable sources and buddies like the slug of a Senator in my district, Jake Knotts. I’d vote for a Hillary Clinton stool sample before I’ll vote for Jake Knotts.
I hope he is selected as the running mate of McCain for no other reason than to piss you off.
Virtually all of the press about Sanford can be traced back to Red Seal, Inc. (Sanford’s media guy Jon Learner) or his right wing buddies Stephen Moore and Pat Toomey.
The thing these guys have in common is they shovel other people’s money back and forth amongst themselves…and they enjoy quite nice lifestyles in the process.
Fame, glory, money…every narcissist’s dream.
Interesting comment by Harris — the Mark Sanford deprecating, honest, idealist image vs. the Mark Sanford self-promoter, showman, image-over-effectives notion. What’s the more accurate characterization?
Why do all the Sanford haters constantly deride him for being wealthy? It doesn’t matter that he earned in on Wall Steet and investing in real estate – they hate the wealthy, period, whether they earned it, inherited it, or won it in the lottery.
Lee…
I know of no one that says Mark Sanford made any serious money.
He was born into it, then married more. Then he made a moderate salary as a low ranking employee on Wall Street…then he worked FOR a real estate developer…and no one I know knows of anything he actually developed. He made a living, and that was that.
As I said, he spends other peoples money. Or lives off the taxpayers. Either way, he does not live off money that he made.
You are wrong on all counts, but my question is why you hate him for having a better life than you have?
Why aren’t you concerned about the politicians who were nothing until they got big payola for their political power?
Dick Riley never made $30,000 a year until he became governor. When he left office, he received whopping “retainer fees” from firms under state regulation.
John Land makes about $500,000 a year representing clients before the Workers Compensation Board, which he controls. It is supposed to be a no-fault insurance system which has no lawyers.
I could go on with 100 more examples, but it’s your turn to answer.
Lee,
One…I don’t hate people with moeny. In fact, I am wealthy.
Two…if you know something different from what I have said, please let me know. Until then, I will stand on my remarks.
PS…and like every good Libertarian, Sandord loves to live off the tax dollars of the average working man.
He rarely uses the Governers Mansion for state events, but uses it often to entertain his rich pals…that then give money to him.
Typical politician crap.
Stop whining about Sanford’s wealth and you’ll stop giving the impression of a being a typical jealous liberal wage slave.
It seems to me that Sanford took a pay cut to run for office. He spent little as a Congressman, and term-limited himself. He did make some significant money on Wall Street, and so did his wife. He hasn’t tried to parlay his office into a bankroll, as Riley, Hodges, and most politicians have.
The only policies of his I see as wrong is in not wanting to reduce government enough.
You are wrong. Dead wrong.
Do some research and get back to me.
He never made any serious money…except by marriage or birth.
PS>>>I never mentioned his wealth. I mentioned that he spent others peoples money.
All politicians spend other people’s money. Sanford just wants to spend less of it.
As long as Sanford is not making more than his salary off being governor, who cares how much money he earned or inherited? It is irrelevant.
Hillary taking a $10,000,000 payola from a corporation while in office is relevant.
Lee….
They make pills that can keep you on track. Take one ( or two)… you are all over the place.
I can’t slow down the conversation just because socialistic liberals can’t keep up.
I like Governor Sanford. I think his vision for the state is a good one, although I would agree that his policies have been one part dream, one part poor execution and one part recalcitrant legislature: In other words, pretty ineffective. I still like him.
But…Sanford for VP? Puh-leeze! He strikes me as a Huckabee without the religiosity or fake-quaint charm (pig toting episode
notwithstanding). Sanford is a mighty scrub oak in the forest of VP timber. David
Might as well run Mitt Romney as VP, to give him some more exposure. McCain is not likely to win, and after a year of Hillary or Obama, people will be dying to vote them out of office.
Actually, current polls show McCain beating Clinton, losing to Obama. By November, anything can happen.
Whatever happens, America ends up with less-than-best choices: an older version of GW Bush continuing his progressive conservative spending, or a socialist trying to do as much irreversible damage to America as possible in their one term.
Self promotion works. The dems are almost all in line for their Koolaide and to vote for there four year wonder. Why not Sanford for VP? He’s accomplished just as little and has more experience in doing so.
Lee…yep. An older, more volatile and more wildly unpredictable George Bush clone, or
the most inexperienced, leftist, virulent liberal ever to be elevated to the presidency.
We are in very deep trouble. It will be interesting in a sad and morbid way to see what happens in November.
David
An older, more volatile and more wildly unpredictable George Bush clone, or
the most inexperienced, leftist, virulent liberal ever to be elevated to the presidency.
-dave
Sounds like a no-brainer to me. An inexperienced person is ok provided he is smart and willing to learn. Obama has shown on the debating circuit that he is more than up to the job. And what more could you want than a good ole liberal leftist. Sounds like a dream candidate to me.
I see no evidence that Obama is smart or eager to learn. Do you have some?
…because lee, you must FIRST be smart and able to learn to keep up…you sir have two strikes already and you havn’t seen his best pitch yet…swing and a miss!…sorry lee, you could always go work at SMU where the new censored library full of coloring books will be on display as soon as this republican nightmare is over…
Your personal insults are just an attempt to avoid discussing Obama and Hillary.
Do you know their socialist backgrounds, and continued associations with communists?
Do you know the details of their proposals to raise taxes again on working Americans, on top of the 50% tax increase Bill Clinton imposed?
Do you realize that their plans for “universal coverage” is nothing more than requiring every American to buy medical insurance from the insurance companies?
…lol…50% tax increase…you sir are a liar…plain and simple…i have read your blogs with first amusement at your lack of knowledge and considered the lack of education you have as probably the problem…but now i have realized that you are a complete and utter idiot…you belong on the radio with ann coulter and rush limbaugh,…so we will have a transvestite, a drug addict and an idiot on one show…surely to be a top rated radio show in the republican klan community…
Let me help you with the math, rick.
Clinton in 1993 raised the top bracket on working people from 28% to 42%, which in increase of 14% on income or 50% of 28%. With the bracket creep and Alternative Minimum Tax, the top bracket is now 48%.
Clinton also slapped taxes on Social Security income.
Clinton reduced the long-term capital gains tax rate for investment bankers from 28% to 14%. They don’t pay any Social Security or Medicare taxes, either.
Our capital gains tax is 35%, the highest in the world.
We double-tax dividends. Most European countries don’t tax dividends, and many don’t tax capital gains. None double-tax dividends. So people have more incentive to save.
That’s why Clinton left us with a recession and $1.5 TRILLION larger federal debt.