Personally I always regarded in absense of Paul, Johnson as by far the better than Sanford as sucessor, not only due to the fact that Johnson’s positions are closer to Paul’s than Sanford (and I am well aware Sanford voted with Paul against the Kosovo war etc. and was a member of the Liberty Caucus)
but also that Johnson was in a deep blue state much more successful in the state than Sanford in a deep red state. Johnson has much more to show in concrete actions taken. Sanford made some mistakes with appointments, e.g. not all fiscal conservative and pro-market as he himself, for instance with regard to the port, that is not privatized. In education etc. SC’s position has not improved either, while Johnson managed to transform an economy in NM in the red to one in the black when he left office, without any former state people losing their jobs! Johnson is also a bit older and wiser, has the interesting experience of climbing Mt. Everest, is a triathlete, humble, pick up garbage himself (e.g. practises what he preaches) and smart as well. Another issue: Sanford worked for Goldman Sachs and his wife Jane is a millionaire and he earned in real estate before becoming congressman, e.g. has the impression of an “elite” as the left can easily paint, though I think he is a down to earth guy. Johnson on the other side built up with his wife (deceased later) his own handyman business, and became a millionaire through hard work and also created how many jobs, e.g. a real service and investment in the people. What I mean is that Sanford could have been painted – like Romney – as one of big business, while Johnson (like Paul) as one with SME business, that is really the lifeblood of not only jobs, but also true capitalism.

OK, a “subjective” issue: personally some women may find Johnson more physically attractive than Sanford. This is of course totally irrelevant, but some voters base their preferences on impressions like this, unfortunately.

Sanford has of course the advantage of also have served in congress, while Johnson does not have this advantage. But Johnson also represents the libertarian West, while Sanford the Southern states. Especially where the GOP is (partly falsely) perceived as currently more only a southern state based party, Johnson brings in the libertarian West and could bring a few states into play (whereas SC is very safely GOP) and with this also some in the Northeast like NH. Johnson also has the advantage of not having been associated with Bush, and the Bush-Cheney connection may haunt the GOP for some time still, so with Johnson they are rid of this to a large extent. Johnson has of course not been in politics very recently, and would have to get some name recognition and name experience. But it is also good that he remains a bit under the radar at the moment, while he can develop with more appearances on Andrew Napolitano’s “Freedomwatch”, with the past Wednesday being his first appearance. Johnson did adddress the Heritage Foundation a few years ago on education etc. as gov, and also the Cato Institute and others, he has been endorsed by the NM Right to Life for his second run as gov. and has appeared on Meet the Press before Sanford (or Paul) has, but probably only once. People will like his calm demeanor, just like Sanford’s or Paul’s (of course not the hawks). I think if Paul does run (hopefully) in 2012, Johnson would be there campaigning with him and be seen as a possible VP candidate. Maybe Johnson could endorse a few candidates currently. For the SC gov. primary Nikki Healy seems very interesting, so if Paul and Johnson could maybe meet her and endorse her, and also help with a recommendation for fundraising, it will help her a lot and if she is elected as gov. in 2011, she could endorse Paul (or Johnson) in the important SC primary. (I think she endorsed Romney in the 2008 primary, but this was before the crucial Bush-Paulson bailout, which she was also strongly against like Paul, and Romney approved of it again. She may already find her in closer agreement with Paul than with Romney, just like Michele Bachmann, who probably also supported Romney, would now be much closer to Paul.

Are you kidding me? Not weird… besides the whole weird upbringing, the weird political patrons, you should google Larry Sinclair.

The other interesting thing is he mainly got caught due to his own guilty conscience, which left him without the ruthlessness and moral indifference necessary to keep an affair going without getting caught. He basically turned himself in, signed himself up for public humiliation, and is now getting punished for his incompetence in not keeping his affair under wraps.

Cheers,

Or did he say “tail”?

Cheers,

If he said what you suggest, I’d join you in applauding his honesty, but it would be like applauding a glass filled with mud for not having any exterior streaks. Outer clarity about one’s lack of inner clarity is better than nothing, but barely.

Wouldn’t that have been more refreshing?

Is anybody else reminded of John Edwards?

Right, the e-mails. Probably from the wife, family or staff who were upset about this and had access. But the recent revelations about the e-mails of Clinton (and wives, girlfriends etc) being obtained by intell.” inappropriately” invites suspicion. The local reporter whose paper had the e-mails said they were given anonymously.

Sanford is (not “was”, “is”) probably one of my five favorite living politicians, but I’m glad he was caught, and I don’t mind that his career has ended.

He has done an awful thing to his family, and also betrayed the trust of the people whose state he led. They voted for him expecting that he could avoid making himself look like a perverted old fool in public, and their expectations were not met.

I still think he’s done a lot of good for this country, though.

Show me a part of your family that hasn’t lived off a nickle of public funds in the last 10 years, and that is the part of your family that deserves privacy, and is none of my business.

We were trying to keep Obama out of our jobsites, out of our banks, out of our automobile dealer floors, and out of our doctors’ offices, and you have dealt that effort a crippling blow. Now you dare to pretend that you have not cut the throat of millions of people.

I can name people doing life in prison who have done less damage to their country. You are every bit the disgrace that the people who perpetrated the Abu Graibe crimes were.