Wow: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to endorse Rudy?
posted at 1:18 pm on October 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I saw something somewhere this morning about Rudy’s camp planning to announce a major endorsement tomorrow during an appearance in South Carolina. This would certainly qualify:
Rumors are swirling across the Palmetto State that Gov. Mark Sanford, who has until now remained neutral in the race for the White House, will endorse former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in his bid to become the next president. The Palmetto Scoop has been contacted by numerous sources who are reporting a “feeding frenzy” among national and local reporters to confirm the buzz…
The popular blog FITSNews, which is run by former Sanford spokesman Will Folks, wrote last week that, “Early rumors pegged both Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the most likely ‘Sanford suitors’ among the ‘08 contenders, but in recent months sources have confirmed to FITSNews that it’s always been ‘Hizzoner or Bust’ for the governor, or at least for the governor’s Washington D.C.-based political consultant, Jon Lerner.”
Folks elaborated, “Some sources even claim Sanford’s endorsement of Rudy (in exchange for the No. 2 spot on the ticket) is a done deal, and that all the early talk of the governor potentially ending up on a Romney ticket was just a smokescreen.”
South Carolina is presumptive Thompson country and deep red with social conservatives so needless to say this is a huge score. And an interesting bellwether: if Sanford has designs on higher office — and at only 47 years old and having served previously in Congress, why wouldn’t he? — throwing in his lot with Rudy this early on must mean he’s confident Giuliani will be the nominee. Or does it? Maybe he’s concluded, per the conventional wisdom, that Rudy’s the only Republican with even a chance of beating Hillary in the general so why not risk pissing off Fred and Mitt and roll the dice by endorsing him? If Rudy comes through, Sanford’s either on the ticket or in line for a cabinet appointment. If he doesn’t come through, Sanford suffers no political cost unless Fred or Mitt stun the world and make it all the way to the White House, in which case Sanford cools his heels for eight years and then emerges as a leading contender for the nomination in 2016, when he’ll be only 55. There’s really no downside to this that I can see, — except possibly earning the ire of James Dobson, which is no mean consideration. What does it say that Sanford’s apparently willing to risk that on Giuliani?
The only thing I worry about is his odd congressional synchronicity with Ron Paul, although I’m going to assume that was mostly in matters of pork and spending, where Paul is on the side of the angels. So long as Sanford believes that fire can melt steel, he should be fine.
Speaking of Paul, he’s picked up a prized endorsement himself lately. Quite a menagerie he’s cultivating.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Values, principles, standards? Win at all costs.
2Brave2Bscared on October 11, 2007 at 1:24 PM
True. No one has those but social conservatives.
I bow to your Most High Valueness.
Slublog on October 11, 2007 at 1:26 PM
You are the ubermensch, sir.
Allahpundit on October 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM
In fairness to Ron Paul its not like he wants that endorsement
Also however its his positions that appeal to them
Kos and the DU get the same creeps. Isnt just a leftist/Islamic convergence its really a nutcase conspiracy ball that sends out invites to all the loonies no matter what side of the political spectrim the are on.
William Amos on October 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM
More stirring of a candidate/s field that is very fluid at this time.
It will be interesting to see. Though the fact that he doesn’t support Fred is even more interesting.
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I’ve got a great idea for a new bumpersticker:
I Voted Rudy
Only Because
I Hate Hillary
natesnake on October 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Name-calling, sarcasm — typical.
It used to be that the primaries were the time to weed out the RINOs from the conservative field. Not anymore. Now we intentionally seek out the RINOs.
Death of the Republican party.
2Brave2Bscared on October 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Are John Doe GOP voters really that ignorant of his social positions, or do they just don’t care?
natesnake on October 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM
I wonder who Linsey Graham is going to endorce and if they really would want that ?
William Amos on October 11, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Paul’s good on social issues like taxes and spending. It’s his psychotic foreign policy and war on terror policies I despise.
amerpundit on October 11, 2007 at 1:32 PM
It used to be that the primaries were the time to weed out the RINOs from the conservative field. Not anymore. Now we intentionally seek out the RINOs.
Sanford has a lifetime rating of 92 from the American Conservative Union (by way of comparison Fred Thompson got a 90).
And yet you say he has no “values, principles or standards” because he endorses someone you don’t like?
And I’m the name caller?
Chutzpah, thy name is 2brave2Bscared.
Slublog on October 11, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Welcome to the rights surrender to “At any cost” politics. PoPD, the ends justify the means, win at any cost, once the exclusive territory of liberal/socialist/democrats now the mainstream of political discourse.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Repost, with proper formatting.
Sanford has a lifetime rating of 92 from the American Conservative Union (by way of comparison Fred Thompson got a 90).
And yet you say he has no “values, principles or standards” because he endorses someone you don’t like?
And I’m the name caller?
Chutzpah, thy name is 2brave2Bscared.
Slublog on October 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Trading an endorsement for a VP slot, how Hillaryesque of Rudy. Puts a nice conservative face on his campaign. Rudy must really think conservatives are rubes. We have been burned to badly recently to fall “for the banana in the tailpipe.” We know where he stand on social issues, we know he’ll never veto any liberal social bill that comes out of Congress. We know this and yet we are to believe he will put an originalist on SCOTUS? C’mon people. The long term social implications of a Rudy presidency are grim. We are so close to overturning Roe v. Wade, do you think Rudy is on that game plan? Me neither.
Theworldisnotenough on October 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM
My guess is they trust his promise regard judges and expect that will move the pro-life movement closer to it’s ultimate goal. As for the other aspects of his social positions, how much impact can those expect to make?
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I was at a Kinky Friedman (Independent who ran against Governor Rick Perry in Texas) book signing last night, and Kinky indicated he would endorse Hillary……but the most interesting thing?
In a crowd of mostly Democrats or left leaning Independents the clapping upon Kinky’s statement…wouldn’t have drowned out a Paul-Bunyan-sized hair pin dropping on a tile floor…
I’m just say’in .. …interesting indeed.
Me still thinks the national polls the MSM at this time relying on are not the real pulse of voters actually going to vote come Nov. ‘08
I think the most Conservative and strongest candidate is still the best bet to beat Hillary.
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 1:39 PM
What adjective would you use to describe a person that casts their lot with a person that does not share their values for political advancement? I’m guessing principled is not one of them.
Theworldisnotenough on October 11, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I never said that.
There are plenty of better, more conservative candidates in the field that Sanford could have gotten behind. The general election is another beast I’ll give you that; but these are the primaries — why are we already selling out to the RINO Giuliani?
And before you label me a social conservative again, my problems with Rudy go beyond simply his abhorrent stance on abortion.
2Brave2Bscared on October 11, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Theoretically, in the Primaries a big impact. In a General, not so much considering what the alternative is.
natesnake on October 11, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I mean his personal views during an administration. Assuming his assurance on the judges to be legit.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Pragmatic.
No? Well, you certainly implied it quite strongly.
Slublog on October 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM
This one says an endorsement isn’t expected this week, though doesn’t rule it out at a different time:
amerpundit on October 11, 2007 at 1:48 PM
You know what the funny thing is? If elected, Hillary will likely not do much different regarding the War On Terror than what Bush is doing (Iraq, Iran, NK, wire tapping, rendition, etc.). The only difference is that she will not admit to this prior to the election.
She’s a politician. She’s not dumb.
Win at any price.
natesnake on October 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM
as I told you yesterday, you have to be careful how you word things, you have a habit of appearing to or possibly intending to imply or insinuate things with your posts and then claiming that you never said something. Most of us are fully aware of the term plausible deniability and we don’t take to kindly to it in what should be frank and honest conversations.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM
With a Democrat held Upper and Lower House, it could come into play. Show me a crazier than batsh!t piece of liberal legislation, and I’ll show a few dozen morons who’ll support it.
I don’t believe him. See:
natesnake on October 11, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Don’t blame this on me. You have no interest in having a frank and honest conversation with me.
2Brave2Bscared on October 11, 2007 at 1:55 PM
2Brave2Bscared on October 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM
The Republican Party has been dead for a while now. Maybe shedding some light on that fact will wake a few folks up. Begin a new direction. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in my view. Now if we can just get the Democrat Party to die along side it. There is hope.
Griz on October 11, 2007 at 2:00 PM
You want to continue taking this attitude fine thats your prerogative, don’t be surprised as more and more people come to the same conclusions regarding your posts then. Remember it isn’t just me who thinks you are doing this, the list gets longer and longer every time you post.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Yes, I was wondering how you think that might manifest. Serious question.
Okay.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 2:04 PM
2Brave2Bscared,
I promise you can have an intelligent debate without ever responding to or interacting with doriangrey’s posts…. just try it.
Otherwise all of us have to get prescription-doriangrey-eyewash which gets to be expensive after awhile.
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 2:07 PM
This from the guy who won the most disgusting comment award yesterday……….priceless…
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 2:16 PM
doriangrey,
Gud bye!
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Where can I find this “most disgusting comment”? Now I’m curious.
MikeZero on October 11, 2007 at 2:38 PM
The fact that Hillary has such high negative numbers will IMO, cause the Independents and even the right leaning Democrats to hold their noses and vote for the most conservative, strongest candidate.
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Here.
Enjoy.
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 2:41 PM
It was in the Debbie Schlussel headline thread, which seems to be gone from the All Headliners now.
yea right, you’ll be back sniping at my heels again before long. It’s your nature, you cant help yourself.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Opp’s wrong thread, but I see Mcguyver has proudly preserved it for posterity.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM
You can cycle through the headline, fyi. the “>>” cycle the pages according to topic.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Lindsey will probably throw his lot in with McCain, considering how far up Johnny’s posterior Lindey’s nose has been. When McCain is destroyed, probably in the S.C. primary (due to how he treated his first wife, not any made-up story about African-American hookers), Lindsey will be in a quandary – Hillary or Rudy? Probably Rudy this coming election, just so he can say he’s a good Republican and beg to keep his Senate seat.
Rudy will probably get the nomination, but I feel almost certain Hillary will win the election. Not because of the HORRIBLE CHRISTIANISTERIAS RAWRRRR but because of the Ron Paul fanboys.
I predicted long ago that Hillary would use 1992 as her template. The initials of the spoiler are even the same – Ross Perot/Ron Paul – a coincidence to be sure, but one that makes my neck hair stand up.
I also predicted that Billy Jeff would probably have that final heart attack in October ‘08, just to give that “grieving widow” and “Billy Boy was the best Prez evar!” nostalgia edge to the Empress. It gets him and his distracting skirt-chasing out of the way so all the attention can be on the Cankled One during her presidency.
After that, who knows? Maybe a monument can be carved in her honor for all posterity to appreciate. I don’t know where they’d find a neo-classical artist these days, but I’m sure Hillary has someone in mind.
I just hope she doesn’t take an interest in the 22nd Amendment.
angryoldfatman on October 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Rudy will need it. I was going to ask I wonder how much money they offered him to endorse Rudy until I read the article and the bribe offered was a possible Vice Presidential seat.
Dude, I’m sorry to say this. It isn’t abortion. Dobson is irrelevant. It’s all of the above. If the Republicans don’t nominate a conservative, Hillary will win.
Rudy won’t get the base out. Rudy’s ‘base’ is the ‘anti-Hillary’ vote. That’s anybody’s base but Hillary.
Rudy brings nothing to the table to help him win the Presidency. The only chance to win of the top 4 candidates is with McCain. . . and that’s only because the media likes him.
In the general, Rudy will lose in a landslide once the Clinton machine gets its talons in Rudy’s dirt.
Fine, put up Rudy. But you will be talking about President Clinton again.
Politics in the south are pretty corrupt. Our Speaker of the House in NC was just sent to federal prison for about 5 years for corruption and bribes. The people here know that politicians are corrupt. The endorsement from the governor is not a bad thing. . . but it isn’t all he’ll need for the primary.
And it won’t help him in the general election. I wish I could get behind Rudy, but I like McCain better than Rudy. And I don’t like McCain much at all (as I am sure most people on this board agree).
ThackerAgency on October 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM,
Therefore, I will not help nor assist them or interact with them in any way, henceforth.
Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 3:24 PM
That’s not a quote of me. Just to clear.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 3:33 PM
He’s quoting himself, and he ends that diatribe with a perfect liberal/socialist mantra free speech for me but not for thee money quote.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Thanks for the link, AP.
This is certainly positive news for Giuliani.
JammieWearingFool on October 11, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Oh. Well I don’t want in the midst of your slapfight, you both have advocated banning because you disagree with people, so have it out between yourselves.
I merely meant to help with the functionality of searching through past headlines.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Uh, no. I have never advocated banning anyone, I have warned csdeven a couple of times that his behavior regarding Fred threads could very possible result in his being banned, but that is a far shot from advocated banning anyone. Oh and yes I did once tell him (csdeven) that if he couldn’t understand why his personal attacks, rudeness and vulgarity might get him banned that it would be a well deserved ban, but again that is a far cry from advocated or calling for the banning of anyone.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Oh, okay – out your genuine concern. I obviously misread that then because it sure read like you were lobbying for it at the time, especially what you were using as evidence.
Like I said, I don’t care, was just adding functionality comment.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Which I do appreciate, oh and don’t let the banter fool you, I really do like csdeven, I just want him to be civil regarding Fred. So yes it was genuine concern. Just as I am trying very hard to see 2Brave2Bscared as more being misunderstood than intentionally deceptive with us here.
doriangrey on October 11, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Nope – not going to happen. SCHotline has it, FITSNews has it, Palmetto Scoop has it. No endorsement from Sanford for Giuliani tomorrow.
Oh, and Lindsey’s already supporting McCain…
JDinSC on October 11, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I was born and raised in SC. Why is this seemingly “shocking” to some folks? I am gay, and I found the people of SC to be friendly, plain-spoken, hard-working people who just want to be left alone from the government, and who don’t really care what people do behind closed doors. I think I turned out okay…just ask my momma!
SouthernGent on October 11, 2007 at 6:15 PM
No way dude those backward redneck Jesus-loving hayseeds hate gays and want to stone them like Jesus used to.
/sarcasm from a fellow SC’ian
I guess we’re hypocrites down here because we’ve had our “odd birds” for decades long preceding the glorious out-of-the-closet 80’s and haven’t done to them what leftist Yankees do regularly to anyone who even thinks differently than they do.
angryoldfatman on October 11, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Mcguyver:
Fixed it for ya.
JM Hanes on October 12, 2007 at 2:08 AM
JM Hanes,
Fixed it for ya.
You can send your letters of support to Hillary now.
.
.
I stand by my statement and assessment of this incident at 1:39 PM:
The truth is, NO ONE HAS BEEN ELECTED FOR POTUS WITH SUCH HIGH NEGATIVES of 46%.
Mcguyver on October 12, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Comment pages: