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!
Today finally IS 'a great day in South Carolina,' as we witness a host of miracles in the State House, of all places
NYT rehashes Sanford farce, but adds a new (to me) insight
Profumo showed what Sanford, Weiner, Spitzer should have done
Missing the point about the wicked Lowcountry
Is Mark Sanford entitled to equal time on Comedy Central?
Kathleen Parker writes as though Sanford were toast
DCCC's Appalachian Trail advert
This entry was posted in Mark Sanford, Media, South Carolina on April 28, 2009 by Brad Warthen.
← Is there a problem with the blog, or are y'all just forgetful? WSJ slaps DeMint →
33 thoughts on "Sanford wept"
KP April 28, 2009 at 10:33 am
Well, who he was crying for, was himself. All alone in the world, suffering for his beliefs, the only man willing to pay whatever it takes to do what's right.
But didn't you just love the part where he answered the question that was never asked about his presidential ambitions?
SCnative April 28, 2009 at 11:03 am
In spite of all the lies from legislators and their cronies and enablers in the press, most South Carolinians do agree with Governor Sanford.
Certainly the taxpayers agree with him.
But since taxpayers are an unrepresented minority, outnumbered by government employees and other tax eaters, they don't count with the politicians.
It is easier for a politician to buy tax eater votes with a taxpayer's money, than to try to buy a taxpayer's vote with their own money.
KP April 28, 2009 at 12:00 pm
No, SCNative, they don't agree with Sanford. They think exactly like the Rotary Club members quoted in the Newsweek piece: you can agree or not agree with the stimulus package, but it passed, and we want it used to keep teachers in the classroom and troopers on the highways. That's why Sanford's approval rating has dropped to 40 percent (if it's even that high) and why the Legislature is dragging this whole thing out as long as they can. The public is finally seeing and feeling the pain that Mark Sanford has wrought on our state for the past six years.
kbfenner April 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm
You see, a silent majority, in Sanford mathematics, is 40% in ordinary mathematics. KP, you and I and Brad and Cindi are hindered by our education, I see. Sanford and SCNative obviously use some superior mathematical model-that's why the numbers Cindi cited in her Sunday piece were "trivial" to him/her.
SCnative April 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Immoral people try to rationalize wasting money with, "The money is already printed and appropriated. Someone is going to spend it, so it might as well be us."
South Carolina doesn't need the money.
We have as much money as we had last year, and more than in 2007.
2007 was 40% higher than 2002.
Spending this money will just inflate the state budget, and create demands for tax increases when the money is all spent.
timkelly April 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I also loved the part where we got to hear yet again about Prince Mark's hardscrabble upbringing. But my favorite is when he describes a freakin' Rotary Club in Ft. Mill as "left-leaning."
KP April 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm
And "education-heavy." Like too bad it wasn't a roomful of people who don't care about education.
Brad Warthen April 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Yeah, nothing like those radicals at Rotary — buncha crazy hepcats, all of 'em.
This is WAY wilder than Joe Biden's assumption that my Rotary Club is mostly Republican. (I'd link to my popular "Biden-at-Rotary" video, but I'm on the Blackberry right now.)
It had never before occurred to me to try to characterize my Rotary that way. And personally, I think he was off the mark somewhat — I mean, Kathryn and the aforementioned Rick Noble are in my club, as is Nancy Pelosi's daughter's godfather (Jim Leventis). But I also see how he could get the impression he did — mostly white, Southern businessmen in coats and ties. Rusty DePass. John McCain's good friend Jack Van Loan.
But fundamentally, it's pretty nonpartisan and nonideological. And when someone tries to characterize it as THIS or THAT, it says more about the person doing the characterizing than it does about the club.
normivey April 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I've posted this link before. I'd be interested if there is a more current survey.
WCSC Poll
28% agree with the governor on rejecting the funds outright. 38% agree the money should be used to pay down debt. Neither represents a majority, so most South Carolinians do not agree with Sanford. Taxpayers are not an unrepresented minority. They are represented by the legislators elected from their districts. Government employees (yes, I am one) are taxpayers, the same as non-government employees.
More importantly…
Why does Sanford refer to the Rotary meeting as a fake, canned event? These are citizens–many who said they voted for him–expressing their points of view. Sounds like democracy in action to me. I agree with his (apparently) self-assessment that he is a businessman lost in politics (emphasis on lost is mine). Good politicians know how to work a deal to everyone's benefit. Sanfords seems to be incapable of such a feat.
If it is true that the state's debt burden isn't nearly as dire as Sanford claims; according to Moody's, South Carolina is one of nine states with a AAA credit rating, and it boasts the lowest debt-per-capita ratio of the bunch and that according to Sanford, in the near term, clearly South Carolina wouldn't be better off, then my conclusion is that all of this is political posturing to drum up support for 2012.
SCnative April 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm
200 school teachers and other government employees demonstrated at the State House for Sanford to take the Pelosi blood money. They were organized by the district Superintendents and by agency heads, who sent out memos.
3,000 people demonstrated against the Obama tax and waste policies and the Pelosi pork, organized from the grass roots by each other.
Actually, I was in the middle of both crowds. And from the middle, they seemed to be of comparable size. I didn't climb the steps and try to count them, because it wasn't important to me. Although, since you bring it up, I would have expected the antitax thing to have a bigger turnout because it was weeks or even months in preparation, while I didn't even hear about the other one until a day or two before.
Tell you one thing, though. Neither group was nearly as big as some of the Confederate flag demonstrations I've experienced, both pro and anti. The flag will flat turn out a crowd.
I would think you could have seen the difference between 200 people and 3,000, without climbing the stairs to count. Or could that be a biased estimate?
By the way, any of you with an open mind on education and school choice should visit the Voice for School Choice web site and try to leave a comment. If you don't agree with their views, they delete you.
C'mon Brad. Can we do that here?
I got the official police estimates of the crowds.
The tea party was more than 3,000, because that was the core crowd for 1.5 hours, with people coming and going.
But America ia not a democracy.
Mobs can elect charlatans like FDR and Obama, but the Constitution is supposed to prevent them from enacting socalist wealth transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, national health care, Food Stamps, the nationalization of General Motors and turning it over to the UAW to loot.
If the Constitution were enforced, the mobs wouldn't bother to come and and elect looters like Obama and Jim Clyburn.
Brad Warthen April 29, 2009 at 9:25 am
And Norm, that poll you linked to is the only one I've seen.
Here's an interesting point about that: Majorities disagree with Sanford over the stimulus, which is hardly surprising. But majorities also say the Legislature should NOT build the budget counting on the stimulus money — which is just what senators are doing.
The GOP leaders in the Senate don't want a confrontation with Sanford, so they aren't doing the simplest and most obvious thing: Simply passing legislation that requires him to request the money. Instead, they are essentially ignoring him and passing a budget that spends the money, counting on his vetoes to fail. But that is just what folks in the poll said they should not do.
Of course, given the wording of the question ("Should lawmakers count on stimulus money when planning the state budget?"), I suspect respondents read it as asking whether lawmakers should spend money that isn't there. It didn't say, since the Legislature makes spending decisions and since the governor has to do whatever they require him to do, should they go ahead and build the money into the budget — and it's a bit much to expect respondents to make that leap. It was worded in a way that implied, "Should lawmakers count on Sanford to do the right thing?" Most of us would say 'no" to that.
In any case, this brings us back to Lee's point that he is right about: This is not a democracy and a good thing, too. You can't make complex decisions such as writing a budget via direct democracy. You have to do it via representation, for good or for ill. You can't govern a state of more than four million people by plebiscite.
Greg Flowers April 29, 2009 at 10:52 am
I know you feel VERY strongly about the money but hard cases make bad law. How would allowing one branch to order a co-equal branch to act in a certain way in what is a discretionary matter not a dangerous precedent that would allow the legislature to trump the Governor any time it felt his exercise of executive power was not to its liking. You have advocated allowing the Governor to freely control executive functions but that should apply whether you feel that the duly elected executive is acting in a manner with which you agree or not.
Lee Muller April 29, 2009 at 11:09 am
America is not a democracy, but it is in trouble because it has been run like one, quite illegally, since Woodrow Wilson. Calvin Coolidge restored small government and we had prosperity.
Now democracy, that very temporary form of government, is yielding to outright socialism. Obama gives edicts without bothering for Congress to pass legislation. When the Democrats do pass legislation, it is all illegal, unConstitutional, and without committee hearings or readings.
In the 1920s, liberals banded together with socialists in order to impose the "reforms" that they thought the people were too stupid to accept. What they got were dictators: Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, and Roosevelt.
Again gullible liberals and moderates are gleeful that Obama's socialists are promising "reforms" of health care, the banks, and distribution of wealth. The Constitution is being ignored, and we are getting another dictator.
HarryH April 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I object to the tone of any acticle that would ridicule a public servant for showing emotion. I'm glad to see our Governor show feeling about something, but I suspect it does not relate to the economic hardship faced by many South Carolinians. Governor Sanford should take heart in the support he gets from our own SCNative poster who makes up "facts", twists history, misstates positions, and fudges numbers just like Sanford himself.
Greg, the branches are co-equal (or should be), but they do not have the same functions. There's that thing called separation of powers.
The Legislature appropriates money and makes the laws. The executive carries out the laws that the Legislature enacts (unless the executive successfully vetoes the bill before it becomes a law). So if the law, duly passed and NOT successfully vetoed, says the governor must apply for this money and he and the other executive agents (unfortunately a fragmented bunch in this state) must spend the money in particular ways, then that's what the executive must do.
Then, if a dispute arises as to whether the executive is acting within the requirements of the law, or whether the statute itself is in sync with the fundamental, constitutional law, then a citizen with standing can bring the matter before the third branch of government.
Lee Muller April 29, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Since the state has as much money for the next budget as they had last year, how is it "causing a hardship" to anyone?
Especially since the government increased in size by 60% in 10 years, and 40% in just 4 years of surplus under a vibrant Bush economy?
Especially since government workers make 40% more than private sector workers (real taxpayers), according to the latest BLS reports.
Especially since the state has $56 billion in unfunded liabilities to future retirees, and welfare moochers.
Brad, it is a settled matter of law that every branch of government has a responsibility to not do what is unConstitutional.
The president has a right to make that determination, as well as the legislature and the courts.
So do the governors.
That is part of the checks and balances. When greedy, corrupt legislators ignore the Constitution, and the President refuses to even read the bills he signs, then it is up to the state legislatures and governors to block the misuse of public money.
Greg Flowers April 29, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I fully understand the working of government and the functions of the branches and that this is going to end up before the State Supreme Court and I understand the concept of standing. I reitterate that aquisition of the money is contingent upon a discretionary act on the part of the chief executive of each state and the fact that the legislature (inappropriately in my opinion) appropriates funds to which it does not at this point have any claim or (very inappropriatley in my opinion) attempts to direct the executive as how to act in a discretionary matter should have no effect whatsoever and I only hope that the Supreme Court puts legal principals over what it may see as short term benefit.
I understand what the legislature is supposed to do, appropriating monies which are not under State control is not one of them.
Again, why did Congress give discretionary authority to the executive rather than the legislative branch if the legislative can override the executive on a whim?
Rich Post author April 29, 2009 at 11:23 pm
You're an idiot. The Stim says clearly that the legislature of a state can override the executive. Ever heard of the supremacy clause (Art. 6 Sec. 1)? Or do you think God founded America to be a conservative Christian republic waiting for the the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem?
Birch Barlow April 30, 2009 at 12:16 am
You're an idiot.
Name-calling is petty and childish and should have been left on the playground when we all grew up. Unfortunately, we do all do it at times.
I'm sure you would take it back if given the chance.
The Stim says clearly that the legislature of a state can override the executive.
I don't know what the Stimulus Bill says, I haven't read it (which puts me in the same boat as Congress at the time it was passed). For the sake of argument, I'll assume you are correct. Though I'm not sure why our state legislature wouldn't have just overridden Sanford by now if this was "clearly" the case.
Ever heard of the supremacy clause (Art. 6 Sec. 1)? Or do you think God founded America to be a conservative Christian republic waiting for the the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem?
Even ignoring the fact that this is clearly a false dilemma (either Greg has heard of the Supremacy Clause or he is a Christian fundamentalist) it's such a silly thing to say because Greg has made no mention of religion at all in this post. In fact a few posts down he wrote:
"Family values" and faith do not equate and I am turned off by someone who says that they do. Unless, of course he is using family values as a code for certain political beliefs generally referred to as "social conservatism" in which case he fares little better. Much better someone go into the Upstate and say "I believe in treating all people with honesty and decency."
Clearly not the words of a man who thinks "God founded America to be a conservative Christian republic waiting for the the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem."
Unfortunately, I find your post to be completely devoid of all reason. But it is late. Often times when we're tired, words come out the wrong way. If I were you, I'd ask Brad to do you a favor and delete that last post.
Lee Muller April 30, 2009 at 7:11 am
Federal laws and treaties only have supremacy over the states when they are within the "…Authority of the United States..", that is, the very limited enumerated powers of the federal branches of government. All other powers remain in the hands of the states, and the people as individuals.
Most of the laws passed by Congress, including the $787 "stimulus" act, are not authorized by the Constitution, and are illegal. The governor has a duty to resist the enforcement of illegal acts of Congress.
Thanks Birch. You are correct.
My understanding is that there is a clause in the Stimulus Bill which allows legislative override but Congress has been told that it could involve constitutional problems. It was put in by Clyburn but is not now felt to be workable.
What about the Supremecy Clause is germain to this discussion?
Rich probably just heard some left-wing radio pundit claiming that the states and people have no rights since Abe Lincoln took their rights away.
Anything thought up by Jim Clyburn is probably unConstitutional.
Rich Post author May 1, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Please read Art. 6, Sec.1 of the Constitution!! A Congressional enactment has precedence over any state action. States must submit to federal supremacy. A house divided cannot stand. There must be one central government and, as the Founders correctly stated, it must be supreme.
What's not to understand? The governor must accept the money and the legislature has the right to compel him to spend it in the manner directed by them!!
The Civil War is over, folks, and, BTW, the Democrats are going to win both the state house and the governor's mansion in S.C. in 2010–unless of course the Republicans steal the election!
Lee Muller May 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Unless a federal law or regulation authorized as one of the "enumerated powers" in the Constitution, it does not even have the force of law.
All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the People.
Most of the laws passed in the 20th century are without any authority. They are enforced by the threat of lethal force, with the blessings of a corrupt judiciary appointed by corrupt Senators.
These laws would all be struck down by courts of the 19th century, and most quickly by those jurists closest to the ratification of the Constitution and most familiar with its original meaning.
What does that tell you?
It tells any thinking person that these laws which were unConstitutional then, are unConstitutional now.
There is no enumerated power to seize control of GM and the banks.
It is a new power, manufactured by "interpretation" of something which never envisioned or intended such abusive power.
Greg Flowers May 1, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The law that you refer to as the Stim provides that the money in question must be requested by the chief executive of the state. Without that request the money will not pass. Clyburn inserted a legislative override which the office of congressional research advised might involve 11th Amendment problems and therefore should not be used. The question has now shifted to the state level. The Governor is acting in strict compliance with the federal statute.
If you will notice, none of the actions contemplated by the General Assembly involve the language language of which you speak but are based upon what I think is a rather dicey interpretation of the power to appropriate.
And on a very minor point, Article VI is not divided into sections.
This is a quote from that portion of yhe legislation related to aid to states for education:
SEC. 14005. STATE APPLICATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Governor of a State desiring to receive
an allocation under section 14001 shall submit an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require.
Please feel free to look it up. It is P.L. 111-5 and I have included a link to it on the THOMAS website.
thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html#h1