I see some of my correspondents have gone ahead and brought up the Time magazine piece rating Gov. Mark Sanford one of the three worst governors in the nation, placing him in the unsavory company of Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana and Bob Taft of Ohio.
I heard about this yesterday, but didn’t get time to look into it until today, after it had already been in the paper. And here’s what struck me: The little blurb in 
Time — really a sort of afterthought sidebar to go with the story on the magazine’s five best governors — referred to Mr. Sanford’s being criticized by "leaders of his own GOP," and by "GOP bosses."
In our story, GOP Chairman Katon Dawson was quoted as saying that he was never contacted for his opinion, which seemed by implication to impugn the integrity of Tim Padgett, who wrote the blurb for Time.
Katon’s a nice guy and all that, and I supposed technically he is a "GOP boss," but is that who you think of when somebody says "leaders of his own GOP," especially within the context of criticizing his own party’s top state officeholder? Of course not. Republican Party chairmen are the world’s foremost practitioners of the 11th Commandment. They would never bad-mouth their own guys. For one thing, it would be inimical to the whole point of the job. For another, they simply don’t have the political standing to do so.
We all know of actual, elected GOP leaders who have been critical of the governor (while of course saying they didn’t really mean to be critical of the governor). There’s no mystery as to who they are. And the fact that they have done so without any political cost to themselves (so far) speaks volumes about the governor’s vulnerability within his own base.
But Democrats (and disaffected Republicans, for that matter) are deluding themselves if they think that means Mr. Sanford is finished. When Sen. John Land says "The voters, next year, will be demanding change, and the days of Mark Sanford’s embarrassing legacy are numbered," he’s ignoring the rather large fact that there is no alternative within electoral striking distance of Mark Sanford. In electoral terms, it really doesn’t matter whether the governor is strong politically or not, until there is a viable alternative.
Related Posts
Maybe Aaron did talk to other “gop bosses” but you wouldn’t know it from his article. Katon even made a point that he did NOT consider himself a “boss”.
I guess the bigger point here is that even if Sanford could have prevented the credit rating reduction by one of three credit rating agencies from AAA to AA+ (which few would alledge), does that really put him in the same category with a convict and somebody who failed to pull the trigger on mandatory evacuations when she had five days notice that the worst hurricane ever was going to hit her state? This SC voter doesn’t think so.
Two issues ago, TIME ran a cover story and essentially a promo campaign on gay high school students activism and progress, if one can call it that. All written by a gay writer, who was not identified as such in the article. I don’t think TIME made mention of the former NJ governor who put his gay lover on the payroll as State Homeland Security Director. He got a free pass and they may have thought he was one of the best governors. Anyway, for TIME to attack Sanford is conversely an honor for Sanford. His small government, free market, tax cutting agenda is anathema to the TIME people.
Brad, like Time magazine, does not like Sanford because he tries to control the wasteful spending in government. He is bad in the sense that he “doesn’t get along with” the career politicians and their pork projects.
Never mind that Jim Hodges was a nobody put in office by video poker operators, whom he then double-crossed to create the lottery.
Never mind that Jim Hodges sold the entire tobacco settlement annuity to bankers at a deep discount and blew all 20 years of money in 2 years.
Never mind that everyone Brad admires, at every level of government, is a miserable failure, many of whom have had to resign under scandal.
These comments seem to be defending the Governor by criticizing others…maybe a list of the good things he’s done would be better? Actually done, not just stood for. Being a guy with an opinion nobody listens to isn’t good governance.
1) Attacking Time as liberal is laughable. The Luce family was one of America’s foremost Conservative advocates for decades. And though he has long since passed on, we’re talking about a magazine that twice put George W. Bush on the front cover and named him “man of the year.” Get a grip, y’all.
2) Reading through the article, it’s clear that there is no clear standard by which they judged the govs. Remember, one of Sanford’s first actions upon getting elected was to propose a massive (and in my personal opinion overdue) increase in cigarette taxes, and part of his campaign platform was a call for higher gas taxes. True, he signed that idiotic “no new taxes” pledge as a candidate, but early on in his administration he had the wisdom to adjust that pledge because it was the right thing to do.
3) That Sanford is long gone. I’m intrigued by something that was posted on another part of thestate webpage. The poster said that Mark Sanford critics and groupies both get it wrong. Sanford is neither a Republican OR Libertarian — he’s simply a poltical sociopath. He has no sense of how or whether his actions affect the lives of the people in his state.
For him, it’s about the publicity and the perception. For him it’s about tossing around the latest DC Conservative policy think tank scheme and then praising his own commitment to ideas and virtue as more realistic politicians shoot them down.
Let’s (briefly) give the political parties the benefit of the doubt, and buy their lines that Democrats believe in the power of government to improve people’s collective lives by leveling the playing field, and that Republicans want to improve people’s lives by getting a burdensome government out of the way so that people can reach their full individual potential.
Where does Sanford fit into that paradigm? Nowhere, of course. You rarely if ever hear him talking about the people he is supposed to be serving. Instead he talks about his “ideas,” and praises himself for standing up for “principles.”
4) I’m surprised at you for the way you ended this post. Of course there’s not yet an “electoral alternative.” You’ve been around long enough, though, to know that one year is a long time. Sen. Moore seems capable of being governor, as does Mayor Willis, and the fact that Mark Sanford is the Republican governor of a Republican state yet polls at the low 50s is a huge problem for him. I recall that both Beasley and Hodges began their races far behind any named opponent. I remember Joe Riley polling far far ahead of Nick Theodore in the 1994 primary.
Given time and some money, Sanford’s opponent will have a chance to go on tv, and make a name for themselves. I must say, after three years of grandstanding and pointless ploys, I’d be happy with a competent Cheif Executive who actually seeks wisdom and advice from others, and who focuses on moving our state forward.
5) Finally, I’d like your opinion. What should we make of a chief executive who is willing to bring (as another paper put it) defecating piglets into the statehouse to make a point, yet refused to lower flags to honor Rosa Parks (his line about the law prohibiting him was false. the law lays out times when the lowering is mandatory, but says nothing about limiting the Gov’s authority.)
Thank you
It amazes me how homophobes manage to work their anti-gay paranoia into any topic imaginable, including this one. I guess Dave was trying to make some connection with McGreevey of New Jersey, but as Dave himself pointed out, that’s a former governor, not a current one, so he would have been no part of Time’s ranking of governors and therefore I don’t understand how one can say Time gave him a “free pass.” Anyway, McGreevey pulled a stunt for which he was deservedly forced to resign, all of which proves only that love and lust cause people to do incredibly stupid things sometimes, regardless of sexual orientation(see Clinton, Bill).
If the writer of the article you cite, Dave, was not identified as gay in Time, how do you know he or she is? I could be wrong, but I’m guessing you got that info from one of those blogs out there that keep our citizenry duly informed and on guard against that vast gay conspiracy underway that’s taking aim against our otherwise wholesome and spiritually pure culture.
Elroy, it is germane to bring up the governor who preceded Sanford, just as it is to bring up any possible replacements of him, because the voters will not have the option of picking a perfect candidate (in their minds), only among a few career politicos.
The Time writer obviously did no interviews with anyone but some unamed Sanford opponents, and did no research. Only an idiot would blame Sanford (or Hodges) for the lower bond ratings. The legislature has been cooking the books on those for 20 years. We need a Constitutional amendment to abolish all borrowing at state and local levels, ending that issue.
Unlike the other two “worst” governors, Sanford will coast to reelection. ALL opinions (even my worthless thoughts about the fool) aside, exactly how high is Sanford’s approval rating in this state? Along that line, exactly how high is President George W. Bush’s approval rating in this state?
I believe the percentages of both are above 50 in their favor, even in spite of all the blindfolds that came off of people’s eyes across the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest and Far west.
For some reason, if you wear a suit (or a pantsuit) and you walk around quoting random bible verses, and/or republican think-tank views about taxes, and wrap your hands around a fascist type of patriotism, then you’ve won at least half of the hearts and minds of this state.
In that comment I don’t mean any disrespect toward REAL republican platform planks and REAL republican philosophy; while I disagree largely with most of the party rhetoric, I respect the soundness of the thinking behind it.
What I disrespect is the insulting way certain republicans can shotgun truly half-wit and hateful ideas through a crowd hungry to hear anything as a means of getting elected in this state.
Support the war in spite of deception? Make the actual, fact-finding press an enemy of the state. Don’t like homosexual sex? Make homosexuals an enemy of love and marriage, and talk about banning their legal union. Don’t like high taxes? No one does, but instead of working on tax reform, just remove a little more education spending and bootstrap programs from the budget, and just laugh when you drive by winos and bums, holler at kids not caring about themselves and getting into trouble. Remove public education entirely. Mention putting God in schools more.
Actually, this makes me think: Is Mark Sanford one of the nation’s three worst governors, or is he actually a fair-to-middlin’ governor of one of the three worst states in which to live?
Here is all you need to know about the Time selection ideals:
“As Guinn enters the final year of his busy two terms in office, his signature achievement remains the $830 million tax hike…” – Daniel Eisenberg, Time Magazine
Time Mag. is a leftist publication. I subscribe to it, I know. Yes, they named W. man of the year, but at a time when his popularity was at its height.
Sanford has been derailed in many cases by a tax-n-spend SC House and constant attacks from the media (See anti-education governor). If Sanfords proposals actually went through, SC would be a better place.
The problem is, his opposition is stronger than his power, and the media isn’t holding the politicians accountable for thier wasteful ways. The weekly Lee Bandy attack column instead focuses on how to bring down the governor in hopes that he won’t accomplish anything while they try to find a replacement, preferably Mrs. Tenenbaum.
As for his place on the political spectrum, I would say Sanford is a conservative that leans libertarian. But it sure is nice that he isn’t a partisan, right Brad?
I, along with other state employees are in agreement with TIME Magazine. Mr Sanford is not for state employees. He has cut the workforce back so much that the people of SC is going to be left out in the cold when they need the Government Agencies that has taken drastic budget cuts. I would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was on the ballot with Sanford.
Sanford is a poor governor (probably not one of the three worst in the nation, though) because he would rather play ideological games and figure-skate around the big problems the state faces. When he ran for governor, could he have been ignorant of the fact that the legislature is the kingpin in state governmen? Could he not have figured out the need to work with them to get things done?
Carol needs to remember that state government does not exist to provide employment, but for VITAL services which are the proper function of limited government, and nothing more.
Lots of us in the private sector think state government is far too large, because we can remember when it was much smaller, and we were better off. Every agency needs a 5 years sunset, and a detailed set of real hearings to justify its continuance.
Unfunded liabilities on future taxpayers need to be repaired by phasing out state retirement and medical care. Privatize and individualize the benefits, so the workers can take them with themselve to the private sector.
I am an independent who tends to vote Republican, and who voted for Governor Sanford (mainly as an opposition vote to Governor Hodges) but would never do so again. He has been a tremendous disappointment due to his complete inability or unwillingness to craft a substantive and progressive agenda for South Carolina. I have yet to figure out exactly what he stands for–but it is certainly clear what he is against: public education, economic development, and improving the lives of South Carolinians.
Actually Dave, he is against the following: Throwing money at education and crossing fingers that it will suddenly help, even though it never does (DC has the nation’s highest per child spending on education and one of the worst educational systems); Giving millions of dollars to companies to relocate factories here until another state gives a better deal in the next couple of years just so local politicians can take credit for job creation (he instead wants to create conditions that support a strong economy, not just have handouts for low-paying jobs); Making life better for those who don’t work hard or try to be self-sufficient at the cost of those who have worked hard to succeed (that is called socialism, we have capitalism here in the US). Hopefully this clears up your confusion.
By the way, he has an agenda. Cut taxes and regulation, decrease government spending, offer school choice to those in failing public schools, restructure government so it can be held accountable, and reduce the effect of the nanny state on those who have to pay for it.
Is any of that really so bad?
I’ve always thought highly of Gov. Sanford but when I saw that the leftist rag, TIME, smeared him his stock went even higher. They sure adored the tax-hikers on their list too. What a shock.
While Mark raises interesting ideas with several of his points, calling Time anything other than liberal now is plain silly. Yes H.R Luce II, the founder and a Yale grad with strong convictions, did start several conservative leaning publications, but that hardly means they have stayed in a place of stasis. Case in point, he once-staid Sports Illustrated, Luce Sr.’s 1954 creation, which would give him heart failure now if he saw what it had become (I highly doubt that particular son of missionaries would approve of the recent supermodel body painting inclusion). Time, as any subscriber of length can tell you, began its shift left before H. Luce III had even left the board (in 1996). It has continued that move since then.
Bush was selected primarily because of his potential, then real impact on the country and because the lefty editorialists found his elections so disturbing as to make him MOTY. This also kept in tradition with Clinton (MOTY 1992), Reagan (MOTY 1980), Carter (MOTY 1976) and Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Ike before them. To make the absurd claim that Bush being MOTY equates to conservative ideology ignores fact and precedent.
All this said, I am still considering your other points with interest and found them thought provoking.
Thanks.
John
I see I attributed comments to Mark that were made by the poster Elroy. Sorry about that…
Phillip, I happened to see the Time article author on TV, (it may have been MSNBC) and part of that discussion was that he was openly gay but the magazine did not disclose that. As for me being a homophobe, you are wrong on that. In my spare time, I have apartments and rent to gays without a problem, also blacks, rednecks, Asian Indians and anyone else who has green money. Although one gay person I rented to brought about 10 poisonous snakes into his apartment which caused me some apprehension. However, there are certain situations where power is abused, like a gay governor that puts a gay boytoy on the payroll, that really repulses me. I will tell you that as a Catholic I am very pleased that the Vatican is finally cracking down on the gay blades who aspire to be priests so they can have a nice vantage point to prey on young Catholic boys. You may think that is progressive or enlightened to allow that, but call me a homophobe all you want, but I want it stopped and immediately. I am undecided on whether gays are “born” or simply choose that behavior so I try NOT to discriminate. If I am brutally direct about my opinions, that is just me, but I do not hate gays in any way.
Actually, Nathan, the fact that he is not a partisan — in any conventional sense — is something I like about Mark Sanford. At least, I think I like it. I’m a little torn about it, because it arises from an aloofness (which some might call "snobbishness") toward party matters that is actually one of his less endearing characteristics. But if a person is going to turn his nose up at something, it might as well be party doings — which is why I’m pulled in two directions on this. What am I talking about? I wrote of one example at the Republican National Convention last year:
As for your explanation of why the "liberal" Time magazine named W. Man of the Year (oh, excuse me — it’s the genderless "Person of the Year" these days, isn’t it?), I think you’re missing the point. The magazine could have hated him and he could have been the most unpopular man in the country, and still have received that "honor." (And by the way, he received it in 2004 as well as in 2000.) As I understand it, the title is given to the newsmaker who has the biggest effect on the news, for good or ill. For instance, the magazine picked Adolph Hitler in 1938. I doubt that means the publication was run by Nazis at the time, or that der Führer was all that popular in this country. What do you think?
It’s fascinating the way politically ideological people (of any stripe) can’t understand the motivations of the press, even though we explain ourselves ad nauseam. I guess we don’t explain it too well.
Nathan, Please do not confuse this DAVE with the Dave above with the Utah email address. I already had to change from David since a second one appeared, now I may have to morph into someone else again. We may have to go to
REDIME TE CAPTUM QUAN QUEAS MONIMO
name, rank, and serial number.
Or, y’all could all just use your full, real names and stand behind what you say. Just a suggestion, of course…
I find it laughable that some posters believe that old Brad is anti-Sanford. Brad, you have been a stalwart defender of his idol Mark in the face of all reason. Only Barbara Williams with the P&C has you beat for blind loyalty.
The bottom line is that no matter how tan he is, how telegenic he is, or how groovy a libertarian economics professor he might have made, Mark Sanford has accomplished nothing as Governor due to his lack of leadership skills.
Sanford is easily the worst governor of my lifetime. Here is my list:
TOP TIER GOVERNORS
John West
Dick Riley
Carroll Campbell
Robert McNair
MIDDLE TIER GOVERNORS
Donald Russell
Jim Edwards
Jim Hodges
BOTTOM TIER GOVERNORS
David Beasley
Mark Sanford
Brad, you may have a point there. I may just decide to come out of the cyber closet. haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
As a Yankee transplant (1990), I have
a different perspective on the best and
worst governors of my SC “lifetime”:
Best: Sanford (wish he’d be even more
Libertarian)
Worst: Beasley (no backbone, all image)
Hodges (boring, no political strength)
Campbell (a figurehead in the
grand tradition of Ol’ Strom)
Not being a blind loyalist who only looks at the party affiliation, I can vote for the guy I think will do the best job. That
way I can vote for Sanford and NEVER Bush.
Brad – I would use my real name, but I would not want my wife to be held responsible for my opinions. She is in a position where that might happen.
I’m assuming that "Will" above is not Will Folks. Of course, if he is, that would make what he has to say really interesting. Not that it isn’t already. It’s his middle tier that attracts my attention. Interesting grouping.
I came back home to SC in 1987, a few months after Dick Riley left office. I’ve heard a lot of good things about him, and from having gotten to know him since, I believe them. But I would be hard-pressed to place any governor since I’ve been at The State in the "top tier."
If forced to, I’d probably put Carroll Campbell on top of this middling lot. And that is quite ironic, as at the time I used to complain that he was far too interested in partisan matters — building up the GOP — and not interested enough in governing the state. I’m afraid I compared him unfavorably to Lamar Alexander, whom I had covered fairly closely back in Tennessee. Alexander had gone out of his way to reach out, to involve both parties in his accomplishments, and to avoid partisanship (as we know it today) like the plague. Consequently, he was unusually successful at accomplishing education reforms and increasing incomes in the state.
But by comparison with what has followed, Carroll Campbell was a real hands-on, sagacious manager of our government. His greatest achievement? Partial government restructuring.
Which brings us back to Mr. Sanford. I hoped for one thing from him — completing the work of restructuring, so that the next governor would have the tools to get some things done. That hope has been in vain.
Interesting that TIME left Jeb Bush off of their list of best governors. In the article, they also noted that (paraphrasing), none of the current crop of governors demonstrates the political “skill” of Bill Clinton. So we do have something to be thankful for.
The biggest failure in SC regarding restructuring are the legislators. Republicans even moreso than Democrats. Of course, Democrats never restructure from what I see, they only ADD structure, so that is some consolation. Gov. Arnold in CA has been in the public spotlight with his attempts to reform and restructure and the left has blocked every move he has made. Teachers unions, nurse unions, welfare recipients, and the like have made it clear they want the nanny state. Now they just need to find someone willing to pay for it. Compared to what is happening in CA, our state is small potatoes, but I give Sanford an A for trying but a C- on results.
South Carolina has always been run by lifetime senators from poor rural counties. They used to represent wealthy farmers. Now they represent themselves, and get re-elected by keeping the poor illiterate Democrat base in fear of losing their handouts.
It will require term limits to rid our state of the John Lands who obstruct reformers like Mark Sanford and Democrat legislators who become disgusted and choose to leave office.
I admit that I was inaccurate about the timing of the MOTY or POTY naming for W. I thought that it was in ’01 or ’02. Again, it means nothing that he was named, but it is important to be write. Unfortunately, I cannot correct my posts.
As for the motivations of the press, I think many are motivated just to get those in power, whoever “those” are. Many in the press were all over Bill Clinton in the 90’s. The problem is that many are too ideological and distort the news rather than report it. Wouldn’t it be refreshing for the NYT to put Bill Clinton’s comments of yesterday into the context of his statements in ’98? Or how about mentioning that Harry Reid had on his website the following: “Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who presents a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Saddam’s rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction”. Why isn’t there more about this in the mainstream press? Because too many see the world through the Democrats lens.
I don’t think Brad is one of those people by the way. I’m not bunching him in with those that will use thier position at the New York Times or CBS to attempt to bring down Bush and Republicans. (Former CBS producer Mary Mapes of fake but accurate document fame wrote a book in which she was sympathetic to the cause of Cindy Sheehan). There is some of that at the State, mostly through the left-wing columns that they print from the NYT (See Dowd).
In the end, the press is good. But, at some point, we must say “physician, heal thyself” and ask the press to get off of the anti-Bush bandwagon.
Every few years, polls of the major editors and broadcast news producers, anchors and top correspondents shows that about 85% of them vote for the most liberal Democratic Party candidate in the primaries and in the general elections.
Most of them are “former” hippie opponents of serving in the Vietnam War. They seek to distort Iraq as Vietnam, and the exploits of Democrats as the noble cause of helping the socialists against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, in order to create a fantasy world where they are heroes.
For those wondering why SC won’t raise its tobacco taxes or make any progress on restructuring, check out this website – http://whyquit.com/sc/legislature.html
Click on the pic of Sen. Land to see his direct letter soliciting money from RJ Tobacco. Until people like him, and Gop’ers like Harrell and Leatherman, are ousted from their leadership slots, Sanford can make no progress.
Everything Brad says about Campbell is accurate. He was very partisan and very hardball. But, he had a great degree of success with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature because he knew how to think and act stategically. He also surrounded himself with an experienced, talented staff. Dick Riley was able to do likewise without the partisan edge.
Even Jim Edwards and Jim Hodges, two Governors I put in the middle tier, enjoyed no small amount of legislative success with legislatures controlled by the other party. Beasley accomplished next to nothing with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. But, only Sanford is one of the few governors in the last 20 years to have the advantage of having both houses controlled by his party. And he has profoundly failed in ways that no other Governor has come close.
Even if you are libertarian, what is the use of having a libertarian Governor who is impotent?
Harrell works for himself, undermining Sanford or anyone who is in the way of his ambition.
Leatherman is a Pee Dee Democrat who joined the GOP when he realized it was poison to be on a national ticket with the likes of Bill Clinton, Mondale, Gore, etc.
John Land suspends the legislative process quite regularly so he can go represent his clients before the Workers Compensation Commission (which was supposed to be a no-fault system without lawyers). These commissioners, whom Land and other legislators put into their jobs, award enough benefits for Land to earn about $500,000 a year “on the side”.
Tobacco taxes were already raised 50 cents a pack at the wholesale level under the settlement with the cigarette companies. Hodges sold the payout annuity for a fraction of its value, in order to spend all the cash on teacher raises and other pork, in a effort to buy re-election.
Lee, I have to wonder why Land is not being exposed by The State or other media on these deals. I guess Lee Bandy can only use his time to attack Republicans, esp. the Governor, so Land gets a free pass. I wasn’t aware that Hodges blew the tobacco settlement bucks. That is interesting..
This doesn’t tell the whole story of how the tobacco settlement money has been misappropriated and sold at a discount by former Governor Hodges and the legislature, but it is a good synopsis.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/state.php?StateID=SC
We learn on the Opinion page of the Sunday STATE (11/27/2005) that one of Larry Wilson’s so-called “investment” firms has been receiving over $300,000 in subsidies from Mayor Bob Coble’s discretionary funds.