OK, the governor’s evasion of a face-to-face, televised meeting with his primary opponent has now officially reached the point of being pathetic and inexcusable.
This release just came out, even as I was writing my last post:
Columbia, SC… On Wednesday, June 7 at 7 p.m. ETV and The State
Newspaper will present an exclusive, hard-hitting interview with Oscar
Lovelace, the Republican gubernatorial candidate for governor.
"Those who tune into ETV or ETV Radio that night will find a
program that offers crucial information as Election Day approaches,"
said Catherine Christman, vice president of Communications for ETV. "We
are pleased that Mr. Lovelace will be in our studios on Wednesday,
though disappointed that the governor won’t be able to participate in
the debate, since it would have been the only statewide opportunity for
citizens to hear both men’s thoughts on issues of importance."
The governor still has time to extract some dignity from this farce — for himself, his opponent, his party and the S.C. electorate. But he doesn’t have a whole lot of it.
Related Posts
While Sanford’s decision to avoid the debate may deprive a scant few people of the opportunity to compare the candidates, it makes no sense for him politically participate. The incumbent always has that advantage when there doesn’t appear to be a strong challenger. Sanford is in this to win, not to give Dr. Lovelace credibility.
Brad – did The State come down as hard on Strom Thurmond for avoiding debates? Just wondering… Having only lived in South Carolina since 1990, I don’t recall Strom appearing at any event that didn’t require reading off notecards or squeezing young girl’s butts.
Brad, you concurred with the Greenville News for minimizing a few people who they deemed as also rans for Ed. Secty. What is different about minimizing Oscar as an also ran? Have you see more than 100 people (not counting relatives and employees) show up for anything Oscar has scheduled? I have nothing against him and he is likely a very nice guy. His message, A New Governor, is only catching on with liberals and democrats.
God forbid that any of us would think about just doing what is right!
Those who are Sanford apologists – and Mark himself – are too engrossed in their own ignorance to realize the pathetic stance they are taking.
Markie, I voted for you four years ago. I don’t vote straight Republican or Democrat – but most often find myself on the Republican side of the aisle. You have not only been an extreme disappointment in your failure to lead – but you invalidate your own arguments with your impotence in leadership.
For example, you tell public schools that they must be “accountable” for their failures. You say that we must go another way. We must open up the “market” for competition.
However, you have accomplished diddly as the chief executive officer of this state. All you can do is blame the legislature. And then you deny the free market system by refusing to debate your competition.
Pathetic. Hypocritical. Egotistical. Shameful.
1. Are we now putting Mark Sanford in the same competence level as Strom Thurmond in his latter years? And we did complain about him not coming in for so much as an interview. I remember writing that. Beyond that, I’ve made the point over and over in the past: Who South Carolina has in the U.S. Senate isn’t nearly as important as having a good governor.
2. Actually, the Greenville paper DID mention the also-rans, and we did not. We wouldn’t waste the space; it was too important to explain the difference between the two candidates who have a chance of winning.
NO one has a chance of winning against Mark Sanford in this primary — and that’s a shame. By the standards that he set when we endorsed him four years ago, his term has largely been a waste of time. It’s really bad for SC that no more viable alternatives have emerged. The least he could do is show up to appear with the one guy who is doing his best to provide an alternative.
What does he have to lose?
And can’t he make decisions based on something higher than the safest political course? Mark Sanford playing it safe by not facing Oscar Lovelace is as much overkill as the Nixon people thinking they had to break into Democratic HQ.
How much does he have to win by?
>> Are we now putting Mark Sanford in the same competence level as Strom Thurmond in his latter years?
I just wondered what your level of “outrage” was with Strom… I don’t recall there being much made of Strom’s
failing faculties during his final two terms. Did you call Strom scared?
> What does he have to lose?
What does he have to gain? He’s going to win the primary without breaking a sweat.
Voters know who Sanford is. If he’s so weak as a candidate, why isn’t there anybody willing to take him on?
He’s weak as a governor, not as a candidate. He’s strong as a candidate, because voters do NOT know him.
And that’s probably the simple and obvious answer I’m seeking, mistakenly looking for something more complicated. Maybe he figures that if the voters get to see him in an unscripted hour, they might get to know him better. For his relationship with Republicans at the State House, that’s been disastrous.
“Debates” are a joke. They show nothing and give no telling information that the “voters” do not already know. Oh, yes, they do show who can “debate” the best, that is, who can out-shout, out-argue and out-offend the other. Who cares? How many people actually watch or attend a “debate”, vote according to what they saw/heard and make a difference?
A governor in this state is powerless against the Legislature (and that’s good). But, the good ol’ boys & girls in the Legislature are the ones who need to be kicked out and replaced with real representatives “OF and FOR” the people (such as yourselves).
Mark Sanford is a millionaire and that’s reason enough for me to vote against him. Most legislators are rich as well. A “pox” on all of them. (And, Lovelace probably “ain’t poor”.)
I am a Mark Sanford supporter but I don’t understand anyone trying to give him a pass on not debating Dr. Lovelace.
Mark wants my vote. He wants your vote.
As someone running for election and asking for our vote, he should stand up and debate all comers. In this instance, Dr. Lovelace is the only one that will be at the debate.
Sure, we rarely get anything out of a 1 hour debate. But Governor Sanford, I believe, owes that to us if he wants our vote.
The hatred of “millionaires”, especially self-made ones, is sad. It means the hater has given up on himself becoming wealthier through his own efforts.
Mark and Jenny Sanford earned their money.
So did some of those in the SC legislature.
Others legislators became rich because of abuse of their office. Those are the ones who deserve our outrage, and our efforts to remove them from office.
Brad,
If Mary Rosh challenged you to a public debate, would you accept her challenge? I doubt it. And I wouldn’t blame you. I don’t blame Gov. Sanford for not wanting to debate Oscar Lovelace with ETV either. After all, this is the same crowd that took the opportunity to praise that peice of rank propaganda that they created, “Corridors of Shame”. I’m sure that they would give Sanford a fair shake, yeah. The people at SC ETV would love to see Sanford packing up and moving out of Columbia, as I’m sure that you would. Sanford isn’t debating Lovelace because he doesn’t see Lovelace as a legitimate candidate. He will do some interviews, and then he will win easily. But how can you really blame him for skipping a debate with a nobody that is moderated by people who don’t like him?
If Mary Rosh challenged you to a public debate, would you accept her challenge? I doubt it. And I wouldn’t blame you.
That might be a good analogy . . . if Brad and Mary were running for governor.
Why IS Governor Sanford so afraid of Dr. Lovelace?
I’m sure that Gov. Sanford is as scared of Dr. Lovelace as Brad is scared that Mary Rosh is going to come take is job. The question is whether or not you give credence to a candidate with no chance in an environment that is blatantly hostile towards you. Gov. Sanford decided not to bother. Is he right? I don’t know. Could he be more effective? Certainly. But Dr. Lovelace has no chance unless the anti-Sanford forces at SC ETV and The State can drive him into prominence.
I was reading the State this morning and nearly choked on my cereal when I saw the little insert describing the official state requirements for being governor. No. 1, before any age requirement, was “cannot deny the existence of God.” I’m curious when that was put into the state constitution and how many other states have a similar clause in theirs. Perhaps Brad knows the history on this.
It seems that if God is God, he/she should be powerful enough so that the Governor of South Carolina’s lack of belief is not going to make much difference. Some would argue that an atheist would make policy decisions that would be harmful to South Carolinians’ interest, but by the same token, history has shown that a professed belief in God (especially a narrow-minded, theologically dogmatic and intolerant belief) is no guarantee against a public official’s negative impact on his constituents.
Is this even constitutional?
Who said anything about hatred and haters? The point is that millionaires and other “rich” people have no concept of what the common man needs, even if they were at one time “common”.
What is needed for real government is for the common man to be the government as old Honest Abe said ….. “a government of the people, by the people and for the people”. Nice joke, huh.?
Once again, these debates are a joke. Who needs them? What do they provide that would help a poor, undecided voter make a rational decision? Absolutely nothing.
Once again, these debates are a joke. Who needs them? What do they provide that would help a poor, undecided voter make a rational decision? Absolutely nothing.
Debates are very useful. The Education debates were useful in knowing there stances on the issues–it helped my realize that I was not going to vote for Mike Ryan.
The LG debate was useful also after the reporters got passed the first twenty minutes of asking questions that had nothing to do with the issues.
“there stances”? “my realize”?? “got passed”??? OK, they may be useful to those who don’t know anything.
All politicians take stances and make promises. And then they ———
I think anytime a politican wants my vote, he owes it to the people he is asking to get up and face the opponent face to face.
It may not mean a lot to some people, but I take it seriously.
I want to hear Governor Sanford and Dr. Lovelace side by side. I like Mark. I don’t know anything much about Dr. Lovelace. But I want to hear both discuss their ideas.
Seriously, it is sad how the media has most people going along with their derision of any challengers, unless they happen to agree with some hot issue of the media crusade du jour.
It is also sad that challengers are expected to be perfect, even when running against incumbents who are failures or openly corrupt.
In today’s elections, you have to be:
1. An employee of a big corporation who wants a seat in the legislature
2. An incumbent controlling lots of subsidies, promotions, departmental funding, and dirt on people
3. Rich enough to run full time without having to work for a living
Seriously, it is sad how the media has most people going along with their derision of any challengers, unless they happen to agree with some hot issue of the media crusade du jour.
It is also sad that challengers are expected to be perfect, even when running against incumbents who are failures or openly corrupt.
In today’s elections, you have to be:
1. An employee of a big corporation who wants a seat in the legislature
2. An incumbent controlling lots of subsidies, promotions, departmental funding, and dirt on people
3. Rich enough to run full time without having to work for a living
Excellent post, Mr. Lee (assuming it isn’t spam).
Democrats Push Ban on Third Party Candidates
HR 4694 (“Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act”) would grant full public funding to nominees of parties (ie, Democrats and Republicans)
… outlaw use of private funds and donations by third party and independent candidates.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_02_09.shtml