By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
SOME OF Gov. Mark Sanford’s more insistent critics have been pretty worked up lately. Take this communique Thursday from Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party:
“There should be an investigation into Mark Sanford’s shady deal…. This type of cash-for-favors politics is better suited for mafia movies and crime dramas than real life.”
Sen. Jake Knotts, nominally a Republican, recently said this to his colleagues about some of Mr. Sanford’s recent actions: “I want to ask you for the sake of the people of South Carolina to go in and protect our government from these type of atrocities.”
What “atrocities”? For one thing, the governor kicked Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III off the State Ports Authority board, an action that at least two people who take politics very personally — Sen. Knotts and Mr. Campbell himself — say was a case of the governor inappropriately injecting personal influence.
As Mr. Campbell complained on our op-ed page Friday, the action filled him with “sadness and a profound sense of disappointment” since he “worked very hard to help elect Mark Sanford.” Mr. Campbell has also said the governor called his Mom in the course of trying to get him to resign.
The irony is that I remember his Dad being a big believer in the governor having control of executive state agencies, with power to appoint and remove agency heads and board members at will.
But that’s not all that’s eating at Mr. Sanford’s critics. They have also criticized the governor for making a phone call to Circuit Judge James Lockemy about an annexation case.
And the Democratic Party chair is in high dudgeon over the governor’s interference in the Ports Authority’s $26 million sale of its Port Royal property. The governor took it upon himself to talk with some friends in the real estate biz, then called the authority’s chairman and an attorney representing the agency in the deal, and shared some negative things he’d heard about the eventual buyer.
During an earlier, unsuccessful effort to sell the port, Mr. Sanford had had a chat with bidder Jim Chaffin, and decided he liked some of the developer’s ideas. But that sale didn’t happen.
Blogger Adam Fogle of “The Palmetto Scoop” has reported with fanfare that Mr. Chaffin and his wife contributed a total of about $4,000 to Mr. Sanford in the year before his 2006 re-election.
But I don’t see a “crime drama” here. I do see a pattern, but of a different sort. It’s the phone calls — to Judge Lockemy, to his real estate friends, to the Ports Authority officials, to Tumpy’s Mom — that ring a bell.
Back in the early days of his first term, I’d get phone calls from the governor that were unlike any I’d ever had from a politician. He would ask, in that casual way of his, how things were going. I’d say “fine,” and he’d say he was sort of thinking about some issue, and here’s what he was thinking about it, and he kind of wondered what I thought about it. Setting aside my “why’s he asking me that?” reaction, I would answer him. I’m not shy about sharing what I think with anyone who asks, pretty much any time.
But under these circumstances I spoke very carefully, trying not to say anything that we didn’t say in the paper about the issue. It was not my job to be some kind of Kitchen Cabinet confidential adviser. The governor, who apparently saw nothing odd about him interviewing me, would eventually say “Sorry to bother you,” or “To be continued…,” and hang up, leaving me to wonder what had just transpired, and why.
I take that experience, and these recent calls I’ve heard about, and a few other things, and I form a certain impression:
Mark Sanford, as a fervent libertarian, doesn’t see the job of governing the way any other governor I’ve ever known sees it. He doesn’t come into work every day eager to run the government. The main thing he wants the government to do, generally speaking, is less of whatever it is that it does.
But he takes a sort of dabbler’s interest in bits and pieces of the government’s business, here and there — like a browser in an antique shop idly picking up an item, turning it this way and that, setting it down and moving on to the next thing that catches his eye. Like a guy who sees governing as a hobby, at most.
Most governors, for that matter most people with experience running any large organization, would — if they wanted to poke around into the port deal, or find out what was happening with a lawsuit — ask a subordinate to look into it and get back to him. A staffer could obtain the information without raising eyebrows. But Mark Sanford, like a guy with nothing better to do, does it himself. And when he’s done, everybody involved goes, “What was that about?” And some assume there’s something nefarious in it.
But the problem with Mark Sanford is much bigger and more obvious than any particular action that would enable them to cry, “Gotcha!”
I’m not worried by the governor’s quirky phone calls, nor do I care about a lousy $4,000 in contributions in the past.
You want to worry? Think about the fact that we have a governor who basically doesn’t believe in some of the most fundamental missions of government, such as running public schools. Sweat over the coming campaign to take out legislators of his own party who disagree with him.
You want to follow the money? Watch for the thousands upon thousands expected to flow from out of state into those efforts to unseat lawmakers on his “hit list” — a list he says doesn’t exist, but pretty much the whole State House is convinced does.
You want to get worked up? Work yourself up over that.
Related Posts
America was supposed to be SELF-GOVERNED, by a rotating set of part-time legislators, governors, and President. It was not supposed to be a full-time job, much less a career. The concept was that government was not supposed to be so large that anyone other than the President, VP, and Governors needed to be available full-time.
Boy, have we wandered far off that track!
Brad … maybe you should see a “crime drama” here. The guy is a master manipulator, and you’re bemused by his fishy phone calls?
“Master manipulator?” To get to “master” status, don’t you actually have to accomplish something?
Seriously, these incidents aren’t big deals to me, but then I’m not one to get excited about the kinds of things that these folks are getting worked up over. I look at the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is, this guy’s an extremist ideological dilettante who has no business being governor, and he wants to stack the Legislature in his image.
In the face of such considerations as those, these little “gotcha!” incidents don’t hold a lot of fascination for me.
I’m kind of an iconoclast in this respect, I know. But we haven’t gotten very far in this state or this country with the scandal of the day, “get your political opponent on some minor incident” method of political debate. That’s what you get from the 24/7 news channels and the political parties. We spend so much time on the “what did the governor know and when did he know it” about some narrow-range foulup or other that we obscure the more important considerations. The fact is, this guy’s IDEAS and his strategic political plan are what are alarming.
It’s sort of like, back when some of Beasley’s political opponents were obsessing over whether he’d accepted a free plane ride from the folks who ran the Barnwell dump. They went on and on about it, when the REAL problem was that he had trashed decades of bipartisan policymaking, got us out of the compact and opened the state indefinitely to waste. I can see how you might look at a campaign contribution, or some evidence of coziness (such as a plane ride) as reason to worry that MAYBE this guy MIGHT show favoritism to the giver. But when he’s ALREADY given them EVERYTHING they want, isn’t that fact what we should be talking about? I mean, I’ll take a governor who takes campaign contributions from every shady character in the state if, when the time comes to make policy decisions, he disregards their wishes. But I wouldn’t give you two cents for a governor who keeps his nose clean in terms of perfect “ethical” behavior, dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s on his disclosure forms, but gives the state away to the bad guys.
Let me try it another way. Say a guy comes home early and finds his wife in bed with the local soccer team, in flagrante delicto, and he interrupts to quiz her about a motel matchbook he found in her car, which he sees as an indication that maybe something’s not on the up-and-up.
We talk about the matchbook, not the flagrant breach of trust. Do you see what I’m saying?
Running public schools is not a fundamental mission of government. The proof of that is that the federal constitution does not authorize it as a legitimate activity, and neither did most states until two generations after the end of the American Revolution.
The first public schools were for the inculcation of state religions, and several of the New England states met to discuss seceding from the Union when the Supreme Court ruled their public schools to be unConstitutional.
Brad … I get it, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s just a matter of time before Sanford’s megalomania explodes and his cover is blown, much as Jim Holderman went from “visionary” to sicko under scrutiny. What we know now is just the tip of Sanford’s iceberg.
Only a delusional power freak can say, in a single breath, that he won’t “micro-manage” state government, then fire two top people for a 4-year-old personnel issue.
Calling him an “extremist ideological dilettante who has no business being governor” is way too tame. He’s an above-the-law rich kid who calls daddy’s plantation the “family farm.” How far from reality can you get?
Brad … Here’s something else we might agree on. I’ve always thought these biographical notes on our Governor summed Sanford, the MAN, and the fantasy world he lives in …
— He disappearing in the middle of his first budget debate to attend a yacht race in Bermuda.
— He delayed signing a crucial piece of domestic violence legislationso he could go on a cruise
— He evoked shades of Joe Biden by plagiarizing an internet joke and pretending it was an actual incident that had occurred to his family — and using the whole thing to illustrate the importance of honesty during a speech to boy scouts.
Then, there are always those insightful Sanford quotes to live by …
— “We don’t elect a king.”
— “This is a serious storm that’s got the potential to do a lot of damage and put lives in jeopardy if we don’t take it seriously.”
— “If you’re just going to add graduation requirements, you’re just (going to be seen as) piling on,”
— (And this doozy, live, from Sanford’s home on Sullivan’s Island) “People along the South Carolina coast have forgotten the impact that a storm like this could have, … And I would beg of them to move inland, because this looks like real trouble.”
— “I didn’t make any money today. Everything is going up. Everything but the price of crabs.”
— “Too many people in government seem to think they are above regular folks, and I said I would expect humility in the way each member of my team served- that they would recognize that the taxpayer is boss.”
I am loath to “analyze” anyone, but with Sanford it is so obvious. He just does not have it in him to care for the people of SC. For him, this is all theory…all of us are but players in his academic exercise.
Gordon touches several good points, not the least of which is personal travel.I am reliably informed that he is away from SC far more than is publicly acknowledged. In fact, he seems to have used the Commerce department as his personal travel department…that is when not on a private jet paid for by one of his rich out of state friends.
End of story, Mark Sanford sees himself first as a plantation owning, aristocrat… and secondly as a governor of a poor state. He is bright and has lots of promise, but has neglected to use his abilities for the betterment of SC.
It’s finally coming clear to me.
Sanford is easily the worst governor since Hodges.
Mark Sanford.A Leaver.Not a Politician.
If we’d JUST elected Tommy Moore Governor, everything would be great! A booming economy, No Children Left Behind, budget surpluses, no crime, no homeless… Oh, if we had only known all the horrible decisions Mark Sanford would make; all the wasteful spending and useless government agencies he would create; all the patronage, kickbacks, and backroom deals he would mastermind; all those conflict-of-interest bills he would implement over the protests of our fearless, above reproach legislators; and those PACT tests that he personally sat down and wrote all the trick questions for in order to make our kids look dumb; and the tax breaks he gave to the newspapers in order to get them to write glowing puff pieces on how great he is…
I get it now. The next time USC loses to Clemson in football, I know to blame the Athletic Director.
Actually, Doug, AD’s get fired all the time for losing programs. They pick the coaches, and if the coaches fail, the AD is held accountable. … Sanford fires the coaches and blames it on them.
Usually the coaches go first… that doesn’t happen with legislators.
Governor’s get voted out when they are not liked and also have term limits. Sanford was re-elected easily. The people like him as governor. I assume they like him being a thorn in the side of the State House. The legislators hate him for not buying into their games. The State hates him for sticking to his principles… the ones he was elected and re-elected on. For some reason, The State thinks the governor should be a rubber stamp for the backroom deals that get done in the State House. The people elected Mark Sanford to run the state, not Bobby Harrell, Jake Knotts, and Glenn McConnell.
Unlike all the Democrat governors and some Republican ones in my lifetime, Mark Sanford has not tried to parlay his office and connections into personal wealth. That also holds true for a bunch of wannabe Democrats, like …
Tommy Moore, now lobbyist for the payday lenders
Jim Hodges, lobbyist for the casino gambling and lottery industry
Dick Riley, lobbyist for chemical waste dumpers
Many former legislators as lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol, and banking
Lee,
I don’t know what you are drinking…but it must be good. You are flat out wrong…just dead wrong.
It seems libertarians can easily fall into lockstep…just like those special interest groups they claim to despise.
Let’s see… who is more believable?
Someone who is willing to provide factual evidence or an anonymous “guy” who says “you’re wrong” but provides neither evidence nor even his real name.
I don’t get why people are so afraid to attach their name to their opinions.
The fact of the matter is, the governor’s office doesn’t really have enough power to make or break anything, but the blog is having a tempest in a teapot.
If every legislator is like the one who serves my district, who in 20 years has NEVER sponsored a bill other than a resolution that had anything other than he himself in mind, thus never had a bill of any substance whatsoever passed, but still managed to straddle the status quo all that time and keep getting himself elected while everything in our county disappeared, well, then guess who’s to blame for all our misery.
That’s right, the legislature. And by proxy, us. Because nobody seems to give a rat’s rump about anything other than himself or herself.
Our guy has spent 20 years facilitating his business with free trips to Columbia. His attendance has been letter perfect. His accomplishment stack up no higher than an anthill.
But I hear he still thinks being in the legislature is like being a kid in a candy store, so there you have it.
Doug,
1. I was speaking to Lee, not you.
2. I have no idea if Doug is your real name or not. And I don’t care.
3. Your quick response to protect one of your lockstep buddies pretty much makes my point.
I left libertarianism long ago, when I realized they were people that cared more for dogma than people. When I headed that direction I thought I would find self-reliant, independent types. What I found was moaners and groaners that could find a flaw in the most perfect of things. And mainly what I found was men that pointed to the government as the reason they were not successful.
Of course, I am speaking in generalities. But I think you get my point.
It is my real name. I don’t fear being linked to my opinions as you apparently do.
And I don’t need to protect Lee. He is more than capable of “protecting” himself against what you accurately describe as “generalities” – i.e. feelings without thought or evidence.
Lee and I agree on one subject – the role of government and the negative impact it has had on society and the economy. When we point out specific factual evidence or ask basic questions like “How much more than we currently pay in taxes do you think it will take to achieve the perfect government society you desire”, all we get is the chirping of crickets.
Your anonymous observations are laughable.
I’ve never blamed the government for not being successful. I am successful in spite of the government. Wanna compare W2’s?
I’d like to see everyone be just as successful. All it will take is for people like you to stop counting on the government to do what you are unwilling to do.
Such rash statements!
I favor small, efficient government. I have a fetish for transparency. I am allergic to anything that smells like big brother.
But somehow, you have thrown me in with the Lib’s. This is an example of the Ross/Sanford “my way or the high way” theme. I cannot claim the moral and intellectual authority that you and cousin Mark do, but I do believe I am on sound footing when I say people are more important that ancient pieces of paper. And when good and honorable people seek to improve the world, it is often times called government…and often times it is successful.
So can your indigent arrogance and realize that honorable men will disagree. But successful men look for ways to move towards their goals. Libertarians seem to flail about, arms raised high, shouting…accomplishing nothing.
PS…$10,000 says I got you in the W2 match. Money goes to charity on winner’s choice?
So, eric, which of these factual items is “just wrong” to mention?
Tommy Moore, now lobbyist for the payday lenders
Jim Hodges, lobbyist for the casino gambling and lottery industry
Dick Riley, lobbyist for chemical waste dumpers
Many former legislators as lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol, and banking
Firstly,I voted for Sanford…twice.
Secondly, you are comparing a sitting governor to former governors.
None of those former governors had MILLIONS of dollars in “front” groups that he controls, such as 501c3,501c4’s and campaign accounts…while in office!
I am not interested in what former governors are doing…I am interested in who is paying this governor millions of dollars, and why.
> I am not interested in what former governors
> are doing…I am interested in who is paying
> this governor millions of dollars, and why.
But everyone keeps saying he’s ineffective and doesn’t do anything. So where’s all the money going?
Where’s the school vouchers everyone fears?
Where’s the reduced government Sanford preaches about?
Why do people keep giving him money when he doesn’t seem to be doing anything with it?
Doug,
You are correct in saying that he never gets anything done…hence my complaining.
A Governor’s influence extends far beyond what you can read in the paper, or pick up at the local coffee shop. The Governor has immense power “behind the scenes”…and that is where the action is. And that is where the real special interest and big money lurks.
He is the Governor of our state, and I think we should know who is paying him. Just remember…”he who pays the piper calls the tune”. Is it wrong of me to want to know who, and why, Mark Sanford has been given millions of dollars.
You seem to think a Libertarian can’t be lured by money, power and fame. I think you are wrong.
Doug … I can respect your support of Sanford, even compliment your grit for defending him under the circumstances … But I would respectfully disagree that “the people” elect a governor to “run our state.” We vote for representatives in the Legislature, plus a governor, which along with a Judciary are supposed to make up a balance of power. Sanford can’t seem to figure that out or, worse, he understands perfectly and thinks it’s unimportant or doesn’t apply to him. Instead, he seems most interested in, well, Mark Sanford, if only we would just see things his way. Since that doesn’t seem likely anymore, he’s got his own plans, and his own private sources of funding, and his own personal agenda, and it’s being built outside the established confines of public accountability that he’s so fond of holding others to. There’s good reason to worry about a guy like that, and to regret how he’s wasted the support voters gave him.
Eric, you keep asserting that all “these people” are “paying him” (Sanford) these “millions”. What makes you think this, if you are unable to name any of these people, or itemize the money they paid him?
Maybe we need some legislation to control him and all the previous governors who are now lobbyists, or lawyers receiving “retainer fees”.
Gordon, how would you suggest that Mark Sanford convince the crooked legislators to join with him and clean up the mess they created?
Lee,
I know these things…many firsthand, but some second hand through good sources.
Let’s put it another way. Why would an honorable man, being duly elected to be the Governor of the State, not disclose who gave him all that money? He controls 6 front groups (and one campaign fund that has disclosed) totaling millions of dollars.
FYI…I searched the new “transparency database” today, with 3 particular venders/contracts in mind. Funny thing that…none of them made the public list. So, I can see that some guy at the Dept of Ag was paid for $7.00 for lunch, but I am not allowed to see contractors collecting tens of millions of dollars.
As always, when dealing with Sanford one drowns in information…but none of it is ever useful.
WARNING: Bill H.4736 Would Replace SCDNR Board with Cabinet Position
Please be aware that a bill is currently moving through the House Judiciary Ad Hoc Committee on Restructuring that would remove the DNR board and replace it with a Cabinet position. This would further politicize the group responsible for managing SCDNR South Carolina’s natural resources as well as remove any oversight from its constituents.
Please read the email below from Cary Chamblee about this as well as the response from the South Carolina Wildlife Federation:
From Cary Chamblee: A bill, H. 4736, by Representative Jim Harrison was introduced last week that will remove the DNR Board and replace it with a Secretary appointed by the Governor. This gives SCWF great concern because it would remove access to DNR from hunters, fishermen and sportsmen. Important decisions about our beloved sports and our out of doors would be made by one person, a political appointee. The SC Wildlife Federation made comments at the first hearing last week and these comments are summarized below.
Please help save our DNR Board and our outdoor heritage by contacting your friends in the legislature and calling, emailing the committee and coming to Columbia on Wednesday to speak up for our voice at DNR. You may also wish to inform the members of your organization of this proposal. This may be the last opportunity for public input in the House. Click on H.4736 above for a copy of the bill.
————————————————————————–
The Committee will meet Wednesday March 4, 2008 one hour after adjournment of the House of Representatives in Room 516 of the Blatt Building. ( Approximately 1:30 PM) Below is the planned agenda for this meeting.
Comments on H.4736 Restructuring DNR — House Judiciary Ad Hoc Committee on Restructuring
We are very concerned about this bill and oppose putting the DNR in the Cabinet, and swapping the Board for a single politically appointed Secretary.
DNR was restructured in 1994 under a restructuring law that took months to craft, with the input from user groups and stakeholders from many backgrounds and diverse interests. The current system, providing for a Board appointed by the Governor, and an Executive Director chosen from among conservation professionals is working quite well and should be retained. This system already has great influence by the Governor, but retains a link to constituents and user groups.
Hunting, fishing and boating is a $1.8 Billion industry in SC. These sports are enjoyed by well over one million outdoor enthusiasts. This is big business which is important to the economy and to the lives, jobs and well being of a large portion of our population.
DNR is a highly complex agency requiring expertise in many fields and disciplines. It is responsible for the management and protection of thousands of species of animals and plants, hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat and outdoor recreation areas, boating access and safety, law enforcement, fishery management, wildlife management, marine science,water management, conservation best management practices, and much more. Each of these areas come with their own constituencies, histories, traditions, problems, funding sources and complexities. It takes a lifetime of work in these fields to become proficient and even highly educated and seasoned professionals learn constantly. This is no place for a political appointee.
One way that DNR maintains contact with its varied constituencies is through advisory boards, each of which is chaired by a DNR Board member. This provides for an excellent conduit for information to travel from the outdoors enthusiast to the Board and to the legislature.
We are also concerned about politicizing DNR’s Law Enforcement Division. Their officers are in place to enforce game and environmental laws and must be free to do so without fear of undue influence and reprisal.
Removing the DNR Board would diminish its stature in government. It should be a high profile, somewhat independent agency.
One criticism of the current structure that we would offer is that DNR Board Members can be removed from the Board without cause. We recommend that the law be amended to allow removal of Board members only for cause. They should be free to make decisions of policy without fear of removal.
Changing direction every four years with the change of governors would cause inconsistency in direction and inefficiency. We are also concerned that an appointee without an appropriate background or experience could foul-up great programs and progress that took years to attain.
In summary, the risks of change far outweigh any perceived benefits. We hope that you will carry this bill over and allow for further study and greater input from DNR’s constituents.
http://lowcountryhunting.com/2008/03/03/warning-bill-h4736-would-replace-scdnr-board-with-cabinet-position/
***************************************************************************
A BILL…..H. 4736
TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-75, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE HEADED AND GOVERNED BY A DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHALL BECOME AN ADVISORY BODY; TO AMEND SECTIONS…. ALL RELATING IN PART TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE PROVISIONS TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS PROVIDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MUST BE HEADED AND GOVERNED BY A DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.
http://scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=Environmental&category=Legislation&session=117&conid=2940225&result_pos=260&keyval=1174736
Let’s see…
Who controls the Board for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources?
Who controls the Board for the South Carolina Ports Authority Board?
Last time I check the governor appoints ALL the board members to the Natural Resources Board and the Ports Authority Board, ALL OF THEM. And as we have witnessed recently on the Ports Board the GUV wants everyone to be damn sure that the Board members serve at his pleasure.
Think for a moment what this really means, the ability control an entire State Agency such as the SCDNR with all of your own puppet cronies. Now, that’s some unabated power. Then, throw in the Ports Authority, ALL APPOINTED, then SLED, APPOINTED. Who do you think the Chief of SLED reports DIRECTLY to, yes you guessed it, the gov-de-vel-op-ner…opps…I mean the gov-develop-nor….NO…NO…NO… I mean Govdevelopner Mark Sanford. BTW, who appoints ALL the magistrate judges in the state…. Govdevelopner, there are over 300 magistrate judges.
Think about the millions of dollars that he has received for land conservation and the Conservation Bank. Now, admittedly he said he was a real estate developer and that makes sense because of the massive amount of his campaign contributions that have come from Real Estate developers, Construction, etc…
Now contrast that against his unending, unabashed, and almost insistent demand for money for conservation. Which is it, which is the real Govdevelopner ? Conservation or development? Well, I guess you can say both because what I’ve seen is what these guys do is they go in a buy a large tract of land and preserve part of it and then develop the holy crap out of the rest of it. And then they say lookie here!, look!, I’m a conservationist, I’ve saved all this land for your grand-children.
What is really happening is that all these millions of dollars that are slushing around for conservation are actually accelerating development. The public has been hoodwinked on this one. If you really want conservation then buy the land and be done with it already, end of story. But no, these guys buy and sell air “development rights” and the transactions are so complicated that you would need an army of Wharton School MBA’s just to unravel it all. These deals are like one big hair-ball. Then, throw in the “The Trust for Public Land”, a California non-profit corporation and some sweet, sweet, development agreement with lots of “juice” for the Mayor and some “jucy juice” for the County Council and your off to the races.
Follow the money, follow the players, i. e. The Govdevelopner, Players on the Boards, the Developers, Land Deals, Conservation Bank, maybe even a non-profit or two or a hundred, and an LLC or two or a hundred…think of it as one big circle. BTW, don’t expect anyone to help you from SLED, DNR, Ports Authority, or any of the other agencies that are under the Govdevelopner’s thumb.
Lee … what makes legislators crooked and Sanford not? If we could prove either, THAT would be progress. All we have now are suspects, each with his own backroom agenda of greed and personal ambition. Sanford’s no better than those he accuses, just more sanctimonious.
SCDP Chair Says Sanford Should Be Investigated
Columbia, SC- South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler released the following statement in response to the call for an investigation into Gov. Mark Sanford’s role in the Port Royal deal.
“There should be an investigation into Mark Sanford’s shady deal. South Carolina residents don’t need politicians who use their power and influence for their own and their friends’ personal interests.
This type of cash-for-favors politics is better suited for mafia movies and crime dramas than real life. It hurts our state more than it helps,” said Fowler. “From John McCain’s ties to corporate lobbyists to Mark Sanford’s cash-for-favors scheme, Democrats are ready to change how business is done in Washington and Columbia.”
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/files/fowler_release.htm
South Carolina Democratic Party
1529 Hampton St. Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone 803-799-7798
[email protected]
The operative words are MAFIA and CRIME………….”cash-for-favors politics is better suited for MAFIA movies and CRIME dramas”
So let me get this straight, Brad. The governor called you a few times to ask you what you thought about something, so there must be something wrong with him?
I would have thought you valued your opinion more than that. After all, look at the job you have.
Of course, he could have been trying to compromise you.
Then again, he just might have wondered what the editorial page editor at the biggest paper in his state thought.
Governor Mark Sanford NOT complying with a federal identification law Congress passed in 2005.
The Govendevelopnor Sanfraud has held out.
Protecting criminals is job #1 for the Govendelopnor.
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/336558.html
Largest pot busts in Kentucky in years via Port of Charleston, South Carolina
http://www2.beaufortgazette.com/blogs/post/18250
Operation Jackpot vs. Garry Chupurdy Operation Cat’s Meow – Beaufort, SC
http://www2.beaufortgazette.com/blogs/post/18079
Carroll Campbell, Republican, Governor of SC, 1987-1995
From 1995 to 2001, he was a Washington, D.C. lobbyist, serving as President and CEO of the American Council of Life Insurers.
The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) is a Washington-based lobbying and trade group for the life insurance industry. ACLI represents 373 insurance companies that account for 93 percent of the U.S. life insurance industry’s total assets. According to its website, ACLI represents “legal reserve life insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies operating in the United States before federal and state policymakers, insurance departments, and the courts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Campbell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_of_Life_Insurers
ARTICLE XI.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
SECTION 1. State Board of Education.
There shall be a State Board of Education composed of one member from each of the judicial circuits of the State. The members shall be elected by the legislative delegations of the several counties within each circuit for terms and with such powers and duties as may be provided by law and shall be rotated among the several counties. One additional member shall be appointed by the Governor. The members of the Board shall serve such terms and the Board shall have such powers and duties as the General Assembly shall specify by law.
SECTION 2. State Superintendent of Education.
There shall be a State Superintendent of Education who shall be the chief administrative officer of the public education system of the State and shall have such qualifications as may be prescribed by law.
SECTION 3. System of free public schools and other public institutions of learning.
The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.
SECTION 4. Direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions prohibited.
No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
http://www.scstatehouse.net/scconstitution/a11.htm
So what?
Every government in history has tried to define itself as having more power than necessary to protect the public. Communist constitutions claim that the government will provide all sorts of things which they were incapable of doing, and outlawed businesses from providing competitive alternatives.
Making laws to create powers doesn’t make it necessary, useful, or right.