Has anyone besides me noticed that, the more Mark Sanford isolates himself with his stance on the stimulus, the more he uses the collective term “we” to refer to himself?
For instance, take this passage from John O’Connor’s interview story over the weekend:
Q: Are you saying that at no point your understanding of how the … law works changed?
A: No, that only we could apply. I think we’ve been totally clear on that. … Let’s be clear. We are in a negotiation. I’m not going to lay all my cards on the table because we’re trying to get, Sen. (Hugh) Leatherman in particular, to take some movement … and at this point he isn’t blinking. And it is indeed up to those budget writers as to what they want to and don’t want to do. … There were a group of lawmakers here that are committed to trying to work with us and finding some alternatives to what Sen. Leatherman suggested.
When he says, “only we could apply,” I’m pretty sure that he means “only I could apply.” Anyone more conversant in Sanfordspeak should correct me, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he means.
Somebody should give this guy a copy of “Anthem,” which, if you go by his statements and behavior, you would think he would have memorized.
Does he mean to suggest the royal “we?” Certainly he doesn’t mean the editorial “we,” which you will notice that I don’t use any more, now that I’m not entitled.
Politicians do this a lot — trying to suggest they are speaking for a group when they’re referring to themselves — and I’ve always thought it odd. But it’s especially so coming from a guy who’s all about his own radical individualism.