You probably saw this item Saturday — along with this one.
I just haven’t had a chance to rant about any of it yet. So here goes.
The governor owes it to three parties to show up for Wednesday night’s debate on S.C. ETV, in ascending order of importance:
- His opponent, at the very least.
- His party, to a greater extent.
- Most of all, to the voters of South Carolina.
As I noted last week, Oscar Lovelace was one of many people who voted for Mark Sanford four years ago, only to become disillusioned. Don’t you think that the governor could have the decency to show up and tell the guy who is disappointed enough in him to run his own campaign for governor why he’s wrong?
Not convinced by that? OK, try this.
Mark Sanford’s greatest detractors tend to be Republicans — the ones who know him and have had to work with him in office, as opposed to the ones who know little about him that they haven’t picked up from his TV ads. (Cindi Scoppe’s column Tuesday documents that further. Be sure to check it out.)
In fact, a lot of his fellow elected Republicans think a whole lot more about Oscar Lovelace than they do the governor, judging by the wild, standing ovation Dr. Lovelace got when he visited the House last week. What do they know that the electorate doesn’t? And why won’t the governor face the man who seems so much more popular than he among the knowledgeable members of his own party?
I certainly don’t care about party unity, in this or any other party. But why doesn’t the state’s chief elected Republican care any more about it than I do?
Finally, while the governor is indeed busier than the Gov Lite — he has an actual full-time job, after
all — his excuse that he doesn’t have time to debate his GOP opponent is nearly as bogus as Andre’s claim that his schedule is so hectic he has to do three digits on the public highways. As the accompanying story makes clear, he has time to politick. He’s just choosing to use his time bashing his fellow Republicans in the Legislature and playing favorites among GOP candidates for other statewide offices (all of whom showed up for their debates, mind you).
Everyone assumed, when the governor threatened to keep lawmakers after school, that he was doing so in order to be able to bash them (most of whom are Republicans, remember) over his vetoes, few of which they are likely to uphold if the past is a guide. So lawmakers decided overwhelmingly to repudiate that naked political opportunism, and kept him from doing that to them. So how did he respond? By deciding to take to the hustings and bash them anyway. Nothing like sticking to a game plan. That’s much more important than appearing on a statewide televised debate, even though all the other candidates for statewide office have had enough respect for the electorate to do so. Right? Right, sez the gov. So far.
Surely, while he’s busy telling us why Mr. Ryberg is preferable to Messrs. Quinn, Ravenel and Willis, and why we should all back his personal choice for superintendent of education over a better-qualified rival, he could take an hour to tell us why voters should choose him over Oscar Lovelace. Does he not owe that to the voters? Is he so arrogant in his electoral advantage that he doesn’t have to explain why he should get his party’s nod a second time, after a miserable performance over the last four years.
I say he does. What say you?
Personally, I expected better than this from Mark Sanford. He’s always set himself apart from political stereotypes. But what’s he acting like now? The standard arrogant incumbent who knows he’s on his way to victory, so to hell with respecting the opposition.
OK, so he’s arrogant. But I find myself wondering, as I look back over what I’ve written here, is he also scared? Scared of poor little country doctor Oscar, who’s never run for public office before in his life? As absurd as that may seem at first glance, think about it: As long as Joe Average never sees them together, he votes for Sanford. But more savvy Republicans seem to like Dr. Lovelace better. Is the governor actually afraid of the average voter out there having a chance to make a direct comparison and reach a similar conclusion?
Yeah, I’m baiting him. But he deserves to be baited.
Go ahead and blow off your opponent, Governor. And dis your party all you want. But you owe something better than that to the rest of us.
Related Posts
Obviously, the Sanford campaign has done enough polling to know that they are in the drivers seat.
Why doesn’t Mr. Lovelace work harder to prove he’s a viable candidate? I haven’t seen or heard a single TV or radio ad that defines who he is and why I should vote for him. It’s interesting how you have written posts wishing that some of the Sec’y of Education candidates took debate time away from your candidate — remember this: “Frankly, if candidates Ryan, Moffley and Wood had bowed out, we could have had a really pointed, detailed discussion of the critical accountability-vs.-tax credits issue between the chief spokespeople for those positions”
Seems a little hypocritical doesn’t it? Or is Staton AFRAID of Ryan, Moffley,and Wood?
I’d suggest The State find another quixotic cause besides trying to defeat Sanford. So much newsprint will be wasted between now and December… why not just use the same column space to push another Joe Lieberman for President in 2008 agenda? That one worked out about as well as the Sanford slams will…
Doug, ditto that. Actually what I would like to see Brad and his team at The State do is an extensive evaluation of Oscar Lovelace’s corporation. Profit levels, number of minority employees, benefits employees receive, participation in Medicaid and Medicare, executive salaries, etc. I would like to read that and the same evaluations on Moore, Willis, et. al. Let’s get past the 30 second sound bytes and document people’s actions for a change. These people are all unknowns to us in many ways. The governor acts on cutting taxes and shrinking government, those are facts.
To see true arrogance, Brad Warthen should look no further than his own outrageous statements. His attempts to bully the Governor into dialogue with Dr. Strangelove are pathetic. Why should Gov. Sanford waste time on this type of engagement when he has a job to do of confronting those who truly are obstructionists? If he were receiving the type of cooperation his agenda merits, he would not be forced to be combative. What successful office holder ever gained anything by giving the opposition a forum for ranting? Especially, to a noncreditable one–think on that Mr. Warthen and others at The State who wish to tell the people how to vote and for whom.
Mark Sanford deserves reelection and support for his vision for a better South Carolina for all its people.
Audrey Horne
Audrey…
Just what is his vision???? And what good is a vision if you are not a leader.
Leadership is influence. That is the main thing! Markie boy has no influence. Markie boy is not a leader.
While Markie boy rails about the poor state of education in South Carolina, he manipulates the poorly educated public with gross statements of misinformation and untruths that are rooted in his libertarian mindsets. If we follow his “vision” we will go backwards 50 years in education….to the time of segregation and an even greater divide between the halfs and the half nots.
That one issue is so vitally important to our future as South Carolinians that it is irresponsible of any sane and conscious voter in South Carolina to put him back into office for another four years.
While I can appreciate his grandstanding at different times to the legislature….who are not choir boys in their own right….it is true that Markie was elected to lead South Carolina. Dissension and inaction while your own party is in power is not leadership.
I would like for Oscar to get a chance just so I have another alternative to the Democrats. Because if Markie boy is nominated…..we don’t have a choice.
Audrey Horne?
Ok, what David Lynchian-Bizarro World have we dreamed into when Twin Peaks characters attack Brad Warthen, family man and local Clark Kent?
However, if you look like Sherilyn Fenn, “Audrey,” I’ll gladly temper my sarcasm and even buy you a buffet dinner at Maurice’s.
I bet you’d go for a big ol’ bowl of kettle corn or…garMONbozia.
Perhaps going back 50 years in education isn’t such a bad idea. People actually received an education back then. I certainly did in the public schools of Columbia and Charleston. Most people I know did.
Why not now?
Brad,
I totally agree. I find it funny how some folks respond to blast you when all you do is make the valid point that the sitting governor should be willing to debate a challenger.
I like Mark. But if he wants my vote. He owes it to everyone to get out there and debate any challenger. That is basic stuff.
Personally, I expected better than this from Mark Sanford. He’s always set himself apart from political stereotypes.
Sounds like you fell for his campaign slogan. Let that be a lesson to you.
Re: Dave’s post yesterday about The State looking into the business backgrounds of Governor Sanford’s opponents. How about doing the same for the Governor? (Hint: I think an in-depth investigation would show that he made most of his money elsewhere.)
Lee says that “Mark and Jenny Sanford earned their money”. BLSaiken says “… he made most of his money elsewhere”. Just curious, but where/what is “elsewhere”?
If my bio facts on the governor are straight, they were both in business in the Northeast.
Let me guess…shareholders in Dixie Outfitters, right? Am I right?
How about just checking the backgrounds of voters? That would reduce the Democrat vote count significantly.