Now, spokesman says Sanford DIDN’T eat those piglets

46 Replies

OK, so now, supposedly, what Sanford said on TV this morning was a joke:

CHARLESTON, SC — Remember those pigs former Gov. Mark Sanford brought into the State House nine years ago to protest “pork barrel spending” in the state budget?

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning, fresh off of his victory in Tuesday’s Republican primary in the 1st congressional district, Sanford said the pigs were “barbecued.”

“Unfortunately, they were barbecued,” Sanford said. “They were great little guys.”

A Sanford spokesman later clarified that Sanford was joking, adding that Sanford did not eat the pigs. (An earlier version of this story said that Sanford did eat them.)

And an earlier version of this blog post said the same, because, well, silly me, I figured the ex-governor was telling the truth to the world. This belief prompted me to say the following:

So… The piglets were supposed to symbolize government waste. Do they no longer qualify as “waste” if you make a meal out of them?

Presumably, he changed clothes — since the pigs had daubed him with literal waste — before firing up the grill.

Twice now, Mark Sanford has huffed and puffed and blown the house down, eating the thoughtless little pigs within.

It remains to be seen whether Elizabeth Colbert Busch can build a house out of bricks before he does it a third time.

I was on a roll there for a minute. But now… well, never mind. I especially like Joel’s attempt to be all self-righteous over this:

“The governor made a joke that apparently was lost on members of the media, who seem unable or unwilling to write about issues that voters actually care about,” Joel Sawyer said.

Yeah, right, Joel. It’s the media who have a penchant for silly, distracting stunts. He says this on behalf of a man who, in the name of fiscal responsibility, hauled two squealing, defecating piglets into the lobby to ruin a new carpet (OK, sort of new — see below) that was part of a multi-million-dollar restoration of the State House.

46 thoughts on “Now, spokesman says Sanford DIDN’T eat those piglets”

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    I’m amazed… this post has been up two hours, and no comments.

    I need to dig into my analytics and become better versed as to how people interact with this blog. The patterns I see indicate that people are far more likely to jump into a conversation from a day or two ago than they are to take note of a new post. I’ll sometimes despair of any comments on a post I thought was interesting, only to see it take off a day or so later.

    It befuddles me…

    Reply ↓
    1. Silence

      I also tend to check the comments first. Old business before new on the agenda. Plus I don’t want to miss anything that SDII has to say. He is insightful and a pleasure to read.

      Reply ↓
  3. Kathryn Fenner

    I tend to check the comment roll first, because I can lose threads when ey fall off the list. Your posts are easy to find. Also, sometimes I like to think about them a bit….believe it or not.

    Reply ↓
  4. Mark Stewart

    The guy is just a total waste of time. More than likely he will win, though I certainly hope not. If he does, it will be just another in a long, sad series of examples of why South Carolina does not deserve to be anything more than road kill in the national psyche.

    There are so many good people in the Palmetto state; but they all seem to get subsumed by the siren songs of the sociopaths.

    Reply ↓
  5. Mark Stewart

    Personality disordered is personality disordered. What is amazing is how they remain totally oblivious to the situation.

    Not saying they are monsters, just in an alternate reality of one.

    Reply ↓
  6. Silence

    I was hoping that the delicious porkers hadn’t gone to waste. Bacon transcends party affiliations, affiliations so does good bbq.

    Reply ↓
    1. Phillip

      “bacon transcends party affiliation…so does good bbq.” thank goodness or I wouldn’t be able to set foot in most of my favorite bbq joints in the Carolinas.

      Reply ↓
        1. Phillip

          What’s more, Silence, I was willing to go on the record in admitting I eat at Maurice’s sometimes. Around most of the people I tend to hang out with, that’s usually met with disapproving wags of the head, or worse. (But I didn’t catch half the flak that Teowonna Clifton did for putting it in her top 5, as you might imagine.)

          Reply ↓
  7. Lynn T

    Pigs aren’t nasty. Left to their own devices they are reasonably clean animals. They didn’t ask to be hauled into the State House, doubtless terrified. There is one, and only one, animal responsible for pig pooh on the State House carpet, and it wasn’t a pig.

    Reply ↓
  8. Brad Warthen Post author

    For those who jump into threads in mid-conversation — note that the post has been rewritten to reflect that Joel Sawyer, speaking for Mark Sanford, now says the ex-gov’s claim of having roasted the piglets was a joke.

    Ha. And also ha. I’m breaking up here.

    So anyway, you might want to go back up to the top before commenting further.

    Reply ↓
    1. Silence

      It is almost a certainty that the pigs were eventually eaten – rather than living out their natural lives in a home for aged swine, of which I know of exactly none.

      Reply ↓
    1. Steven Davis II

      I bet you are, with a smile on your face and looking forward to more Sanford bashing. It’s been a while, I hope you can remember how to do it.

      Reply ↓
  10. Brad Warthen Post author

    To be more precise, the carpet that the pigs messed up wasn’t brand-new. This was five years after the renovations — which took several years — had been finished. I seem to recall, though, that to my mind at the time, it was still the “new” carpet. And I wasn’t alone. What the pigs did to the carpet fed the outrage among lawmakers over what the governor had done. This is from the story about the pig stunt:

    Legislators, outraged in general, seized on the fact that the pigs had defecated on the carpet and the marble floor.

    The State House reopened about five years ago after a $50 million renovation , and animals other than guide dogs are not allowed in the building. Some noted that if anybody other than the governor had brought an animal into the State House , he would have been arrested.

    “It’s the poorest taste I’ve ever seen in 32 years,” said Sen. Verne Smith, R-Greenville. “To bring pigs in here to mess up the carpet, it’s way beneath the dignity of the governor.”

    Also, the story reminds me that Joel Sawyer, of all people, should be mindful of how his candidate likes to do distracting things, and even waste state resources:

    The governor’s staff – all wearing suits – shoved the animals back into their crate and rushed them out the West Wing exit.

    Sanford’s press secretary, Will Folks, and his speech writer, Joel Sawyer, returned with bottles of cleanser and paper towels to clean up the pigs’ droppings while a custodian supervised.

    Surely while Joel was helping clean up the mess, it occurred to him that there were other ways he could have been spending his time addressing important “issues that voters actually care about.” It certainly would have occurred to me.

    Reply ↓
  11. bud

    My question is if it is against the law to bring animals other than service dogs into the state house then why wasn’t the governor arrested or at least escorted out of the building with a warning. It seem like he considered himself above the law as he did with his “Appalachian Trail” adventure. Do we really want a lawbreaker serving as a lawmaker in congress? I guess the folks in the Charleston area will decide soon.

    Reply ↓
    1. Silence

      Of course it was also against the law for the Occupy retards morons idiots protesters to camp out at the SC Statehouse, and they didn’t get arrested either.

      Reply ↓
        1. Steven Davis II

          Congregations of idiots should be illegal.

          Prepared for the comebacks from that… got a couple good ones if the usuals respond.

          Reply ↓
        3. Silence

          State Law: SECTION 10-1-35. Camping on State House grounds prohibited.
          City Code: Sec. 14-105. – Urban camping and improper use of public places.

          Reply ↓
    2. Doug Ross

      Because every member of the legislature who voted for a budget that does not meet the law for adequately funding schools is also a lawbreaker?

      Reply ↓
  12. bud

    Silence and Doug the whole “switch subjects” defense is so off-putting. I never said anything about the Occupy folks or the General Assembly. They had nothing to do with the Luv Gov’s ‘squeal-gate’ episode. If you can defend the governor for his actions go ahead, I’m listening. But to throw out a couple of complete non-sequetors really doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Reply ↓
  13. Doug Ross

    I thought Sanford’s piglet act was fine. The stuffed shirts and pompous tax fiends in the Legislature deserve a little poke in the eye every now and then. There are far worse activities going on behind the closed doors of the State House. A fire alarm might cause several to come out running with their pants down.

    Reply ↓
    1. Silence

      I also thought the piglet act was a good one, and if the end result was sic Willie cleaning up poo, so much the better.

      Reply ↓
  15. bud

    Wow, Doug the big law and order guy is now coming down on the side of a law breaker. Who would have thunk it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Doug Ross

      That’s the best you can do, bud? Sometimes I drive 5 mph over the speed limit and tear tags off mattresses too.

      I would expect that there has never been a single person prosecuted for bringing a non-service animal into the State House. Is it really a law anyway?

      Reply ↓
      1. Silence

        The closest thing I can find is SECTION 10-11-330. under the disorderly conduct law …”to engage in any disorderly or disruptive conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt or disturb the orderly conduct of any session of the legislature…”
        But nothing about animals in there, or anywhere else in state law from what I can find. Who exactly said it was illegal? From the article Brad cited it was “some noted”. Hardly an authority.

        Reply ↓
        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          I don’t know, Silence. It might just be a rule, and not a statute. Jennifer Talhelm and Valerie Bauerlein wrote that story, and they’re both good reporters. I doubt that they’d remember after all this time, if I tracked them down.

          Valerie, by the way, is with The Wall Street Journal now. Jennifer has left the trade, and is director of strategic communications at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy…

          Reply ↓
        2. Bryan D. Caskey

          This is a fun diversion. How about this statute?

          SECTION 47-7-110. Permitting domestic animals to run at large unlawful.

          It shall be unlawful for the owner or manager of any domestic animal of any description wilfully or negligently to permit any such animal to run at large beyond the limits of his own land or the lands leased, occupied or controlled by him. Any owner, manager or person violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to a fine for each offense of not more than twenty-five dollars or to imprisonment for not more than twenty-five days.

          Reply ↓
  16. bud

    Doug, I gotta say it surprises me that you are going to such great lengths to defend Mark Sanford. Whatever his brand of politics isn’t it obvious that he has significant disqualifying ethical and common sense issues in his past? He just doesn’t seem like the type of guy that the “family values” voters would normally support. Just sayin.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *