This morning, The State continued to mine the e-mails and phone records it has FOIed from the governor’s office. We learned among other things that Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor was hunting for Sanford when he went MIA last year with his girlfriend.
My former paper also had a story about what I wrote about yesterday — the fact that the governor is taking time off from work yet again. I particularly liked what Boyd Brown had to say:
“I thought he was going to focus on getting the state back on track,” said state Rep. Boyd Brown, D-Fairfield. “It doesn’t sound like he’s with the program.”
Sanford canceled a meeting with John Rainey, chairman of the Board of Economic Advisors, to discuss state revenue data. Sawyer said Sanford’s canceled meetings will be rescheduled….
Another concern is the state’s 12.1 percent jobless rate, tied for third-highest in the nation. New jobless numbers are expected Friday. E-mails released by the governor’s office show Sanford declined at least one meeting with a company looking to expand its S.C. operations because he was in Argentina.“It might be a wise idea for the governor to be out of town when the new unemployment numbers come out,” Brown said.
You can say that again.
But the most meaningful part of the story, to me, was this:
Since June 18, when he left for Argentina, Sanford has spent 12 of 28 calendar days in Columbia or on the road on gubernatorial duties, according to his governor’s office. Sanford did not work on six of 19 business days during that period.
The rest of Sanford’s time has been spent at his Sullivan’s Island home or on family retreats.
Twelve out of the last 28 days actually on the job… Folks, I’ve been unemployed since March, and I haven’t had the spare time to so much as go to the beach for a day. I’m busy on a freelance job today (which I’m about to get back to), and I’ll be busy tomorrow, and I’ll continue to stay busy until I land a full-time job, and will be busy for a long time after that.
But I’ve always had trouble understanding the governor’s work ethic. When he first started running for governor, he had been out of Congress for a couple of years. I asked him then what he had been doing. “Nothing,” he said, adding something about hanging out with the boys, changing diapers.
I think it’s great for a man to spend time with his family. A man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man. And Mark Sanford right now really needs to be working on that. But at some point, we have to talk about the fact that the man is being paid to do a job, and he wasn’t doing it very well to start with …
Related Posts
What’s a week trying to make mends with Jenny when, although SC Governot Mark Sanford could say “present”, he really has been “missing in action” for 6.5 years!
You’re right, about all of it. However, I don’t foresee any quick resolution of this painful public meltdown. Both Sanfords appear to be committed to holding on for dear life, and they have enablers working hard to make this possible for them.
What would your dream governor do to offset the damage caused by the state legislature and the Democrats in Washington?
In case you haven’t noticed, the economy in South Carolina and most of the nation was very good until Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid got control of the budget in 2007, threatened energy production and caused an oil price panic, then fraud at their FNMA and FMAC programs started bringing down banks.
Rep. Boyd Brown, D-Fairfield has no ideas. Most of his constituency is living on government programs, anyway.
So let’s hear some ideas on how to survive the Obama Depression.
I think the guv’s always been under the illusion that, if you’re good enough, you don’t have to work hard for what you get. It takes all kinds, I guess . . .
Sanford has no defense for his actions – period. So, let’s examine the situation. First, the State Supreme Court ruled against him and essentially, gave control of the state solely to the legislature. The stimulus money has been requested by Sanford and for all practical purposes, he has done about all he can do since he has no control over how it is spent outside the mandates set forth by congress. If he vetoes a bill, it is overturned. If he tries to work with the legislature, it becomes a media circus and not much is accomplished.
He is nothing more than a figurehead and totally useless as a functioning governor.
Now, the alternative if Sanford resigns is to have Andre Bauer serve out his term. Do we want that? I think the general consensus confirms the answer as a resounding no. If Bauer is not a viable alternative and the legislature is actually in control and the only thing Sanford can do effectively for the next few months is sign the odd report or bill, then why all the fuss about taking time to be with his wife?
He is out of town where he can do no harm. He is apparently trying to mend his relationship with his wife and family, so on that point, he is actually trying to do the right thing. Give credit where credit is due.
So, why all the hell raising over his absence? At this point, it seems to me the state is much better off until the next election and Sanford is out of the way.
Maybe his critics should rejoice over the fact that he is staying and give thanks for a gift that keeps on giving. Come on, be thankful.
Anyone have a better suggestion?
Better idea? RESIGN. There is something called respect and honor. The governor of SC impacts the image of a state. His actions, magnified by a similar event last year, cast a shadow of shame on SC. The fact that he can keep his job despite this because the Lt Gov is some how worse compounds the negativity.
Even juicier is the fact that Sanford, Ensign, and now Pickering all lived at the same building in DC which was formally registered as a “church”. They shared a common theology, they disparaged other elected officials for having affairs, calling for their resignation.
This wasn’t a one time, heat of the moment affair. Sanford was engaged in an ongoing, premeditated betrayal of his wife and his state. Speed Racer is clearly the lesser of the two evils.
Oh geez, not the moral crusaders again. Isn’t this the same thing you people tried to do with Clinton? Maybe Sanford should resign… but not for the reasons you mentioned.
A Better Suggestion:
Meet with (encouragingly) companies that wish to locate or expand in South Carolina, like the two he failed to meet with.
“Soil conditions” are nice, but when the seeds show up, it’d be nice if the Governor stopped digging holes and got to actually planting.
Birch, uhm…the “you people tried to do with Clinton” crowd included SANFORD!
Also, there’s one profound difference. Sanford went AWOL from his job. Clinton was getting an extra “job”.
Clinton was multi-tasking.
And until he does something productive, Sanford could help out a bit with the state budget he’s so rightly criticized by sending his paychecks back to the treasurer’s office since he’s not earning the money.
Sorry, Guv, but if you were bustin’ yer a** and workin’ like madman to make good on what you’ve done, I could maybe cut‘chu some slack, but as it is… you don’t deserve the pity.
Like the old saying goes: “Lead, follow, or get outta the way!”
Uh… sorry. That was supposed to start with:
“What KB says…”
An’ another thing…
I just have say, that for anybody to throw down the “respect and honor” card on Sanford and then defend Clinton’s behavior with a cutie-pie remark like Clinton was just “getting an extra ‘job’” is…, well… I guess it speaks for itself.
Birch, uhm…the “you people tried to do with Clinton” crowd included SANFORD
Of course it did. Whether it’s Sanford doing it or you doing it, it’s annoying.
Also, there’s one profound difference. Sanford went AWOL from his job. Clinton was getting an extra “job”.
Like I said, maybe Sanford should resign and going “AWOL” would be one good reason for doing so. But you did not mention that in your first post. You made it all about cheating on his wife. I never disagreed with your conclusion that Mark Sanford should resign, only your insertion or morality into politics.
AP and Politico have produced very interesting analyses of Sanford’s travel costs. According to Politico, he has run up a total of $468,000 in state-funded travel. He may not have done much for South Carolina, but he apparently traveled in style while not doing it.
Well, when you are getting an “extra job” in an office during business hours and your secretary is sitting at her desk just a closed door away is certainly not up to the level of Sanford’s sin, is it?
For one moment, let sanity enter the picture.
Although Clinton was in the White House, not another country, what would the scene have been if a national emergency occurred and several staff members walked in on Clinton while he was engaged in his “extra job”? Clinton was the President of the United States and held the most powerful position in the world, Sanford is a figurehead governor. Now, who displayed the greatest amount of disrespect for the people of this country, Sanford or Clinton? Sanford most certainly is not the person who is in control of the reins of government for America, Clinton was. There is a difference, don’t you think?
And, it is a good thing we found out about Sanford’s proclivities now, not later, when he COULD have been the POTUS.
Sanford can be forgiven but not excused, and no one is excusing him for his behavior. He should pay the consequences whether it is in the form of full censure, resignation, impeachment, or prosecution if he illegally used state funds to cover his romantic trysts.
How much taxpayer’s money did Clinton spend to engage in his sexual interludes with various women during his political career?
When Sanford and his troop of moral crusaders were criticizing Clinton, they were still ideologically chaste and pure. As with most politicians, the more time they spent in the trappings of power, the more they believed they were not subject to the same rules they applied to others. Typical. Why am I not surprised at this behavior by Sanford and a few others that has come to light recently? I try to remember who they are and the type personality it takes to be a politician.
kbfenner,
Why can’t you name any of these companies with whom it is so vital for the Governor to meet with?
Should the Governor personally court every company that is considering moving into or out of the state? I don’t think so?
There are appropriate times for the Governor to meet with some companies, and maybe it is not the right time for your nameless companies. Consider the possibility that the Governor has delegated this work to the Department of Commerce, and trusts their judgement.
Our economic crisis was created in Washington. No one in this state can overcome the socialist agenda of Barack Obama, the racist agenda of Jim Clyburn, and the bumbling of John Spratt which is creating this Obama Depression – at least not until the next election.
Bart,
Clinton also created a $90,000 a year job for Monical Lewinsky, had his attorney Lanny Davis negotiate a more lucrative job in New York with rich Democrats, and intimidated witnesses.
That is why Clinton had to make a pre-indictment plea bargain before he left office.
Check out this interview with Jeff Sharlet on Frank Knapp’s “U Need To Know” talk radio show (July 14):
http://woic.com/skin/elink.php?url=www.Uneed2know.info
Mr. Sharlet has written a book on “The Family”; a group of religious-right-political-elite, or “the new Chosen” (as opposed to the Jews, who broke their covenant with god and are therefore no longer Chosen) who believe that they have been put into positions of power by god and, by virtue of that appointment, are literally above the rest of us. Sharlet spent a month with The Family and was elected to the group; once elected you can’t be ousted, since you are then Chosen (by god, no less). Chosen ones may fall (see Sanford) but apparently this isn’t a problem; the Chosen ones, by virtue of being Chosen, are above the laws (and apparently, morals) of man. The interview goes deeper into some of what he saw and heard during his time there (according to the interview he wasn’t undercover); “disturbing” doesn’t even begin to cover it. Lots of stuff about money, power and the market; apparently certain members of the rich and elite are supposed to lead the world, no matter if they are bad boys or not… god says so.
According to Sharlet, Jim DeMint is heavily involved with the group. Sanford possibly, too, though the interview doesn’t say how much or how deeply. Wikipedia says Sanford has “sought counseling” at The Family’s C Street house in D.C.
Several publications have written about the group; here’s the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
Brad – what do you know about this group? This is the first I’ve heard of it. (The Wikipedia article has links to other publications, but I haven’t looked at them yet.) If what Sharlet has written is true, it sounds like some kind of religiously ordained political mafia.
Makes me want to go reread some C. Wright Mills…
I am in no way defending Clinton. Funny how people jump to that conclusion when he is cited to provide context for Sanford et al. My point is that Clinton’s misdeed was sexual in nature. Sanford skipped out on his job!
It’s silly to compare the two. Sure it was unseemly for Clinton to get it on while at work. As an educator, I am concerned about the message we send our kids and Clinton did a great deal of damage in that regard. Regardless, if his staff had walked in on him and Monica, he would still be there to deal with an emergency. TWICE Sanford was completely unavailable to his staff over a period of several days.
“When Sanford and his troop of moral crusaders were criticizing Clinton, they were still ideologically chaste and pure.” Oh?! Henry Hyde and Newt had skipped out on their wives. Sanford had inappropriate interaction with multiple women but we don’t have a time line for this. Regardless, Ensign and Sanford called for the resignation of others who committed adultery. The hypocrisy occurred not in ’98 but when they decided to stay in office for the very same offense they insisted should cause others to resign.
And today we learn that Sanford lied about flying coach when it was discovered that he flew business class. So his hypocrisy extends to his fiscal conservatism. He claimed to be frugal with tax payer money yet he has flown business class repeatedly on the tax payer dime.
Hypocrite two times over
It was once said of marriage,”Keep your eyes wide beforehand and half closed afterwards.” In some ways, that applies to politics.
Randy,
As with Sanford, Clinton’s situation wasn’t just about sex. It was about lying about it when he was caught. It was about sex with a subordinate worker – an offense that would get any private businessman fired.
Clinton should have resigned and Sanford should too.
Go read the Starr Report and tell me how in the world Clinton remained in office.
“Along with face-to-face meetings, according to Ms. Lewinsky, she spoke on the telephone with the President approximately 50 times, often after 10 p.m. and sometimes well after midnight.(58) The President placed the calls himself or, during working hours, had his secretary, Betty Currie, do so; Ms. Lewinsky could not telephone him directly, though she sometimes reached him through Ms. Currie.(59) Ms. Lewinsky testified: “[W]e spent hours on the phone talking.”(60) Their telephone conversations were “[s]imilar to what we discussed in person, just how we were doing. A lot of discussions about my job, when I was trying to come back to the White House and then once I decided to move to New York. . . . We talked about everything under the sun.”(61) On 10 to 15 occasions, she and the President had phone sex.(62) After phone sex late one night, the President fell asleep mid-conversation.(63)”
—
To even try and equate Sanford’s “Road to Rio” trip with Clinton’s is unbelievable. And let’s please not be naive enough to think Lewinsky was the only one.
Republican president Warren G. Harding was far more egregious in his affairs. To the point where there’s a good chance he was killed by wife Florence.
Flash (courtesy of TPM): Joel Sawyer is resigning effective August 5. Guess he needs a vacation too!
Brad! There’s a job opening!
Don’t blame me
I voted not GOP.
This doesn’t have much of a ring to it, but I am not a poet. I do hope The State newspaper will investigate the candidates they endorse (twice, no less) a little more in the next election. I hope that they will not blindly endorse any candidate who claims to want to make state government more efficient. I think all South Carolinians want to see more efficient government, but we are all not capable of handling the job of governor. Before the newspaper endorses anyone, they should look for a candidate who does not want to dismantle government to promote his own libertarian beliefs; someone who lives family values not just espouses them; someone who can work with a powerful legislature to accomplish results; and most basic of all, someone who goes to work everyday and puts in an entire eight-hour day. It seems to me that only a little investigative journalism would have turned up the fact that Sanford was not the man for the job. Maybe The State editorial board did know this, but were afraid of losing subscribers if they endorsed a Democrat.
I cannot see the legislature impeaching him. Neither the Democrats, nor the against-Bauer Republicans (a huge majority) want to give Bauer a headstart on the next gubernatorial race. With Mrs. Sanford encouraging her husband to hang in there and flattering him with the idea that he still has a chance at a national office, he won’t resign. I guess South Carolinians are stuck with him for another 18 months. This, of course, may be a good thing. At least now our elected officials can’t do anything stupid. They are essentially powerless.
Doug, you were defending Sanford originally when the story was simply about how he skipped out on his job for several days. THAT would get anyone else fired in any business. It’s surreal that this is glossed over. Lying about a personal situation and gross negligence of duty are affronts that are worlds apart.
Randy,
Has the original story been true, I would have continued to defend Sanford. NOTHING HAPPENED WHILE HE WAS GONE. Please don’t try the drunk driver analogy. It doesn’t work.
Clinton should have been impeached. Sanford should resign.
Agreed?
If you can justify Clinton’s actions, I hope you don’t bring those opinions into a classroom.
Clinton’s actions were far worse than Sanfords — plus Sanford at least admitted his mistakes. Clinton would probably still deny he did anything wrong to this day.
Clinton should have been impeached?
Does the fact that he was not attest to:
1) the corruption of the U.S. Senate, which acquitted him, or
2) the media, which covered up the pertinent obstruction of justice charge and painted Bill’s lies as personal in nature?
If 1), has the preponderance of lawyers in the Senate effected a de facto coup by a single profession that wields the unseemly power of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization?
If 2), Gov. Blagojevich’s lies were also personal in nature (like most felons who wish to escape punishment) and Blagojevich never deserved impeachment either, did he?
Democrats in the Senate refused to enter the Evidence Room and look at any of the evidence of Clinton’s bribery, suborning of perjury, direct perjury, destruction of physical evidence, witness intimidation, etc.
Just a few weeks prior, they had gone up to the White House and asked Clinton to resign, but he was adamant in his refusal. Gore was so sure that Clinton would resign that by Christmas, he was inviting people to visit him daily, trying to put together a team of 500 loyalists to totally replace all the Clinton gang.
Doug, skipping out on your job is not warranted by the lack of negative outcomes – a spin off of the ends justifies the means. The analogy to DUI is perfectly relative. The fact that someone makes it home from a bar while intoxicated is not justified because “nothing happened.”
It’s inconsistent to decry taxes and government as wasteful but then defend someone receiving tax payer dollars while skipping out on his government job.
The notion that the sex was the problem and not his professional recklessness is baffling.
“If you can justify Clinton’s actions, I hope you don’t bring those opinions into a classroom.” – Doug
“As an educator, I am concerned about the message we send our kids and Clinton did a great deal of damage in that regard.” – Randy BEFORE Doug’s comment above
I think that reveals my view of both Clinton and the responsibility of teachers. Again, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy between the reaction to Clinton versus Sanford in terms of “crossing the sex line.” One skipped out on his job and the other did not.
Exactly what important work did Mark Sanford miss on his days off?
I thought Democrats like Randy and Brad wanted Sanford gone, so the legislature could run wild.
Clinton, meanwhile, launched a missile attack on a medicine factory that he has helped finance through an IMF loan. He knew it what it made, because Sandy Berger got a monthly detailed report on it by a visiting monitor. They thought it would be empty of the German contract engineers who were running the facility, but they killed the janitors.
Clinton’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, quit and represented the medicine factory owners in their lawsuit, which Janet Reno settled out of court.
DC, never mind the Senate and the media, what about the American people, who were disgusted by the investigations and saw the affair as a phony, partisan witch-hunt. Why don’t the American people see the issue the same way you do? Why is your viewpoint such a minority, fringe position?
I’m thinking there are two alternatives:
1) You are uniquely insightful, an unappreciated prophet, and the vast majority of the American people are blind, corrupt, or both.
2) Something else.
Since Bill Clinton copped a plea bargain with federal prosecutors on his way out the door, the impeachment was not groundless, not a “witch hunt”, not phony, and not partisan.
Randy,
Your Sanford-DUI analogy doesn’t work.
First, driving under the influence is illegal. Sanford going AWOL was not.
Second, driving under the influence is illegal because the driver knowingly creates a situation where he is putting the lives of others at risk. It can be statistically proven that DUI is dangerous. On the other hand, Sanford going AWOL was stupid but did not endanger anyone. You and Jake Knotts have to make some pretty huge leaps of imagination to even come up with anything (terrorist attacks? really??) to invent a hypothetical situation where Sanford’s absence might have caused anything approaching a situation that would endanger the public. Nothing happened while he was gone, nothing happened before he was gone, and nothing has happened since. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a single real life-or-death situation that has occurred for ANY governor.
Nobody was hurt by the governor’s actions and there isn’t even a plausible scenario that you can come up with that would make it equivalent to a real life DUI risk.
As for your opinions on government employees “skipping out” on their jobs, can I assume that when some of your teacher co-workers took a sick day when they really weren’t sick, that you reported them to the administration? I’m sure that NEVER happens, right?
Weak effort on that last one Doug. When a teacher takes a sick day, he or she has someone cover him or her. People at the school know about it. His own staff tried repeatedly in vain to reach him to no avail. If he wants to tell his staff ahead of time that he’s going to Argentina to check out resources and he tells his staff to clear his calendar, then we have a different story entirely.
Yes, DUI is illegal but I was not using the comparison in terms of legality. You claimed that “because nothing happened” Sanford’s action was justified. I pointed out another situation in which “nothing happens” so the action, using your logic, is justified.
So tax payer money going to Sanford while he sneaks off like he did is ok, but other government officials are wasting taxes because they simply aren’t cut from your libertarian cloth?
Randy,
Do I need to repeat what I said the moment Sanford held his press conference? He should resign.
More than betraying the public trust, he betrayed his family. Either one should have forced him to resign. (Same for Clinton – the serial adulterer who still can’t bring himself to admit what he did).
Lee, do you think the reason you believe so many things no one else believes, and know so many things no one else knows, and see so many things no one else sees, and hear so many voices no one else hears, is that:
1) You are a uniquely insightful, unappreciated prophet or
2) Some other reason
Also, Randy, just so I’m clear – you have no problem with teachers taking sick days when they are not sick even though the taxpayers must then pay for the substitute teacher in addition to paying the teacher’s salary?
Mike,
If Americans were disgusted by the Clinton investigation it was because they didn’t want to deal with the truth. A President screwing around with an intern on multiple occasions and then playing word games to string the investigation out to the point where an apathetic public gave up.
Clinton was the tipping point in terms of lowering the bar forever on political ethics.
That’s one cigar that can’t be unsmoked.
Those innocent people murdered in cold blood because of Clinton’s sex and drug problems can’t be brought back or bought back, either.
“Toreno”,
Millions of people know the same things I know, such as Clinton copping a pre-indictment plea bargain his last month in office.
You just don’t happen to be one of those people who keep up with the news. I just fixed a small part of that for you. Soak it up.
doug, wonder how many understand your cigar comment?
Lee, the millions of people who supposedly know the same things you know don’t count when other people can’t see them too.
And again, I don’t subscribe to the Crazytown Herald.
Bart,
The fact that many people don’t understand the reference to the cigar is proof that the public just doesn’t have the stomach for the truth. Apathy and ignorance rule.
Toreno,
Are you seriously that ignorant of the fact that Bill Clinton copped a plea bargain on multiple federal charges of witness intimidation, perjury before a grand jury, and obstruction of justice?
Lee,
And how long was Clinton disbarred or not allowed to practice law as a condition of the plea bargain agreement?
Bill Clinton was stripped of his Arkansas law license on October 1, 2001, and surrendered his federal license to the Supreme Court on January 19, 2002, the day before he left office.
He paid a $25,000 fine to Arkansas and no fine to U.S. Supreme Court.
Both licenses were suspended for 5 years.
Lee,
Thanks. This bit of information is for those who don’t keep up with what is going on or what actually transpired during the Clinton travails.
Query. If Clinton was not guilty, then why the plea agreement and suspension of his license to practice law? Anyone?
Clinton also paid over $90,000 in fines and court costs to the trial court for wasting their time with his perjury and obstruction of justice, and over $400,000 in attorney’s fees, court costs and document costs to Paul Jones’ attorneys for the same offenses.
Bart, right, the only reason people ever settle cases is that they’re guilty, the fact that defending even this spurious litigation would have cost millions or tens of millions of dollars had nothing to do with anything.
We know that the incident on which Paula Jones based her lawsuit never happened. We know this because Paula Jones said that Clinton had a “distinguishing physical characteristic”, and after a physical exam taken as part of the litigation, it was shown that the “distinguishing characteristic” she claimed did not exist. However, you don’t actually care that Paula Jones’s case was bogus.
Ken Starr brought (and lost) a perjury case against Julie Hiatt Steele because she didn’t back up Kathleen Willey’s bogus claim. Defending the case cost Ms. Steele huge sums, and was an abuse of the legal process, brought to punish her for not going along with what Starr wanted her to say, but you don’t care about that.
The legal process can be (and was in this case) used as an instrument of oppression, draining resources of anyone, guilty or innocent, who is made a target of an investigation. A corrupt judicial panel removed the original special prosecutor and put Starr in his place after the original prosecutor was about to wrap up his investigation with a finding that the Clintons did nothing wrong. Starr then proceeded, with unlimited taxpayer funds, to bring numerous bogus charges against numerous people with no intention other than to punish friends and supporters of the Clintons by subjecting them to huge legal expenses.
The purpose of the investigations wasn’t to uncover the truth or to detect wrongdoing, it was to use public resources to drag the Clintons and those around them into various costly legal proceedings.
The whole process was really based on a backwards reasoning. It was held as an axiom that Clinton was not qualified to serve; therefore facts (real or imaginary) had to be found that could be manipulated to support that contention. Conservatives don’t ever believe that liberals are entitled to hold office, they don’t believe in the right to vote. Look at yourself, you believe you are entitled to decide who is and isn’t allowed to vote, people whom you see as in the “wrong” group (and we know what group that is) are “drunks and drug addicts).
Clinton was elected based on the votes of the “wrong” people, therefore, he was not entitled to vote, therefore, the judicial process had to be called into service to remove him. The fact that the public didn’t agree with this reasoning and didn’t ever support the investigations doesn’t lead you to believe that you might have been wrong, no, you can’t ever accept the fact that anyone might disagree with you based on a rational analysis of events.
Therefore, you don’t examine your own views, you simply presume that there’s something the matter with the public.
Of course, the fact is that you don’t really care about who is and isn’t morally unfit to serve. No one who ever voted for Strom Thurmond, for example, cares anything about moral fitness or unfitness to hold office.
Mike, talk to the hand. Once I saw your name and a comment addresed to me, everything else was blah! blah! blah!
Total B——T
blah! blah! blah!
Bart, I don’t care if you read what I write or not. I’m not writing it to you, rather, I’m presenting facts that demonstrate the failure of your analysis. I’m explaining why your view is a fringe view.
Really, it’s the inability to understand why other people might have sound reasons for rejecting his viewpoint that led to the failure of Brad’s career. In his mind, he came to his conclusions through careful analysis, and everybody else rejected them due to partisanship. And you see where that got him. If you don’t want to end up like him, don’t follow his example.
Mike, again, talk to the hand. I saw your name and a comment addressed to me and once again, blah! blah! blah!
more total b——t
blah! blah! blah!
I think little Mikey needs a hug from Mary. Oops! He is Mary.
It is ridiculous to claim that President Clinton settled his civil lawsuits and his criminal charges because of legal costs – because he was not paying them.
Bill Clinton had money pouring in from his big supporters who were getting rich off contracts pushed to their firms, waivers on technology export restrictions, and the selling of pardons.
Bill Clinton cut a plea agreement to avoid indictment and criminal trial.
Little Mikey Toreno, or Mary, or whoever you are.
Just for S&Gs, I did go back and read your comments. You can’t even go from one comment to the other without being dishonest.
The first one was directed at me throughout the rambling path of conspiracy theories about “getting” Clinton because he was the “wrong” kind. Republicans aren’t Machiavellian enough to pull something so convoluted off in the first place. Hell, they can’t keep it in their pants any better than Clinton could.
Then you used your usual mantra of accusing me of being against the “wrong” group and using the same tired, *(and we know what group that is)*, comment you are stuck on. Be a man, tell me what “group” you are referring to. Only a coward will not call it like it is. Are you referring to African Americans? If so, grow a pair and say it – out loud.
On your second comment, you stated quite clearly “I’m not writing it to you, rather, I’m presenting facts that demonstrate the failure of your analysis. I’m explaining why your view is a fringe view.” I really don’t think there are very many on this planet who could remotely conclude you were not writing your original comments directly to me. I saw no one else named or mentioned. Oh, maybe if we followed your twisted path to your conclusions, other names could be revealed. Typical conspiracy theorist illogic.
Then, you take off on Brad again and go into more detail about him being a failure. When it comes to Brad, you really are an obsessive little person aren’t you? What’s the matter, is your own life too empty and unfulfilled to the point where it requires someone to be the recipient/object of your frustrations?
Conclusion, an obsessive little mind with a penchant for not being honest and conspiracy theories that cannot be proved.
Well, I broke my word by responding to you but all of us have weak moments when faced with an object of curiosity. Temptation and all that.
Save that post, Bart.
With a few minor word changes – “Clinton” and “Brad” – it can be reused for many of the analiberals who vent their hateful neuroses in public.