This really got my attention in an otherwise boring turn-of-the-screw story over the Sanford ethics case:
Sanford asked the court to intervene Wednesday, arguing that if the State Ethics Commission releases the report, it could be used against him politically or undermine the governor’s ability to defend himself. Sanford’s attorneys will have until noon Tuesday to respond to the Ethics Commission arguments.
The boldface emphasis is mine. I would love to see the original press release or court filing or whatever that led to that paraphrase, “used against him politically.”
Surely the governor doesn’t actually believe that he has anything to lose politically. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he say, in writing, not long ago, that his political career was over? I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time because it seemed like a painful case of stating the obvious.
This guy was toast before he dug the hole deeper with his unsuccessful attempt to block the stimulus funds. Already, the leadership of his own party had stopped listening to him, and the stimulus battle just made it less likely that they’d ever start again. All the Argentina madness happened on top of that. Those of us who were all too familiar with this guy and his irrelevance knew far before that explosion that there was no way he would ever have had a chance at national office, once the national media paid any attention to his record whatsoever. And of course there wasn’t anything left for him in South Carolina.
So how on Earth could he be hurt politically by disclosure of the preliminary ethics report, or, for that matter, by anything else? How could you possibly hurt a political career that is SO over, and then some?
But maybe he didn’t say that. Maybe The State got it wrong. I’d love to see what he DID say, so if any of y’all know, please direct me to it. A brief search on my part yielded nothing…
Related Posts
Is there something fishy in there he really doesn’t want the legislature finding out about? Does he have something hinky going on that requires that he remain govenor to succeed? Does he not realize that the very act of trying to hide that ethics report tends to lead people to ask these questions? BTW did you see where Senator Graham stated that the “Birther” movement was wrong (I think he said “crazy”), said that Beck (is that his name?) was was not a republican, and most importantly, called for both sides to cool down the rhetoric. After a few things he’d said, I was ready to decide that he’d lapsed into lock-step with the most far right of the republicans, but he demonstrated his honesty, honor, and independence with those words. I applaud him, and he remains on my list of politicians whom I would consider voting for.
As much as I am disappointed in Sanford since the “big reveal” and as much as I still want him to resign, let’s get one thing straight: the state of South Carolina’s economy is (and has been) solely in the hands of two people – Harrell and Leatherman. The way this state’s government spends money has absolutely nothing to do with Sanford and never has.
I’m starting to think he’s delusional again. Or I’m again starting think he’s delusional, one.
Doug–Sanford made the appointment of Joe E to Commerce and he and Joe E have openly derided standard economic development practices and thus blocked numerous attempts to attract and retain companies and jobs to our fair state.I worked in the area and saw it first hand.
1. Name those “standard economic development practices”
2. Name the companies they failed to retain, and why (you think so).
3. Name the companies they failed to recruit, and why (you think so).
Brad just can’t shake the Sanford addiction cold turkey… maybe he should start a 12-step program. I saw the title, and skipped the article… I’m sure I’ve read everything before.
Since refusing to resign is so demonstrative of a total lack of honor…shame…good sense… he’s probably listening to the C Street bunch who are advising John Ensign to hang on. He probably thinks if he stays long enough, everyone will forget. And, that political career will get resurrected in the end. His action don’t indicate he really believes this is the end of his life as he has known it.
Ensign’s situation is exploding with ethics and legal problems.
Maybe, they’ll go down at the same time. I need to think that he will get his just rewards.
I Brad’s obsession goes beyond Sanford. It’s the Watergate Syndrome, where every reporter dreams of going from coffee fetcher to world fame by bringing down The Big Guy.
Symptoms include:
* trying to attach your story to Watergate by naming your wanna-it-to-be scandal, “____gate”,
* claiming to have secret sources with mysterious nicknames,
* linking your target to every previously smeared individual that you can, to defame him, while you search for the smoking gun evidence that “your instincts” tell you is there.
I’ll agree that Sanford’s political career is over, if Brad agrees that his professional journalism career is over (blogging for yourself doesn’t count).
Maybe Chuck Austin and Mayor Bob can write you a reference letter:
http://columbia.craigslist.org/gov/1389989424.html
He wants to remain as governor because the Governor’s Mansion is the only place that he’s got to sleep.
Jenny will kick him out of their Sullivan Island beach home.
Don’t know what’s happened to his plantation.
SC Guv’not Sanford just doesn’t want to sleep on the benches across the street from the Capital.
People who like Sanford actually like his philosophy, so they don’t talk about the person.
Small-minded people tend to talk about other people, rather than ideas. That’s why you see a lot of obsession with Sanford the person among journalists. The news media is basically focused on scandal and gore as it s top story templates.
“Small-minded people tend to talk about other people…” ahem…
Hey, folks, most days I ignore this daily “drama” over Sanford and ethics, because it truly bores me. Once I decide a guy should have quit long ago, I start losing interest. Unfortunately, he doesn’t go away.
As y’all know, I’ve always thought it very important who the governor is. I’d written about the subject over and over for years before I had even heard of Mark Sanford. The fact that he is still in that office is really important. But he has sort of run out of fresh surprises since he dropped the big one, hasn’t he (although he got more mileage out of it than most politicians would, with his interviews about his “soulmate” and so on).
As further evidence that HE just won’t let it go, I should warn those of you who get all upset over me writing about the guy who occupies the most important elective office in our state that he’s bringing his big “apology” show to MY Rotary next Monday. His idea, not mine. (And quite a few Rotarians are grumbling about it in advance, because they’ve heard enough from this guy — but Rotary is nothing if not a polite organization, and it doesn’t say “no” when the governor asks to come visit. In fact, he’s actually technically an ex-officio member of our club, so that gives him an extra claim on our podium.)
So yeah, I’ll probably write about it, and will continue to do so until we’ve truly put Mark Sanford behind us.
… which reminds me — I’ve been meaning to post something about the speaker we had Monday, a doc who talked about swine flu.
I will do so momentarily.
“Small-minded people tend to talk about other people, rather than ideas. That’s why you see a lot of obsession with Sanford the person among journalists. The news media is basically focused on scandal and gore as it s top story templates.”
You mean like Obama, the communist-nazi-socialist-mafioso Secret Kenyan? Oops, guess “Lee Muller” isn’t really obsessed with the elected president. But then that’s part of the joke Lee is having on us.
Sanford and N1H1, how appropriate. Both are harmful and neither will go away.
Burl, you don’t seem to know very much about Obama. More importantly, as a journalist who is star struck, you don’t care to know.
Brad started reading one of Obama’s books, but stopped. Maybe all of Obama’s talk about his communist leanings and getting even with whites and Jews was uncomfortable.
If some of you closed-minded “liberals” were a little more “obsessed” with learning something about the political philosophies of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, John Kerry and all the members of the Democratic Socialist Caucus, you might be able to join the discussion about current events.
H1N1 flu is a very good reason to have total control of our borders. So is tuberculosis and leprosy, which are also being spread by illegals from Mexico.
You mean like Obama, the communist-nazi-socialist-mafioso Secret Kenyan?
You forgot Muslim.
It’s all beyond your knowledge of the subject, Burl. Don’t bother me until you do your homework and can discuss the subjects like an adult.
Burl, you’re bothering Lee? Welcome to the club of non-adults.
Lee’s a hoot. A lot of people are falling for his gag.
Burl, can you tell me when Obama stopped being a follower of Islam?
Can you tell me when he rejected the communist teachings of his parents, and the socialist party platform on which he ran for office twice in the 1990s?
Do you have any sources, besides the usual “anonymous” ones?
Lee, what tired old arguments you bring up. But that’s part of your “gag” routine, when cornered resort to the “it’s all Obama’s fault” byline.
I’ll let one of your far right darlings,Michelle Malkin, put the Obama socialist rants in perspective:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/09/obama-the-socialist-new-party-and-the-socialist-bush-treasury-department/
Libb, you seem to be ignorant about Obama’s philosophy. So you engage in dismissive insults and links to articles you haven’t read.
Obama’s books are full of his socialist views. He ran for office twice on the Socialist Party candidate.
Oh, Lee, get over yourself. “Dismissive insults” are your game.
Apparently you didn’t want to read Ms Malkin’s comments so here:
“There’s a lot of blog buzz over Barack Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party…But after watching a GOP White House and Republican collaborationists fork over billions upon billions in socialist aid to private businesses, presiding over the most massive nationalization efforts I’ve seen in my lifetime over the past year — and then watching John McCain pitch his Treasury Department-as-national loan servicer plan during the debate — it’s hard for me to muster up much more angst than I already have.”
Also, you are incorrect about Obama running twice under the New Party.
As for your presumption about what I know about President Obama’s philosophy it’s just that, your delusional presumption.
God Bless You, Lee.
If you know where Barack Obama rejects the socialism and racism he espouses in his two books, please point us to it.
Yes, a lot of the Republican spending on social programs was also socialist; the deficits were only 1/4 the size of Obama’s and Pelosi’s deficits.
Michelle Malkin, myself and most Americans were fed up with the GOP wasting money on expansions of Medicare. Now the Dems want more socialism.
Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913
Lee, prove he ran TWICE on the New Party, that was my correction to your rhetoric.
” Republican collaborationists fork over billions upon billions in socialist aid to private businesses”
Lee, doesn’t sound like Ms Malkin was referring to Medicare. Nice try, though.
No, Michelle Malkin was referring to the collaboration between socialists in office and large corporations.
The Democrats have increased this corruption even more since taking power, quadrupling the deficits in order to bail out Wall Street bankers, nationalize GM and Chrysler, and socialize medical care.
You need to read Michelle Malkin for a few years, in order to understand her, instead of picking out phrases which you mistakenly believe mean what you want to believe.
Libb, all this is a diversion from your fear of directly discussing where Obama is taking this nation, and his motivations.
Socialist newspaper report on Obama’s candidacy for New Party, from the leftist publication New Ground 42, in 1995:
” About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. ….
The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat. ”
Link to the article:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
I hope Lee was near his blood pressure medicine when the news of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was announced.
Never has anyone been awarded so much for doing so little in such a short period of time.
That’s like giving Stephen Garcia the Heisman for completing a 7 yard pass.
This prize was not for accomplishments, because Obama has none. This is an enticement, to influence Obama to yield more of American influence to the European Union.
Obama was nominated for the Nobel Prize before he even took office. All he has done since then is make an Apology Tour for American superiority.
It doesn’t bother me. The prize became a bad joke when Jimmy Carter got it for giving us all that peace in the Middle East.
This is more evidence of how the One World Government crowd sees Obama as one of them.
>This is more evidence of how the >One World Government crowd sees >Obama as one of them.
Lee,
That’s the goal. Take from the best to give to the worst in order to be “fair”.
Apparently the objective of the U.S. for some people is to bring us down to the level of Mexico or France.
Lee,
Again, you did not prove that Obama ran TWICE. But I know, just your extremism tactic of playing loose w/ facts when convenient.
Again, you presume to know my views about Obama when I’ve never uttered any. My issue is w/ your extremism and dilution of facts.
Again, may God bless you.
Obama ran once as the Democratic Socialists of America New Party candidate, and once as a Democrat endorsed by the New Party.
Lee said:
“He ran for office twice on the Socialist Party candidate.”
Lee said:
“Obama ran once as the Democratic Socialists of America New Party candidate, and once as a Democrat endorsed by the New Party.”
And Lee said both statements on the same blog. There’s a big difference between an endorsement and running as a party candidate.
I stand by my statement that you play fast & loose w/ the facts, just part of your game.
The question you are trying to finesse your way out of is, “When did Obama stop being a radical socialist?”
Tell us when and where.
Document it.
Maybe all the Marxist rhetoric in his book, “Dreams of My Father”, is due to the fact that Bill Ayers actually wrote it.
Oh, Lee, bless your heart, why would I try to finesse you, the quintessential finesser? LOL
Libb, Lee’s yanking your leg. He’s a Democrat trickster saying these things in order to make conservatives appear completely wacko.
Burl, that comment is bound to pucker Lee’s sphincter muscle for the day.
He’s a Democrat trickster saying these things in order to make conservatives appear completely wacko.
I would believe this too except that a good portion of conservatives have gone completely whacko on us.
Lee’s shtick mirrors real people out there.
I don’t think ‘Libb’ or ‘Burl’ know enough about Obama to discuss his political agenda. They obviously haven’t read his books, haven’t studied his speeches, haven’t studied radicals who molded his socialist and racist ideology.
They like the way he carries himself, and he is just the sort of “black man we could vote for”, because he fits their image of what a black man should say.
That’s as shallow as it gets.
Lee, you didn’t say “Burl”, you said “They”.
And I’ve never said I voted for Obama.
Now, Lee, listen carefully. I’ll say, again, that my issues w/ your posts are your distortion(s) of the truth to support your extremist and, yes, often shallow, rhetoric.
Example:
“This is more evidence of how the One World Government crowd sees Obama as one of them.”
This ongoing diatribe portraying the Dem Pary & Obama as the force driving the One World Govt movement sorely lacks discernment and wisdom.
Bob and weave, bob and weave…
“blanket denials”…not denying a thing. Just setting the record straight (w/ data,facts,reputable sources) on some of your untruths.
And my One World Govt response is for you to put up YOUR facts/sources since you instigated that rhetoric w/o any supporting evidence. Do you really believe an organized One World Govt is controlled by Obama and the Democractic Pary? Puhleez. Could it be that you don’t want to name names because some of your “heros”, like the Bush family, have been involved going back to Prescott and his funding of Hitler?
Your blind extremisn eventually does more damage than good to your “cause” (think Glenn Beck). Just an opinion.
Zombietime, abovetopsecret–not much difference.
Holdren, if involved, would be a minnion in any OWG organizational chart and his name doesn’t even come up on the VIP list.
Cite something else other than a textbook co-authored 30 years ago as proof.
You just can’t jump off that extremist pedestal to admit that it’s a whole lot bigger than the Dem’s.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Pick any one of the 87 openly socialist Democrats in Congress and try to defend their views.
You don’t seem to think socialism and treason are problems.