Category Archives: Mark Sanford

Sanford’s endorsement of Nikki

Somehow I had missed this.

I got a tweet from Nikki Haley today, and it linked to her Web site, which I was finally able to call up (I could never get if before, for some reason). Anyway, I saw that she had posted something on May 15 quoting Mark Sanford as follows:

Nikki Haley is a true conservative and one of our state’s leading voices for fiscal responsibility and government reform. It’s too early to endorse anyone, but I would say Nikki Haley would make a terrific and inspiring choice as governor, and she’s a great addition to the field of candidates.

In other words, It’s too early to endorse anyone… but he just did.

Or did I miss it, and he’s made similar statements gushing about Gresham Barrett or Henry McMaster or whomever?

And there’s no mistaking the fact that Mark Sanford did indeed say that. It’s got his odd, signature “I would say…” verbal tick and everything. (About the fifth time he says that in a speech, I always want to say, Well then why don’t you go ahead and SAY it!?!?)

Anyway, as y’all know, I like Nikki. And as you also know, I think the last thing the state of South Carolina needs in 2010 is an official Mark Sanford wannabe candidate (what this election needs to be about, more than anything else, is moving beyond the dead loss of the Sanford years).

But it looks like we’ve got us one.

Leave your comments on the ruling HERE

Sorry I’ve been out of pocket today — very busy, lots of meetings.

Ironically, late this afternoon I was in one with Chris Myers, and remarked to her that I was eager to see what her sister (Jean Toal) and company came up with. Neither of us knew that the ruling had been out for more than an hour at that point.

Anyway, all I had time for when I heard was a little bit of “I told ya” boasting on Twitter:

Unanimous, of course: 5-0, as I predicted. Since the outcome was so inevitable, the only thing to prognosticate about was the point spread.

And I don’t have time for much more now, even. But don’t let that stop YOU. Leave your comments about the stimulus drama right here…

First news haiku: “Judge Joe sent it back”

Here at bradwarthen.com — always first with the burst in verse — we’re (note use of royal “we;” I got it from the governor) unveiling a new communication format today: the news haiku.

Twittering got me to thinking haiku, and therefore this was inevitable. I see it as a way to one-up the competition. Although I beat WIS with the news that Judge Joe Anderson had sent the stimulus lawsuits back to state court, I lost out slightly to thestate at Twitter. I thought, But I’ll bet they don’t have it in verse. And I was right.

So here’s my first breaking news haiku:

Mark sued to get feds
to override our state’s rights.
Judge Joe sent it back.

Yes, I know there are weaknesses in it from a literary standpoint — for instance, the “it” in the last line lacks a clear antecedent. For instance, it doesn’t work as a reference to “rights,” but rather to the issue itself. But I liked it better than “them.” And hey, cut me a break. I wrote this on Twitter while driving my truck through Shandon (I pulled over to type it, but didn’t turn off the truck). Therefore this opus should be judged by a different standard from the timeless masterpieces of haiku. It’s a whole new form.

In the future, someone will write an English thesis about this new form, which experts will variously call “Twitter haiku,” or “Twitter-ku,” or simply “news haiku,” which I prefer. That moment in my truck will be examined with the same care as that moment when the rude guy from Porlock interrupted Coleridge. Just watch…

If this is well received, I might start doing it daily. And if it’s not, I might do it anyway. Art will not be repressed!

Nothing to say, but it’s OK

Folks on Twitter and elsewhere are going on about various filings in the stimulus lawsuits, and posting serious info, such as this on Facebook from Jim Rex:

Rex agrees that governor should adhere to state budget that employs federal funds
Today at 2:12pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 26, 2009

COLUMBIA – State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex today agreed with the key points in a lawsuit that seeks to compel Governor Mark Sanford to accept federal stimulus funds aimed at helping schools and law enforcement agencies hit with massive budget cuts.

The South Carolina Association of School Administrators filed the suit Friday after Sanford said he would refuse to obey the General Assembly’s state budget, which requires him to accept $350 million in federal stabilization funds. Although SCASA listed both Sanford and Rex as defendants, the association said Rex’s inclusion was a legal technicality because the state budget’s language tells him to work with the governor in applying for the federal funds.

In his response filed today, Rex agreed with SCASA that the General Assembly’s budget for next year is a valid law that the governor is required to follow. Rex also said that his agency had completed the official application for the federal funds and that he had signed and delivered it to the governor for his signature.

In an optional filing, Rex also petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court to accept the SCASA lawsuit under its “original jurisdiction,”
meaning that it should bypass lower courts and go directly to the state’s highest court for a decision.

“It’s important that we have a quick ruling because July 1 is the deadline for South Carolina to apply for the stabilization dollars,” Rex said. “South Carolina taxpayers are going to have to pay back this $350 million regardless, so it should be spent here in South Carolina.”

Two additional lawsuits were filed late last week over the federal stabilization dollars. In the first, filed last Wednesday, Sanford asked a federal court to invalidate the General Assembly’s budget because, in requiring that he accept the funds, legislators had usurped his authority. A second lawsuit, filed in state court Friday by a Chapin High School senior and a University of South Carolina law student, seeks to require Sanford to accept the funds. Rex was not listed as a defendant in either of those actions.

Today is the deadline set by the General Assembly for Sanford to apply for the federal stabilization funds, but the governor has indicated that he will refuse because he believes the budget law is unconstitutional.

That release is probably courtesy of my friend Jim Foster, last heard saying “Woo-hoo” in response to the stimulus veto override. (That was it, just “Woo-hoo,” unless the paper got it wrong. Interestingly, the link to that quote no longer exists.)

But I just don’t have anything to say about all the legal back-and-forth. I’ve said so much about the whole stimulus issue, that there’s nothing new to say. Good thing I’m not a lawyer being paid to file briefs in the case, because I’d just say, “The governor has no clothes,” and there go my billable hours.

So while everyone else is eagerly perusing the legal documents, I’m like…

A Mrs. Sotomayor was my teacher in the 5th grade in Ecuador. I had a crush on her. Probably not the same one.

… over on Twitter. Perhaps I lack seriousness. But really, I’ve just reached my saturation point on all these ridiculous gyrations our governor is forcing us all to go through. I’ve got nothing to say, but it’s OK. Tweet me when it’s over.

Running out the clock

One more thing to share about the stimulus issue today…

This morning, I ran into Hugh Leatherman, and he pointed out something I had not thought of: I had assumed, like many others, that the reason Mark Sanford went to federal court instead of state court is that he was pretty sure a state court would rule against him.

Sen. Leatherman proposed another motive: He said that filing in federal court automatically gives the governor 30 days before anything can happen, thereby running out the clock on the Legislature’s requirement that he draw down the stimulus money within 5 days. I said, “Doesn’t he have to get an injunction or something from the court to get that delay?” The Senate Finance Chairman said no, that it was automatic.

Huh. Is that right? Maybe some of our lawyer friends can weigh in here…

What do you mean, “we,” white man?

Did you notice that as he got to be more and more alone on the stimulus issue, Mark Sanford resorted more and more to the royal “we” in referring to himself? An example from earlier this week:

“We know a suit will be filed against us on this issue, and as such we’ve filed a suit tonight in response,” Sanford said in a prepared statement. “We believe the Legislature’s end-around move won’t pass constitutional muster.”

Note that this odd locution was in a prepared statement, so it’s not like he just misspoke. I’ve noticed the governor doing this before, but he seems to have stepped it up this week.

The ultimate was this jarring construction in a quote from yesterday:

“This is about the larger question of why have a governor if their hands are constantly tied?”

Note the innovation here — even though he’s speaking of himself in the third person, he shifts from A governor to THEIR hands without pausing for breath. This takes the art of self-pluralization to a whole new level.

Our governor are remarkable that way.

Sanford, McConnell agree on one thing: It’s about power

When I read the lead story in today’s paper, I was struck by the headline, “Sanford: Stimulus suit about power, not money.”

What struck me was that that was exactly what Glenn McConnell said about the dispute, that it was all about power.

Usually, when McConnell and Sanford square off on gubernatorial power, I’m on the governor’s side. I’m speaking of his efforts to gain for the chief executive the actual executive powers that the other 49 governors in the nation wield, so that the governor’s office has a chance to be both effective and accountable. McConnell has been a champion of those resisting that since at least the Campbell administration. And of all those who resist it, he probably has the clearest notion why: He is jealous of senatorial power.

But the governor’s arguments in this case are patently ridiculous. Even if we got everything that he and I want in the way of restructuring, the legislature would still be (and should be) the entity that appropriates money, and it would still have the power to override gubernatorial vetoes with a two-thirds majority.

The line-item veto is one area where the governor has all the power he needs (more than the president of the U.S., for instance). And to have his way, all he has to do is make a sufficiently reasonable argument that a third of lawmakers go along with him. That’s really not an onerous provision for the governor — unless he’s Mark Sanford, and he has thrown away every opportunity he might have had to get as many as a third of lawmakers to listen to him.

McConnell gets way harsh on the gov

Thought you might be interested in this release from Glenn McConnell. Several points I’ll make about it:

First, I don’t often see dramatic political statements from McConnell. He’s generally not one for public posturing in this particular way.
What you see here is a particularly articulate expression of the extreme frustration that lawmakers have experienced with this governor. Sen. McConnell is fully fed up, and expresses why in no uncertain terms.
McConnell is one of the most ardent libertarians in the General Assembly. It’s one thing for Bobby Harrell or Hugh Leatherman to be fed up with our anti-government governor, but a libertarian really has to try to turn the Senate President Pro Tempore against him to this extent.
That said, Sen. McConnell is a passionate defender of legislative prerogatives and state’s rights, which makes the statement a little less remarkable. But only a little.

Anyway, here’s the statement:

SC Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell Responds to Governor’s Lawsuit

McConnell: “Governor asks federal judge to usurp states’ rights in quest for more power”

Columbia, SC – May 21, 2009 – South Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell today issued the following statement in response to Governor Mark Sanford’s lawsuit:

“Governor Sanford says this court case is about the “balance of power.” The truth is that this case is about his power. The Governor wants more of it, and he’s willing to trample over states’ rights to get it. He has run to the federal courts asking them to reinterpret our state Constitution so as to give him powers not granted to him by the people of South Carolina. While we have debated the 10^th Amendment, little did we know the Governor was conspiring to ride over it in the federal courts.

For seven years Governor Mark Sanford has worked tirelessly to increase his power and the scope of South Carolina’s executive branch of government. While working to centralize power under one individual, the Governor has continuously attacked the General Assembly for what he describes as liberal tendencies. Never before have I witnessed such hypocrisy as I did today when Governor Sanford asked a federal judge to usurp South Carolina’s rights.

Whether the stimulus money should have been appropriated by the United State Congress was a federal matter. But the question of separation of powers involves the duties of the executive and legislative branches of government as prescribed by the South Carolina Constitution. As such, the rightful arbiter is the South Carolina Supreme Court. Either he is fearful of a South Carolina court ruling or he is playing to a national audience.

I disagree with Congress’ stimulus plan, but I know that it’s fiscally irresponsible to let South Carolina tax dollars go to other states while we struggle to fund education and public safety at appropriate levels. We have received clarification from the United States Department of Education that if we do not formally apply for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program by July 1st, our stimulus funds will be allocated to other states. Governor Sanford’s move may ensure that our tax dollars will be caught up in legal proceedings for what could be up to two years. He may have finally found a way to send our tax dollars to New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Governor Sanford’s lawsuit is an irresponsible move that tramples on the South Carolina Constitution and the future prosperity of our taxpayers.

South Carolinians need to know that Governor Sanford has already politically left this state, sometimes physically, but always mentally. This is just another press stunt to put him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and in front of Fox News cameras. Governor Sanford’s presidential aspirations and hunger for power are so strong that he is willing to put South Carolina’s future at risk. This lawsuit is a gift that keeps on giving – giving the Governor out-of-state headlines and giving South Carolinians uncertainty and discord.

As the elected voice of South Carolina’s taxpayers, the General Assembly has stated that Governor Sanford should now take all stimulus funds available for appropriation. Sadly, I believe that the end result of this lawsuit may be that on July 1, the people of South Carolina will be left with nothing but the bill. “

###

** This press release is sent on behalf of South Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell

See what I mean?

Why the good falls with the bad

Cindi Scoppe’s column today about Mark Sanford’s “good vetoes” makes an excellent point. Many of his vetoes as governor have truly been about good and smart government, and have tried to undo some of the General Assembly’s more objectionable excesses.

Unfortunately, the governor has generated so much bad blood between himself and lawmakers — and damaged his credibility outside the State House with such wrongheaded moves as trying to block the stimulus — that he’s made it much, much easier for lawmakers to brush him off, even when he’s right.

Some who still defend the governor believe this is not his fault, that it’s all the fault of those wicked, wasteful lawmakers. And indeed, legislators give such critics ammunition when they reject even the governor’s demonstrably good ideas.

But the sad truth is — and it IS a sad truth to someone who initially was a Sanford supporter, as I was — that he has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure his own ineffectiveness in dealing with the Legislature across the board. However wasteful or foolish you may think lawmakers as a group are (and Lord knows they give plenty of opportunities for you to draw that conclusion), the fact is that the Republican leaders would love to have worked with a governor of their own party to achieve his agenda, even when it wasn’t theirs. It’s in their nature, whatever their flaws.

Cindi does a pretty decent job of explaining how that happened, although you had to be there watching closely to fully get the degree to which he has spoiled his opportunities:

Unfortunately, the Legislature dealt with his 2004 vetoes in a most irresponsible way (overriding 105 of 106 of them in 90 minutes, before most legislators even had a chance to hear his arguments), which prompted his even more-irresponsible response (carrying two squealing, defecating piglets into the State House in a made-for-TV protest), which made legislators even more angry, which made the governor even more provocative, which made legislators even more determined to ignore him, which made him even less concerned about making nice — or acting responsibly — which prompted legislators to not just ignore him but punish him, which ….

You get the point. And all of that was before he united just about the entire Legislature — Republican and Democrat and, more significantly, House and Senate — in seething opposition to his campaign to reject federal stimulus funding unless it is used to not stimulate the economy.

And let me tell you, it’s one thing to unite Democrat and Republican. Uniting the House and the Senate against you takes real talent for p0litical self-destruction, bordering on genius.

The result is that the governor’s good ideas get swept away with the bad, and that truly is a shame.

“Good tired”

This evening, I dropped by another one of those events like this one. It was a fund-raiser for Anton Gunn over at the Inn at USC.

Anyway, I did the usual thing of chatting with several folks (Bud and Julia Ferillo, Trip King, Ann Timberlake) and then ducking out. But as I was leaving something hit me. I saw Bud walking out ahead of me and I called to him and said, “Uh… did you see Anton in there?” No, he hadn’t. But he said that was because the House was still in session. This was coming up on 6:30 p.m.

I thought about that for a second and observed to Bud that overriding all those Mark Sanford vetoes can be tiring work. Bud said he supposed so, but he bet it was “a good tired.”

Indeed. If lawmakers get that done, and get us the stimulus money and so forth, it will be a good day’s work.

Does Sanford really want us to be counted?

Had a number of thoughts when I read this story this morning, which among other things said:

Gov. Mark Sanford urged state residents opposed to using federal aid in the state budget to call lawmakers as they work out a final budget compromise this week.

The $5.7 billion draft budget, Sanford said, puts off needed cuts and reforms by tapping $350 million in federal stimulus money. Sanford has said he will not accept the stimulus money unless lawmakers pay off an equal amount of state debt.

“This is the time to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money,” Sanford said. “We’re going to paper over all of those changes that might be made and simply spend the money.”

Here are my questions:

Does the governor actually think that if the people of South Carolina stood up and were counted on this issue, more of them would agree with him on the stimulus? (From everything I’ve heard, that seems extremely doubtful.)
Is he making a cynical calculation that — in keeping with the human-nature phenomenon that only people who are against something bother to call (something I have experienced in the news biz, my favorite extreme example being all those letters we got against the U.S. taking military action in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, a view which you knew wasn’t representative of South Carolina, yet which dominated among the letters we received for a time)?
Does he or his allies at SCRG or ReformSC have an organized calling campaign ready, designed to look like a “spontaneous” response to his call to the public?
Will the far greater number of South Carolinians who oppose the governor on the stimulus make an effort to be heard by lawmakers, or since they’re satisfied the General Assembly is on their side, will they decide not to bother them?
Whether they hear more from the governor’s side or the other, would lawmakers be swayed by lots of calls and e-mails?
Should they be swayed by such input, given that they’ve had months to think about this and should have made up their minds by now?
What do you think about “call your legislator” campaigns in general?
Which is tackier? The governor asking citizens to drive lawmakers nuts at the State House while they’re trying to finish the budget, or pro-stimulus lawmakers urging folks last month to call the governor at the mansion?
And finally, are these examples of excessive spending he cites the best he can do? $500,000 for State House security (which is really a spitting match over who will control security, Sanford or McConnell)? $750,000 for hydrogen research (note that S.C. investment in such research resulted in a $12.5 million grant just two weeks ago)? A million for football traffic control? Where’s the $350 million he says we don’t need?

Here are my answers, to which I invite you to add your own:

Possibly. One gets the impression that his personal feedback loop is fairly limited. He’s not the most social guy, and he seems to have a selective memory for those who tell him “attaboy.”
I don’t think so. I think he actually believes there’s a “silent majority” that agrees with him. At least, he seems to believe, most of the people who matter agree with him. (If a “silent majority” does call lawmakers, does that mean it should be called something else? Of course, the convenient thing for Sanford is that when it doesn’t call, he can explain it away by saying, “That’s because it’s silent.”)
Maybe, but frankly (and yeah I know that this is inconsistent with my answer on “2,” but who cares?), I don’t think he’s thought that far. The more I think about it, the more I suspect he’s thinking that he’s won the day merely by asserting that if the people of S.C. “stand up to be counted,” they will agree with him. He’s struck this pose so many times that he mistakes the rhetoric for reality. Let me explain: By saying the people of SC agree with him, he believes that makes it so, and is satisfied. (And who’s to say him nay, in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Even if nobody calls legislators, nothing is proved either way.) And then, when lawmakers ignore him, he claims they were ignoring the people of SC, when in reality they were only ignoring him. You know, because those lawmakers are so wicked and all. And thus the world according to Mark Sanford stays intact, with none of his assumptions challenged. Actually, the more I think about this theory, the more I think it is, in the immortal words of Marisa Tomei, “dead-on balls accurate.” And if I’m wrong, nobody can prove I’m wrong — hey! So this is what it’s like to be Mark Sanford! Yeah — I’m right because I’m right, and no actual facts in the world can persuade me otherwise. This could get to be a habit.
Almost certainly not. Why call and bug your lawmaker if he’s doing what you want?
Yes. Particularly if they’re hearing from people they know, back in their districts. Otherwise, probably not.
No, and you can tell which way I was leaning by the way I worded that one. This will offend “small-d” democrats, but I’m a “small-r” republican. I believe in representative democracy. We elect people to go study issues and take time arriving at conclusions through a deliberative process. And however messy or slapdash that process is in reality, a representative should NOT throw away his conclusions based on a few phone calls (which are, 99 percent of the time, orchestrated), either way.
On this point, I’m ambivalent. Yeah, when I was with the newspaper we used to do empowering things like tell people how to contact their lawmakers and even, occasionally, urging them to do so. And I think getting public input should be part of the decision-making process. But only part. Once again, it is the duty of an elected representative to study and issue and become more knowledgeable about it than he would be if he were back in his district busy earning a living doing something else. Elected representatives, in a republic, are delegated to spend more time on an issue than the average voter can devote to it, and thereby make a better decision than they would have from the gut. Yep, the system’s far, extremely far, from perfect. But I believe more bad decisions result from lawmakers voting from the gut than from deliberation.
Asking people to call the gov at the mansion is tackier, no question — even though the house does belong to us.
Apparently, that is the best he can do, which is pathetic. But then, he never really has had a case on this.

On that last point — the governor does this all the time. The thing is, he is very often right about the things he criticizes the General Assembly for. The “Competitive Grants” program is a wasteful boondoggle. The thing is, it’s such a tiny fraction of the state budget. And he uses such minor figures as his entire argument that government spending is billions out of control, which is ridiculous. Of course, you know that what he really wants is to stop the state from spending on public education and other substantial things. But that doesn’t sound so good, unless your audience is Howard Rich. So he cites a penny’s worth of pork and extrapolates a fortune wasted, which fools some of the people, but my no means all.

But you know what I’m noticing now? Government has been cut SO much that the governor even has trouble coming up with convincing anecdotal evidence. Instead of something clearly wasteful (or at least, that sounds clearly wasteful) for the state to be spending on, like a Green Bean Museum, he’s reduced to citing things that can easily be characterized as petty and self-concerned. Rather than arguing that the state shouldn’t have airplanes, he complains about control of those planes shifting from his Commerce Department to Budget and Control. Or McConnell taking State House security from the agency that Sanford semi-controls.

You know me — I think the governor should control all of the executive branch. But I also know that this would not in and of itself save large amounts of money. I favor it because I want government to be more effective and accountable. To argue that, because a minor function is being taken away from him, it proves that SC doesn’t need the $700 million in stimulus, just doesn’t follow any kind of logic.

Making change happen in Columbia

If you’ve tried to make change happen in Columbia, or anywhere else in our beloved state, you’ve likely been frustrated. And by “change” I mean any kind of change. Whether you’re Gov. Mark Sanford pushing restructuring of state government (the cause he and I share) or Michael Rodgers trying to get the Confederate flag down (ditto), you can feel like you’re butting your head against a wall.

Blame a system that was set up to resist change. The landed gentry who ran this state from the start set up institutions and fostered a political culture that was probably more resistant to change than any in the U.S. You can blame John Locke, in part. He helped Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper draft the original rules under which the colony would be run, and we have vestiges of that hyper-conservative (in the original sense of resisting change) system he helped devise to this day.

But that’s probably deeper than you want to get into it. The point is, change comes hard in these parts.

So I read with interest Adam Beam’s story today about how one group has managed to get a number of things done recently in the city of Columbia. You’ll note that our own Kathryn Fenner — regular contributor to this blog — and the Rev. Wiley Cooper were mentioned prominently.

Kathryn tells me that there’s one person who was NOT mentioned, though, and should have been. She said she credits “top city staffer Marc Mylott’s excellent quarterbacking for much of our success, as well as the support he received from his boss, Steve Gantt.” She described Mr. Mylott as “the Zoning Administrator, and the head of the development services department. He’s the city staff person designated to lead the task force –Wiley was the civilian head, and Marc did and does all the admin work and heavy lifting–coordinated with all the city departments — pulled together all their issues with the Code, etc.”

So, credit where it’s due. I thought that, as long as I was giving out plaudits for good work in Cayce, some folks who’ve been doing a good job at Columbia City Hall should get get some praise, too. People who deserve an attaboy don’t get one often enough.

Don’t do it, Nikki!

Someone just brought this to my attention:

In the latest bombshell to drop in the 2010 race for the GOP nomination for governor, Rep. Nikki Haley is running, according to multiple sources close to WR.

Haley, who would be the “Sanford candidate” that S.C. political observers have been waiting for, has allegedly been telling friends that she is running and is starting to build a campaign staff. Earlier, it was rumored that she might have been a possible candidate for state treasurer.

As of right now, it is unknown who she is going to, to run her campaign. She is also in a bit of a hole, with U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster both sporting about $1 million in their respective war chests. As of her last disclosure report, Haley has only a little over $36,000 in the bank.

Candidates are already lining up to run for her House seat, including 2008 Senate candidate Katrina Shealy.

… and something just fell into place for me. I ran into Nikki at Starbucks a couple of weeks ago, and she introduced me to “Caroline” from her campaign. (At least, I think it was “Caroline.” Very young, even standing next to Nikki. That MIGHT be her in the background of the photo at this link.)

To which I responded, “Campaign? Already?” To which Nikki laughed a sort of “you know how it is” laugh. And I went away accepting that even for S.C. House members, the race has become this perpetual.

But maybe that wasn’t it at all, huh? Maybe Nikki was planning a big move.

I hope not. I like her as a House member, even if she does vote with the governor. I like that she actually tried to reform payday lending, for instance.

But if she ran as the “Sanford candidate,” that would just be too awful. I don’t want a nice person like Nikki to run as the “Sanford candidate.” I don’t want ANYBODY to run as the “Sanford candidate.” The very idea of there being even the slightest possibility of a continuation of these eight wasted years is appalling.

The whole point of the 2010 election is that we finally have the opportunity to get a governor who believes in governing. It’s the whole point, people. It’s why I started writing columns about the candidates as soon as they started emerging, much earlier than I normally would. We’ve got to get this one right.

Just keep repeating, folks: “We won’t get fooled again.”

Otis, tell him what YOU think

A few moments ago, I got this release from the state Chamber:

As the unified voice of business, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce serves as your advocate at the State House and with regulatory agencies in the state. Currently, one of the biggest issues is if, and how, the state will use the $8 billion allocated to South Carolina in the federal stimulus bill. Governor Mark Sanford is opposed to accepting a more than $700 million portion of the money unless it is used to pay down state debt.

This week, South Carolina Chamber President and CEO Otis Rawl sat down with Governor Sanford for a one-on-one interview. During that interview, the governor shared his thoughts on why he believes the stimulus money is bad for business. The governor also discussed his position on government restructuring, why he’d veto the cigarette tax in its current form and what he thinks it will take for South Carolina to recover from the recession. Click here to watch the interview.

And I went and watched the part of the interview dealing with the stimulus (above). But you know what I was thinking? I was thinking, I know what the governor thinks about this. I’ve been told ad nauseam and beyond what the governor thinks about this, and it didn’t make any more sense this time than the other times I’ve heard it. What I would like to know is what the head of the state Chamber thinks about it, and I’d like to hear him tell it to the governor. That’s what I want my “advocate at the State House” to do.

Unless, of course, he thinks what the governor thinks, in which case never mind; I’ve heard it. (But from what I’ve heard, Otis does NOT agree with the gov.)

Anyway, that’s what I was thinking. But that’s me.

WSJ slaps DeMint

This morning, The Wall Street Journal set out to say disparaging things about Arlen Specter in this editorial, but at the end turned and gave a slap to Jim DeMint (and, by implication, other impractical ideologues such as the Journal‘s own darling, Mark Sanford):

On the other hand, Republicans shouldn’t follow South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and welcome Mr. Specter’s defection as an ideological cleansing. “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs,” Mr. DeMint said yesterday.

We believe in all of those things, but 30 Senate votes merely gets you the same fate as the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, without the glory. A minority party that wants to become a majority needs convictions, but it also needs coalition builders.

It’s the old debate I’ve written about a number of times before, regarding Sanford and in other contexts: Should one strive to be right, or to be effective? For my part, I’ve always tried to dodge the question and insist one can be both. But Mark Sanford unhesitatingly chooses being “right,” by his lights, and doesn’t give a fig for being effective.

One big difference between the Journal and me, of course — aside from their admiring Sanford for all the wrong reasons — is that they actually CARE whether the Republicans hold power or not. For me, the only thing wrong with the GOP drying up and blowing away is that the Democratic Party shows no signs of doing the same.

But they are right about Sen. DeMint — he has become the zampolit of the Senate — it’s all about ideological purity for him. Maybe because that’s all he’s got left; I don’t know.

Sanford wept

Not for the people of South Carolina in general, just for those who agree with him — or one who agreed with him, according to Newsweek:

But even true believers have bad days, and at this particularly stressful hour, it doesn’t take much to set Sanford off. In the halls of the State House, legislators accuse the governor of selling out the poorest South Carolinians to feed his own ambition; outside, his approval ratings have fallen to 40 percent. Asked how this makes him feel, Sanford pauses, then admits to experiencing the “occasional lonely moment.” But he still believes, he quickly adds, that there’s a “silent majority” of voters who support his stimulus stance; it’s just that they’re “too busy to make their voices heard.” Take the Democratic trial lawyer he “completely convinced” in Mt. Pleasant yesterday, or the “70 or so” people who “showed up last week to be counterprotesters to the protesters.” What about them? And what about the “black gentleman” this morning? “I was walking out of a local TV studio, and there he was,” says Sanford. “He’s a security guy for the building, one of these rent-a-cop kind of guys, older guy. And he walks over, and he grabs my arm, and he says, ‘You do what you think is right’.” Suddenly, Sanford stops. His eyes are red and wet. He lets out a quick, pained laugh, then looks up at the ceiling. “I’m gonna lose it here,” he says finally, turning toward his press secretary. “Got to get my head back in the game.” A single tear is running down his right cheek.

So now we know who Sanford’s “silent majority” is. It’s a “black gentleman” who works as “a security guy.” Who knew? Apparently, not even the governor, since the revelation seemed to make him all verklempt.

Speaking of Mike Myers sketches, remember the tagline for “Wayne’s World?” It went, “You’ll laugh. You’ll cry. You’ll hurl.”

I’m gonna lose it here… quick, a wastebasket!

We need the right kind of politics to become usual

By the way, on the subject of Dems running for governor, I got this release today from Mullins McLeod, which says in part:

In order to clamp down on politics-as-usual in the governor’s office, Mullins McLeod has made the following pledge to the people of South Carolina.

(1) No PAC Money. Corporations and special interests use PAC money to buy influence. Mullins McLeod will ban PAC money from his campaign.

(2) No Future Run for Office. Our current governor spends all his energies focused on his own political advancement. Mullins McLeod will change that by swearing to return to the private sector once his time in office is done.

(3) A Ban on Lobbying by Administration Members. When citizens volunteer to serve in office, it shouldn’t be for the future hope of making money from influence-peddling. Mullins McLeod will require senior staff members to forswear any future employment as a lobbyist while he remains in the Governor’s office.

(4) Honesty and Transparency. Our governor spends too much valuable time bickering over whether economic development and jobless numbers are correct. Mullins McLeod will cut through this impasse by bringing in outside accountants and non-government experts to produce honest figures – which will allow all sides to come together and focus on creating jobs to tackle our record high unemployment rate.

You know what? Not to criticize Mullins, but hasn’t it sort of become “politics as usual” for politicians to promise no more “politics as usual?”

And is “politics as usual” our problem? Actually, I don’t think so. I think one of our problems is that since 2002 we’ve had extremely unusual politics in the form of Gov. Mark Sanford, and it hasn’t served SC very well. He practices a sort of anti-politics, a negation of the practice of working with other human beings to try to find solutions to common problems.

Today at my Rotary meeting, Joel Lourie spoke. He said a lot of things, but one of the last thing he said was this:

Unfortunately, “politics” can be a bad word.

I view politics through the eyes of my parents. They taught me that politics can be a way of bringing people together to find commonsense solutions to our problems.

And I pledge to you to continue to do that…

What we need is for the kind of politics that Joel Lourie believes in to become “politics as usual.”

Don’t compromise

Eight days ago, I went backstage at the Koger Center to thank producer Todd Witter for asking me to be on “Whad’Ya Know?” Then I went out on the stage itself, where Michael Feldman was perched on the apron (or whatever you call the very edge), shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures with fans.

While I waited for a break in which to thank him too, some of the fans broke off and spoke to me, congratulating me on my performance, such as it was. People are really polite that way, you know. Anyway, one of them was Elizabeth Rose Ryberg, who happens to be married to Sen. Greg. She was quite gracious as always, and complimentary, but at one point she remonstrated with me in the kindest way, suggesting I shouldn’t be so rough on “Mark” — the governor, that is.

Not that she thought the governor was completely right in his refusal to request our state’s share of stimulus funds. In fact, she noted that her husband and Tom Davis had been working hard to bring about a compromise between the governor and legislative leadership on the issue. This surprised me slightly at the time, since I had thought of Sens. Ryberg and Davis as being two people in the governor’s corner if no one else was. After all, they had recently stood up with him at a press conference to support his position (although I had noticed that they had not stood very close to him in the photo I saw — and take a look at that expression on Ryberg’s face — that’s him at the far right).

But it makes perfect sense that even people who share the governor’s political philosophy would want to pull him in a direction away from the position he’s taken — especially if they are his friends.

A few days later, Sen. Davis and Ryberg went public with their “alternative budget” in an op-ed piece in The State. They say all this confrontation is unnecessary, that they can balance the budget and avoid teacher layoffs and prison closings without a dime of the disputed stimulus money.

You know what? I have not idea to what extent their numbers add up, because frankly I find budget numbers to be a form of math far more slippery than Douglas Adams’ satirical “Bistromath.” I’e seen lawmakers resolve budet crises on the last day of the legislative session, with a puff of smoke and a “presto — we found more money!” — too many times. But I know that Tom Davis and Greg Ryberg are perfectly sincere. I trust their intentions; I know they believe what they’re saying. They’re good guys — I refer you to what I’ve said about Tom and about Greg in the past.

But to the extent that they are trying to find a way to compromise with the governor, I say thanks but no thanks. Aside from their efforts, I’ve heard others speak of compromising with the governor on the stimulus — say, let’s just spent this much, and then use this much to “pay down debt.”

But there are two really big reasons not to go along with that, reasons not to compromise with the governor’s position in any way: First, whether you think the stimulus bill passed by the Congress was a good idea or not (or well-executed or not), South Carolinians are going to be paying for it, and need to get maximum benefit out of it. And as Cindi Scoppe pointed out in her column Sunday, no sane person would pass up the chance to keep a few more of our public servants working and paying their bills for a couple of years, rather than on unemployment, to help us get through this rough patch.

The second reason is this: The governor is WRONG. He is philosophically wrong, and he uses bogus numbers (I refer you again to Cindi’s column) to support his rather sad arguments. This man does not believe in the fundamental functions of state government. He is openly allied with people whose goal is reduce government to a size at which it can be drowned in a bathtub. He sees the size of government ratcheting downward (even though he claims, absurdly, the opposite), and his number-one priority is to make sure the ratchet sticks, that the cuts to essential functions in government are not restored. His insistence on using money that is needed now on something, ANYTHING other than immediate needs — even to pay debts that NO ONE expects the state to pay at this time — is essential to the permanent reductions he seeks. The last thing he ever wants is for the state to be rescued by any sort of windfall.

And that point of view needs to be rejected, flatly and clearly. No compromise with a position so wrong should even be contemplated.

Henry explains why court might reject suit

My old buddy Mike Fitts says Henry McMaster says that the state of SC has no objections to the Supreme Court hearing the lawsuit brought on behalf of a Chapin high school girl over the stimulus, but he also listed reasons why the court should reject her petition — including the fact that since she is about to graduate, she will soon no longer have standing.

If Henry’s right, Dick Harpootlian and Dwight Drake will have to run out and get a junior or a sophomore next time.

He had other reasons, which you can read in Mike’s story. One thing that did strike me as interesting, though:

McMaster said the court seems to be setting a quick timeline on the dispute. His office often gets 20 days to respond to an appeal for the court to bypass the lower state courts. This time, the court said Thursday it required a response by midday Monday.

“That indicates the court wants to move very quickly,” McMaster said.

That news is almost as exciting as the Senate taking up the budget this week…

Bobby Harrell’s excellent column today

Bobby Harrell’s op-ed piece in The State today was quite good. Not just because I agree with it. In fact, there is nothing remarkable in that. Pretty much everyone from all parts of the political spectrum holds the view I do on the stimulus — that now that it is a fact and we will have to pay for it, we must make sure that South Carolina gets every penny of its share. Only a tiny band of reality-denying ideologues disagrees. Unfortunately, one of them is our governor. Our state is cursed in that regard.

But I often read columns that I agree with, and wish I didn’t, because they are so weak. They actually harm the cause. Not so in this case. Bobby does a pretty decent job. I wonder if it was this good when he turned it in, or whether Cindi (who has handled local op-eds since Mike left last year) made it this good editing it. Whichever is the case, I liked it.

Set aside the issue of whether Marie Antoinette actually said the thing about letting the peasants eat cake (she probably did not). I find often that the lead anecdote or analogy is the weakest part of an otherwise good column. And in this case, the idea expressed is sound, even if the historical reference is not.

The speaker sets the governor’s nonsense against hard reality, such as when he invites the governor to seek out the places where he thinks government is growing:

If he really thinks we are somehow growing spending by 11 percent this year, I invite the governor to visit the schools, police stations and disability care facilities and see for himself the reductions — not expansions — they are having to make.

And of course, the governor’s assertion that government is growing will NOT stand up to scrutiny at the rubber-meets-the-road level.

Then, he rather deftly takes away the one thing even many of the governor’s detractors would concede him — his ideological purity — by pointing out his inconsistency:

While Gov. Sanford has made it clear that he adamantly opposes taking this education and law enforcement stimulus money, he has at the same time already accepted all the other funds that he can out of the remaining 90 percent of the $8 billion in stimulus money and tax cuts coming to our state.

It makes no sense for the governor to cherry-pick the funds he will accept — such as the $50 million to make buildings more energy-efficient that he requested the other week — and oppose money for teachers and law enforcement officers on so-called “philosophical” grounds. This is inconsistent with any kind of viewpoint and goes against what most people would consider to be common sense.

Finally, he explains why the governor’s oft-repeated claim that lawmakers could avoid deep cuts simply by following the budget HE recommended months ago simply doesn’t fit reality:

These budgetary facts are not some form of “scare tactics,” as the governor claims. Pointing to his executive budget written months ago, the governor says he was able to fund key areas of government without stimulus money. But what he doesn’t tell you is that he also had $254 million more in state funds than budget writers have available today because the Board of Economic Advisors has twice lowered the revenue estimates since then.

Given the quarter of a billion dollars less in state funds that we have to write a budget with, the only thing scary about these facts is the reality of the situation — a reality Gov. Sanford doesn’t seem to grasp.

On the whole, a good piece.