Category Archives: Mark Sanford

Club for Growth targets two

18 Replies

You read here before about the incumbents who are favored by the Club for Growth. Now, in this release, we see whom they want to get rid of. Since the only names on the list are those of Richard Chalk and Jake Knotts, I’m guessing this is not a final list, but I could be wrong (Matt, please correct or confirm).

Mind you, this is not the same as the governor’s "list," but I think we can assume (there I go again) that it has some names in common with it. Anyway, here’s the release:

SC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Three Reform-Minded Candidates
Columbia, SC – Today, the South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed three reform-minded candidates who are seeking election in the upcoming June 10th primary.
    Tim Scott, Stu Rodman and Katrina Shealy are lifelong advocates for smarter government, increased economic growth and more money for families and small businesses whose budgets are not growing nearly as fast as our state government’s.
    Each has shown a commitment to improving a state government that refuses to address South Carolina’s most important problems including high taxes, too much regulation and an outdated government structure.  Their success in this historic, watershed election will positively impact our state for decades to come.
    In a legislatively dominated state, change happens at the ballot box.  In the last election cycle, the SC Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed candidates in 23 primary and general election races.  Thanks in part to the electorate’s desire for change and the generosity of our members, endorsed candidates won 17 elections – an impressive 73 percent of the races in which the Club PAC was involved.
    The South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC has already endorsed seventeen strong, fiscally conservative incumbents for re-election.  Today, the State Action PAC is proud to announce the first challenger/open-seat endorsements of the 2008 primaries:

TIM SCOTT (HOUSE DISTRICT 117 – CHARLESTON)
    Tim Scott is a very successful small business owner, Chairman of Charleston County Council and a strong fiscal conservative.  Endorsed by Governor Sanford last fall for state treasurer and recently for this office, Tim has never voted for a tax increase nor has the council ever increased taxes during his thirteen-year tenure.  Long-time incumbent Tom Dantzler, who has consistently received “F” ratings from the Club, recently chose to retire rather than face a great candidate like Tim.
    Tim’s opponents for the open seat, Wheeler Tillman and Bill Crosby, both present causes for concern.  Tillman served for four years in the House during the 70’s as a Democrat, ran again for public office as a Democrat in the 1980’s and only switched parties earlier this decade.  Crosby wants to spend billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money on mass transportation and making local libraries a statewide responsibility.
    We think Tim is unquestionably the best candidate in this race based on his record as a strong fiscal conservative and reformer.  Tim will also make history as the first African-American Republican elected to the legislature since Reconstruction.  Tim Scott is a rising conservative star, and we urge you to send him to the Statehouse.

STU RODMAN (HOUSE DISTRICT 123 – HILTON HEAD)
    Stu Rodman is a proven, reform-minded leader who will bring his fiscally conservative principles to Columbia.  He currently serves on the Beaufort County Council and was elected to the Beaufort School Board, giving him valuable insights into government. 
    As a businessman with an M.B.A. and an engineering degree, Stu understands how important it is for South Carolina to be competitive in the global marketplace by lowering taxes, limiting government bureaucracy, and improving educational opportunities for our children.  Stu also served on Governor Sanford’s 2003 State Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance, which suggested ways to restructure and streamline state government.
    Stu is challenging incumbent Richard Chalk.  Chalk received an “F” in 2007 on the S.C. Club for Growth’s scorecard, which reflects his poor voting record on fiscal issues.  Chalk supported a higher gas tax on working families and was one of the few Republicans to vote to overturn Governor Sanford’s vetoes on all fifty budget items in the Club’s “Lard List.”  One can only assume Chalk was trying to send a message when he voted to overturn Governor Sanford’s veto of pork items like $150,000 for a new pottery program, over $8 million for Senator Hugh Leatherman’s pet projects in Florence and $9 million for a program editorial writers called “a legislative slush fund.”  We hope you will send a message to Chalk by supporting Stu Rodman.

KATRINA SHEALY (SENATE DISTRICT 23 – LEXINGTON COUNTY)
    Katrina Shealy is a proven leader and reformer in Lexington County.  Her experience as an insurance underwriter gives her a great foundation in fiscal issues and she recognizes that South Carolina’s out of control growth in state spending must end.  She supports state budget spending caps as well as tax cuts that will lower our state’s high income tax to encourage new businesses and better paying jobs.  Katrina also supports important tort and worker’s compensation reforms that will safeguard our small businesses.  As Chairwoman of the Lexington County Republican Party, she has done an incredible job of building a grassroots network of people who will work to support her campaign.
    Her opponent is incumbent RINO (Republican In Name Only) Jake Knotts, who earned an abysmal 8 out of 100 on our most recent legislative scorecard.  Knotts voted against a 29% reduction in our state income tax in 2005, complaining that letting you keep more of your tax dollars would reduce what he and his legislative buddies got to spend on government programs.  And spend it they have – growing government by over 40% in the last few years!  Last year Knotts even voted to send $950,000 of your tax dollars to the aforementioned Green Bean Museum and later voted to override every single one of Governor Sanford’s 228 budget vetoes that would have saved taxpayers $167 million. 
    To say that Knotts has worked against Governor Sanford’s reform agenda is like saying that John Edwards is willing to pay “a little extra” for a haircut.  He has cast crucial votes to kill Sanford-backed restructuring plans and to prevent parents from having increased choices about where to educate their children.  Just last year, Knotts voted to give a liberal judge a ten-year term on our State Supreme Court.  He explained his vote by saying that the candidate was “a female who puts more diversity on the bench.  It shouldn’t be about being conservative.”
    Frankly, we are not sure how Knotts even calls himself a Republican after publically supporting Democrats Jim Hodges and Tommy Moore over Governor Sanford in the last two gubernatorial elections.  Fortunately, he’ll finally get a chance to face Republican voters.
    Knotts’ defeat will remove a major legislative roadblock to lowering taxes, slowing government growth and implementing common-sense structural and educational reforms.  Katrina’s election will provide sorely needed leadership for her district and the state.  In fact, Knotts seems to agree – he contributed $100 to her campaign for House in 2002.  Once you are over the shock of hearing that he actually supported a Republican for a change, we hope you will support the real Republican in the race- Katrina Shealy.

You gotta hand it to the Club… here we haven’t even had our first legislative candidate interviews, and they’ve already settled on endorsements. Maybe it’s a little easier for them. Then again, maybe it’s just all that hard work, initiative and talent that helped the Club members grab their disproportional portions of the American pie, and which they firmly believe WE could do, too, if we would just buckle down and apply ourselves…

An ‘exit interview’ with the governor’s right-hand man

7 Replies

Tom_davis_021

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MY BEST CONTACT in the governor’s office left Mark Sanford’s employ last week, which is bad news for me. The jury is still out on whether it’s a good thing for South Carolina.
    The jury in this case will be the voters of S.C. Senate District 46 in Beaufort County. Tom Davis, formerly chief of staff to Mr. Sanford, will oppose Sen. Catherine Ceips in the Republican primary in June. I have no idea which should win; we’ll have our hands full on the editorial board just trying to endorse in primaries for Midlands districts.
    But Tom dropped by our offices on his way out of town last week, and I thought I’d share with you some observations from what one might term this “exit interview” — less for the light it sheds on a Senate contest, and more for what they tell us about the guy who’s been the governor’s point man for most of his time in office.
    You will have gathered from previous columns that I am, shall we say, disappointed in this governor. But Tom Davis has always impressed me with his passionate support of his boss. He is so earnest and so insistent in his faithful advocacy — from taking flak from lawmakers without resentment to sending me e-mails so intensely detailed in their rebuttal of criticism that I have to set them aside until I can find the time — that you can’t help but respect and like the guy, even when you disagree.
    The five issues he says he most wants to address distill some of the best things the governor has at least theoretically stood for (with a hint here and there of the worst). They also remind us how little has been achieved under this governor, despite Tom’s efforts:

1. Education funding. He would take all the money from the bewildering array of sources we have now — the EIA, the EFA, the whole EIEIO — and put it all into one stream, “so you can see where the money’s going and what it’s doing.” He’d have the money follow each child rather than districts and programs. This, of course, brings to mind the governor’s voucher and tax credits crusade. But it also points to the work that Tom has done reaching out to Education Superintendent Jim Rex. I’ve often been frustrated at the governor’s slowness to work personally with Mr. Rex on reforms they agree about, but Tom has definitely been the good cop on this one. Tom praises Mr. Rex’s efforts at public school choice, and says what’s needed to make the plan work is the funding reform he advocates.
2. “The way we tax.” Rather than get bogged down with the governor’s obsession with the income tax, Tom clearly advocates the comprehensive tax reform that our board has pushed for what seems like forever.
3. Government restructuring. The main reason we endorsed Mr. Sanford in 2002 was his embrace of our restructuring agenda — and his fecklessness on the issue played a role in our not endorsing him in 2006. Tom wants to try working for these crucial reforms from the very citadel of resistance, the S.C. Senate. And he understands that the state’s systemic problems extend far beyond just reducing fragmentation at the state level — he would stress prying the state’s fingers from the throat of local governments (my terminology, not his) so that the governments closest to the people can do their jobs.
4. Quality of life. One purpose of restoring the promise of Home Rule would be empowering local governments to fight sprawl. This is a natural outgrowth of the uncontrolled growth he’s seen in the Lowcountry, and an area where he and the governor have a lot more in common with Theodore Roosevelt than too many modern Republicans.
5. “The Ports.” One of the subjects of some of Tom’s most recent e-mails has been his fierce insistence that I am wrong when I say the governor hasn’t accomplished much. His evidence is the deal that he, Tom Davis, has helped engineer between our governor and Georgia’s over a new Jasper County port. He acknowledges this has been his “silo” at the governor’s office and perhaps looms larger in his mind than other people’s. But he maintains, with some justice, that there are few things more important to South Carolina’s economy than the health of its ports.

    Tom argued a bit with us about vouchers. He says that movement has led to such promising developments as Mr. Rex’s open enrollment initiative. I say it’s brought any efforts to improve public schools to a grinding halt, consuming all the political oxygen that could be going to fight for such things as merit pay for teachers and district consolidation — things the governor has said he favors, but has done little to promote.
    Tom said that if elected, he would actively push those things. That would be good. It would be even better if Mark Sanford would.

Sanford focusing no energy on veep possibility? Get real, Joel

22 Replies

Did you see this quote from Joel Sawyer of the governor’s office in today’s paper?

    Joel Sawyer, a Sanford spokesman, said the governor finds the interest in him “very flattering” but views it as pure speculation.”
    “It’s nothing that he has been focusing any of his time and energy on,” Sawyer said.

Oh, really? Come now, Joel. Take a look at Saturday’s editorial page in The Wall Street Journal:

The Conservative Case for McCain
By MARK SANFORD
March 15, 2008; Page A10
    …Fortunately, the presidential election offers us a real choice in how to address the fiscal mess. To use a football analogy, we’re at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game.
    I sat out the first half, not endorsing a candidate, occupied with my day job and four young boys at home. But I’m now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It’s important that conservatives do the same…

This piece would be bizarre on several levels even without the otherwordly rumors about Sanford as a possible veep choice (which persist in spite of all logic). Mark Sanford is not a rah-rah, sis-boom-bah kind of Republican. His disdain for standard party boosterism is a noteworthy part of who he is. If fact, he’s not a team player of any kind, party or otherwise.

Add to that the fact that he did sit the game out when it counted, when every other Republican of statewide stature was taking a risk by taking a stand — DeMint for Romney; Graham, McMaster and Harrell for McCain (even when McCain looked down and out). Finally, when he did "endorse" the inevitable nominee, he did so in the most desultory, back-handed, even outright insulting kind of way — with Joel having to be asked, and essentially responding that yeah, OK, the governor supported him, why not…

Finally, there’s the odd conceit in the piece about Mark Sanford being some sort of national "conservative" leader who can step in and give the thumbs-up. Mark Sanford’s national constituency is the Club for Growth and other libertarians, NOT the kind of traditional conservatives who were voting for Mike Huckabee in the last weeks of the process. I read that, and I picture Mark Sanford the loner suddenly stepping into a roomful of conservative activists and saying, "OK, guys, let’s get behind McCain," and the others in the room say, "Who’s this guy? Where’d he come from?"

And what would be his motivation to suddenly pop up and do something that out of character? I can imagine no purpose other than trying to give the McCain folks the impression that he, Mark Sanford, is the kind of guy who has that kind of juice with the people in the party whom McCain needs to get right with. Mark Sanford’s mind works in mysterious ways, so there might be some other explanation.

But until we hear it, I find the assertion that the governor has exerted NO energy toward trailing his coat for the veep nod to be incredible.

Oh, yeah: You don’t want to miss the ending of this piece, which is so out of character that you have to check the footer to make sure this is the same Mark Sanford (and indeed, it says "Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina."):

    The contrast between the two opposing teams is stark. It is time for the entire conservative squad to step onto the field. Who will join me in helping our team get the ball and move it down the field?

Who will join ME, the unquestioned team player and leader, in getting out there and winning one for the McGipper? As though anyone ELSE but Mark Sanford has been sitting on the bench…

What can you say to that but, "Boola-Boola?"

Katon’s response to Friday’s Sanford edit

13 Replies

Be sure to check tomorrow’s op-ed page for Katon Dawson’s indignant response to Friday’s editorial. Here’s a taste:

    The Governor and Republican legislators have made South Carolina a better place to live, work and raise a family.  Not surprisingly, leaders and lawmakers across the country have taken notice of Governor Sanford’s leadership -– as they have taken notice of other great leaders in South Carolina like our U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint and the entire Republican team in Columbia.

Katon does his best, as a good party chairman should, to paint a picture of Republicans in South Carolina as one big family, with the gov and GOP lawmakers pulling in the same direction and things like that. And he does it as well as anyone might. Be sure to check it out.

Editorial to McCain: Don’t even think about it

57 Replies

After hearing Mark Sanford’s name mentioned first (although in a dismissive way) among possible running mates for McCain on NPR Thursday morning, I proposed to my colleagues that we should say the following in today’s paper. I had said it in passing in a column, and had elaborated on the blog, but since the newspaper backed McCain for the nomination, it seemed incumbent upon us as a board to try to warn him off a bit more formally. Here’s today’s editorial:

McCain should look elsewhere for running mate

WE TAKE GREAT satisfaction, and pride, in the knowledge that South Carolina’s choice for the Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, has now secured his place on the November ballot.

As we said in our endorsement before the Jan. 19 South Carolina primary, Sen. McCain stood out clearly among his GOP rivals. His experience, integrity, independence of mind and courage — physical, moral and political — put him in a class by himself. South Carolina did the nation a great favor when it gave Sen. McCain the momentum he needed at a critical moment. It did another one in expressing its enthusiastic preference for Sen. Barack Obama, whom this newspaper also endorsed.

Unfortunately, the momentum Sen. Obama picked up here momentarily stalled Tuesday night, leaving the Democratic contest unsettled. But as the Democrats head to Pennsylvania, the Republican nominee has the leisure to face another challenge: choosing a running mate.

South Carolina can do Sen. McCain — and, more importantly, the nation — another favor. We can point out in no uncertain terms that Gov. Mark Sanford would be a disastrous choice.

The political reasons why this is so are painfully obvious. He would bring nothing to the ticket beyond his relative youth, which is not that rare a commodity. He would not bring the disgruntled cultural conservatives who voted for Mike Huckabee in recent weeks. Mr. Sanford’s appeal is confined to the more extreme economic libertarians who despise Gov. Huckabee. Our governor is constantly at odds with the sort of Republicans who are more typical of the national base. And if the GOP ticket can’t win South Carolina without a South Carolinian on the ballot, it might as well quit now.

But while those might be concerns for Sen. McCain, they are not ours. We are alarmed at even the suggestion that Mark Sanford might be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. This nation desperately needs effective, engaged, committed leadership on a range of critical fronts, from Baghdad to Wall Street and at many points between. Mark Sanford approaches elective office with the detachment of a dilettante, as though it simply does not matter whether anything is accomplished. His six years in Congress are remembered for a futon and a voting record replete with empty, ideological gestures. As governor, he has proven himself utterly unable — or perhaps worse, unwilling — to lead even within his own majority party. He is easily the most politically isolated governor we can recall. He is startlingly content to toss out marginal ideas and move on, unruffled by the fact that most of his seeds fall on rocky ground.

Fortunately, a universe of better options is available to Sen. McCain. If he wants a Southern governor who appeals to the missing portions of his base, Gov. Huckabee stands before him. If he wants someone to make up for his relative weakness on the economy, Mitt Romney is in the wings. If he’s mainly concerned with the political imperative to deliver a critical state, Florida’s Charlie Crist was there for him when it counted (Mark Sanford finally, on Thursday, endorsed him after the nomination was secured).

You’ve come too far to blow it now, Sen. McCain. We wouldn’t steer you wrong on this. Please, look elsewhere for your running mate.

Gee, thanks loads, Mark

6 Replies

This is just astounding:

BC-SC–McCain-Sanford Endorsement/88
Eds: APNewsNow.
SC Gov. Sanford endorses McCain

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is endorsing John McCain.
    Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer says the governor said all along said he would support the Republican Party’s nominee.
    Sawyer says that Sanford thinks McCain will make a great president.
    Sanford had been a state co-chairman of McCain’s 2000 campaign in South Carolina. But this time around he kept his preferences to himself before and after the first-in-the-South primary on January 19.

Pretty much every other Southern governor with an R after his name (and if I’ve missed any, please point it out) endorsed McCain when it was at least theoretically possible for it to do some good. (And Charlie Crist did it when it made all the difference in the world.)

But Sanford does it after the fact — in a sorta, kinda, backhanded kind of way. You know, like, in case you were wondering, yeah, I’m on board with the nominee, whoever he is.

This is so Mark Sanford.

DMV on Real ID

17 Replies

Since I’m having trouble finding time to comment, I can at least pass some stuff on to y’all to discuss, such as this release from DMV:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Beth Parks

REAL ID IN SOUTH CAROLNA
Blythewood, SC – March 6, 2008 – As the deadline for states to apply for the federal  Real ID extension approaches, many South Carolina citizens question how Real ID will affect them as individuals.

"While the decision to comply or not comply with Real ID is up to state officials, it’s important for the citizens of South Carolina to understand how it will affect them," said Executive Director Marcia Adams.

Compared to the way SCDMV currently issues driver licenses and identification cards, the process to issue a compliant Real ID credential will change considerably.  SCDMV must take customer source documents, such as a birth certificate or social security card, and verify them for authenticity and scan them into SCDMV records. SCDMV expects these additional steps to increase the average wait time in a field office from 15 minutes to 45-60 minutes. That wait could grow to as much as two hours during peak operating times.

The cost for a Real ID compliant credential will also significantly increase. The current cost for a 10 year license is $25.00. A Real ID compliant credential, which can only be valid for eight years, may cost as much as $60.00. To implement Real ID, SCDMV must develop new processes and build verification systems that do not exist on the state and federal level. South Carolina will require $16 million in non-recurring funds and $10 million in recurring funds to implement and maintain the Real ID program.

SCDMV will not be able to issue Real ID compliant credentials over the counter as it is done today. SCDMV will be required to change to a central issuance model, which means that customers will not be able to leave a field office with compliant credentials on the same day as their visit. Instead, they will be issued a temporary non-compliant credential. The credential cannot be issued until SCDMV has electronically verified all of the source documents. The compliant credential will be issued from SCDMV headquarters and mailed to the customer within 2-3 weeks of their office visit. SCDMV will continue to serve customers that do not want a compliant credential. The credential they receive, however, must be marked as non-compliant.
    #####

Beth S. Parks

Communications Director

SCDMV

Make of it what you will. Here is our editorial position on the immediate political question before us.

Governing as a hobby

37 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
SOME OF Gov. Mark Sanford’s more insistent critics have been pretty worked up lately. Take this communique Thursday from Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party:

    “There should be an investigation into Mark Sanford’s shady deal…. This type of cash-for-favors politics is better suited for mafia movies and crime dramas than real life.”

    Sen. Jake Knotts, nominally a Republican, recently said this to his colleagues about some of Mr. Sanford’s recent actions: “I want to ask you for the sake of the people of South Carolina to go in and protect our government from these type of atrocities.”
    What “atrocities”? For one thing, the governor kicked Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III off the State Ports Authority board, an action that at least two people who take politics very personally — Sen. Knotts and Mr. Campbell himself — say was a case of the governor inappropriately injecting personal influence.
    As Mr. Campbell complained on our op-ed page Friday, the action filled him with “sadness and a profound sense of disappointment” since he “worked very hard to help elect Mark Sanford.” Mr. Campbell has also said the governor called his Mom in the course of trying to get him to resign.
    The irony is that I remember his Dad being a big believer in the governor having control of executive state agencies, with power to appoint and remove agency heads and board members at will.
    But that’s not all that’s eating at Mr. Sanford’s critics. They have also criticized the governor for making a phone call to Circuit Judge James Lockemy about an annexation case.
    And the Democratic Party chair is in high dudgeon over the governor’s interference in the Ports Authority’s $26 million sale of its Port Royal property. The governor took it upon himself to talk with some friends in the real estate biz, then called the authority’s chairman and an attorney representing the agency in the deal, and shared some negative things he’d heard about the eventual buyer.
    During an earlier, unsuccessful effort to sell the port, Mr. Sanford had had a chat with bidder Jim Chaffin, and decided he liked some of the developer’s ideas. But that sale didn’t happen.
    Blogger Adam Fogle of “The Palmetto Scoop” has reported with fanfare that Mr. Chaffin and his wife contributed a total of about $4,000 to Mr. Sanford in the year before his 2006 re-election.
    But I don’t see a “crime drama” here. I do see a pattern, but of a different sort. It’s the phone calls — to Judge Lockemy, to his real estate friends, to the Ports Authority officials, to Tumpy’s Mom — that ring a bell.
    Back in the early days of his first term, I’d get phone calls from the governor that were unlike any I’d ever had from a politician. He would ask, in that casual way of his, how things were going. I’d say “fine,” and he’d say he was sort of thinking about some issue, and here’s what he was thinking about it, and he kind of wondered what I thought about it. Setting aside my “why’s he asking me that?” reaction, I would answer him. I’m not shy about sharing what I think with anyone who asks, pretty much any time.
    But under these circumstances I spoke very carefully, trying not to say anything that we didn’t say in the paper about the issue. It was not my job to be some kind of Kitchen Cabinet confidential adviser. The governor, who apparently saw nothing odd about him interviewing me, would eventually say “Sorry to bother you,” or “To be continued…,” and hang up, leaving me to wonder what had just transpired, and why.
    I take that experience, and these recent calls I’ve heard about, and a few other things, and I form a certain impression:
    Mark Sanford, as a fervent libertarian, doesn’t see the job of governing the way any other governor I’ve ever known sees it. He doesn’t come into work every day eager to run the government. The main thing he wants the government to do, generally speaking, is less of whatever it is that it does.
    But he takes a sort of dabbler’s interest in bits and pieces of the government’s business, here and there — like a browser in an antique shop idly picking up an item, turning it this way and that, setting it down and moving on to the next thing that catches his eye. Like a guy who sees governing as a hobby, at most.
    Most governors, for that matter most people with experience running any large organization, would — if they wanted to poke around into the port deal, or find out what was happening with a lawsuit — ask a subordinate to look into it and get back to him. A staffer could obtain the information without raising eyebrows. But Mark Sanford, like a guy with nothing better to do, does it himself. And when he’s done, everybody involved goes, “What was that about?” And some assume there’s something nefarious in it.
    But the problem with Mark Sanford is much bigger and more obvious than any particular action that would enable them to cry, “Gotcha!”
    I’m not worried by the governor’s quirky phone calls, nor do I care about a lousy $4,000 in contributions in the past.
    You want to worry? Think about the fact that we have a governor who basically doesn’t believe in some of the most fundamental missions of government, such as running public schools. Sweat over the coming campaign to take out legislators of his own party who disagree with him.
    You want to follow the money? Watch for the thousands upon thousands expected to flow from out of state into those efforts to unseat lawmakers on his “hit list” — a list he says doesn’t exist, but pretty much the whole State House is convinced does.
    You want to get worked up? Work yourself up over that.

Top guys at Safety, Highway Patrol out

47 Replies

Not much that I can say about this at the moment — it being late on my worst day of the week, and my not having seen the video yet — but I thought I’d let y’all know what happened today, so you can go ahead and comment if you’re so disposed and ready:

Racial slur video leads to shake-up at Highway Patrol
Heads of the S.C. Department of Public Safety, S.C.Highway Patrol step down
    Gov. Mark Sanford announced today the head of the state’s Department of Public Safety and the head of the state Highway Patrol have both stepped down after a video of a 2004 incident surfaced of a Highway Patrolman threatening a motorist and using a racial slur.
    Public Safety Director James Schweitzer, who was appointed by Sanford during his first term, had been seeking reappointment to his post. But that was held up by the Legislative Black Caucus, who had obtained a video of the incident and shared it with other lawmakers and Sanford.
    Caucus members said the videos, and other issues, were reasons lawmakers should question how Schweitzer ran the department and disciplined officers. Sanford met Thursday with Rep. Leon Howard, D-Richland, who is chairman of the Black Caucus, to discuss the video and problems within the DPS….

Contact report: Hugh Leatherman

15 Replies

One thing I need to do is catch up on some recent meetings I haven’t let y’all know about, before I get too far behind. I’ll mention this chance encounter from this morning now:

I ran into Sen. Hugh Leatherman this morning at breakfast and sat with him for awhile to kick over a number of topics — national and state politics, what’s happening in Florence, etc.

Two things stand out in my mind:

  1. We talked about endowed chairs. Sen. Leatherman is high on the program, but isn’t convinced that the cap has to be raised. Mind you, he’s certainly not persuaded by any of the governor’s objections, which seem to him off-base. The governor chops at trees, but has never bought into the forest (although he IS into preservation of wilderness, so maybe that’s a bad metaphor). But the Senate Finance Chairman sees a way to make sure future chairs are funded without lifting the cap. He briefly explained it, but I confess I didn’t fully understand it, and didn’t want to detain him all morning trying to. It’s a good topic for further inquiry.
  2. I was reminded at various points in the conversation, as I am so often in speaking with the General Assembly’s Republican leadership, about how frustrated they are trying to deal with the governor day-to-day. Conversations such as this one flesh out the substance of such stories as this one in The Post and Courier today, about the governor’s efforts to stack the Legislature in his image. To serious, responsible lawmakers, having one Mark Sanford is enough of a burden; they don’t need any clones. Note this quote from the Charleston story: "If someone ran against Senator Leatherman, I’d probably support them." Who said that? Mark Sanford. So we’re not just talking paranoia here.

My anonymous (anti-Sanford) fan club

30 Replies

This is to let you know I can do like the BIG-time folks at the NYT. I can cite anonymous sources, too.

One of the problems with publicly criticizing a Republican governor is that, even when most Republicans in a position to work with him agree with you, they generally don’t say so. You know, the "11th commandment" and all. (Note that I’m not counting Jake Knotts, as he is what you might call an iconoclast in this regard.) And even most Democrats are relatively discreet in criticizing a governor who remains popular (among the voters, who don’t actually have to deal with him).

So you get these very encouraging attaboys from veteran State House hands, such as this one yesterday (note that both of these are shorn of identifying details):

    Between you and me (please), your entry yesterday on Sanford was, sadly, right on the money….
    Interestingly, there are more than a couple folks I know who’d like to see Sanford on the national ticket only because it would get him out of S.C.  Personally, I love the country too much to pull for something like that.

Then, today, there was this one, which went into greater detail (some of it now excised):

    It occurs to me that while there is certainly so much blame to be shared (politics being what it is) I truly do weep for our state and the years we’ve lost in missed opportunity.  The promise of Mark Sanford and true progress was so great.  But as we discovered in short order in dealing with the man — there is truly nothing legislatively you can deliver that he truly wants.  He won’t take "yes" for an answer.  As soon as you give him what he says he wants — he changes his requirements, moves the goal post.  There was no such thing as a "deal" or a "commitment."  For Mark Sanford, the worst thing is to be seen as actually getting along, compromising, and passing meaningful legislation.  That would – in effect — make him an "insider".  So success for him is in fact, measured in failure — by NOT passing anything, by making sure he is always at odds, always causing bitterness and angst and then casting everyone else as the "bad guy."  The fact that voters apparently approve is a testament to his success and speaks volumes to how far we have to travel. 
    I do, however, take great issue with your take on the SC Policy Council — especially now with Ashley Landess serving as president.  She is smart and savvy and dedicated to responsible, efficient gov’t.  She is currently involved in the bi-partisan ONE Campaign for Africa and was passionately involved in the fight against video poker and the lottery and is now a brilliant appointee on the lottery commission who has made some incredibly wise moves that have held the commission’s feet to the fire and made it keep to the spirit of the Legislature’s original intent regarding limited advertising, etc., etc.  She is a conservative for sure but she is not a Mark Sanford – destroy gov’t libertarian — by any stretch of the imagination.
    And like you, I was devastated when I read of Mark’s most recent shortsighted and completely destructive move to try and abolish the endowed chairs program (it’s so unbelievable reckless for a guy who claims to care about our economy and says he wants us to be competitive I can barely breath when I write this.)  Anyway, my suggestion would be for groups like the SCPC who truly do care about responsible gov’t to work with the private sector to make sure the Gen Assbly uses the endowed chairs funds responsibly so slash-and-burn politicians like Mark Sanford who — as you so eloquently pointed out — care only about the prosperity of his own family — can’t destroy one of the single best examples of sound, forward-thinking fiscal policy we have in our state.

Now let me hasten to add that I’ve received a couple of much longer, more detailed messages defending the governor, and I’m waiting for permission to use those WITH attribution. Soon as I hear back, you’ll see them here.