The Political Inquirer

Dear Governor Sanford,

Forgive me for forgetting your name lately. I have been pondering who the Republican Party can look forward to 2012 and beyond. Though I like some things about Palin, I don’t see success in a 2012 run. If she possibly hurt a ticket from the #2 spot, how is she going to win a general election in the #1 spot? Mitt Romney as well is a decent choice. But he too could have some issues, and lost the nomination once already, and could have trouble trying again. Some might be turned off by the big money image he has earned. Personally I wouldn’t mind another Paul run, but he’ll be approaching 75 years of age, and it’s unlikely he would win. So for a while, I didn’t have much for possibilities.

Until I was reminded of your name recently. The farther I look into your record, the more things there are to like. Frankly, I believe every conservative, and plenty of Americans, can find something to like about you. I uncovered a September 26th column you wrote opposing the $700+ billion dollar bailout for Wall Street, where you stated things such as:

Last week’s events were rooted in distressed mortgage securities whose optimistic values were facilitated by quasi-governmental entities Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The investment banking capital write-downs were turbocharged by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which did what too many laws do — it fixed yesterday’s problem. The amazing expansion of credit was fueled by a Federal Reserve offering an easy-money policy that led us right into a credit bubble. All this was made worse by the government enabling some people’s tendency to want more house than they can afford.

With that bubble popped, we will now go through a major financial de-leveraging. It will be painful. Yet to preserve what has made this country great, we need to be on guard against Washington offering endless cures to our ills.

You have been a faithful small government conservative, shown clearly below:

An ever-expanding scope of federal commitment and power is not what made this country great. Expanded power in one place comes at a cost in other places. American cornerstones such as individual initiative and an entrepreneurial spirit — born in free and open societies with private property rights and the rule of law — have never fit particularly well within the context of an ever-growing federal government.

You have been praised in an editorial by the Augusta Chronicle for “being the only governor in D.C. without his hands out”. Local leaders are lining up for federal money, possibly from a new $150 billion stimulus package that could be passed soon. You were the only one to tell the House Ways and Means Committee to drop the idea of another bailout/stimulus package entirely. Meanwhile, liberal governors like David Patterson (D-NY) begged for money to help state budgets, and to become a partner of the federal government, just like the financial industry. Your plea was of a much different nature, when you said, “This $150 billion salve may in fact further infect our economy with unnecessary government influence and unintended fiscal consequences.”

On fiscal responsibility, there are few like you. Even John McCain, whose rhetoric decried spending for months, supported the giant Wall Street bailout, and then advocated government purchase of $300 billion in mortgages during the final debate.

You’ve taken on your own party’s spending habits. In your state of South Carolina, the Republican run General Assembly overrode 105 of 106 of your budget vetoes. On May 26th 2004, you brought live pigs into the house chamber as a protest against pork projects. Not only do you stick to principle, but you have entertaining style as well.

On foreign policy, it seems you have old Republican style views. While in Congress in 1999, you voted yes to disallow the Kosovo invasion:

“Vote on an amendment to the “Kosovo and Southwest Asia Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act” which would prohibit the use of funds for any invasion of Yugoslavia with U.S. ground forces except in time of war.”

It seems you were also wary of committing American troops to regime change in Iraq, during the fateful vote in 1998, which would be part of the basis of the 2003 invasion. You were outvoted 417-5.

You have kept your word on an obscure issue that I have actually advocated myself: term limits for Congressmen. Three Republicans who were elected in 1994, Matt Salmon, Tom Cuburn, and yourself, all vowed to serve only three terms. And truly surprising for politicians, you all kept your word and declined running in 2000.

Sanford’s message is clear and consistent: term limits do make a difference. Imagine how different our government would be if the entire House of Representatives were term-limited. The tiny band of self-limited Congressmen did vote differently. The explanation here by Sanford is that the self- limited house members “don’t have to preoccupy themselves with reelection and career. Reelection fever is what leads politicians to exaggerate good news and water down bad news. People want something a lot simpler: they want the truth. A lot of people in Washington seem to miss this.

Taxes are another issue important to many people. In 2000 you voted to eliminate the marriage penalty, where a married couple would pay more in taxes than two single people. Also in 2000 you voted yes on a $46 billion tax cut for small businesses.

For experience, you have been a House member from 1994 to 2000. You are currently serving your second and final term as South Carolina governor.

I sincerely hope that you would consider a run in 2012 in the Republican Party.