Category Archives: Republicans

Most of House GOP agrees with Harrell: Sanford should quit

7 Replies

Where the leaders go, the others follow. And now a large majority of House Republicans have joined Bobby Harrell in calling on the governor to quit, according to The State‘s John O’Connor:

At least 60 of 73 S.C. House Republicans have signed a letter asking Gov. Mark Sanford to resign.

The letter follows Tuesday’s call by House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, for the Republican governor to resign. In June, a majority of Senate Republicans signed a similar letter. Sanford has said he will not resign.

At a meeting last month in Myrtle Beach, no House GOP member spoke in Sanford’s defense. Republicans control the House.

“The direction of the caucus leaving that meeting was unmistakable,” Deputy Majority Leader Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville, said in a written statement. “Governor you have lost the support of legislators who have supported you through thick and thin.”

The letter says Sanford’s woes are a distraction that prevent other work from getting done.

This is not terribly surprising, given that not one Republican spoke up for the governor at the recent caucus meeting. Of course, the governor won’t listen to these folks, either. He doesn’t listen to anybody, but does what he wants.

Interesting that the Republicans who call on the gov to quit keep talking about his melodrama being “a distraction.” To a narcissist, being the cynosure of all eyes is a good thing. So it is that the governor’s interests fail to connect with those of other Republicans in the state.

Picturing DeMint in a powdered wig

1 Reply

Tim Cameron, formerly of The Shot, wrote on Twitter today:

It appears DeMint’s reelection in 2010 will be much more like the Battle of Yorktown than Waterloo http://tinyurl.com/ncs6j3

… to which I had to respond:

Yorktown? So who’s DeMint gonna be? Cornwallis?

Tim came back with:

I was referring to ease of victory for JD. But Obama hasn’t even meet w/ Graham & McCain on HC. How bi-partisan is he being?

And being a last-word kind of guy, I said:

Well, in fairness — he had promised to do that on national security issues. I don’t remember him saying he’d [be] consulting them on domestic…

I’m not even sure how we got onto Obama. Oh, I guess because of the Waterloo thing….

So I guess Tim was casting Jim as Washington. Hey, whether Washington or Cornwallis, I’m having trouble picturing him in a powdered wig. Now if he were Bonaparte or Wellington, that wouldn’t be a problem, since the wigs had gone out of style by 1815.

Political art, for art’s sake

5 Replies

Do you like my latest header image (I figured y’all had had your fill of the ugly, rusty car with the big Confederate flag painted on it)? It’s filled with hidden meaning, regarding our political past and future.

It was taken at the S.C. State Museum Dec. 15, 2007, a Saturday, after a John McCain event in which he had publicly accepted the support of a large number of retired admirals and generals. (It was the same day I got his attractive young press secretary to promise me, on video, that she would quit smoking if he got the nomination. I wonder whether she did?) He and supporters were getting onto the elevator, and before the doors closed I got this artsy-blurry shot, which I think looks fairly cool.

At the far right, somewhat out of focus, you have a figure from our recent political past. Then at the opposite end, you  see the back of someone we’ll hear a lot from going into 2010. Since he represents the future, you can’t see his face. You know, the future being hidden from us and all.

Like I said, Baby, fraught with meaning…

mccain-032

Time for some ‘pure politics:’ Who can talk sense to our governor?

30 Replies

Check it out — I have a new Webcam. And so today, I decided to go with some video commentary rather than do all that tedious typing.

But to add a little something to this clip, here are some links to what I’m talking about:

Video from Bauer press conference

5 Replies

Andre Bauer’s press conference today was pretty much as advertised. I dropped by to check it out on my way to the job fair today at the State Museum.

Above is some sketchy video from my Blackberry. (And just to show how good I am to y’all, here is much higher-quality video at thestate.com.) You can see me shooting it, my arm obscuring my face, in the photo below by Tim Dominick of The State. You may be able to tell that the turnout on the part of media types was somewhat sparser than for the now-infamous Sanford press conference that started all this rolling.

No, excuse me: What started it rolling was Gina Smith catching the gov at the Atlanta airport getting off the plane from Argentina. Had that not happened, there would have been no confession, and we’d probably still be in the dark. Gina was at today’s press confab, and I was able to congratulate her for the S.C. Scoop of the Century. I’ve had some pretty good stories in my lengthy career, and put one over on the competition a few times in my reporting days. But rare is the reporter who can say that something this broke purely because she was on the spot in the right place at the right time. Sure, the credit goes to teamwork — someone else got the tip that the governor had been seen in Argentina, and the folks at The State determined that there was a chance he’d be on this flight — but the glory goes to Gina.

Anyway, the Andre thing told us pretty much what we knew. In essence:

  1. He called on the governor to resign, becoming the first statewide elected official to do so.
  2. He promised that if the governor quits and makes Andre governor before Andre announces his own candidacy for governor in October, Andre will not run in 2010.
  3. He made it pretty clear that if it takes longer than that — such as if we have to wait for the Legislature to be in session to impeach Sanford — the deal is off.

So, if ANYBODY has any influence over Mark Sanford (something which I doubt, unless his “soulmate” chooses to weigh in; this guy is singularly immune to what other people think), now would be a really good time to try to get him to quit.

379-bauer_td122standaloneprod_affiliate74

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several points to make about this development:

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

What do y’all think?

Welcome to the 2010 race, Henry

23 Replies

Let’s all welcome Henry McMaster to the 2010 gubernatorial contest. Or, if you won’t, I will.

I like Henry. For a guy who was our fourth choice for attorney general back in 2002 (we endorsed Jon Ozmint in the primary, Larry Richter in the runoff and Steve Benjamin in the general), I think he has turned out very well. This is partly by comparison with his predecessor, but on the whole I think Henry’s done well.

Then there was the fact that Henry backed John McCain through thick and thin. In the darkest days of his quest for the GOP nomination, when everybody was saying he should quit, Henry was proud to stand up and support the senator from Arizona. And since McCain was to me the only guy in the GOP contest worth considering, that counts for a lot with me.

For me, those two considerations — the job he’s done as AG, and his sticking with McCain when almost no one else would — more than cancel the qualms I had about Henry back when he was best known as a party chairman who regularly traded partisan silliness with his counterpart Dick Harpootlian.

At this point, Henry seems clearly the strongest candidate on the GOP side — especially after my interview with Gresham Barrett early on gave me the strong impression that he hasn’t even thought about what he would do as governor, and nothing I’ve heard since has disspelled that.

Not that Henry is chock full o’ specifics yet, either. And this seems to be an occupational hazard for Republicans. They know they have to live down the disaster that Sanford has been, but they are fearful of alienating the support that the governor continues to enjoy, bizarrely, among the GOP rank-and-file (which is to say, among Republicans who don’t actually have to deal with the guy, which is always where his greatest support has lain).

So they tiptoe. So we have Henry, in the video above, speaking vaguely, and awkwardly, about how “there’s been too much dishonesty and too many scandals…,” implying he’d get us away from all that. But what dishonesty? Which scandals? What is it that YOU, Henry McMaster disapprove of? Let us know where you stand. We all disapprove of “scandals” and “dishonesty,” but tell us where you see those bad things, so we can decide whether we approve of YOU.

The State seems to believe the “scandals” Henry refers to have to do with Sanford. But I don’t know that — not until Henry SAYS that’s what he means. And if so, he needs to go further: Which aspects of the governor’s behavior does he find scandalous? His affair? His use of the state plane as a personal taxi when he’s telling state employees to double up in hotel rooms? How about the fact that as governor he does not govern, in the sense of taking responsibility for the course of our state? Is that scandalous? And if so, why?

Beyond that, his initial platform seems remarkably like that of uber-Democrat Dwight Drake: Jobs. Again, not exactly a controversial position, not a defining trait, not a chisel that will help sculpt a clear image in the voter’s mind.

So I go into this inclined to like Henry, but wanting to hear more.

Tonight’s header picture: Rusty and Rudy

7 Replies

Since I unveiled the New Look several people have complimented me on the photos. Of course, I’ve been changing them out so fast that you’ve probably missed some of them. For instance, I just took down one of Stephen Colbert and me, and put up the one you see now on my home page, which shows Rudy Giuliani in Columbia back in 2007, while he was still a contender in the GOP nomination race.

Like most of the pictures I’m using (except the ones other people shot of me with somebody), I shot it with my little digital Canon, which you see me using to shoot video of Obama in the picture you get when you call up individual posts. Here’s the video I was shooting, by the way.

The one now gracing my home page was taken on August 14, 2007, at the convention center in Columbia. Here’s video I shot at the same event. I chose this image because, even though the focus and resolution aren’t great, it worked with the extreme-horizontal format. So we’re talking form over content. But let’s examine the content: Local political trivia buffs will see some familiar faces sitting listening to Rudy, such as Gayle Averyt and Rusty DePass. Rusty, who plays piano at my Rotary, made some news of his own recently, until the governor was kind enough to draw attention away from him.

And just to get WAY deeper into the recent political past than you probably care to go, here’s a piece Rusty wrote back at about this time explaining why he was for Rudy.

One thing this blog’s got, folks, is depth. Layers upon layers of info, whether you want it or not…

I’ll explain another picture tomorrow. And yes, the photo below is from the same event.

rudy-050

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.

Tom Davis appointment a case of qualification trumping connection

4 Replies

Here’s something you don’t see every day in South Carolina:

Columbia, SC – July 6, 2009 – South Carolina Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler announced today that he has recommended State Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) for appointment to the State Ports Authority Legislative Oversight Committee.  The 10-member legislative committee was recently created with the passage of the port-restructuring bill to help ensure stability and efficiency in state ports operations.

Tom Davis is one of Gov. Mark Sanford’s closest friends and advisers, and has said the gov should stay in office. Harvey Peeler was one of the first GOP senators to call on the governor to step down. Tom served previously on the Ports Authority, as a gubernatorial appointee. And he holds up the Jasper port deal with Georgia as a key achievement of the Sanford administration (when I suspect it is actually a key achievement of Tom Davis).

But Sen. Peeler appointed Sen. Davis anyway. We need to see more of that in South Carolina, a lot more: People being chosen for office because of their qualifications, rather than who their friends are.

Anyway, good choice there, Sen. Peeler.

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.”

###

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:

  1. Said he met with his inamorata five times, not three, in the past year.
  2. Said she is his “soul mate.
  3. 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

###

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 stoppedAndrecrutch_1 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?

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.

Jake on the missing governor

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

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…

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…

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.

Henry’s ‘profile in courage’

This may sound odd, but I have to force myself to get into the habit of reading the editorial page of The State each morning.

See, I never did it when I was the editor, since I had read it closely the day before. So it’s just not part of my morning newspaper-reading ritual. I go front page (only reading the stories that jump out as important in terms of being an informed citizen, which is often just one or two items on the page), the jumps from that page, metro front and the jumps of the stories I read there, the business front and (during the legislative session), page B3. And, if I’m not also reading the Wall Street Journal or some other paper, I’ll look at A4 for a national-international overview.

I’ll “read the paper” in accord with my habits, and never even glance at the opinion pages. Which is not good. I don’t mean to avoid it; it simply does not occur to me that I hadn’t read it unless something comes up to make me consciously realize it. And that’s awful, because I know how hard Warren and Cindi (and Randle and Claudia, but you don’t know them as well) are working in my absence.

For instance, I “read the paper” this morning, but did not see Cindi’s nice piece about what a principled guy Henry McMaster is. Finally, after it was brought to my attention a couple of times today, I went and read it. Sorry I missed it earlier. You should go read it now, if you’ve been similarly remiss.

Henry’s one of those gubernatorial candidates I had not written a profile of before I left the paper, since he had not declared. Still hasn’t. But when he does, I’ll write more about him on the blog. In the meantime, Cindi’s piece is a nice conversation-starter.

Henry’s been the sort of attorney general who makes you say you’re sorry — for not endorsing him when he ran. He has been SO much better than his predecessor (and so much more reasoned and professional than you might have expected the ex-party chairman — who used to trade silly partisan shots with Dick Harpootlian when they were opposite numbers — to be), that he is one of my two favorite people about whom I like to say “we were wrong” for not endorsing. The other is Lindsey Graham.

Henry and Lindsey, along with Bobby Harrell, were the South Carolinians who stuck with John McCain in the darkest hours of his campaign for the GOP nomination. That has something to do with why I respect them as I do. It’s not that I respect them for backing the right guy per se; it’s just that the qualities that caused them to choose McCain among the Republicans and stick with him are related to the traits that cause me to respect them as public servants.

But I digress. Of course, digressing is a large part of what a blog’s for, isn’t it?

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.