Category Archives: Mark Sanford

Yesterday’s UNrally

First, I have to say that I didn’t stay for the whole thing. I was going to, but I got an emergency call from my youngest daughter just after 6 — she was on the side of the road on I-26 between the I-20 and St. Andrew’s exits with an overheated engine — so Daddy had to run.

And the “rally” proper had just begun. A 19-year-old kid named Zach (I’d have gotten his full name if I’d stayed) was giving a speech about why Mark Sanford should no longer be governor, and not doing a bad job for his age. He was getting a smattering of applause and cheers from the handful of watchers there (and jeers from one of the two counter-protesters I saw). And I see that Phil Noble spoke later. But I had already spoken with Phil — he came up and tapped me on the shoulder just seconds after I finished shooting the above video. He had expressed his disgust that more people had not shown up, which he attributed to apathy. Citing a poll showing 60 percent of South Carolinians wanted Sanford gone, he indignantly wondered where they all were.

But the fact that I was able to shoot the video at 5:55 of a “rally” that was supposed to have started at 5:30 testifies to there being more wrong with this rally than public apathy. It’s rather telling that in the mercifully brief account in The State today, SC Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler made a point of saying that she didn’t organize this.

Folks, I’ve been to a lot of demonstrations at the State House over the years — from the stunning first “King Day at the Dome” in 2000 with its 60,000 marchers to more modest, yet still-respectable, affairs, such as the recent one in favor of the stimulus (which featured FAR more people demanding Sanford be impeached than showed up for this one) to the “Tea Party” shortly thereafter), and this was the saddest one I’ve actually witnessed.

One of the actual organizers, my Facebook friend Catherine Fleming Bruce (who posted this picture of me from the event; you’ll note that I don’t exactly have a crowd around me), tried hard to get things rolling when she started the rally proper, introducing Zach at about 6. She rattled off an impressive list of folks who had suggested the governor resign, Democrats and Republicans both (prompting the heckler to say “all liberals!” which was almost as pathetic as the rally itself — Glenn McConnell a liberal? please…). But that merely raised the painful question — so where were all those prominent people? Catherine and Phil were the only two on the steps I recognized.

So, try as Catherine and Phil (and Zach) might, this was a bust. By the way, here are my Tweets on the subject yesterday in real time, up to the moment I got the urgent call from my daughter:

As I arrive, late, for the anti-Sanford “rally,” it looks like a pathetic bust…

The neo-nazis had a better-attended (and better-organized) State House rally than this sad little anti-Sanford affair…

There are a couple of stolid Sanford-supporting counter-protester, who must be thinking “Why bother?”…

Catherine Fleming-Bruce is up there trying, but it’s time to face the fact: this rally ain’t happening…

Catherine cites list of leaders of both parties who have called for resignation — but they’re not here…

A 19-year-old kid is addressing the crowd, and making a brave effort. Smattering of applause…

Did I say “crowd?” Sorry… I meant the, um, assemblage…

If you were there after I left, and would like to contradict me — hey, that’s what the comments function is for. Good luck…

Otis to Sanford: It’s not personal; it’s strictly business

12 Replies

You may recall that a while back I chided the head of the state Chamber for not taking a stand against (or for, for that matter) our governor during the stimulus farce (“Otis, tell him what YOU think,” April 30).

Well, Otis Rawl has gotten over his shyness about the gov, of so this item seems to indicate:

State chamber exec: Sanford’s departure now or later could benefit I-85 project

Embattled Gov. Mark Sanford’s woes could be good in the long run for a development off Interstate 85 and State 14 in Greer that legislators have said may include a Bass Pro Shop, according to the president of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.

Sanford opposed special tax breaks for magnet retailers, such as Bass Pro, and “if everybody was playing by the same rules, that’s fine,” state chamber president Otis Rawl said.

But other states offer incentives, he said, adding “If we don’t play the game, we lose jobs.”

“I think that all that’s happening around Sanford and depending what Sanford does will lend itself positively to whether Bass Pro Shop decides to locate here,” Rawl said. “It’s awful hard for a company to look at South Carolina and your governor, who’s supposed to be your biggest cheerleader, not supporting trying to get a company that would create anywhere from 500 to 1,000 jobs in the community.”

A Sanford resignation would put Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer in power, who would be “one of our businesses’ biggest cheerleaders,” Rawl said.

If Sanford does not resign, “It’s got to be a step forward for us to look toward 2010 to have a new governor that focuses on jobs and economic development,” he said.

In other words, whether sooner or later, Otis — like many in positions of business or political leadership — is really looking forward to the day when Mark Sanford is out of office. And it’s nothing personal. It’s strictly business.

Imagine you’re Janet Napolitano, and you’re meeting Mark Sanford…

7 Replies

This morning, like many of you, I read the highly important, yet fairly routine, story about security at the port of Charleston:

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — Project Seahawk, a port security effort developed in South Carolina, is vital to waging the war on terrorism and a model for ports around the nation, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Monday.

Graham, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Gov. Mark Sanford and other leaders had a private briefing on the project during a visit to the Project Seahawk headquarters at the old Charleston Navy Base.

Seahawk, created in 2003 in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, brings together representatives of state, federal and local law enforcement agencies who meet each day in a command center to share and compare information on harbor activity.

But as I read it, all I could think was: Say you’re Janet Napolitano. You’re the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. You’re a serious person, with a serious job, and you’re here for a serious purpose. As you enter the room, visiting dignitary that you are, serious people turn to greet you… and Lindsey Graham introduces you to Mark Sanford.

So… do you have to suppress the urge to crack up? Do you say to yourself, Don’t smile, because then you’ll crack up! But then think, I have to smile, or it will seem unnatural… must make it the right kind of smile… And just when you think you’ve got the situation mastered, suddenly some line from a late-night comic, or something about crying in Argentina, or something else wildly incongruous to the sober subject of Homeland Security pops into your skull, just for a second, and you’re in trouble again…

Is there any way to carry on a normal conversation? And what about that first moment or so of small talk, when the natural thing is to mention something you’ve heard or read about the person you’re meeting, and naturally you think that just last week, this guy was going on and on with the press about his soulmate, going out of his way to cement his reputation as a total flake…

If you’re not a South Carolinian, and have no other context for perceiving this guy, how can you think of anything else upon meeting him? After all, while in South Carolina the headline on this story is, “Graham: Charleston port security project vital,” on CNN’s political ticker, it’s “Graham: Sanford says there’s hope’ for reconciliation with his wife.” Which was actually an element in the S.C. story; but to CNN, that’s all they care about.

Seriously. Follow the links. Previously, he was known nationally at the anti-stimulus guy. Now, he’s far better known (partly because of the same lurid popular culture that gives us obsession over Michael Jackson) as the runaway-to-Argentina guy.

Mind you, my imagining of the scene probably has flaws in it. Since they were both elected governor in the same year, Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Sanford may have already known each other. But still. A solemn, serious moment with this underlying sense of total absurdity.

That’s the way I imagine it, anyway. And if it didn’t happen that way this time, there are going to be plenty of times in which an important visitor keeps thinking, Here I am with the famous runaway governor! He actually runs this state (People from out of state wouldn’t know how insignificant the office of governor actually is here)! How weird the people of South Carolina must be!

Karen Floyd thinks it’s over. The party censures him and it’s over. Fat chance. As several people no doubt pointed out during that four-hour conference call, every minute that this guy is still governor, still going through the motions representing our state to the world, is a gold-plated gift to the Democrats in next year’s election.

No wonder the GOP executive committee was so divided:

Twenty-two committee members voted for a reprimand, 10 called for his resignation, while nine voted to support the governor.

That settles it: Miss SC says Sanford should stay

14 Replies

I posted this on Twitter this morning, but I didn’t want y’all to be left out of the loop. The Spartanburg paper reports that the newly-crowned Miss South Carolina says our governor should stay, even though she was “a little shocked” by his recent confessions:

Newly crowned Miss South Carolina Kelly Sloan said in an interview Sunday that the embattled governor of the state she’s now the public face of should be allowed to finish his second and final term…

“People make mistakes,” Sloan said. “I was a little shocked, to tell you the truth. But as a governor, he’s done his job. I do not think he should resign. He’s asked for forgiveness, and I think forgiveness is something we should all have for one another.”

One wonders what she means by “He’s done his job,” but hey, who’s quibbling? Could I win a beauty contest? I don’t think so. Then I should ne’er presume to second-guess her. As Theodoric of York would say, “Who’s the barber here?”

No word yet on what Her Majesty thinks about the abdication of former beauty queen Sarah Palin, or the all-important, burning issue of Michael Jackson still being dead.

Speaking of which, did you see that TV networks plan to anchor the news from his memorial service? In a world in which priorities are that far out of whack, I suppose it’s not out of line at all to ask a beauty queen about who should govern us…

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

12 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Davis trying to make a tough call

17 Replies

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

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

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

Statement by Tom Davis re: Governor Mark Sanford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn McConnell joins in

6 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

Just look down at your shoes and walk away, gov

13 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanford’s bizarre new admissions embolden critics

17 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Sanford is neither.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey S. Peeler
Majority Leader, South Carolina Senate

Hugh K. Leatherman
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee

Paul Campbell, Jr.
Senator, Berkeley County

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

Larry A. Martin
Chairman, Senate Rules Committee

William H. O’Dell
Senator, Abbeville County

###

Mullins hasn’t gotten a hit yet

13 Replies

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

June 30, 2009
News Release – For Immediate Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 Replies

A story in The State this morning touched on this, and yesterday I was debating with Cindi Scoppe about it. Count Cindi among those who don’t want Mark Sanford to resign because becoming governor now would give Andre Bauer a leg up on being elected governor in 2010.

Just for the sake of argument, count me among those who believe the opposite: That becoming governor now would put Andre under public scrutiny far more intense than he would experience as just one candidate among several for a few months next year.

You have to understand — the lieutenant governor of South Carolina is about as close to a non-entity as you get for a statewide elected official. That’s no reflection on Andre; it’s an observation about the job. It’s supposed to be part-time. Andre’s friends in the Senate gave him that Office on Aging gig just to make it look like he’s doing something.

There simply is no reason for the press or anyone else to pay much attention to the Gov Lite — which drove Nick Theodore nuts back in the day, because he craved attention so.

If Andre were suddenly elevated to governor, particularly after this one collapsed so spectacularly under the weight of scandal, the spotlight on him would be as intense as the noonday sun. And while I think he’s matured a good bit in recent years, and learned to present himself far more capably than in the early days — the impression he made on us at his endorsement interview in 2006 was as different from my previous encounters with him as the night is from the day — I just don’t think he’d hold up well under such examination.

In the past, Andre had to do something pretty spectacular for people to pay any attention to him. And he was irresponsible enough to oblige. To repeat a laundry list I posted in 2006:

Wednesday, 07 June 2006

What would YOU ask Andre?

Andre Bauer is coming in for his interview at 4. I’m reviewing a few questions for him between now and then. I’m curious: What would you ask a lieutenant governor who:

When stopped speeding down Assembly Street, charged so aggressively at the cop that he felt threatened enough to draw his weapon?

When driving 101 mph on a wet highway, got on the police radio frequency to tell the patrolman pursuing him that “SC2” was “passing through,” and when he was stopped anyway, asked, “Did you not hear me on the radio?”

Lying to reporters about that incident, then saying you “forgot” about it when confronted with the evidence?

Showed up to negotiate with the Department of Transportation a price for land he owned — with a member of the transportation commission in tow?

Has his own Myspace site?

Seems almost certain to win the GOP nomination again?

But once he was governor, right away, all that stuff in his history would be re-examined, and a lot more import would be given to such shenanigans.

And every misstep going forward would be played and replayed with the same sort of focus as every stumble of poor old Gerald Ford.

By the time the 2010 campaign got into full swing, the other candidates would have an advantage just by virtue of not being Andre Bauer.

That’s what I think, anyway. What do you think?

On the cover of the NY Post

53 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This whole thing has just felt so weird.

Sanford in Sullivan’s Island

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

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

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

The governor’s press conference

94 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, my browser is working again!…

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

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

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

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

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

By GINA SMITH – gnsmith@thestate.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the best parties can do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which it is not.

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

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

Jake on the missing governor

From my files -- Jake Knotts at his endorsement interview in '08.

Tonight I dropped by a Lexington County GOP confab at Hudson’s BBQ (last time I was there, it was to see Mike Huckabee when he still had a shot at the presidential nomination), and pretty much every member of the county delegation was there except for the two Nikkis (Haley and Setzler).

It was very hot — SO hot that even a seersucker suit was too much, so I went out and left my coat and tie in the car. Then, when it was all over, and the lawmakers had answered constituents’ questions about legislation and such, I went up and asked Jake Knotts about our missing governor.

I asked Jake because, near as I could tell from the reporting at thestate.com, he was the one who raised the hue and cry about the governor running off to who knows where in a SLED car last Thursday — leaving his security detail behind.

The senator said “when he didn’t show up the next day or the day after that, I called Chief Lloyd” at SLED. He said he raised to Reggie Lloyd the idea that it seemed improper for Jake — a former cop — to be driving around in a cop car equipped with blue lights when “he’s not a sworn officer.”

The senator also kept returning to the point that the governor was gone “on a Father’s Day weekend, and his wife says she didn’t know where he was.”

Further, Jake believes the governor was remiss in his constitutional responsibility by not notifying the lieutenant governor of his absence. And unlike the folks in the lt. gov’s office, the senator is completely unsatisfied by the governor’s chief of staff, who is not an elected official, saying he knows where the governor is.

Jake says he and the governor have had their differences — which may count as his understatement of the evening — but the gov had never done anything to concern him to this extent. “I’m really serious about his mental state,” he said, adding that he knew that the governor had had a rough time — with the stimulus battle, with seven years in office “with little to show,” with having gone 0 for 10 on his recent vetoes — and if he “wants to go on a sabbatical, I have no problem with that,” if “he turns the helm over to the lieutenant governor.”

Just FYI, folks, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, unlike the governor, is a political ally of Sen. Knotts. He kept praising Andre for not bucking his security (security which the governor believes the lt. gov. shouldn’t have, but that’s another battle he keeps losing). I said something about how I certainly feel better knowing someone other than Andre is driving. That wasn’t exactly the point Jake was trying to make, but he didn’t argue with me about it.

Jake made the point a couple of times that, if only for sake of emergency preparedness and Homeland Security issues, someone official should know where the governor is, which is one reason for him to have SLED agents with him. “The people of South Carolina’s security shouldn’t be jeopardized because the governor doesn’t want security.”

When I asked Jake to give me his updated contact numbers in case I needed to reach him later, he gave me four of them, adding, “And I guarantee you my wife knows where I’m at.”

Summing up the situation, Sen. Knotts said of the missing governor, “He’s suffering from the same thing he suffered from with the Senate — lack of communication.”

The senator added some remarks about how he’d like to see the governor turn things around and be more successful with lawmakers in his last years in office, but expressed doubt that will happen: “He’s done built that fence too high now.”

Anyway, for what it’s worth, that’s what the guy who was apparently the first official to ask, “Where’s the governor?” had to say about it tonight…

The governor vanishes

Having been busy today polishing my new material (fortunately, my thumbnail had already been polished for me), I just now picked up on the thing that has S.C. blogs buzzing today.

So no, this one was NOT a scoop for me.

So I refer you to the piece at thestate.com written by John O’Connor and Clif LeBlanc:

The whereabouts of Gov. Mark Sanford have been unknown to state officials since Thursday, and some state leaders are questioning who is in charge of the executive office.

Neither the governor’s office nor the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for governors, has been able to reach Sanford after he left the mansion in a black SLED Suburban SUV, said Sen. Jake Knotts and three others familiar with the situation but who declined to be identified.

Sanford’s last known whereabouts were near Atlanta, where a mobile telephone tower picked up a signal from his phone, authorities said.

First lady Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press today her husband has been gone for several days and she doesn’t know where he is.

The governor’s personal and state phones have been turned off and he has not responded to phone and text message since Thursday, a source said.

Jenny Sanford said she was not concerned….

I don’t even know what to add to that…

If GOP serious about Sanford, Palin, Obama 2nd term a lock

If GOP seriously considers Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin, as we so often see blithely asserted as though it well might, then Obama has a rock-solid lock on a second term, maybe a third.

A third? Hey, the constitution can always be amended again, if the threat to the nation is sufficient…

Nothing, but nothing you can set forth as examples of how feckless the GOP is these days comes even close to the bizarre fact that those two are mentioned, without a hint of irony, as contenders. It was crazy enough, bordering on obscene, when people spoke of Sanford for the 2nd spot last year. But this…

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits