A story in The State this morning touched on this, and yesterday I was debating with Cindi Scoppe about it. Count Cindi among those who don’t want Mark Sanford to resign because becoming governor now would give Andre Bauer a leg up on being elected governor in 2010.
Just for the sake of argument, count me among those who believe the opposite: That becoming governor now would put Andre under public scrutiny far more intense than he would experience as just one candidate among several for a few months next year.
You have to understand — the lieutenant governor of South Carolina is about as close to a non-entity as you get for a statewide elected official. That’s no reflection on Andre; it’s an observation about the job. It’s supposed to be part-time. Andre’s friends in the Senate gave him that Office on Aging gig just to make it look like he’s doing something.
There simply is no reason for the press or anyone else to pay much attention to the Gov Lite — which drove Nick Theodore nuts back in the day, because he craved attention so.
If Andre were suddenly elevated to governor, particularly after this one collapsed so spectacularly under the weight of scandal, the spotlight on him would be as intense as the noonday sun. And while I think he’s matured a good bit in recent years, and learned to present himself far more capably than in the early days — the impression he made on us at his endorsement interview in 2006 was as different from my previous encounters with him as the night is from the day — I just don’t think he’d hold up well under such examination.
In the past, Andre had to do something pretty spectacular for people to pay any attention to him. And he was irresponsible enough to oblige. To repeat a laundry list I posted in 2006:
Wednesday, 07 June 2006
What would YOU ask Andre?
Andre Bauer is coming in for his interview at 4. I’m reviewing a few questions for him between now and then. I’m curious: What would you ask a lieutenant governor who:
- When stopped speeding down Assembly Street, charged so aggressively at the cop that he felt threatened enough to draw his weapon?
- When driving 101 mph on a wet highway, got on the police radio frequency to tell the patrolman pursuing him that “SC2” was “passing through,” and when he was stopped
anyway, asked, “Did you not hear me on the radio?”
- Lying to reporters about that incident, then saying you “forgot” about it when confronted with the evidence?
- Showed up to negotiate with the Department of Transportation a price for land he owned — with a member of the transportation commission in tow?
- Has his own Myspace site?
- Seems almost certain to win the GOP nomination again?
But once he was governor, right away, all that stuff in his history would be re-examined, and a lot more import would be given to such shenanigans.
And every misstep going forward would be played and replayed with the same sort of focus as every stumble of poor old Gerald Ford.
By the time the 2010 campaign got into full swing, the other candidates would have an advantage just by virtue of not being Andre Bauer.
That’s what I think, anyway. What do you think?
Related Posts
Don’t get ahead of yourself, until Andre and Jakie are cleared of any connection to the stolen e-mails and personal documents.
Note the way I sneered at Andre having a MySpace site. In those days, we serious MSM types thought that was the height of silliness, and in Andre evidence of his callowness. It may be hard to remember now, after Barack Obama’s stunning Facebook campaign, but that time, it seemed no one over the age of 20 was into social media. It was about kids trying to hook up with other kids in the social sense. There were also a few eyebrows raised about the young women who showed up on that site as Andre’s MySpace friends, which sort of underlined what we all thought of MySpace.
It would hurt Andre, I think (unless he has really matured). The voters would get several months of on-the-job evaluation time, and I really don’t think he would impress. It would help the other Republicans in the field however. Could that be why so many are calling for his resignation, while Anre is not?
Andre, not Anre.
I only remember this very vaguely, but when he first ran for lt. gov. he sent out some campaign literature which led the reader to believe that he had been endorsed by a number of prominent Republicans who had not, in fact, endorsed him. When confronted, he was unconcerned. Cindi Scoppe would recall the particulars, as I remember, she was outraged.
Three points, slightly off point for this thread but I wanted to get them off my chest:
1) The press should leave that poor women in Argentina alone. What good can possibly come of cornering her?
2) Jenny Sanford has come through this as a remarkable, resilient, tough minded person. If anyone has shown gubernatorial chops through this it is she.
3) The entire trip episode showed a man under such emotional strain that he was unable to perform the functions of his office. Regrettably, and in fear of a Bauer governorship, resignation may be appropriate.
I’m all in favor of Mr. Sanford proffering his resignation, and Mr. Bauer stepping in. It would be much better to be able to sample his governing abilities before we’re stuck with him for 4 years. If he has matured and is capable of doing the job well, Bravo! If he isn’t a year and a half is better than 4.
Maybe if Andre steps in now, he won’t get elected in 2010…
Karen – What governing abilities? Bauer doesn’t have any, it’d be like watching Obama-lite.
Does Glenn McConnell become Lt Governor, and if so, isn’t that what Republicans are really not liking–losing their lion in the Senate?
SECTION 9. President Pro Tempore of Senate; Senator acting as Lieutenant Governor.
The Senate shall as soon as practicable after the convening of the General Assembly choose a President Pro Tempore to act in the absence of the Lieutenant Governor. A member of the Senate acting as Lieutenant Governor shall thereupon vacate his seat and another person shall be elected in his stead.
This would tend to support what you say but I am not certain. It comes from Article iv of the State Constitution.
In that case McConnell would resign as pro tem before Andre’s elevation. No way in the world that he would stand for being demoted from senator to Gov Lite.
But if it is mandated by law?
McConnell would resign and Jake Knotts would get elected President Pro Tem for one day. Jake would out Andre for one of the many things he did, Andre would resign and we’d have Gov. Jake Knotts representing us. There you have the Master Plan.
Interesting… Repubs AND Dems backing off of resignation calls… even Jakie is toning it down. Seems like Sanford in the gov’s office is best for both parties when looking to 2010… different reasons, same ends.
I watched the stream of the staff meeting today. Seems that King Mark has morphed into King David (biblically speaking)… lots of mea culpa and allusions to *great men falling*… pretty much did away with any empathy I was feeling for the guy.
Yeah Claudia I still don’t think it’s sunk in for him that his words carry no power now. He still does love listening to himself philosophize. The credibility is gone, but the self-adoration strangely continues. I only wish he would harness this stream-of-consciousness into a ripping good haiku.
Will all the members of the legislature who have committed adultery also resign?
Ah, for the good old days, when the legislature ran its own cat house in the Columbia Hotel, and they sat around drinking liquor illegally in the Capitol Cafe, with an assortment of reporters from The State, radio and TV stations.
Lee… “ssshhhhhh!!!!” They don’t want people to know about that. That was also the place where most seized cocaine was “destroyed” back in the 1980’s.
Well, jfx, I think I’ve had enough of Sanford’s poetry. But I’ll share:
A dance that slips through
To crack the wood of my ache
Is not here today
Bravo, Claudia. More elegant and subtle than I can manage. Quid pro quo:
Excavator dawn;
Pink wedge cleaves the horizon.
Drill, baby, drill me.
I keep hearing Bauer referred to as the favorite in the 2010 election. Everyone I talk to considers him a joke. What is his base of support?
“By the time the 2010 campaign got into full swing, the other candidates would have an advantage just by virtue of not being Andre Bauer.”
See, this is what I think. But this is the state that *elected* this overgrown frat boy in the first place.
Heaven help us.
Three very important points reflecting major hypocrisy.
He told his staff “the government’s business must continue.” That is ludicrous. He skipped out on the government for 5 days for a bootie call and had planned on staying their TEN days.
He ran for governor on Christian values and threw stones at other adulterers.
He promised Jenny Sanford to end the affair. He did the opposite. When he returns he wants to hide behind the Bible again?
Mr. Fiscal Conservative made a bootie call on the tax payer’s dime during his in South America. He’s reimbursing the state NOW – after getting caught.
The first two points should amount to a cocaphony of demands for him to resign. It’s shameful that there isn’t more of an outcry.
er, four points…
er, there vs their and it’s the first and last point that are job related…
Any chance for impeachment?
Karen – Only if you talk to Jake Knotts.
Speaking of FatHead, is there any truth to actual video of Jake as a young policeman throwing rocks at USC protesters in the 1970’s. I read on another blog that there is video out there. I’d love to see this if it actually exists. I talked to someone who took one of Jake’s free CWP courses and he used the “N” word at least a dozen times in derogatory comments about blacks… and then said in his re-election campaign that he has never used the word. Jake is by far the most racist person in the legislature… and one of Brad’s buddies up there. Is Brad also racist or just he just associate with them?
There is someone on that blog that also is saying that unless things improve at The State that they are predicting that they will be closing their doors around Christmas.
why are all you people worried more about the man than the institution? shouldnt the institutions of govt be more important than one or two men? if the governor has lost the faith of the people, which he obviously has, by lying repeatedly and only admitting those lies under the reality that his lies would be exposed as well as his blatant dereliction of duty (not to mention stealing state funds and manipulating the states economic agenda for his own argentinian sexromps), shouldnt he be impeached if he doesnt resign and shouldnt the next man in line be promoted according to institutional line of succession? any claims about bauer as unfit are purely political. he is the lt.governor and if sanford goes down, which he should, then bauer is next in line, period end of story. snivelling politicians come and go, the important thing is maintaining the integrity of the institutuions of the government, not making bogus claims that bauer is not ready or that it will affect the governor’s race somehow. the voters of SC elected sanford and bauer. if the voters have to learn a hard lesson about their stooge politicians, then, at the very least, it may inform them to make better decisions in the future. BTW, sanford has PROVEN himself to be totally unreliable in his official capacity. personally,i knew he was a stooge all along, i never believed his lies, unlike brad warthen, who covered for him as his official duties as the editor at the state demanded he do. now we just get more bogus arguments in favor of this whining, snivelling, lying fraud that we should not follow government protocol due to the fact that one man’s claimed inconpetence is above the rule of law and the that it will affect the governors race. and despite that said individual (sanford) has PROVEN to be LESS RELIABLE than even bauer! what a joke. Oh, and “cindi” doesnt want mark to resign,either. LOL what a pathetic joke you faker journos are.
Lord help us…
From halfway around the world, I can say that I only hope that with or without a Sanford resignation that Bauer never gets elected governor and the same goes for Knotts.
As for either of their chances being improved by the circumstances created by Sanford’s insane behavior, I hope the people of SC are better than that, too.
But, hope is not a course of action nor is luck a planning assumption. I guess it’s never too early to get involved in the 2010 elections… If only there were some realistically better options.
Oh well, hope and luck are sounding better and better.
SC Governot Sanford should resign. Sanford’s erratic behavior has proven that he is not mentally fit. His wife, Jenny, in a news article said that he sought permission to visit his mistress; which Jenny forbade. Still, he fled South Carolina last week to visit his mistress.
This action is not coming from a man that is interested in reconciling with his wife. Sanford has stated in a past interview that the time demands of governing South Carolina prevents him from spending time with his boys, a huntin’ and a fishin’. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the link to that interview that The State conducted with Sanford during his first term.
Sanford admitted on Wednesday that he was selfish in this affair. His past appearances on Sunday talk shows was all selfish burnishment of his credentials to those that don’t live in South Carolina and don’t know that he couldn’t govern from a paper bag.
Andre was elected Lt. Gov. twice. Let the chips fall where they may in the succession process. Besides what damage can Bauer do in the remaining 563 days, 22 hours do that Sanford has not already accomplished?
Hugh Leatherman and Bobby Harrell should resign, for blowing all the surplus revenues and then crying for $8 billion in Stimulus Pork money.
Andre has been bought, lock stock and barrel, by Howie Rich. He is the “new” politician for school vouchers in this state.
Out with the old Howie guy, in with the new.
What a friggin joke this place is.
Ralph, you left out the fact that he was going to stay in Argentina for TEN DAYS but came back early. The apologists pooh poohed him being away for a couple days. Attempting to disappear for TEN DAYS for a bootie call is completely indefensible. How can he remain in office, even given that Speed Racer would take the reins?
If you got a Democrat governor, how could they possibly spend money any faster, or throw any more money at education?
RH,
Is it possible the man got involved consciously or subconsciously as a means of escape, finding himself in a position he never expected to be in and totally out of his control and ability, and in overload with being told what to do (or not to do) from all sides? Maybe he really just wants out.
I don’t recall you Democrats wanting Clinton to resign for his molesting an intern, paying her hush money with a $90,000 job, and threatening witnesses. Even after he copped a plea bargain on perjury charges, the Democrats were defending him as a poor victim.
When did you folks get morality?
Pat-
You may be on to it. You’ve got a guy who’s really passionate about being alone at 4:30 AM, digging holes with his excavator as the sun comes up, not another soul around.
Yet, at the same time he’s trying to be a national figure, ramping up and grooming up to be a presidential contender, and peeing into a hurricane on the stimulus thing in order to raise his profile.
Maybe this fantasy of once again being an anonymous citizen of the world with an anonymous carefree romance was his lone release valve. And maybe once his wife finally kicked him out for his chronic indulgence, in his mind he couldn’t think of any place he’d rather be than back inside that fantasy. Moth to flame.
As I recall, the defenders of Clinton took a position something like: “Yes, his personal behavior is reprehensible, but since I like his politics, I don’t see his personal behavior as having any bearing on his ability to govern.”
Clinton’s opponents, on the other hand, argued: “His bad personal behavior is exactly the point; it demonstrates his un-fitness for office since he can’t be trusted to honor his word.”
Now that the roles are reversed, the hypocrisy of both sides becomes glaring.
Professional (even if they only work part-time) politicians of all persuasions are the problem. It is a fundamental flaw in our system of government and will be our ultimate undoing.
SGM, I agree. The personal behavior should not be the issue. The law should be. Was a law broken during this whole episode? I think the actions of the Governor taking the SLED vehicle, leaving the country without transferring power, and not being in contact with the state may prove to be.
I do miss Tuesday nights at the Capitol Cafe!
Actually, I believe that personal behavior can be an indicator of tendencies and trends towards professional behaviors, especially in positions of trust and judgment where the performer is expected to subordinate his or her personal agendas to the larger goals.
My point is that the proponents and opponents of many (most?) professional politicians are hypocrites in regards to their professed ethics, arguing out of both sides of their mouths as it were.
The reason being is that political power and persuasion no longer reside with the strength or weakness of ideas and positions but rather with the entrenched power of incumbency and longevity in office. And because incumbency and longevity are not evenly spread throughout the various representative bodies (local, municipal, state, and federal), representative political power is not evenly shared by the various electorates.
Any given congressional district, for example, may only have one representative, but there is no denying that some representatives have significantly more power (overwhelmingly more power, in some cases) than others. Therefore the people of those districts have a disproportional amount of “representational power” in congress. The political party that controls those key positions also wields a disproportional amount of power. In the end, the goal becomes protecting the incumbents rather than the greater good.
It may well be that we still have “one person, one vote,” but the reality is that some votes are substantially more powerful than other votes. This is a fundamental problem that undermines the principles of equal representation and the entire concept of democracy.
I read Mark Lett’s explanation of why the Sanford e-mails were published and am left with two questions:
1) Is it standard for unverified information from an anonymous source to be published? and
2) He said that they were published so the public could understand. Understand what? Using them to pressure the Governor to come clean is one thing but what did any member of the public gain by reading these? This smacked of tabloid journalism to me and Lett said nothing to help me understand how this was news as opposed to sensationalism. The news was the fact that there was an affair not the intimate details of it.
So, here’s the comprehensive piece by The State that lays it all out there:
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/844260.html
It’s all in there….the Jake Knotts angle, the security detail evasions, the emails and tips, the fateful back-from-Argentina play by play…
Here’s a very intriguing section:
“The e-mail exchanges, pasted into a single e-mail, had arrived Dec. 30 at The State in an account for letters to the editor. The subject field read, “This is your governor.”
The e-mails were from the personal e-mail address of Gov. Sanford to a woman in Argentina named Maria. Those e-mails outlined a sexual affair.
>>>The editorial page editor<<< who retrieved the e-mail replied to it, asking who the e-mailer was.
There was no response.
When the e-mails were sent to the newsroom, a reporter and editor there both e-mailed the AOL account in the United Kingdom, asking questions. There was no response.
Then, the reporter e-mailed Maria. Again, there was no response.
Attempts to electronically divine whether the e-mails were genuine also failed to produce results.
With the S.C. Legislature in session and a battle over federal stimulus money escalating, the e-mails went in a drawer.”
The State Newspaper is without a doubt the worst newspaper in the history of journalism. On the one hand they fail utterly to verify damning e-mails that would show the world just what a nut Mark Sanford is. Seems like their efforts were pretty minimal. There explanation why they didn’t just ask the governor was very, very lame. Perhaps, just perhaps verification of the affair would have put the whole stimulus funding debate in a different perspective and we could have resolved the situation sooner. Or, the governor may have resigned months ago and the state would have been spared his incohernt leadership. But nooooo. We are subject to this “family values” moron for 6 months while he allows the state to suffer through the recession while a bit of relief was waiting in the wings. The very fact that The State failed in it’s journalistic duties to dig deeper to bring these facts to light shows, yet again, why The State is the must disrespected name in journalism.
Then, after the whole story breaks and the importance of the e-mails has largely passed they go and publish the entire set of e-mails! To what end? The story was already public and the governor disgraced. At that point there was no need to embarass the Sanford family any further. The whole episode was mishandled by The State on a massive scale. Too bad the anonymous source for the original e-mails didn’t send them to a real newspaper like the Charlotte Observer or the Greenville News.
According to Brad’s old blog, Cindi returned from vacation Dec. 29, one day before the mistress email hit the “Letters To The Editor” inbox. I’m guessing Cindi plucked it out of there, since Brad, having just spent an entire week flying solo during the holidays with everyone else on vacation, was probably on life support.
I’m curious. There are indications that Sanford cut short his South American jaunt. Why? Does that he mean he was monitoring the fracas, or was he in contact with someone in SC who gave him updates?
Regarding the private behavior intersecting with public interest, there is a major point missing from discussion. Sanford MADE private behavior a public issue. He wanted to take Clinton to task for his personal behavior. He did the same with the majority leader Bob Livingston, saying “the bottom line … is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife.” Then he ran for governor on Christian values. Spitzer’s engaged in similar hypocrisy and resigned.
Also, Sanford betrayed his responsibility as governor by disappearing for a bootie call.
His effort to condemn others for immorality and dereliction of duty takes this far beyond what Clinton did.
The State also mentioned, “And more names of women were coming over the transom. The total was three and counting.” Nothing else about that was mentioned but it is very unclear to me just what or who that was about. Other names for the woman in Argentina, maybe? I would like to have that explained more.
Howie Rich has plowed a lot of money to SC Governot Mark Sanford also.
Randy E,
TEN DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Under cover, or between the sheets in Argentia; that’s way too long to be “off the grid”.
SC Governot Mark Sanford took a solemn oath to serve South Carolina twice! By lying to his staff and forcing them to cook up lies for his whereabouts demonstrated reckless irresponsibility.
I won’t deprive a person of taking a vacation. This whole fiasco could have been avoided if Sanford told his staff that he was taking a ten day vacation to Argentina. But then, Jenny probably would have filed divorce papers since she forbade him from visiting his mistress again. She didn’t know; South Carolina didn’t know.
Clearly, Sanford is all into satisfying himself instead of his wife and sons, and South Carolina! Sanford puts his own needs ahead of everybody else!
Randy – The other thing was, we already knew Clinton was a gigolo. Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, etc. etc. The thing with Monica was awful and gross, but it wasn’t out of character. We already knew our President at the time was a creature of unfortunate appetites, and he certainly wasn’t out there preaching to others about their indiscretions.
That said, I don’t think this is “beyond” Clinton. It is simply a crashing to Earth, another lost illusion of “moral purity”. As Jon Stewart said the other night, “Conservative mind, Liberal penis”.
Burl – I thought Sanford staffer Scott English contacted the Gov., and once Sanford understood from him that there was high interest, spilling over into national media, he changed his itinerary and hurried hisself back home. I’m not clear whether Sanford finally put the battery back in his phone, checked voicemail, and discovered a bunch of alarmed “Boss, where you at?!” messages, or whether English got through on a live call.
Andre is Howie Rich’s new boy. Bought and paid for…
I don’t know Howard Rich and I am not associated with his organization but, from what I have heard he is a man who is concerned about education in America and is willing to use his legitimately gained wealth to strengthen education in this country and thereby the Nation. The attempted demonization of this man is frightening (he’s not from round here!). Disagree with his ideas if you will, but trying to make his name a by-word for evil is sleazy and borders on the comical (I am not addressing this to Vic but to others who use “Howie Rich” almost as a synonym for Satan.) What has the man done to be deserving of such derision? Expressing your ideas within the law using the money you have earned seems to me to epitomize what this country is about.
Mr. Flowers, you sound like someone protesting too much.
I think we should all be concerned about people trying to buy elective office for candidates .
The type of candidates attracted by the amount of money Mr. Rich is willing to pump in to an election bodes ill for our already beleagured and corrupt government. They are taking bribes. If they take Mr. Rich’s money as they did in the last election, they can be bought by anyone for any purpose.
From what you have “heard”, Greg?
Education? Howard Rich doesn’t have a background in education. He has a background in real estate.
Yes, it’s perfectly legal right now to use certain loopholes to funnel astonishing amounts of out-of-state money into SC to support preferred “voucher” candidates. But is it based on sound education theory, or mere market ideology? And shall we have South Carolinians make decisions about how education is handled here, or ideologue real estate magnates from….not here?
http://stophowardrichsc.blogspot.com/
http://buyingsc.blogspot.com/
I think any American has the right to try to influence policy in this country within the bounds of the law.
I do not believe that having a vocation in real estate disqualifies one from having ideas about policy in any area.
I don’t understand why Rich seems to stir such irrational fear.
And yes from what I have heard and read. How do you get most of your information?
Why are the educrats so afraid of good ideas?
Why does a idea coming from out of state make it wrong, and not worthy of consideration?
To the educrats, no one outside of the education payroll industry is qualified to have an opinion on education, no matter how well educated they may be, and especially if they are … gasp…rich!
Andrew Carnegie built thousands of schools and libraries. I never heard the “professional educators” turning away his money. He only had a grammar school education, you know.
Greg, you don’t mind a person from another state meddling in state business like that? So if he were pumping to side against you in a matter of great concern to you, I’d bet the ranch you’d have a serious issue about this.
The notion that something is legal means we should immediately accept it is silly. He has a legal right to meddle and we have a legal right to call him on his unethical meddling.
We are all part of the same country. What is unethical about. That thinking is very provincial (as you are so fond of accusing those who disagree with you) And no, I feel that people of any political stripe have the right to advocate their positions anywhere, anytime within the constraints of the law. To me that is one of the key advantagages of being an American.
Should read “What is unethical about it?”
Should I maintain that because you do not live in this State and because you disagree with me, it is unethical for you to promote or discuss polices relating to South Carolina?
OK, then, let’s all remember this conversation. Because I don’t want to hear any whining when George Soros starts pouring money into SC to flip it over to the blue team.
Fair enough, he certainly has that right.
Yes, and you have every right to be turned off by it and to work against him when he tries to do it.
I am offended by some wealthy nutball who has no more notion of what works and doesn’t work in education trying to buy our legislature so he can cram through ideological experiments that the people of South Carolina don’t want. I’m offended that (because he KNOWS the people of SC don’t want his proposals) that the campaigns he pays for push a lot of lies about unrelated issues because he knows he can’t sell the ones that are his goals.
He has the RIGHT to do it, and I have the right to do all I can, in that same marketplace of ideas, to try to counter him. Which I do.
Once Mark Sanford is gone, unless Nikki replaces him, Howie will go away, and look for easier pickings. It has been Sanford’s presence in the governor’s office that has attracted all this out-of-state money, because he has made us look like a soft target for them. No Sanford, no Howie. I hope.
Greg, debating outcomes and trying to buy an outcome are worlds apart. FYI, he’s aligned himself with SCouRGe and Sanford, both who have derided public education as a whole in SC. There are great educators doing great things down there yet Rich and his puppets show these educators the back of their hand as well.
I am inferring that you are not up to speed on what Rich has been funding. Go to the SCouRGe website. http://www.scresponsiblegov.org/content.asp?catID=8088
Here are some lowlights:
1)A title of a thread in the SCRG blog: “Charleston kids cant read good…”
2)SCRG was ardently supportive of Floyd’s superintendent race in which she denegrated SC public schools as a whole – “failures and worst.”
3)They repeatedly deride the efforts of education lobbyists and education unions. The NEA in SC has one lobbyist and there is NO UNION in SC. That’s propaganda to drive a wedge between educators and the public.
If you, Rich, and Sanford want to argue about the failures that are occuring, I would side with you. To paint the system and all the educators with one broad brush is reckless.
Provincial is a term I have often used to refer to egocentric points of view in regards to the Confederacy – e.g. more focus on Confederate Day than Independence Day. Some issues are local and should be local. There’s no contradiction there.
Oppose his ideas that is fine, but the idea that because he does not reside within the borders of this state he should not try to effect policies that effect it is provincial.
If you don’t like what he is doing fight the laws which allow him to do what he does. Though I don’t see how you do that without attacking free speech.
Attack the ideas you disagree with, not the man.
What does the use of the term “nutball” do to advance the argument. He has ideas you (strongly) disagree with but has he been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness?
From Today’s New York Times: Proof Bauer and LaCivita are not truthful..
———————————–
“Meanwhile, Mr. Bauer’s camp appears to have been orchestrating pressure for a resignation.
“André Bauer is my client; I’ve been working this since Monday,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a political consultant on Mr. Bauer’s team, in an e-mail message to another Republican political operative that was provided to The New York Times by an opponent of Mr. Bauer. “I need to get this guy (Sanford) out,” he wrote, referring to the governor.”
____________________________________
So there you have it…in their own words. They just can’t tell the truth.
There is a big difference between someone trying to spread ideas for real education reform across state lines, and someone in another state trying to buy politicians.
The voucher campaign is a campaign of ideas, for real reform. It is tragic that the Education Payroll Industry fights against intellectual discussion.
George Soros makes his money off currency fluctuations, panics, and political instability, which are often created by Democrats. Then he finances 501-C groups which illegally work for Democrat candidates.
Don’t compare George Soros and ACORN to legitimate donors.
Hal, you summed up my opposition to Bauer succinctly. Talking out of all four sides of his mouth, saying one thing for public consumption, while orchestrating a different outcome behind the scenes.
It has been my experience over the years after spending time with and being friends with several politicians at various levels, from both parties that all too many will turn on you at any given moment if it will enhance their political or personal career even in the slightest. Friends become fodder for the press grist mill and enemies are used to grease the path to achieve greater political power.
Republicans and Democrats alike, in the end, no difference whatsoever.
Soros and Rich are from the same mold; rich, ideologues, and willing to support their agendas with their wealth. So, what is different today than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago? Personal experience tells me the net sum for change is zero.
Years from now, there will be another politician crying to the press, apologizing for his indiscretions, another will be begging forgiveness for taking bribes, and so on and so on. Human nature, what a bi_ch.
This is another weekly lesson why America needs to purge itself of career politicians.
The type of person who wants to be a career politician is exactly the type that is unfit to serve.
Too many who taste power cannot give it up. They become corrupted and stained, like a once shiny coin in a salt brine, that corrodes their morality and judgement over time.
Ten years maximum of office in any 20 years, then a 5 year hiatus.
No working as a lobbyist, consultant, lawyer, advisor, or any other excuse for receiving nebulous fees, for any clients who lobbied you, for 5 years.
Everyone who votes on a bill, must read it, and sign an oath that they read every word, under penalty of perjury.
No alteration of bills in conference committees, unless everyone voting in both Houses initials and signs every change.
Lee wrote a haiku (with only minor editing)!
They become corrupt
and stained, like a once shiny
coin in a salt brine.
Good job, Lee! 😉
Lee, I could vote for your proposition as a solution or a partial solution to our present politician problems.
I especially endorse the last two suggestions. If every politician in Washington who voted for the bailouts, TARP money, stimulus money and every other spending bill that crossed their desks, we might find ourselves in a little better situation than the one we’re in now.
When we sign contracts, it is mandatory that we read every line and understand the impact of each sentence, each word, and do our due diligence when it comes to a complete understanding of the document.
The climate change bill just passed in the House had only a few copies available for the members to read before voting. If each member had to meet the requirements you set forth, there may have been a different outcome. In fact, all discussion and consideration of any information, opinions, or scientific research disproving the accepted IPCC report was stopped by the administration.
Instead of having an honest discussion and debate with all information made available, the administration along with a bullying Chief of Staff, browbeat Democrats who were opposed to the bill as written into submission. Waxman, by his own admission never read the bill, only had a Reader’s Digest version relayed to him by his staff.
Of course, this is nothing new and has been an accepted practice all along by both sides. Neither side has moral authority on this one either.