Yearly Archives: 2009

Thank you, John Adams (Jefferson, too)

On this day — two days later than the day he thought we would celebrate — I like to remind my fellow countrymen that John Adams deserves more credit for the fact of independence than Thomas Jefferson.

Give Jefferson credit for being on the right side. Give him great credit for his talent with words. I place great store upon words, as they have been and are a great source of my living, and I love them. Adams himself recognized Jefferson’s ability in that area, and suggested that he be the one to write out the resolution that had already been decided upon.

But the really hard work had been in bringing the representatives of the 13 colonies to the point of deciding upon independence (a vote dramatized in the clip below). And the man who worked hardest, who poured out his energy in arguing and debating, and pushed and pulled and harried fainter hearts into taking this irrevocable step, was John Adams. Jefferson did not speak during the debates.

Give both men credit for their tremendous, very different, contributions to the establishment of this country. They both meant so much to this young republic, and it meant so much to them. They both died, far apart, on the Fourth of July 50 years later. Their lives were entirely wrapped up in what that celebration was and is all about. But I stress Adams more on this day because, starting in his own lifetime, he was never as recognized for his contribution as Jefferson was for his. And it grieved him.

So on this day, I take particular care to celebrate John Adams.

What’s wrong with you? I’ll tell you. (What else are friends for?)

26 Replies

I was going to use as my headline, “Do you know what your sin is?,” the quote from “Serenity.” But then I realized I’d done that before. Too bad, as it would have worked better here.

Anyway, I had to smile when I read this in Cindi Scoppe’s column today:

My friend and editor at the time, Brad Warthen, wasn’t convinced that joining an Anglo-Catholic parish made me Catholic, but as a Roman Catholic, he understood the power of confession, and he figured anything that might make me less of a pain to work with was worth a shot, so he happily helped me compile my list of sins. “Imperious is the word you’re looking for,” he said, before more began rolling off his tongue: arrogant, dismissive, condescending, scornful, impatient. (Most of them were already on my list.) “Don’t forget pride,” he said. “That’s one of the seven deadly sins.”

Thus prepared with my list, I went to my first confession.

Frankly, I had forgotten that incident. But it all came back when I read, “Imperious is the word you’re looking for.” Yep, that was me. I say things like that.

Now, here’s the question: What condemnatory words might someone who is inclined to judgment apply to someone who so glibly details another person’s sins? But hey, I was just trying to oblige. I’ve always done that. Ask me a question, I’ll give you an answer, with a minimum of hemming and hawing.

Back in the early days of our acquaintance, it took my poor wife about a year to realize that I would answer ANY question, whether I knew the right answer or not. She’d ask, “Why is the car making that noise?” or “Why did the weather get so cool so suddenly?” and I would launch into an explanation that sounded reasonable to me. Sometimes I would add, “That’s my theory, anyway;” other times I would forget to. Eventually, she learned to recognize my “theorizing” tone. I wasn’t trying to mislead her. I just always figured that if a person asks a question, they want an answer, not “I don’t know.” And as I said, I like to oblige.

Then, as editorial page editor, I developed the capacity to come up with something to say, under any circumstances. Since the point of an editorial board is to come up with something to say, this was a handy skill to have. It settled many an impasse on the board. We’d be deadlocked, and the inspiration would come upon me; I’d say “Here’s what we’ll say,” and essentially dictate an editorial that took into account all that had been said. Just something I did. I’m hoping to come up with another job that requires that skill, because I’m very good at it. Better at that than writing or editing. (Too bad no one’s hiring absolute monarchs these days, because that’s something they need to know how to do…)

So if you asked, “Whom should we endorse for governor and why?,” I’d come up with the answer. And if you asked, “What are my sins?,” I’d tell you that, too. Even if it made me sound disturbingly like that insufferable busybody, the Operative.

And it’s just like Cindi to remember something like that…

Congratulations to Samuel!

WWJD (What Would Jenny Do?): The new standard for wives of wayward politicians

12 Replies

This morning at breakfast at my usual location, a wag suggested that soon someone would be selling bracelets saying WWJD, for “What Would Jenny Do?”

I sort of hate to pass on something like that said in a jocular manner, because the state of mind of the state’s chief executive — and the inevitable impact it has on his family — is no laughing matter, and it’s getting less funny day by day.

But you know what? I seriously think that after what we’ve seen the past week, someone ought to have a bunch of those bracelets printed up and distributed to political wives. I say that because Jenny Sanford has been a class act from the beginning. I don’t think she’s trying to be a class act; I don’t think she gives a rip what the chattering class think about her. I think she’s just trying to do the right thing, with some self-respect and most of all with the welfare of her children in mind, and that’s what makes her a class act.

I dropped by the offices of the Palmetto Family Council today. I had seen the story about their support-Jenny movement, and since I was stopping by Starbuck’s on Gervais anyway, I thought I’d walk up and say hi to Oran Smith and the gang. I had never seen their digs before. (That’s a great, cool building they’re in, which is owned by my friend Hal Stevenson.) I mentioned the bracelet idea to them, just sort of half-seriously at the time, and when they showed a little interest I said if they followed up on it, they needed to give my friend who thought of it credit.

Something that not everybody realizes about Jenny Sanford that makes her “let-him-take-his-own-medicine” stance more remarkable: She was in her own way sort of the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. Electing the Sanfords, the state got a two-fer. I’ll never forget the time, at the start of the 2002 campaign, when Sanford asked to come present his economic plan to our editorial board. We said fine, and when I went downstairs to bring him up to the board room, there was Jenny. She was holding out a basket of cookies to me, which I took as a very conscious effort to say, “I’m not Hillary Clinton, even though it may look like I am once we get upstairs.” In the board room, Mark Sanford kept deferring to Jenny on the economics theory, letting her explain the pie charts and other stuff on the Powerpoint presentation.

She managed his campaign, and was a tough manager. I remember Tom Davis — who lived in the Sanford’s basement during that campaign — talking about “going to the hats” when he’d done something wrong. If he’d screwed up, Jenny would ask him to step with her into a part of the house where there were a bunch of ballcaps and such belonging to the boys hanging on the wall. “Going to the hats” was an experience to be avoided.

In other words, one would be forgiven for assuming that Jenny was every bit as politically ambitious as Mark. Yet she didn’t do a Hillary (or a whatever-Spitzer’s-wife’s-name-is). She didn’t do a Tammy Wynette.

And women everywhere should bless her for it, as many are doing.

Tom Davis trying to make a tough call

17 Replies

It’s one thing for Jake Knotts or even Hugh Leatherman, neither of whom are particularly fond of Mark Sanford, to call for the governor’s resignation — or even Glenn McConnell, for that matter.

It would be another if Tom Davis, the governor’s close friend and former chief of staff — a guy who lived in the governor’s basement during his first campaign in 2002 — issued a similar call. Which is why Tom is weighing the decision so carefully. The interesting thing is that this situation has become so extreme, the governor has gone so far outside the realm of the acceptable, that a serious, good, loyal guy like Tom Davis would even be talking about thinking about it. But he is, as evidenced by this statement he has posted:

Statement from Tom Davis July 1, 2009
Posted on July 1, 2009
FOR RELEASE ON JULY 1, 2009

Statement by Tom Davis re: Governor Mark Sanford

I came to Columbia today because I have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Beaufort County and the people of South Carolina. Obviously I have tremendous concern for my friends, Mark and Jenny Sanford and their family, but I also have a job to do as an elected official.

Before any important decision I make comes due diligence, and I owe it to my constituents to perform that due diligence before taking a public position on an issue as important as whether to call for the resignation of a duly-elected statewide official.

Accordingly, I have met today with the governor and members of his staff; I have had telephone conversations with my friend, Jenny Sanford; I have talked with the governor’s legislative supporters and opponents; and I have talked with key reform leaders who have been fighting for the issues I believe in – fiscal responsibility, limited government, market principles and individual liberty.

I am also planning on speaking today with Attorney General Henry McMaster and SLED Chief Reggie Lloyd, and am I particularly interested in learning the outcome of SLED’s review as to whether the governor has ever illegally used any state funds. I am told that review will be completed by tomorrow.

Again, this is a critical decision for the State of South Carolina and I want to rely on firsthand conversations, not media reports, rumors, political pressure or speculation.

Based on these conversations, I expect to form my official position very shortly. But I can assure you that whatever official position I ultimately reach will be one that I truly believe to be in the best interests of the people of Beaufort County in particular and the state of South Carolina in general.

In the meantime, I would encourage all South Carolinians to keep the Sanfords in their thoughts and prayers.

Things have come to such a pass, the governor has seemed so out of control, that I was actually hearing from liberal Democrats today who, when they heard Tom was coming up to see the governor, said that was a relief, because he needed someone trustworthy to be checking up on him. They were actually worried about the governor’s safety, or they said they were. I had the same thought — I was glad Tom Davis was checking up on him. If I were in trouble, I’d want a guy like Tom checking up on me. (I’ve written in the past about what a good guy he is.)

But it wasn’t until I read the above statement that I realized just how far Tom’s own thoughts had gone.

Glenn McConnell joins in

6 Replies

Glenn McConnell has joined the resignation chorus, in his own 19th century manner. Rather than come right out and demand the governor quit, he has summed up the situation, and said as a gentleman that he expects the governor to do what a gentleman ought, under the circumstances:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR GLENN McCONNELL
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell issued the following statement today:

“The Governor’s personal failings have become widely known in the last week. Those personal failings are his alone and we should allow him and his family to deal with them privately. However, the Governor has offered up details about his indiscretions very publicly and they have been widely reported. Those admissions and the reaction of the public have raised in my mind whether the Governor can effectively lead the state in the days, weeks, and months to come. The Governor does not need to be a paragon of virtue, but the people need to know that he is trustworthy and he is committed to serving them.

The Governor has admitted he lied to his staff in order to travel out of the country. In doing that, he left the state with no leadership for five days and with no ability to handle an emergency if one arose.
Now, after his latest admissions, we must wonder has the Governor come completely clean. Each time the press uncovers a new issue or the Governor volunteers new details, both he and our state are embarrassed.

The Governor is to the citizens of this state, the people of the United States, and those around the world the face of our state government. For people who seek to bring new business or expand existing business in South Carolina, he represents South Carolina. He can either be a great asset or a tremendous liability.
Neither I nor my colleagues in the General Assembly can require that the Governor resign. That decision is his alone. I do believe, however, that the Governor has lost the support of the people that is needed to govern. Therefore, I would ask the Governor to look in his heart and decide whether with his family situation and the public uproar over what he has done and said locally and nationally whether he can lead our state for the remainder of his term.

This is not about Mark Sanford the person. This must be about the government of South Carolina and making sure it operates effectively for the next 18 months. He needs to decide immediately if he is an asset or a liability for our state.

I would beseech the Governor to do the right thing for himself, his family and our state. I believe he knows what the right thing to do is and I hope that he will do what is right.”

###

Just look down at your shoes and walk away, gov

13 Replies

Last night while channel-surfing and finding nothing good, I stopped for a moment on an old “Roseanne” episode. The plot was about as tacky as you can imagine: Roseanne was concerned about her daughter’s sex life, of all things, and was nagging her husband (John Goodman) to talk to the daughter’s husband about it (at least, I hope he was her husband).

Goodman, of course, refused. Under the Guy Code, that was not a permissible topic. Sports, cars, whatever, but not personal relationships. Roseanne was disgusted with him, but he was adamant.

Next scene, Goodman is in the breakroom at work, and another guy (I’m gathering he was Roseanne’s sister’s husband) starts trying to get a conversation going about relationships and sex. Finally, he’s so obvious about it that the daughter’s husband storms out, realizing the topic is his own sex life. Goodman reproaches the guy who brought up the topic, saying he knew Roseanne had put him up to it.

This causes an argument in which the other guy reveals something intimate that he knows about Goodman and his wife, and Goodman counters with something equally personal and inappropriate. Then he stops, shocked, and says something like “We know way too much.” A shocked pause, then he says (more or less), “There’s nothing to do now except to look down at our shoes and quickly walk away.”

Both men simultaneously break eye contact, jerking their heads downward to look at their feet, and walk quickly from the room via separate doors.

Which is what any man with any self respect would do. And it’s what Mark Sanford should have done some time ago — certainly before that bizarre interview that came out yesterday.

Are y’all having any trouble posting comments?

8 Replies

I see that some comments ARE being posted, but I’m also getting cryptic messages from WordPress suggesting some of you are having to re-register and whatnot.

I had to go change some settings last night because suddenly the site wasn’t letting ANYBODY comment, and I thought I had everything fixed. But maybe there’s something else I need to change.

I’ll post this on Twitter (where I’m up to 161 “followers” now, which almost qualifies me as a cult) and Facebook, so that just in case no one can respond directly to this, those of you who follow me there can let me know by one of those routes.

And if you’d like to START following me there (I post on Twitter a lot more often), my Twitter name is BradWarthen, and just search for “Brad Warthen” on Facebook. (I’m shocked to discover there are two of us on the planet, but I think you can tell which one is me.)

Sanford’s bizarre new admissions embolden critics

17 Replies

This morning, The State wrote about how politicians were backing away from calling for Mark Sanford’s resignation.

But that was before he, for whatever bizarre reasons (I can’t imagine what possessed him), decided to give interviews in which he:

Said he met with his inamorata five times, not three, in the past year.
Said she is his “soul mate.
Channeling a combination of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, said he “crossed lines” with other women, but didn’t go all the way.

Well, that tears it, several GOP senators evidently decided at that point. They put out this release this evening:

SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN STATE SENATORS CALL ON
GOVERNOR MARK SANFORD TO RESIGN

Columbia, SC – June 30, 2009 – South Carolina Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, and four other Republican State Senators released the following statement today calling on Governor Mark Sanford to resign his position as Governor of South Carolina. Earlier today Republican State Senators Kevin Bryant (Anderson) and Larry Grooms (Berkeley) also called on Governor Sanford to resign.

“Crisis requires people in leadership positions to act decisively, with as much dispassionate wisdom and judgment as possible.

Governor Sanford has imposed a crisis upon our state. As members of the Senate, we have a duty to the people of South Carolina to do what is in their best interests.

We therefore have concluded that Governor Mark Sanford must resign his office. He has lost the trust of the people and the legislature to lead our state through historically difficult times.

South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Tens of thousands of South Carolinians cannot find jobs.

Necessary budget cuts have weakened public education and other vital services.

We must have strong leadership from a Governor who is focused and trusted.

Governor Sanford is neither.

We did not reach this conclusion in haste and we did not base it on his personal failings, but events since his news conference have forced us to act.

The recent revelation that he used taxpayer money to visit Argentina demonstrates that our state crisis will not recede while he is in office.

His own Commerce Department acknowledges the Governor requested additional economic development meetings in Argentina while on a legitimate trade mission to South America.

The Governor, through his spokesmen, deceived the media and public about where he was and what he was doing for several days.

He abandoned his office and the people who elected him with a premeditated cover-up, launching a constitutional crisis that was dangerous and reckless.

These disclosures indicate a pattern of abuse of office. Most disturbing is our belief that the Governor only admitted to these transgressions after he was caught.

The Governor’s family crisis is private and tragic. But the crisis the Governor imposed by his abuse of office is the people’s business and must come to an end.

We can only put this crisis behind us if he does the honorable thing and resign immediately.

The bottom line is that the Governor’s private matters should remain private, but his deception and negligence make it impossible for us to trust him, and for him to govern in the future.”

Harvey S. Peeler
Majority Leader, South Carolina Senate

Hugh K. Leatherman
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee

Paul Campbell, Jr.
Senator, Berkeley County

John M. “Jake” Knotts, Jr
Chairman, Invitation Committee

Larry A. Martin
Chairman, Senate Rules Committee

William H. O’Dell
Senator, Abbeville County

###

Mullins hasn’t gotten a hit yet

13 Replies

Sorry not to have blogged in the last few days; I worked all weekend on a consulting project, and I’m still finishing it. But as I waited for someone to send me back something related to that, I checked my e-mail, and found this at the top:

June 30, 2009
News Release – For Immediate Release

Today, Democratic candidate for Governor Mullins McLeod made the following statement regarding the latest developments in the deepening Governor Mark Sanford scandal.

“Let’s not forget that the most important crisis we have right now remains our 12% jobless rate. The sad and disturbing Mark Sanford crisis is another order entirely. Our politicians in Columbia are busy tearing themselves apart with this scandal, focusing on their own political ambitions, while too many South Carolinians are losing their jobs. The hard working families of this state deserve better than this circus.”
###

Nothing particularly wrong about this release, except that it tries yet again to strike that “I’m the guy who cares about what the Real People care about” tone, and again fails to connect. I don’t know; maybe y’all think its fine. But it strikes me that of the three at-bats I’ve noticed Mullins having in this ball game, he’s yet to get a hit.

If you’re only going to put out a press release every once in a while, it seems like you’d wait until you have something clear and useful to say. But his statements so far seem to be, I don’t know, muddy. If he were putting out several a day, this one wouldn’t strike me as odd, but when I get this after a silence of days or weeks, and it’s so blah, I wonder why he bothered.

For instance, when he says, “The sad and disturbing Mark Sanford crisis is another order entirely,” what does he mean? Does it mean it’s worth talking about whether Mark Sanford should continue to serve as governor or not? He seems to suggest not, but he’s not clear. Note that he sent this out about an hour or so after AP reported that the governor got together with his girlfriend five times in the past year, not three, and that he’s “crossed lines” with other women, but not gone, you know, all the way. So is Mullins reacting to that, and saying we shouldn’t be talking any more about such salacious stuff? Or was he unaware of those developments, and just saying we shouldn’t talk about Sanford at all? Or what? “Another order entirely” doesn’t tell me anything.

He also seems to be suggesting (but nothing clearer than suggesting) we should be talking about unemployment instead of Mark Sanford. Which, come to think of it, is the same message Andre Bauer’s putting out — saying that if the governor quits and he takes his place, he’ll focus on “jobs, jobs and jobs.”

Andre went on to say other things that sound oddly like what Mullins is saying:

“My thought is that we’ve got to take politics out of it. We have got to move it forward as a state. Somebody’s got to show some leadership…”

Maybe Mullins has a different position from Andre’s, but I can’t tell. I can’t even tell if he means to hold Gov. Sanford responsible for the high unemployment, which would explain why he juxtaposes the two concepts. But he doesn’t say.

Like I say, there’s nothing really wrong with this release, but there’s nothing right about it either. And I’ve pretty much gotten that same impression from this campaign’s previous efforts. His releases seem to be generic, boilerplate, stuff politicians (whether they’re Andre or Mullins or whoever) say all the time. They don’t say ANYthing about why we should be interested in Mullins McLeod and what he has to say specifically. And this strikes me as odd.

The Republican version of McLeod seems to be Gresham Barrett, who after weeks of trying to get an interview with him really didn’t have any reasons to offer why he, in particular, was running.

Here’s hoping Mullins has more to say next time he makes an announcement. And that we start hearing more worth hearing from all the candidates. We need some substance here, people.

Origins of the Moonwalk (video)

Just to take a break on a different subject, I thought I’d share something that my friend Cheryl Levenbrown in New York posted on Facebook. It’s a link to a blog post with a couple of interesting videos tracing the history of Michael Jackson’s Moonwalk. Its lineage goes back to Cab Calloway in the 30s.

I’m not what you’d call a Michael Jackson fan, and I’m certainly not the dance connossieur that my wife and daughters are, but I always did find the Moonwalk pretty impressive. It seemed to defy gravity and time simultaneously, as though we were looking at film of someone in near-zero gravity, and the film was being run backward. Or something. Basically, it didn’t look possible.

And while Jackson added his own refinements and earned the distinction of uniqueness in this area, everything has roots. And these videos show the roots.

Would Sanford resignation HELP or HURT Andre’s 2010 prospects?

71 Replies

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?

Jacko and the governor, and those newshounds at The Post

30 Replies

Does Mark Sanford fully appreciate what Michael Jackson has done for him? I doubt it.

Of course, national interest in our gov was waning yesterday afternoon anyway. Lachlan Cartwright, who spent the day chasing around Sullivan’s Island yesterday for the New York Post, told me that right after the governor came out of the house and spoke to him and other media a little after 4:30.

But the confirmation came at 7:18 p.m. with this e-mail from the Post, which I will always treasure:

Hi Brad, We won’t be needing anyone tomorrow in Columbia. The King of Pop is dead.

Says it all, doesn’t it?

I also enjoyed this postscript in the form of a text message from Lachlan this morning:

Thanks for your help yday My phone died when we were chatting Im now on a flight to LA for Jacko so think we are done with the Gov…for now but do keep in touch with another Aussie

… followed by his e-mail address. Working with Lachlan was a blast. He’s all that you expect with a top reporter with a Rupert Murdoch paper, right down to the heavy Australian accent. The reference to “another Aussie” arises from the fact that I had been communicating with Peter Beattie, former P.M. of Queensland, earlier in the day on something unrelated. That caused me to mention to Lachlan that I had just been in touch with Beattie, which made me wonder whether he — Lachlan — hailed from Queensland.

No, he said — Melbourne. I apologized for any offense I might have given by incorrectly pegging his accent, to which he replied “No its cool Ive lived the last 5yrs in london anyways.” (He didn’t say it that time, but another time during the day, he actually said “no wurries.”)

This — and the fact that today he’s at Neverland — gives me the impression that Lachlan must be the Post‘s “on the spot while it’s hot” guy, always traveling to the hottest story in the world. Which sounds pretty exciting to a homebody like me. I once had a job like that on a much, much smaller scale — for a year, from 1979-80, I was freed up from all beat responsibilities to work on special assignments for The Jackson (TN) Sun, from Nashville to Memphis to the Iowa caucuses. Little papers used to do things big in those days, when newspapers actually had travel budgets.

But certainly nothing like Lachlan’s job. You journalism snobs out there may sneer at the Post and its ilk, but let me tell you they’ve got a business model that’s worthy of some respect — they go out and cover what the people want to know about, from moment to moment. They’re newshounds. They ride the hot horse, as a former editor of mine would put it.

And in that way, working for them for a couple of days, they helped me hark back to an earlier, more vital, more engaged time in the newspaper business. Used to be, we all had that sort of energy and immediacy. This week, even the good old staid State‘s got it.

On the cover of the NY Post

53 Replies

I got a Facebook message today from David Henry, who worked as a reporter for me about 25 years ago, before going off to New York and writing for Forbes or some such. It was a bit of a shock:

I got on the train this morning, opened the New York Post and there was your byline on the top of the lede story. That’s great. ‘ glad your having fun with this.

I don’t know about the having fun part, but he was right — I had the lede byline. I had no idea.

Yes, I did some free-lance work for the Post yesterday — I covered the governor’s press conference for them — but they watched it on TV up there, so I didn’t think the stuff I called in to them (and I made a number of calls for them and talked to Jake and all) added all that much. Maybe they just put me up there as an excuse to have a Columbia dateline on it. I certainly had nothing to do with any of the stuff at the top of the story (the “lust e-mails”). I didn’t actually WRITE any part of that story (as you can probably tell … my style is more, um, sedate). I had figured that at MOST I’d be mentioned at the end of the story…

(That’s actually my SECOND NY Post byline. But the first one I DID write, as you already know.)

So I was surprised at the play I got. The irony of this is, as Charles Bierbauer pointed out to me later, all those years busting my hump at The State, and more people saw that byline than ever saw it here when I was EPE.

That was not my only surprise the last day or so. I know I didn’t know what to expect when I went to the press conference, although there had been inferences — particularly in the First Lady’s remarks earlier in the week. In the phone conversation in which I agreed to help the Post, the guy in New York asked me, “Is this going to be a Spitzer moment?” I had no idea. And yet it was. Yes, things had pointed that way, and the odd exchange with Gina at the airport took things right to the brink… but the actual admission at the press conference was just surreal.

All through it, I kept thinking, “And the worst thing he could say next would be…” and then he’d say it. It’s like I was expecting it, but not expecting it. Hard to explain.

I’ll tell you this, though, as I said in a comment on a previous post — I’ve spent a good bit of time today talking to friends and former staffers of the gov, including some people whose judgment I respect a great deal, and there’s pretty general agreement that nobody thought THIS guy would do something like this.

Neither did I. I thought a lot of pretty harsh things about him, but not this.

This whole thing has just felt so weird.

Sanford in Sullivan’s Island

Tim Kelly just said there would be a press conference in Sullivan’s Island at 5, but he was off a bit. Sanford came out a few minutes ago and spoke to the press, according to a reporter I know who was there.

So the reports I’d heard were true; the gov did go down there to be with the family today.

Sanford said he’d been there since this morning, the kids are fine, and he’s not resigning. That’s about all I know.

Sorry, but my e-mail is down

I apologize to all and sundry for any inconvenience, but on this extremely busy day — it was extremely busy before I got called in to that craziness regarding the governor — my e-mail suddenly stopped working, at exactly 4:30 p.m.

After finishing my day’s work about an hour ago, I started trying everything I could think of to restore it, but no luck. I’ll have to try to get some help tomorrow (which promises to be just as busy).

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. It’s pretty inconvenient to me, too. I’m probably missing out on some paying work because of this, but what are you going to do?

The governor’s press conference

94 Replies

Just got back from the Statehouse. I covered the governor’s press conference on a freelance assignment for The New York Post. I didn’t have much to add, since it was broadcast live.

As media mob scenes go, that one may have set a record for SC. There were some big ones during the presidential primaries, but nothing like this. And once it started, well, it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The governor said it would be painful, and it certainly was. God Bless his family.

If you heard somebody yelling at the end, asking whether he was going to resign, that was me. I asked him, then I asked Joel Sawyer. Silence from both. An ABC guy said he’d asked it earlier — when others were yelling at the same time and I couldn’t hear it — and he said “No,” three times.

By the way, I listened in on a press confab with Jake Knotts afterwards that you probably did NOT see. Jake gave the gov credit for being “man enough to stand up and say what he said.” He said he “saw a governor who took responsibility” and apologized to all he had done wrong. “I accept that and I forgive him.” Jake declined to express an opinion as to whether the governor should resign.

Anyway, here’s an excerpt from The State‘s story. Add your comments as you see fit:

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford admitted today that his secret trip to Argentina over the Father’s Day weekend was to visit a woman he has been having an affair with for the past year.

In an emotional news conference, Sanford said his relationship with the woman in Argentina would not work, but would not say if it was over. He did not name the woman, but said he met her eight years ago, although their casual friendship evolved into a romantic relationship about a year ago.

“The bottom line is this: I have been unfaithful to my wife,” the two-term governor said before a mass of press in the State House outside the governor’s office. “Let me apologize to my wife Jenny and my four boys … for letting them down.”

Return of the wayward gaucho: Blog here about the prodigal governor

Finally, my browser is working again!…

Believe it or not, with the biggest South Carolina political story of the year (perhaps the decade) breaking, I’m busy this morning on a consulting project that I’ve got to get done today, while I’m busting to explore the implications of this morning’s startling news.

I’m sure all of you were just as stunned as I was to learn that the Appalachian Trail leads through Buenos Aires. I mean, who knew?

There are a thousand questions to raise. Someone asked me if the governor would be impeached. For what, exactly? His staff lying to the press? Grand theft auto involving state property? Gross irresponsibility (not sure that’s covered in the constitution)?

One thing we DO know for sure is that this puts an absolute and welcome end, post paid and that’s all she wrote, on all the ridiculous, irresponsible, utterly moronic talk about Mark Sanford being presidential timber.

I’ve got to get back to work. Anyway, here’s the latest, and I thought I’d go ahead and get this up to give y’all a place to discuss the implications. I’ll be back with you as soon as I can:

By GINA SMITH – gnsmith@thestate.com

ATLANTA | S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.

Sanford’s whereabouts had been unknown since Thursday, and the mystery surrounding his absence fueled speculation about where he had been and who’s in charge in his absence. His emergence Wednesday ended the mystery.

Sanford, in an exclusive interview with The State, said he decided at the last minute to go to the South American country to recharge after a difficult legislative session in which he battled with lawmakers over how to spend federal stimulus money.

Sanford said he had considered hiking on the Appalachian Trail, an activity he said he has enjoyed since he was a high school student.

“But I said ‘no’ I wanted to do something exotic,” Sanford said “… It’s a great city.”

Sanford, in a brief interview in the nation’s busiest airport, said he has been to the city twice before, most recently about a year and half ago during a Commerce Department trip.

Sanford said he was alone on the trip. He declined to give any additional details about what he did other than to say he drove along the coastline.

Sanford, who was wearing a blue and white button down shirt and brown denim pants, said he left for Buenos Aires on Thursday night from Columbia International Airport and had originally planned to come back tomorrow.

Is this the best parties can do?

The S.C. Democratic Party put out this release today in reaction to the governor’s disappearance, which, let’s face it, is pretty silly:

Columbia, SC- In anticipation of Governor Mark Sanford’s return to the state, the South Carolina Democratic Party will host a virtual town hall meeting today. The meeting is open to all residents who wish to ask questions to the governor who has been out of town (and out of touch) since last week.

“South Carolinians have been very concerned about Governor Sanford’s actions over the last eight months. They have a right to ask the Governor about our state’s unemployment rate, the stimulus and his reasons for abandoning the state. This virtual town hall meeting will give these concerned citizens a real opportunity to ask these questions,” said SCDP Chair Carol Fowler.

The town hall meeting, which will be held on the SCDP website, begins today at 4 p.m. and will end when Sanford responds to the questions. Residents wishing to participate in the SCDP meeting should visit http://www.scdp.org/governor/.

Tell you what, Democrats: Concentrate your energies on nominating someone better for governor in 2010. And Republicans, you do the same. THAT would be worthwhile. Stuff like this is not.

Wait a sec — so now WE’RE the ones acting oddly?

Now his office is saying the governor will be back on Wednesday. I will believe that when I see him, or when reliable third-party witnesses report that they have seen him, and not before, given the bizarre ways in which this has unfolded.

His staff, and some of his few remaining supporters, now that they’ve come up, very belatedly, with the “somewhere on the Appalachian Trail” explanation, are now trying to make like this is the most natural thing in the world, and that if there’s anything wrong with anybody, it’s with the people who are saying Where the hell is the governor? Spokesman Joel Sawyer put it this way to the AP, about a call the office had received from the boss this morning: “It would be fair to say the governor was somewhat taken aback by all of the interest this trip has gotten…”

Oh, come on. Whatever else might be said about all this, the idea that those asking where the governor is are acting oddly, to the point of being a source of bemusement to the imperturbable Gov. Sangfroid, is a decidedly specious line of reasoning, appealing only to those who really, really want to believe in it. Let’s review the way this has unfolded. This sequence leads to the conclusion that this is one of the strangest gubernatorial developments in South Carolina in decades. Not the biggest or most important or anything like that; just one of the strangest:

Last Thursday, the governor drove off in the special blue-light-equipped SLED car that is supposed to be driven by his security escort. From the reports I’ve seen (mainly at thestate.com, which I consider to be reliable), this was without the knowledge of anyone at SLED.
Sometime late last week, the governor turned off or removed the battery from his cell phones (once again, I’m citing The State’s sources). The last trace possible on his whereabouts places him in the Atlanta area. Now folks, even if you leave out everything about this story, this is strange enough on its own. Maybe you can come up with an explanation for this behavior by the governor of a state who has fled his security detail — his phones got wet and he was drying them out, or some such — but this one act is so suggestive of the term “fugitive” that it’s hard to explain away. This is double-naught spy stuff. Jason Bourne stuff. People do things like this in movies, or in paranoid dystopian novels about protagonists fleeing the authorities in totalitarian future societies (and yes, I realize that folks of Mr. Sanford’s political philosophy sort of believe that government is that way in real life, but action upon such a believe to this extent would be really out there). As far as anyone (anyone who would come forward with information, that is) was able to piece together by early Monday afternoon: He ditched his security, left the state, and dropped off the radar screen.
On Saturday, Jake Knotts — who has every reason in the world to embarrass the governor, a fact that does NOT mean he’s not onto something this time — calls the head of SLED and confirms that they don’t know where the governor is with their car. Two days after he took off.
On Monday, before they came up with the hiking-in-the-wilderness thing, the best his office can come up with is this to explain the governor’s absence since Thursday: “Gov. Sanford is taking some time away from the office this week to recharge after the stimulus battle and the legislative session, and to work on a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside. We are not going to discuss the specifics of his travel arrangements or his security arrangements.”
Also on Monday, Jenny Sanford is interviewed by The Associated Press. Now I don’t even know why the First Lady commented at all, but what she said was that her husband has been gone for several days and she did not know where, that he was writing something, and that she was not concerned. That’s what’s been reported. I’d like to see a transcript, because those pieces of information don’t fit together very well.
Late Monday afternoon, we learn from the lieutenant governor’s office that they have been assured by the governor’s office that it “now knows where he is” (quote from thestate.com). Why would the governor’s office tell the lt. gov’s office that, when they were not quite as forthcoming with anyone else up to that point? Because Sanford’s people don’t want Andre Bauer having an excuse to say that he’s in charge. That is so say, I choose to do them the compliment of assuming that was their motive.
Late Monday night, with this blowing up into a national story (at one point I was in contact with someone from The New York Post because they were looking for someone to string a story for them, but nothing came of it — the Daily News, however, did produce a story, as did somewhat less excitable news sources), his staff produces the Appalachian Trail explanation. Of course, we know that all South Carolinians first go to Atlanta and erase their tracks before going on the Trail…
This morning, we are told the governor checks in and wonders what all the fuss is about. Yeah, OK.

Tomorrow, they promise to produce him. I hope they do. I hope he’s OK, despite all the indications to the contrary.

But folks, even the very rosiest scenario you can paint from the available facts, you are still left with this: Mark Sanford is the kind of guy who would disappear like this, and then act like it’s the most natural thing in the world.

Which it is not.

Now folks, all of those bullet items up there are pieced together from a number of unsatisfactory sources — from people who don’t like the governor, or people who aren’t speaking for attribution, or people who don’t particularly want to be forthcoming.

And if you’ve got better information that refutes any of it, it will be welcome. I just hope it’s better than the sudden, reluctant announcement after four days that the governor is taking a hike.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits