This is to let you know I can do like the BIG-time folks at the NYT. I can cite anonymous sources, too.
One of the problems with publicly criticizing a Republican governor is that, even when most Republicans in a position to work with him agree with you, they generally don’t say so. You know, the "11th commandment" and all. (Note that I’m not counting Jake Knotts, as he is what you might call an iconoclast in this regard.) And even most Democrats are relatively discreet in criticizing a governor who remains popular (among the voters, who don’t actually have to deal with him).
So you get these very encouraging attaboys from veteran State House hands, such as this one yesterday (note that both of these are shorn of identifying details):
Between you and me (please), your entry yesterday on Sanford was, sadly, right on the money….
Interestingly, there are more than a couple folks I know who’d like to see Sanford on the national ticket only because it would get him out of S.C. Personally, I love the country too much to pull for something like that.
Then, today, there was this one, which went into greater detail (some of it now excised):
It occurs to me that while there is certainly so much blame to be shared (politics being what it is) I truly do weep for our state and the years we’ve lost in missed opportunity. The promise of Mark Sanford and true progress was so great. But as we discovered in short order in dealing with the man — there is truly nothing legislatively you can deliver that he truly wants. He won’t take "yes" for an answer. As soon as you give him what he says he wants — he changes his requirements, moves the goal post. There was no such thing as a "deal" or a "commitment." For Mark Sanford, the worst thing is to be seen as actually getting along, compromising, and passing meaningful legislation. That would – in effect — make him an "insider". So success for him is in fact, measured in failure — by NOT passing anything, by making sure he is always at odds, always causing bitterness and angst and then casting everyone else as the "bad guy." The fact that voters apparently approve is a testament to his success and speaks volumes to how far we have to travel.
I do, however, take great issue with your take on the SC Policy Council — especially now with Ashley Landess serving as president. She is smart and savvy and dedicated to responsible, efficient gov’t. She is currently involved in the bi-partisan ONE Campaign for Africa and was passionately involved in the fight against video poker and the lottery and is now a brilliant appointee on the lottery commission who has made some incredibly wise moves that have held the commission’s feet to the fire and made it keep to the spirit of the Legislature’s original intent regarding limited advertising, etc., etc. She is a conservative for sure but she is not a Mark Sanford – destroy gov’t libertarian — by any stretch of the imagination.
And like you, I was devastated when I read of Mark’s most recent shortsighted and completely destructive move to try and abolish the endowed chairs program (it’s so unbelievable reckless for a guy who claims to care about our economy and says he wants us to be competitive I can barely breath when I write this.) Anyway, my suggestion would be for groups like the SCPC who truly do care about responsible gov’t to work with the private sector to make sure the Gen Assbly uses the endowed chairs funds responsibly so slash-and-burn politicians like Mark Sanford who — as you so eloquently pointed out — care only about the prosperity of his own family — can’t destroy one of the single best examples of sound, forward-thinking fiscal policy we have in our state.
Now let me hasten to add that I’ve received a couple of much longer, more detailed messages defending the governor, and I’m waiting for permission to use those WITH attribution. Soon as I hear back, you’ll see them here.
Related Posts
So why do you need attribution for the supporters, but not for the naysayers?
Just so you can damn anybody who supports Mark Sanford?
Did you get permission to run the quotes from the naysayers without attribution?
Does your brand of journalism have any principles whatsoever?
Or is that why you run a blog, so you can practice one level of ethics online and another level in print?
It is odd that Brad would post a partial, non-attributed piece from a Sanford critic but waits for identification from the Sanford supporter. Why only post part of the critique? Perhaps the part Brad excised from the critique was the most important part for the person who wrote it. I can’t wait to hear the contrived justification for this.
Gosh, Bud, here we are on the same side of something again. Overcoming partisanship certainly can be fun.
Lest I tempt another tempest, let it be understood the partisanship I meant is Bud on the left, me on the right, the definition allowed here, referring to a condition despised here.
Hate to burst your bubble, but those were posted, as edited, with the permission of the writers. Without the editing, they would not have wanted the stuff posted.
Ditto the Sanford supporter. I was hopeful of getting a complete go-ahead on the message with attribution. Now the individual involved says not to use it WITH attribution.
I’ve asked him to reconsider, and urged him to read this. His reply was strong, and y’all deserve to read it.
I know it’s really important for y’all to think the worst of me, but unfortunately for you, everything on this blog is what it seems. I’m giving you everything I can possibly give you without treating either you or my sources in a dishonorable way. You just keep on trying to find another motive. As long as you do so, you are doomed to be perpetually wrong.
It’s really ironic. The blog is all about me letting my every thought hang out in a way you have never in your life seen from an editorial page editor. But the more I give you, the more you insist on thinking is hidden.
What’s wrong with y’all?
Well, you answered some of my questions, but you didn’t cover the first one.
Why ask for attribution from the supporters if you didn’t require it for the naysayers?
By the way, I have never failed to notice that this “blog is all about me letting my every thought hang out in a way you have never in your life seen from an editorial page editor.”
Thus it raises questions. And, mind you, they were ONLY questions.
If all I did was ask questions, how could I have been wrong?
Brad, I don’t think the worst of you but your original post was not very clear. Whenever I see something that has been edited it makes me question why. I’ve sent letters to the editor and my most important point was deleted for some unkown reason. Wherever possible a persons entire writing should be posted to ensure free speech is honored.
As for your explanation, I’m satisfied. It just didn’t seem that clear from the original.
I truly believed that South Carolina would have a new governor after June 13, 2006. I knew that I would be voting for Dr. Oscar Lovelace or that other guy that became a lobbyist for the pay day loan industry.
By the way, based on the Sanford supporter’s communication not having shown up yet, was this paragraph above supposed to read “WITHOUT” instead of “WITH”?
“Ditto the Sanford supporter. I was hopeful of getting a complete go-ahead on the message with attribution. Now the individual involved says not to use it WITH attribution.”
A great majority of folks in this state, including me believe Gov. Sanford to be the finest Gov. this state ever had. He has the fortitide to take on the “bought ‘ legislators in their own yard and they have no defense against him.A good example to support my point, after Gov. Sanford’s state of the state addtess a reporter asked Jake Knotts to rebut any of the Gov’s points and Knotts could only say “the Gov. is a smooth talker”
I like Brad.
I dislike Sanford.
Bud gets on my nerves.
Doug Ross makes my skin crawl.
Gordon can sometimes be quite interesting.
I love me.
It is hard to take Brad Wharton seriously. His job is to stir up “trash” to attract “trash” readers and he seems to do this in average fashion. Otherwise, he is unaccountable.
Brad is like our very own version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Don’t bother arguing with him because he believes he’s right and we’re wrong. Maybe the reason he’s stuck in a job at a worthless rag of a newspaper is because he’s not qualified to work at the NY Times or National Esquire. The only way to silence him is to do what I and several people I know did… cancel your subscription to The State. No paper, no Brad. The only reason I even bother reading it online is because it’s the only paper in Columbia.
Bob, CLiff…you comments are too harsh.
Disagree if you will, but you both are over the top.
I would body slam Brad over some of his opinions…but he is a good man that does what he thinks is correct.
George Will writes that “three two-term governors might help McCain, including…South Carolina’s Gov. Mark Sanford, 47, (who)is more of a maverick…”
Brad, you are all about being anti-party but when a real leader comes along who is willing to put principle above partison politics then you rush to criticize, siding instead with “intellects¨ like Jake Knotts.
We have a real leader who has the “audicity” to at least ask a few tough questions about the $30 million we´ve been spending (and often wasting) on an endowed chairs program. Instead of taking the time to try to answer those questions yourself, you jump on the Sam Tenanbaum bandwagon to immediately attack the governor and side with folks like Glenn McConnell who have used the program to get tens of millions for his sub musuem and university professors making over $350,000 from that very program.
Brad, the company you keep certainly indicates something about your character – I hope you are proud to be standing shoulder to shoulder with Jake Knotts, Glenn McConnell, and professors way overpaid not to teach students. Seems like you´ve been inside the Columbia beltway for way too long yourself.
Sanford is a kook. His real reason for being against the endowed chairs is that he want that money for conservation for his home county. You see, the more undeveloped land near his 6000 acre plantation the less “locals” (if you know how I mean) are around to distract from him lovely views.
Gee, Penny, never mind the reasoned arguments that Governor Sanford and most people make against the tuition money being stolen for so-called “endowed chairs”.
You can read his mind, and know his real plans.
Lee,
He asked for 50 million of land conservation…he did so in public, so while I could have read his mind, I chose to read the paper instead.
If you have a problem with conserving wild lands for the common enjoyment by future generations, please explain it.
I would prefer to first abolish property taxes and inheritance taxes which encourage the destruction of woods and water. Until the, Governor Sanford recognizes that the government needs to do something to offset its destructive antiquated tax policies.
Lee,
I believe people are more important than trees.
Penny
i believe trees are MUCH more important than a governor born on third base that somehow thinks he hit a triple…if anyone can remember as far back as when sanford first ran for office, many people thought of him as not even being a south carolina RESIDENT!…a man raised on a plantation summer home can never have my best interest at heart…his protection is for other wealthy land owners and his wife has consistently worked behind the scenes with dubious results…as usual republicans have short memories…remember when during the clinton 55 million dollar witch hunt it was republicans screaming it’s about the ‘rule of law’…where are they now?
The Sanford family settled in the Charleston area even before it was an official colony.
Mr. Campbell, if efforts to improve the common good through preservation of wild places, and reducing taxes are not in your interest, then maybe you need to get your interests in line with the common good.
The criminal, civil, and impeachment trials of Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t have to cost so much money. They lied, destroyed evidence, and fought before truth came out and they were shamed.
Penny, do you think the people who own the trees are more important than the people who don’t own trees, but want to tell the owners what to do with them?
Is a criminal worth as much as an honest person?
Is an unskilled or lazy person worth as much as a skilled, hardworking person? Worth it to whom? How do you know?
Is an illegal alien worth as much as a citizen?
Lee, if “the Sanford family settled in the Charleston area even before it was an official colony”, who were they? Indians? As I recall, Sanford grew up in Florida; his father’s side of the family were from Baltimore. Not that it matters; length of residence does not govern loyalty to South Carolina.
Why are liberals so jealous of self-made millionaires? There are 8,500,000 new, self-made, middle-class millionaires in America. Obama and hillary might prevent a few million more from making it, but they are on the wrong side of history.
Charleston was settled by English prior to becoming an official colony in 1670. They even organized themselves, elected leaders and formed a militia.
…sanford was raised and grew up in florida spending 3-4 weeks here every year, as usual lee has mixed up facts with some kind of historical reference he can not back up with facts…muller evidently thinks being born wealthy somehow gives sanford an edge when in fact it clearly does not…no self-made millionare here muller,…what self made millionare are you reffering to?
You don’t count the 8,500,000 current self-made, middle-class millionaires. Why not?
You dimiss the money earned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanford on Wall Street and from their real estate investments. Why is that?
lee…i dismiss you… not your total disregard for facts, that is apparent from any blog entry you get someone to type for you, just your “fox” news facts, or your rush limbaugh attempts to re-write history..
Since I don’t read any other political blogs, don’t get to listen to Rush Limbaugh or other pundits, and rarely view Fox News, you are really only dismissing your own straw men, apparently because you are unable to muster a direct ancwer to my questions:
Why do you dismiss the 8,500,000 new middle-class self-made millionaires?
Why do you dismiss the money earned by Mark Sanford and Mrs. Sanford, and focus on his insignificant salary as governor?
Why are you unable to articulate what you really dislike about Mark Sanford, and have to rely on these ruse reasons?
The process itself isn’t too complicated: millimeter- sized particles of waste biomass come into contact with a 700- 800 C porous surface and immediately form a mix of gases. These then interact with a catalyst made out of rhodium that expedites the partial oxidation reactions necessary to keep the system hot and convert the gases into hydrogen and carbon monoxide— which are either burned to generate electricity or turned into liquid fuels. The system only takes 70 milliseconds to break down the biomass— a…