 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sanford, a former congressman representing Charleston and Myrtle Beach in South Carolina, emerged from a crowded seven-man primary field, beating all three sitting statewide-elected officials. By virtue of a 1 percent margin in the primary, he was considered a slight favorite over Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler heading into Tuesday's runoff — despite Peeler's dominance in the polls for months. Since the candidates had practically battled to a draw in the balloting two weeks ago — with both getting a combined 77 percent of the vote (39 percent -38 percent) — the runoff was considered a short sprint to 50.1 percent. Although he refrained from negative ads in the primary, Peeler fought bareknuckle in the runoff. He bypassed negative ads that merely distort policy positions and went straight for the jugular. In a despicable display, Peeler insinuated that Sanford didn't care about breast-cancer victims — a vicious swipe considering that Sanford's wife and mother both have had cancer. In a rare move for a statewide politician, Sanford refused to respond in kind. Peeler's justification for savaging Sanford was a vote the former Congressman cast against the creation of a breast-cancer stamp. Although Peeler felt that the vote against the stamp was a reason Sanford should not be governor, it actually shows just the opposite. Sanford voted against creating the breast-cancer stamp for a very simple reason: Money raised by the stamp was going to go to Post Office administration and most likely none of it was bound for actual breast-cancer research. Realizing full well that it was not a politically "smart" move, he joined only two other congressmen in opposing the extremely uncontroversial bill. But that's his modus operandi: He lets policy trump politics (full disclosure: I worked for him for a year on Capitol Hill). The real Mark Sanford fortunately shone through to the voters: They rejected the offensive tactics of the former favorite and flocked to the pensive, and slightly goofy, Sanford. With roughly the same number of votes cast in the runoff as two weeks earlier, Peeler picked up a mere 2,000 extra votes. Sanford, though, rolled up an additional 60,000 supporters — meaning he gained voters committed to the other five primary challengers at a 30-to-1 clip over Peeler in just two weeks. (The final tally was 60 percent-40 percent.) That's not just remarkable; that's almost unheard of. If he continues his success this fall — he already has a big advantage as a Republican who has represented a Democratic stronghold — Sanford has the potential to really shake up the status quo. Sanford's bold vision for South Carolina is premised on three concepts: 1) reforming the structure of state government to cut out both infighting and wasteful spending, 2) enacting multifaceted school choice, and 3) eliminating the dreaded state income tax. Reforming the top-end of a state's bureaucracy is a tall task, but doing so would yield substantial benefits for South Carolina. Sanford wants to end the current system, where everyone from the secretary of agriculture to the superintendent of schools is elected. Even the adjutant general, the head of the state's National Guard, is elected — meaning South Carolina's National Guard is run by a politician. Consolidating the number of elected offices down to three — governor, attorney general, and comptroller — would greatly enhance both the governor's ability to effectively and efficiently run state government and his accountability to voters to do so. Another, mostly ignored, Sanford reform proposal is called zero-based budgeting, where each agency would actually have to justify every expense every year. Bureaucracies would still chase pork, but their hunt for bacon would have to see the light of day. Assuming even a somewhat engaged public, a lot of existing programs would fail to pass the smell test out in the open. The other two flanks of Sanford's platform have obvious conservative merits. With both vouchers for students trapped in failing schools and corporate tax credits for donations to private schools, his proposed education reforms go as far as any state in the union. Finally, Sanford is attempting something that has not been achieved in recent memory in any state: entirely phasing out the pricey 7 percent income tax. Despite his unabashed conservatism, Sanford has tremendous appeal to moderates, who appreciate his measured rhetoric. Gov. Jim Hodges knows this, which is why he mimicked California Governor Gray Davis — who successfully damaged the GOP frontrunner there, Dick Riordan, before the primary — in attacking Sanford. But Hodges wasn't able to knock off Sanford in the primary, and chances are he won't be able to come November, either. — Joel Mowbray is a Townhall.com columnist and an NRO contributor. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
ith
an affection for policy only a wonk could have and an absolute inability
to speak in soundbites, Mark Sanford is the most unlikely challenger for
governor — yet, he is the most likely to knock off an incumbent state
leader come November. 
