Did you know there was a BobbyHarrell.com? Well, there is. And if you go there, you can read the Speaker’s letter calling on the governor to resign. There’s audio, too.
The Speaker of the House calling on the governor to resign is a significant step — or would be, if we thought there was the slightest chance the governor would listen to the Speaker or anyone else in South Carolina.
But I tend to focus on funny things. Such as this one little thing that the governor said on Keven Cohen’s show yesterday:
Bottom line, I was gone over that weekend.
Let’s see — he left on Thursday, came back on Wednesday, and that’s a weekend? Maybe in Argentina, but not here…
Related Posts
Well, he WAS gone over that weekend…and a few days before and after, and several weeks after, and and and
My first real so-called grown-up boyfriend told me he “was married” in a tone that suggested he was now divorced. I learned later to ask that follow-up question.
Bottom line is: Yes, “Governor,” you were gone that weekend, inter alia, and did not leave a forwarding address and that is not acceptable, and since then you have been traveling around trying to save your marriage, and when that didn’t work, you have been doing the Tour de Rotary trying to save your job. I guess I would have put my head down., my shulder to the wheel and actually gotten to work.
And we shouldn’t have to give you tips on how to attract jobs, either. Don’t you have a clue yet?
I think he’s allergic to jobs.
I’ve told this story before recently, but I don’t get tired of it: When he came to see us when he was first running for governor, I asked him what he’d been doing in the couple of years since he’d left Congress.
“Nothing,” he said, unabashed. For all his talk about the glories of the private sector, to the best of my knowledge he hasn’t actually worked in it since sometime before he was elected to Congress in ’94.
To Mark Sanford, it’s ALWAYS the weekend.
but y’all endorsed him, didn’t you?
not that you haven’t come to learn many things better since then….
We don’t mention that around here, unless absolutely necessary…
That’s what happens when you’re a single issue endorser or voter.
I hope all this makes people pay attention to more than just the R or the D. I have my doubts since we used to be straight ticket D before we went straight ticket R. From one extreme to another.
but y’all endorsed him, didn’t you?
Hmmm. It should be no surprise that endorsing someone for the sake of endorsing someone or voting for the sake of voting when there are no good candidates (or maybe they thought Sanford was a good candidate??) leads to no-good elected officials. Giving a vote or endorsement away to our two beloved parties when they are giving us crap for candidates does not hold them accountable. It does the opposite.
People who behave as such deserve the candidates they help elect.
Someone is going to get elected. When you have a choice between two unpleasant alternatives, it is right and proper to say which would be the lesser of the two weevils, as Jack Aubrey would say.
But our endorsement of Sanford was not one of those. We thought he’d be a good governor. He had essentially adopted our government restructuring platform almost verbatim, and he wanted to promote transparency in government.
We had no way of knowing at the time that he would exert almost no energy in the pursuit of those goals, but would push harder on his BAD ideas, such as paying people to abandon public schools. Nor did we know that he would so alienate lawmakers in his own party that neither his good ideas nor his bad ones would stand a chance of becoming law, thereby rendering him a total loss for our state.
Now in 2006, we DID endorse the lesser of two weevils. We didn’t think much of Tommy Moore (and mind you, this is before he sold himself to the payday lending industry), but we endorsed him. Why? Because either he or Sanford would be governor, and this was our chance to explain what a disappointment Sanford had been.
Does anyone take anything said by someone in a bowtie seriously? Look at Andrew Sorenson, his stupidity got old fast and he was all but shown the door once his Innovista failure began to show it’s ugly head.
Forgive me; I thought y’all endorsed Sanford in the ’04 primaries. I will certainly not object to his ’00 endorsement.
Now, I’ve tried to make this point to you before and failed. I see that I am still not getting through. I agree that it is preferable to have the lesser rather than the greater of the two evils elected. But you appear to be incapable of thinking past one election cycle.
Your “lesser of the two evils” theory does not hold either party responsible. It does not give them any incentive to change for the better. Why should they change? We will continuously be stuck with bad candidates if we just accept that from them. All they have to do is be slightly better than the other God-awful candidate. That’s not good enough for me.
I don’t understand why someone who so hates the partisan bullshit we get from our leaders is so willing to accept it.
Why can’t you look past one election cycle? Do you think our parties are going to change from partisanship and half-truth if we don’t force them? Do you not think the trend is for MORE partisanship? How do you see that changing if you just give into it so easily?
Maybe it’s because you’re getting older and you don’t think our parties can change in your lifetime and thus you just try to make the best of a bad situation. Maybe you just have incredibly low standards. I don’t know.
Whatever the case may be, for a fellow partisanship-hater, you are THE most frustrating person I have ever encountered.