politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Mark Sanford announces Trump primary challenge
Source:
Washington Times
URL Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/new ... unces-trump-primary-challenge/
Published: Sep 9, 2019
Author: David Sherfinski
Post Date: 2019-09-09 00:35:04 by Hondo68
Ping List: *2020 The Likely Suspects* Subscribe to *2020 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: Sanford, Walsh 2020
Views: 2209
Comments: 20
Former Gov. Mark Sanford on Sunday said he will mount a primary challenge to President Trump in 2020, jumping into the race after publicly toying with the idea for several months. He said there needs to be a “conversation” on what it means to be a Republican. “I think that as a Republican Party we have lost our way,” said the former South Carolina governor on “Fox News Sunday.” Asked if he honestly thinks he has a shot at winning, Mr. Sanford said: “I’m saying, you never know.” “The thing that has been lacking in this debate has been an earnest and real conversation on debt and deficits and government spending, and I find it astounding to watch the number of Democratic debates that I’ve seen and no mention, no conversation on where we’re going with regard to debt,” he said. Mr. Sanford had previously instituted an informal deadline of Labor Day to decide whether to jump in, but postponed the decision as his state steeled for the arrival of Hurricane Dorian. Mr. Sanford joins former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and former Rep. Joe Walsh as the most prominent candidates mounting long-shot primary challenges to Mr. Trump, who continues to enjoy overwhelming support among GOP voters. He said there should also be a serious conversation about the president’s tariff and trade policies, as well as on “humility” and a general approach to politics. “We’re not going to solve some of the profound problems that we have as Americans by tweet,” Mr. Sanford said. Mr. Sanford lost in a primary contest of his own last year after he had emerged as one of the few Republicans on Capitol Hill willing to publicly criticize the president. In 2009, while serving as governor of South Carolina, he also admitted to a highly publicized extramarital affair. After an unexplained absence, his office said he had been hiking the Appalachian Trail when he had really been in Argentina with his then-girlfriend. Mr. Sanford said Sunday that he went on an “apology tour” after his indiscretions came to light, and that he learned another level of humility and empathy. “And in contrast to the president, when he says there’s not a single thing that he sort of regrets or apologizes for, I profoundly apologize for that,” he said. “And I believe in the Christian model of repentance and renewal and a second chance.” But Mr. Sanford and others face a steep uphill climb against Mr. Trump, who is extraordinarily popular among Republicans and has labeled Mr. Sanford, Mr. Weld, and Mr. Walsh the “Three Stooges.” Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, on Sunday said Mr. Sanford’s energy would probably be better spent elsewhere. “Let’s all come together and put this president back and reelect him, and I think that’s what needs to happen in our party right now,” Mr. Collins, Georgia Republican, said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” Mr. Sanford’s announcement also came as Republican parties in states like South Carolina, Nevada, and Kansas have moved to cancel or curtail their presidential nominating contests next year. Mr. Weld and Mr. Walsh have cried foul, as the moves have invited criticism that the party is trying to shut down any opposition to Mr. Trump. “They are literally denying their residents the right to vote to protect this incumbent president,” Mr. Walsh said in a recent appearance on CNN. “This president is like a mob boss and it’s beyond disappointing. The Republican National Committee, the Republican Party that pretty much controls a lot of these state parties, they’re doing all of Trump’s bidding. They worship him. They’re like a cult as well as so many of his voters.” But the state parties have said the moves are cost-saving measures, and defenders have pointed to the past precedent of both parties moving to cancel or curtail their presidential nominating contests when they have an incumbent president running for reelection. As a general rule, there’s “no rationale” to hold a primary when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, said Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. “With no legitimate primary challenger and President Trump’s record of results, the decision was made to save South Carolina taxpayers over $1.2 million and forgo an unnecessary primary,” Mr. McKissick said.
Poster Comment: Weld, Sanford and Walsh can have a debate without Donnell.
In this July 21, 2018, file photo, Republican politician Mark Sanford speaks at OZY Fest in Central Park in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP) ** FILE **
Subscribe to *2020 The Likely Suspects*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Where we are REALLY going with regards to debt and deficits. (1) We have the government we want. We want the large military footprint. We want universal public education, social security, medicare, medicaid, public highways, national parks, etc. We want some sort of guarantee of health insurance for all. We're not going to give up on any of these things and stop wanting them, and we're not going to allow arguments about debt and deficit to stop us from having what we want, because we want those things more than we want to either be debt free or operate with balanced budgets. That means: (2) We will always operate with debt and deficits. We do not want the levels of taxation that would be required to pay in full for what we want each year. Therefore, we will continue to accumulate some debt. If the accumulated debt does not exceed the taxable growth of economy, we can continue to run deficits forever. The debt will rise in nominal dollars, but relative to the overall national wealth and GDP, also numbered in nominal dollars, it won't affect anything. In other words, deficit spending and debt drives inflation, and to a certain degree we will inflate our way into carrying the cost. (3) Currently, we are expanding debt and deficit faster than inflation and the growth rate of the GDP can sustain. Therefore, we need to raise taxes to pay for what we want. The working classes are suffering a declining standard of living, and middle classes are barely holding steady. So the new tax burdens will be focused upon the rich. There are different ways of doing this. I have my preference, but there is no guarantee that the nation will do it my way, only that we will do it, since the other options: cutting something we want, is more painful to us than a nation than raising taxes on the rich, where the money resides. We will first max out the credit card, to the point that we can no longer increase the debt. As that point nears, we will finally bite the bullet and tax the rich. That's the future. When we do, the rich will growl and cuss, but we will preserve what we want, and as long as our taxes on the rich are lower than what they will pay in London, Paris, Tokyo, the Riviera, Capri, Stockholm, etc, they will grumble, like everybody else does, but that's it.
Obviously, this is the scenario I was describing. When we have to cancel new stealth battleships and carriers because the interest paid exceeds the cost of the entire defense budget, things will get pretty tough for the cowardly pols. That day of fiscal reckoning is only a few years off at the present rate. OTOH, if Trump succeeds in his trade policy and stops the endless expansion of social spending on immigrants who need welfare to survive in America, we could see a big expansion of the domestic economy, relative declines in imports and rising tax revenues. I'm not betting against Trump but that is a very heavy lift for any prez outside of operating under a full declaration of war as FDR or Lincoln had.
There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
(3) Currently, we are expanding debt and deficit faster than inflation and the growth rate of the GDP can sustain. Therefore, we need to raise taxes to pay for what we want. The working classes are suffering a declining standard of living, and middle classes are barely holding steady. So the new tax burdens will be focused upon the rich. There are different ways of doing this. I have my preference, but there is no guarantee that the nation will do it my way, only that we will do it, since the other options: cutting something we want, is more painful to us than a nation than raising taxes on the rich, where the money resides. We will first max out the credit card, to the point that we can no longer increase the debt. As that point nears, we will finally bite the bullet and tax the rich.
Replies to Comment # 12.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]