Category Archives: Character

Today’s video commentary: “Love Story II,” starring Mark Sanford

10 Replies

Still experimenting with my new Webcam. Today, I got to thinking about our governor’s “Apology Tour,” which prompted the above commentary. And if you can’t stand looking at me on video, here’s the script I worked from:

To Mark Sanford, being governor means always having to say you’re sorry. Hey, I didn’t like the original version of “Love Story,” much less this one…

The governor is going here, there and everywhere in South Carolina to “apologize” for his sins.

But he doesn’t mean it.

I remember how, during the 2002 campaign, Dick Harpootlian kept saying Mark Sanford was a poor little rich boy who could not possibly identify with ordinary South Carolinians. At the time, I recoiled at such class-based prejudice.

And yet, maybe Dick had a point, in a way. Because what we’re seeing now is a guy who thinks the rules of the world are that if Mark Sanford does something wrong, there are to be no consequences.

He just apologizes, and we’re supposed to forgive him. If we don’t do so right away, then in his world there’s something wrong with us. We have some sort of wicked ulterior motive or something if we don’t give him the forgiveness that is his due.

It doesn’t occur to him that he should have to pay a price. But he should. And the minimum, the down payment, should be that he doesn’t get to be governor any more.

Why doesn’t he get that?

Stuff this guy’s dad says

1 Reply

If you don’t mind salty language, you might want to follow this Twitter site by a 28-year-old named Justin who simply records stuff that his 73-year-old father says. At least, that’s the alleged premise. There was quite a gem yesterday:

The worst thing you can be is a liar….Okay fine, yes, the worst thing you can be is a Nazi, but THEN, number two is liar. Nazi 1, Liar 2

Anyway, I enjoy it. It’s pithy. It has great pith. Just don’t get pithed off at me if you check it out and don’t like it…

Not that there’s anything wrong with that (or so they say)

9 Replies

The last couple of days, whispers about a certain public figure being homosexual have gradually been seeping into the MSM. My question is, should they?

Actually, I have several questions, including:

  • What does it matter if he is? Aren’t we supposed to not care? I’m constantly told by my children and others of their generation that we’re not supposed to care, that it’s the same as being hetero — even as some of that generation use “that’s so gay” as an apparent pejorative, which confuses me because it’s so, well, my generation.
  • At what point does the usual MSM dodge for reporting unsubstantiated rumor — that blogs and other low-threshold media have reported it to the point that the resulting buzz (not, of course, the underlying rumors themselves, perish the thought) has made news to the point that it must be reported — rise above being a lame excuse?
  • Should I even be writing about it here, even in the rather priggish manner in which I am doing so?

I almost did so yesterday, when WIS actually did a report on the subject, which caused a bit of triumphalist chortling in the blogosphere. But I didn’t. Such is my reluctance to address such a subject. (The WIS report raises a subquestion: Should one say “crap” on broadcast TV?)

But now that Peter Hamby of CNN — yes, a national news organization — is reporting that Jake Knotts is actually accusing our governor of coordinating this whispering campaign against Jake’s ally — an accusation for which I’ve seen no justification, in the governor’s defense (merely having an apparent motive does not make one the prime suspect) — I’m faced with the fact that just about everyone but me is talking about this. (Such as Politico, and both national and state blogs.) No newspapers so far, though, unless I’ve missed something. I can well imagine the conversations going on in newsrooms as they decide what to do, or whether to do anything. And I remain surprised that WIS did it first.

But should anybody be reporting any of this? Whose business is this?

It’s perversely interesting (if I may use that modifier) to see how things like this play out in this allegedly “enlightened” age. Consider for instance the subset of this phenomenon, whereby the apostles of tolerance are the first to “out” political conservatives who are said to lean that way. Their excuse, of course, is that they are exposing the ultimate political sin in this postmodern world, hypocrisy. One can do all sorts of hypocritical things in the name of exposing hypocrisy, including acting like there’s something wrong with someone being “gay” even when one adamantly insists the rest of the time that there is not.

Me, I’m Old School. Personally, I appreciate people not talking about their sexual predilections. For instance, I do NOT appreciate people talking ad nauseam about their “soulmates,” of whichever gender. When they do, I tend to harrumph.

And when third parties talk about someone else’s rumored predilections, I get really uncomfortable. It doesn’t seem right.

The whole thing is just so cringe-making that I might take this post down when I look back at it later.

What do y’all think?

A Little White Guy who lies

8 Replies

If you wonder whether our governor can hit new lows, you should depend on him. He can, and will:

Gov. Mark Sanford says he told “a little white lie” to his staff to conceal his secret trip to Argentina in June to visit his lover. The governor also says God is on his side, and he has no intentions of resigning…

That is drawn from an interview in The Washington Times. Goldang them pointy-headed liberal newspapers!

The governor’s narcissistic, never-failing willingness to excuse himself boggled the minds even of the Times‘ editors; their headline was “S.C. Gov. Sanford says God on his side.” He also, in the piece, claims to know how Sarah Palin feels. At least he doesn’t claim Sarah is his “soulmate,” for which we are thankful.

You see, our governor apologizes, and lightly flogs himself publicly (in rituals less convincing that that of Henry II), but he doesn’t mean it, because his life experience has not given him understanding of consequences. In his mind, anyone who thinks he should resign (which should be the minimal consequence, given his actions) has something wrong with him (or her) — ulterior political motivation or whatever. In his mind, surely no fair-minded person would want him, Mark Sanford, to suffer consequences. Not a tall, rich white guy who hasn’t had to do any actual work this decade (or most of the decade before, near as I can tell) … not him…

Peter, you left out the “lashing” part

4 Replies

Hmmm… After taking up the cudgels for John O’Connor and others in the media whom my friend Peter Hamby says the governor “lashed out” at and “blasted” today, I saw the video clip above.

What I saw, and what you will probably see as well, is the usual, casual, lollygaggin’ Mark Sangfroid delivery, delivered complete with little chuckles thrown in — not exactly a foaming rant. (Which means that, while I hear the guy really has a temper, I still have never really seen it fully on display.) More of a passive-aggressive sort of delivery.

Missing is what in text seems like the worst part of the session, which is what really set me off (everyone knows I have a temper), and which Peter describes thusly:

Sanford singled out John O’Connor — a political reporter for South Carolina’s largest newspaper, The State — and accused the newspaper of covering the political back-and-forth over the travel controversy while skimming over Sanford’s arguments defending himself.

Sanford took one question, but refused several others. But when O’Connor asked a question about private flights that Sanford failed to report on public disclosures, the governor became irritable.

“John, we’re not going to play your game,” he said, jabbing his finger in the reporter’s direction. “I don’t work for you.”

Wish that part was on the video.

Now, I just think Sanford was taking unfair advantage of his bully pulpit to make the press the issue rather than his own misconduct. But he did it without the ill grace of a Spiro Agnew. He was affable about it. Which means he still has his equanimity. Which you can see as good or bad. Personally, I’d like to see a guy who was feeling that pressure and moving a little closer to changing his mind about himself. But I don’t see that, either.

What do y’all think?

Our governor certainly doesn’t lack for gall

10 Replies

Today, our governor, increasingly detached from reality, lashed out at the media. At least, he did according to CNN’s Peter Hamby:

(CNN) – South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford lashed out at the media on Friday, admonishing reporters at a press conference for their coverage of the multiple investigations into his travel expenses.

“One of the frankly disappointing things I’ve seen in several instances here over the last 60 days of my life since I’ve been through this thing is that in some cases it’s not been about objective journalism, its been about advocacy journalism with an agenda,” he said.

Sanford was in the town of Conway revealing his plans to waive confidentiality in a state Ethics Commission investigation into his use of state airplanes and taxpayer-funded travel, a move that will allow to the public to view the results of the probe.

But the governor, who has adopted an increasingly combative tone in recent days, also blasted members of the state legislature for being hypocritical, accusing them of spending state money on travel as well. He called on members of Senate and House to make their travel documents public.

Then he turned his sights on the South Carolina press corps, with whom he had a largely cordial relationship before he turned the state’s political world upside down in June by copping to an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman. He chided the media for its coverage of his travel record and said he has been an excellent steward of taxpayer money, unlike previous administrations…

… and I trust Peter’s account. He’s young, but steady.

The nerve of this guy Mark Sanford. With all of this insanity that he’s dragged us through because of his own narcissistic little drama, and which he keeps dragging us through, he has the unmitigated gall to lash out at the hard-working people who are merely reporting it to the people of South Carolina. Every day, he amazes me a little more.

I call your attention in particular to this passage:

Sanford singled out John O’Connor — a political reporter for South Carolina’s largest newspaper, The State — and accused the newspaper of covering the political back-and-forth over the travel controversy while skimming over Sanford’s arguments defending himself.

Sanford took one question, but refused several others. But when O’Connor asked a question about private flights that Sanford failed to report on public disclosures, the governor became irritable.

“John, we’re not going to play your game,” he said, jabbing his finger in the reporter’s direction. “I don’t work for you.”

Ah, but see, governor, that’s the thing — you do work for John. And you also work for the other four million-plus people of this state, which includes Andre Bauer, and most emphatically includes the many, many of us who believe your one great remaining chance to perform a service for this state is to take Andre up on his offer and resign. If you do that, we no longer have to be subjected to this farce of having you as governor, and will be spared the risk of having Andre elected in 2010.

But as each day goes by, with each outburst from you that we witness or hear of, our hope that you will come to your senses and do the right thing fades.

We deserve better than this.

But is not being a “yes man” a good thing or a bad thing, job-searchwise?

5 Replies

Jack Van Loan, continuing to promote Steve Benjamin’s candidacy for mayor of Colatown, is hosting a serious of informal meetings with the candidate and folks Jack hopes will support him, or at least offer constructive feedback.

I was one of the guests for coffee this morning. As I’ve done with Vincent Sheheen and everyone else, I made it clear from the outset that I was just there to collect info, that I have NOT decided whom to support. I like Steve, but I also like Mayor Bob. They said fine, they understood.

Anyway, perhaps because of that statement on my part, but probably also based on knowing me over the years, Jack said something at the end of the meeting that got me to thinking about my own situation. I forget the exact context. I think he was saying he hoped Steve would get support among people who think for themselves. Anyway, here’s what he said:

This guy is the last guy in the world if you want a “yes man.”

He was indicating me when he said it.

I thanked him for the compliment — and coming from my friend Jack, I knew it was a compliment — but then I thought, Is it a good thing for people to think of me that way? Is it good, in particular, for prospective employers to think of me that way?

There’s no doubt that it’s accurate. It’s not that I’m not a team player — I am very much a team player, vigorously so, once I’ve made up my mind to be on the team. But I may take some persuading.

A couple of nights ago, I watched the Jim Carry vehicle “Yes Man” (which by the way was a lot better than I thought it was going to be). The idea was that a very negative guy resolved to start saying “Yes” to life, “Yes” in all circumstances, and it made him more open to life and happier — until it started to catch up with him.

I’m not a negative guy, certainly not the way the Carrey character was. But I do question, and challenge, and need to be persuaded if you want me on board. Once I am on board, I’ll be your fiercest ally. Under certain circumstances, I’m thinking that could be invaluable to the right employer. But do the employers themselves think so?

Do you MEAN it this time, Andre? If so, it’s settled: Sanford should go

5 Replies
How about it, Gov? (2006 file photo by Brad Warthen)

How about it, Gov? (2006 file photo by Brad Warthen)

The State is trumpeting the latest word from Gov Lite Andre Bauer that he would NOT run for governor in 2010 if only we’ll let him serve in the job as a temp between now and then:

EXCLUSIVE – Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer plans to call on embattled Gov. Mark Sanford to step down during a noon news conference today. Bauer will also renew his pledge to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race should Sanford resign within a month or so. By early October Bauer will formally announce his intentions to seek the GOP nomination for governor in 2010.

Bauer is the first constitutional officer to join a growing chorus of lawmakers pushing for Sanford to resign, including a majority of Republican state senators.

Today’s announcement, according to a source close to Bauer, is intended to send a message to State House leadership that Sanford needs to step down and Bauer won’t stand in the way. Some lawmakers have been hesitant to push for Sanford’s resignation because it would give Bauer an unfair advantage in the 2010 race, as he would be running for governor as an incumbent.

There are several points to make about this development:

  • First, does he really mean it this time? Andre floated the “I won’t run if you let me be governor now” balloon before, then added a sotto voce “maybe” to the non-pledge. If we can hold him to it this time, it makes all the difference.
  • All the difference, I say again. It changes everything. Before some (such as my friends at The State) have maintained it was too dangerous for South Carolina for Mark Sanford to resign now, because it would give Andre a leg up in the 2010 race, and the actual election of Andre Bauer as our governor for four years would be disastrous. I have disagreed. I mean, I agree that Andre winning in 2010 would be horrific. But I disagree on whether an interim elevation would help him. Here’s the thing, folks: As things stand, Andre has about as good a chance as any other Republican of being elected if he runs. Scoff if you will, but I have watched this unlikely fellow win election after election when it made no sense at all. In a crowded field, he would not get nearly the scrutiny he should get. But put him in the top job now, at a time when the governor’s office is under the closest scrutiny I have ever seen in this state, and his many flaws would be magnified; they could not be missed. To me, the one way to make sure Andre Bauer is not elected governor is to give him the job now. But if he promises not to run, and we can hold him to it, there’s nothing left to argue about. There is no question that it would be in the best interests of the state to let him occupy the seat for a few months.
  • And no, we wouldn’t be giving up anything in the leadership department. Even before the current scandals, Mark Sanford was a dead loss for this state as governor. The limitations of the office, the circumstances of his promotion, and the wariness of State House leadership would prevent Andre from doing real harm. And since there was no chance Mark Sanford was going to do any good, there’s nothing lost. Yes, this state needs real leadership from the governor’s office. But letting Andre have the job now increases the chance that the voters will get serious and elect somebody good next year.
  • Unfortunately, “Sanford should go” is a lot easier to say than to make happen. The man is immune to political pressure from within his own party or from any other quarter. He does what pleases Mark Sanford. He always has, and always will. And the rumblings about impeachment are unpersuasive to me. The idea that South Carolina Republicans will actually summon the will power to impeach one of their own — even one whom they despise as much as they do Sanford — is hard for me to imagine. We’ve seen some unlikely things happen in the news lately — Santee Cooper backing down on the coal plant, the Rev. Jimmy Jones deciding not to build a duplicative homeless service shelter, neither of which I expected to see — but SC Republicans summoning the chutzpah to do that would be truly stunning. Anyway, the deal Andre is offering doesn’t seem to apply in the case of impeachment. Sanford has to resign, and he’s under a deadline to do it — by the first of October, roughly. So if anyone has the lever that will move our gov, now is the time to insert it and start prying.
  • Talk about your ironies: By making this gesture, calling upon the governor to resign and making his promise, Andre Bauer is exercising true leadership. In fact, one would have to go back a few years to find an instance of leadership by a governor or would-be governor that compares to this. Yes, the idea of Andre Bauer being our governor is appalling. And yet he’s doing this. Whatever else we say, I give him credit for it. Sure, he’s probably banking on the smart bet that there’s no way Sanford will quit. But it’s still impressive.

What do y’all think?

The Sanford scandal gets the glamour treatment

7 Replies

sanford2

Just when you thought there weren’t any ways left to look at the Sanford scandal, along comes the Vogue treatment of Jenny Sanford as the wronged woman America loves and admires most.

The glamour shot above is just the beginning. An excerpt:

Early this past summer, just as the world was savoring the news that yet another conservative Republican politician had tumbled from grace in a manner worthy of the best French farce—“hiking the Appalachian Trail” will never have the same meaning—there emerged an unlikely hero in the mess down in South Carolina. Petite, clear-eyed, strong-willed, pious without being smug, smart without being caustic, Jenny Sanford became an unlikely heroine by telling the simple truth. Her children were the most important thing in the world to her. She had kicked the lying bum out of the house when he refused to give up his mistress, but marriage is complex, life is hard, and if he wanted to try and make the marriage work, the door was open.

Her one-page statement saying as much was written without the help of spin doctors or media consultants. It came from her heart and her head. It mentioned God without making you squirm. The world took note. Newsweek dubbed her a “media genius”; The Washington Post hailed her as “a new role model for wronged spouses.” On television, Diane Sawyer called her classy, praising her “grace in the glare.” While her husband was giving overly emotional press conferences about soul mates and impossible love, Sanford kept her mouth shut and her head down. Just as the scandal was finally dying down, she agreed to sit with Vogue and set the record straight about what really happened in the low country of South Carolina….

… to which I can only say, which is it, Vogue — “hero” or “heroine?” (I would recommend the latter, but then I’m such an unreconstructed language chauvinist.) I knew that newspapers were short on editors, but Vogue?…

Anyway, more power to Jenny, say I. I’m still waiting for someone to start cranking out those special “WWJD” bracelets…

Graham takes road less traveled, again

14 Replies

As you know, I appreciate politicians who run against type, who defy the boxes that the idiots who guide the incessant partisan wars demand that they stay within.

For instance, I like Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania for the simple fact that he’s a pro-life Democrat. He refuses to fit in the narrow little box.

And that means I like Lindsey Graham a lot, because he’s all about thinking an issue through and trying to do the right thing rather than what partisanship demands.

He did it again today:

Date: 07/28/2009

The right vote for me and, I believe, the country

by Senator Lindsey Graham

Today, I voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  I understand the path of least resistance for me would be to vote no.  But I feel compelled to vote yes.  This is the right vote for me and, I believe, the country.  Here’s why:

Elections Have Consequences
I told Judge Sotomayor in the Judiciary Committee hearing that if Senator McCain had won the election, she probably would not have been nominated.  Senator McCain would have chosen a qualified jurist with a more conservative background – someone similar to Chief Justice John Roberts or Miguel Estrada.  Judge Sotomayor is definitely a more liberal judge than a Republican president would have nominated, but elections have consequences.

Judge Sotomayor is Very Qualified
Judge Sotomayor is one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has seventeen years of judicial experience, twelve of those on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  I have reviewed her record closely.  She follows precedent and has not been an activist judge that would disqualify her from office.  She has demonstrated left-of-center reasoning but within the mainstream – a fact other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have openly acknowledged.

She has an outstanding background as a lawyer. She was a prosecutor for four years in New York. Her record of academic achievement is extraordinary – growing up under very difficult circumstances, being raised by a single mother, going to Princeton, being picked as the top student there, and doing an extraordinary job in law school at Yale.  She has received the highest rating of ‘well qualified’ by the American Bar Association for her nomination to the Supreme Court, which was an important reason why I supported Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

The “Obama Standard” – Wrong for the Nation and Judiciary
One of the things I chose not to do was to use the “Obama Standard” when it came to casting my vote.

As Senator, Barack Obama voted against both Justices Roberts and Alito.  He used the rationale that they were well qualified, extraordinarily intellectually gifted, but the last mile in the confirmation process was the heart.  He argued that in the final five percent of controversial cases that may change society, a Senator needs to look and see what is in a judge’s heart.

I totally reject this line of reasoning.  It runs contrary to more than 200 years of the Senate’s constitutionally-mandated role of providing “advice and consent” for judicial nominees.

If the Senate moves to a Barack Obama-style confirmation process where we explore another person’s heart, we are going to drive people away from wanting to become members of the judiciary.  Who would want to come before the Senate and have us try to figure out what is in his or her heart?  Can you imagine the questions that would be asked?  It will have a tremendously negative effect on the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges.

Also, one thing to note about Judge Sotomayor was that during the Judiciary Committee hearings on her nomination – she publicly disagreed with this “Obama Standard.”  She made it clear that trying to decipher what was in a nominee’s heart is not a good standard for selecting judges.

Return to the “Qualification Standard” for Supreme Court Nominees
I believe the Senate and nation should once again go back to the judicial standard for Supreme Court nominees which served our country well for over 200 years – the “Qualification Standard.”  Are the nominees qualified?  Do they have good character?  Do they present an extraordinary circumstance – having something about their life that would make them extraordinary – to the point they would be unqualified, e.g. they are related to the president or they tried to bribe someone for the position?

There was a time in this country, not long ago, where a conservative judge, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, received a 98-0 vote from the Senate.  Every Democrat who voted for Justice Scalia could not have been fooled as to what they were getting.  They were supporting an extremely qualified, talented, intellectual man who was qualified for the job but had a conservative philosophy different from most Democrats.

There was a time in this country where a Justice, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is clearly left-of-center, received a nearly-unanimous vote in the Senate.  Republicans who voted for Justice Ginsburg had to know what they were getting.  They were supporting someone who was very talented, extremely well-qualified, and incredibly smart – but who was also general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.  They knew her liberal philosophy but understood that President Clinton had won the election and earned the right to make the nomination.

What happened to those days?

The Balance of the Court Does Not Change
On balance, I do not believe the Supreme Court will dramatically change in terms of ideology due to her selection.  Justice Souter, whom I respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than I would prefer. Quite frankly, on some issues, Judge Sotomayor may be more balanced in her approach than Justice Souter, particularly when it comes to the War on Terror, the use of international law, and potentially the Second Amendment.

Judge Sotomayor received the backing of Ken Starr, the conservative special prosecutor during the Clinton Administration.  Even critics such as conservative commentator and radio talk show host Bill Bennett have made positive statements about her nomination.

Bennett told CNN, “Let me make a prediction. I’m actually probably a little more conservative than Mitch McConnell. I think this will be a very different record than David Souter’s. I think she (will) surprise people. I think she is larger than this caricature of her… I think this is going to be an interesting judge, and not one who will always displease conservatives.”

I am not voting for her believing I know how she will decide a case.  I expect she will align with the liberal side of the court based on philosophy not because she is a judicial activist.

I am voting for her because I find her to be well-qualified, because elections matter, because I believe the “Obama Standard” is harmful to the judiciary, and because the people who have served along her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in Judge Sotomayor.  I found the same.

As a member of the minority party in the Senate, I have a responsibility to look hard at the nominees sent to the Senate by President Obama.  Where I can, I will support his nominees.  But I will not abandon the right to say no.  I will not abandon the right to stop, in an extraordinary circumstance, a nominee who is bad for the country and unworthy of being confirmed.  But Judge Sotomayor does not rise to that standard and for that reason I chose to support her nomination.

I would not have chosen her if I had been able to make the nomination.  But I understand why President Obama chose her, and I believe it is the right choice to vote for her confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Graham is one of those people — like Joe Lieberman — who causes me to think harder about a position if I find myself disagreeing with him, because I know he’s thought really hard about it. And he’s a really smart guy.

So after today, I would have to have really powerful reasons to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. On the one hand we have partisan Democrats, who we know will vote for her without thinking. On the other hand we have partisan Republicans, who will oppose her without thinking. Then we have Lindsey Graham, who I know has studied the matter carefully — a lot more so than I have (I’m busy looking for a job), which of course is what representative democracy is all about — and decided to vote for her. To me, that means a lot more than just one senator’s vote.

If Sanford wants to change the subject, here’s an idea: Do some actual work

28 Replies

So we learned the following about our governor in this morning’s paper:

The governor made his first actual public appearance since he started putting out his weekly schedule. It was a staged event to dramatize a political point he wanted to make, but hey, at least people got to see him being governor.

The governor used his first public appearance, in part, to ask to change the subject. Yes, this from the guy who did the two-parter with AP to talk unnecessarily about his “soulmate.”

As of this morning, the governor had worked only 14 of the last 24 “workdays.”

And then this afternoon, we learned that the governor is leaving tomorrow on a two week European vacation with the fam. Yes, I hear you that it was planned in advance and the kids had saved up for it, but still. This is, like, his third vacation since all the craziness started — or since we learned about it. (Or is it fourth? I lose count.)

So, when he gets back from this one, that will be like what — 15 out of 34 working days on the job? I need more details to get the count right.

“Obviously, critics will criticize,” says the gov. Yes, they will. As previously noted, every day that this guy technically holds onto his office is like Christmas to the state’s Democrats.

The governor also said that one nice thing about this vacation is that it will get the kids away from reading about the scandal.

You know what? I have some advice: Governor, if you want to change the subject, then change the subject. You’re the governor. Do something. Make some news. Do your freaking job for a change, instead of all this constant wallowing.

Instead, the governor is as usual absent when other public officials are trying to move our state forward. The State, in noting that the governor had extended his most recent vacation by a day, mentioned his absence from a huge announcement earlier this week:

Sanford was notably absent Monday from a press conference the University of South Carolina held to announce an agreement to lease space in its Moore School of Business to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The agreement will provide resources for USC to build a $90 million new business school building, something university and local officials have been working on for years.

Monday’s news conference included much of Columbia’s powerful — USC President Harris Pastides, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and state Sen. John Courson.

But no Sanford.

But what would have been shocking is if the governor had been there. He doesn’t have the time of day for the university and its doings. Had he been there, he probably would have grumbled, seeing as how he doesn’t think government should be promoting the economy. He just believes in “soil conditions,” which does not, as you might think, mean creating an educated workforce or having the kinds of amenities that make people want to do business in your state. He just means “tax cuts.”

It would never occur to the governor to change the subject by positively engaging issues that are important to our state. He doesn’t believe in that stuff.

Joel Sawyer calls it quits

28 Replies
scgov_ss_062409_15standaloneprod_affiliate74

That's Joel at right, with his hand on the governor's arm.

Looks like I’ll have to contact somebody else to add me to the e-mail distribution list for the gov’s weekly schedules. Press spokesman Joel Sawyer, whom the governor left high and dry with no hint of where he actually was when he went AWOL, is leaving that increasingly thankless job, according to The State:

Gov. Mark Sanford’s communications director, Joel Sawyer, said today he is leaving for an unspecified private-sector job, effective Aug. 5.

Sawyer said his decision to leave his $65,000-a-year job had nothing to do with Sanford’s recent six-day disappearance and the Republican governor’s subsequent disclosure of an affair with an Argentine woman.

“I want to be crystal clear that my departure is purely about what’s best for me and my family on a personal and financial level,” Sawyer said in a statement. “I wish Mark and the rest of my talented and dedicated colleagues the best.”

I’d like to take this opportunity to say that, while we may have disagreed about some things, Joel Sawyer was always thoroughly professional in my dealings with him. I would trust him with my life — in fact, I have. I hope he found a great new job.

There’s something backward about this: Sanford’s on vacation, and I’m not

61 Replies

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 …

Did it! I’m John Adams

4 Replies

Just took a “Which Founding Father are You Quiz” — and no, I didn’t give them my phone number this time — and managed to answer the right questions to have it come out as follows:

John Adams

Visionary – John Adams was one; you are too. You are very critical and you are a perfectionist. Where you find faults, however, you have good suggestions on how to fix them or make them better. You are extremely intelligent, and an excellent judge of character and situation. Your causes are often altruistic, and you have a clear vision of what the future will be like. However, people have the annoying habit of not believing you, even though you always seem to be right. You also seem to never get the credit you deserve. People often find you to be ‘obnoxious and disliked.’ Never fear! Your ideas will come to fruition, and one day you shall be remembered beautifully for your efforts. Just keep at it!

Yes, I answered the questions honestly, but there were a couple of times when I could answer honestly more than one way, and I chose the one that sounded like Adams. Once or twice, though, I bowed to accuracy and answered in a way that I thought was more Jeffersonian — but it turns out that for the purpose of the quiz, they counted those as Adams as well (I think). This of course reinforces my impression that he was the one I’m most like — particularly his more annoying, negative traits.

Anyway, I’m pleased with the result, since — whether I’m like him or not — he’s my fave.

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…

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.

Can you believe this guy? (I mean that in a NICE way)

50 Replies

Sorry not to have posted today. Aside from doing the work I usually do to get the opinion pages out, I'm dealing with a lot of e-mails and phone calls related to my personal and professional news — mostly very kind and thoughtful (although not quite all — hey, you know my public).

When I came in this morning, I was going to write something about our governor's latest, which is pretty wild and crazy and outrageous. I decided the headline was going to be, "Can you believe this guy?" I was going to say, he only wants the stimulus on his terms? Oh, yeah, it's all about him, all right, yadda-yadda…

But before I could write it, I got a call from the governor himself, in which he was very kind and gracious — which actually didn't surprise me a bit. On a personal level, I think he's a fine person, even though I wish he weren't our governor. Can you follow that (because a lot of people have trouble with it)? I said so here on the blog back when we endorsed his opponent in 2006:

If we went on the basis of who we like, I'd probably have gone with
Sanford. I know him, and I personally like him. I really have to force
myself to look at what he's doing (and not doing) as governor and shove
aside the fact that I like the guy.

I mean, I was kidding around a little when I said I was willing to put my life in his hands back here, but I was also being serious. The fact is that on a personal level he is a fine gentleman. Hand in hand with the fact that he places WAY too much faith in the private sector is the fact that in his private LIFE I see him as a good father and husband and so forth.

Anyway, he was very gracious in saying this morning that while we have had our differences, he had a certain respect for me and my colleagues, and he went on to pay us a compliment that you might find curious, but which I appreciated.

He cited the Teddy Roosevelt saying that "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena." Now, if I stopped there, you would think he actually meant to malign me and aggrandize himself, because here is the context of that portion of the speech TR delivered at the Sorbonne in 1910:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

As you can see, it would be easy to cast me and those like me as the "critic," and the governor as the man in the arena.

But his purpose in saying that was to say that he sees me — and my colleagues on this editorial board — as also being in the arena, as among those who take risks, who strive valiantly, "who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause." I thought that was very generous of the governor, and perceptive, too — in that it's smart of him to know that I would LIKE to be described that way.

When I was 22 years old and starting out in this business, I wouldn't have wanted a politician to suggest I was in the arena. I was filled with all that J-school stuff about detachment and objectivity, and would rather have been cast as the critic. But along the way, I started to CARE about what happened to my community, my state, my country, the world — which ruined me as the kind of journalist I once aspired to be, but which I truly hope made me more useful to society. I have worked hard with that goal in mind — that of being useful, of trying to make a difference.

And I truly appreciate the governor recognizing that, and taking the time to tell me.

So, can you believe this guy? Only in this case, I mean that in a nice way.

Accountability, USMC style

5 Replies

Peggy Noonan had an excellent column Saturday that I hope you can read (since I'm a subscriber, it's hard for me to tell whether the links I post to the WSJ are subscriber-only or not).

It's about how the U.S. Marine Corps dealt with its own culpability in a tragic plane crash that killed civilians on the ground back in December.

Ms. Noonan's point was to contrast the way the Corps owned up and held its own folks accountable, contrasted to the finger-pointing and blame-shifting that we are used to seeing inside the Beltway, and in the corporate world.

I read it shortly after finishing my Sunday column, in which I decried the tawdry Beltway obsession with the partisan spin-cycle topic of the day, so the contrast was particularly marked in my mind.

Hope you can read the whole thing. At the very least, though, here's an excerpt:

    This wasn't damage control, it was taking honest responsibility. And as such, in any modern American institution, it was stunning.
    The day after the report I heard from a young Naval aviator in predeployment training north of San Diego. He flies a Super Hornet, sister ship to the plane that went down. He said the Marine investigation "kept me up last night" because of how it contrasted with "the buck-passing we see" in the government and on Wall Street. He and his squadron were in range of San Diego television stations when they carried the report's conclusions live. He'd never seen "our entire wardroom crowded around a television" before. They watched "with bated breath." At the end they were impressed with the public nature of the criticism, and its candor: "There are still elements within the government that take personal responsibility seriously." He found himself wondering if the Marines had been "too hard on themselves." "But they are, after all, Marines."

Rush and his friends the Democrats

64 Replies

Just to complete the process of distracting myself with total trivia, I'll mention the spin cycle rubbish of the last couple of days about Rush Limbaugh.

How pathetic can we be in this country, huh? This contemptible creature (why contemptible? because he wants this country to fail to prove an ideological point) actually gets treated as someone who matters. The chief of staff of the President of the United States elevates him, absurdly, to chief of the president's opposition. Even more absurdly, the actual chief of the opposition party spends breath denying it.

Either yesterday or the day before, as I was working out, Wolf Blitzer started to put James Carville, of all appalling people, on the air with some presumably equally appalling person (I'd never heard of the guy — name of Tony Blankley) from the "other side" to talk about it, and I just barely found the remote in time to avoid hearing it.

Moments like this confirm me once again in my firm belief that these people — Limbaugh, Carville and so forth — are all on the SAME side, and that side is opposed to the one I'm on. They reinforce and affirm each other. They live for each other. They define themselves in terms of each other. They depend absolutely on each other to raise the funds that they use to continue their destructive absurdity. They are as symbiotic as symbiosis gets.

And they deserve each other. The problem is, the rest of us don't deserve them. And yet, time and time again, we see actual, real-world issues that affect real people in this country — and the world — defined in terms of choices between these malicious cretins.

We deserve better. We deserve much better.

(What got me to thinking about this, even though it doesn't deserve to be thought about? Well, Kathleen Parker wrote about it in the column I chose for tomorrow's op-ed page.)