Blog and Vlog with Jack Hunter

I would vote for Mark Sanford over 90% of the Republicans currently in Congress.

Not because he is necessarily a better man than them. But because I know that he would actually do the job he was elected to do.

He already has the record to prove it.

I vote for candidates who I believe, or hope, or pray, will vote for fiscal restraint, small government and the Constitution.

Most Republicans do not do this. Hardly any Republicans have ever done this.

Our $16 trillion debt did not begin with Obama. The last time Republicans were in charge, they doubled the debt and the size of government.

Most Republicans currently in Congress aided and abetted this. TARP, stimulus, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D—any expensive, big government item you can name—if a Republican President was behind it, most Republicans supported it.

Sanford is not one of them. He never has been one of them. Ron Paul earned the nickname “Dr. No” for often being the sole “no” on so many votes. When Sanford was in the House, the congressional scorecard often featured two “no” votes—Paul and Sanford.

Even those who disagree with Ron Paul know that he is politically principled. The same can be said—and right now should be said, as a stark reminder—about Sanford.

I was born and raised in Charleston, and during my decade of commentary on 96 Wave and WTMA talk radio, I would rant and rave about my ideal conservative Republican. Someone who actually voted the way he talked on the campaign trail….

When the media tried to pretend Rand Paul “flip-flopped” on drones this week, after he used unclear language during an interview with Fox’s Neil Cavuto, I posted the following on Facebook:

Folks, the same guy who filibustered for 13 hours to say the government does not have the right to drone American citizens on American soil did not just say the opposite. He might have misspoke. I do all the time. Please give the one person who stood up for this the benefit of the doubt, and not a media eager to attack him any chance they get.

Some replied by saying that they don’t give politicians the benefit of the doubt.

What about the fact that Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Sen. Paul “unequivocally” did not change his position on drone strikes?

Nope. Judge is wrong, said some.

What about the fact that Rep. Justin Amash also defended Sen. Paul?

Nope. Not buying it.

Would you even give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt, I asked?

Nope. No politician. Ever.

The general rule of never giving a politicians the benefit of the doubt is a wise one. 99.9% of them don’t deserve it. But are there .01% that do deserve it?

There are three current politicians and one retired, that I always give the benefit of the doubt. Rep. Justin Amash, Rep. Thomas Massie, Sen. Rand Paul and former Congressman Ron Paul. Between their voting record and simply knowing where they stand, their principles, their heart, where they’re coming from – I generally know that even…

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Rick Santorum says:

Rand Paul’s brand doesn’t line up with all of what our party stands for—on national security, social values, the economy and the role of government in society. His message won’t ultimately lead us to be a more successful party.”

Oh really? Let’s examine.

On National Security:

Santorum remains a die-hard Bush-Cheney loyalist. War is good. Civil liberties are bad. If there is a way for the Executive branch to assume more power or circumvent the Constitution, Santorum is for it.

Paul would like to see our wars declared by Congress which he believes will lead to less of them. He believes civil liberties are good, the Constitution is good and government power is bad.

Virtually every bit of polling shows that Americans are war-weary, the Iraq War remains very unpopular as does our 12 years in Afghanistan. Sen. Paul’s pro-civil liberties filibuster received broad bipartisan support and energized conservative Republicans like no other event in recent memory.

On national security, Paul’s message would unquestionably be more successful than Santorum’s.

On Social Values:

When Santorum was pro-choice in the 1990′s, Sen. Paul was pro-life, if Santorum wanted to quibble about this point.

On the life issue in general, polling shows that more Americans describe themselves as ‘pro-life’ now than they have in some time.

On issues like gay marriage, Santorum wants the status quo to hold. Paul, while believing in traditional marriage, would like to see the matter decided at the state level, or the…