Jun 30 2009
Sanford needs to go and to go now
At this time, we must separate political support from friendship. Mark has been the front man, or our quarterback for reform for several years. This movement is not about personal loyalties; it is about the conservative issues we believe in. That’s what separate reformers from good-ole-boys. As our quarterback, Mark intentionally threw a pick to the other team. This movement of reform needs a new quarterback and its time for the Governor to step aside.
Finally, I hope this sparks a serious look at elected leadership across the board. We claim ethical values and can’t be hypocritical. I for one, take one’s personal decisions into account when I consider whom I will support in politics. How far do we need to delve into one’s personal affairs while making these decisions? I don’t know exactly. I’m not one to pry feverishly into an elected official’s closet, yet I do look at the facts that are public knowledge. In a free society every voter has the privilege to consider whatever he/she thinks is important.
Jul 06, 2009 @ 17:11:49
[You made very, very good point there P.Conz.]
In one sense, you’re absolutely right. Politicians and political appointees are not psychiatrists and are no more fit to judge Sanford than he is to judge them. And it would be UNFAIR to place the governor’s career in the hands of his political rivals [or even his allies].
But there isn’t a Secretary of Mental Health. And the only people empowered by the SC Constitution to evaluate the governor and determine whether or not he is unable to fulfil his duties are political figures [A.G, Sec of State, Comptroller, and treasurer].
And you’re absolutely wrong if you think they should not be evaluating him right now. Not for the adultery. But for the rambling, incoherent press conferences. For the far-away looks and tangents about the end of days and judgment…
Maybe this is what a remorseful Sanford looks like. But I think this is deeper than remorse. I think he’s cracking.
Jul 06, 2009 @ 16:29:14
I would likely believe the findings of a clinician that declared Mark Sanford in some state of mental distress. Mark Sanford is, however, no more self-absorbed (and certainly no less unfaithful to his spouse) than many if not most of the others in elected positions. I know of no advantage in allowing some group of elected officials, who may or may not be “concerned” about a certain other elected official, to decide their fitness for office.
Those decisions are only properly left to the citizenry.
Jul 06, 2009 @ 10:13:33
P.Conz,
I’m an adult who likes beer…and politics. (Oh dear).
What is your position on Sanford…I feel like I’m in a one man fight.
Do you think that Gov. Sanford is having a break down? If he isn’t then how do you explain his actions as of late? If he is, then shouldn’t responsible parties be concerned about his mental health? Should an unstable person be allowed to run an entire state?
Jul 06, 2009 @ 07:40:04
Thank you, Marcus. I think that speaks for itself.
Jul 05, 2009 @ 20:51:23
“reombal” equals “removal. Sorry I’m typing while tipsy. I’m sure there are other errors.
Jul 05, 2009 @ 20:49:18
P. Conz,
The short answer to your question is yes.
Mental stability is a kind of a prerequisite for the governor’s office [sidebar: faith in a "supreme power" is also a prerequisite here in SC....sorry Ron] If the governor is having a meltdown -and it seems as though he is- he has disqualified himself…if only temporarily.
In an ideal S. Carolina, the sec. of state, the AG, the comptroller gen., and the treasury would get together and NOTICE that the gov. is showing signs of a breakdown. Then they’d simply decide that the Governor is “disabled.” And BOOM…new governor.[sidebar: I don't know if they ALL have to think he's crazy...and I'm too lazy to look it up.] Sanford would challenge his removal. There’d be some back and forth. It’d go before the Senate. The senate would unanimously endorse Sanford’s reombal. And we’d all live happily ever after with Bauer as our king.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 19:16:05
Marcus, so the answer is that yes, criminal wrongdoing need not occur to remove a duly elected official so long as enough people “think” he’s crazy. Just so we’re clear.
Ron, please write again after you turn 4.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 16:02:32
Palmetto,
Just wondering who is doing the senator’s dirty work while he maintains his morally superior, Christian, family-values image. And you seem like such a *&&*.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 15:40:29
(Honestly, I was really hoping that SLED investigation would doom Sanford. But I am pleased [oddly enough] that he didn’t dip in the SC treasury to fund his affair.)
P. Conz, the general assembly has every right to remove a governor who is showing signs of mental instability.
On more than one occassion in the last week Sanford has, without provocation, talked about the END OF DAYS and his seat in judgment. In fact, the governor’s demeanor, as of late, has prompted quite a few individuals to question mental well-being. And this isn’t just a partisan attack (I’m quite liberal), there are tons of REPUBLICANS wondering if Mark has lost his marbles. Ask Harvey Peeler R-Cherokee.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1124496.html
But don’t worry Sanford won’t get removed because while he has a lot detractors on blogsites and in newspapers and on the radio and on tv….there aren’t very many SC Senators willing to commit themselves politically to removing the governor. And you can count Kevin Bryant as one of them.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 11:32:05
Hello, Ron? Hello!
Jul 03, 2009 @ 10:34:52
Sorry, that should be: “your”.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 10:34:25
So, you’re commentary is irrelevant. Why, then, are you here?
Jul 03, 2009 @ 10:27:15
No, I don’t work for the senator.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 10:18:55
But let’s move on, shall we? Do you have a point that matters?
Jul 03, 2009 @ 10:14:05
Kind of like you
Jul 03, 2009 @ 10:06:22
So you don’t work for Bryant? You just spend you day monitoring this board and compiling lists of every instance the senator is quoted in the media?
Jul 03, 2009 @ 09:55:24
If your straight question is “Do you work for the Stoneridge group or are you the Senator’s aide?”, then the answer is, neither.
Do you have a question that matters?
Jul 03, 2009 @ 09:53:42
What’s your straight question?
Jul 03, 2009 @ 09:49:42
Palmetto,
Just wondering. You obviously work for the senator, and, like most politicians, you don’t like to give straight answers.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 09:34:32
Or, maybe the Anderson Independent reported it here:
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2009/jul/02/upstate-legislators-say-sanford-should-resign/
don’t you people read?
Jul 03, 2009 @ 09:19:51
So Palmetto, All your links are media outside his district. My take is he’s laying low on the homefront. I thought all politics is local!
Jul 03, 2009 @ 09:15:22
So, you advocate that members of the General Assembly remove, absent any evidence of criminal activity, a duly elected governor? Moreover, you believe that Senator Bryant needs to “show solidarity”, i.e. join the mob so that they can all say that “he was doing it too!!”
You might, also, be interested in the fact that Senator Bryant’s comments appeared here: http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/senator_harvey_peeler_sanford_must_go/22316/
and here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/408/story/810182.html
and here: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2009/7/1/group_of_republicans_call_for_governors.htm
and here: http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/news.jsp?key=406544&rc=to
and here:http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jun/30/legislators_call_sanfords_resignation/
and here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/sanford/
Write back if you’d like me to post the at least 30 other media outlets, state and national, in which his comments appeared.
Jul 03, 2009 @ 07:52:31
Let’s say both–or neither. Is that what you’re bringing to the table? Do you have anything constructive to add?
Jul 02, 2009 @ 21:46:37
Palmetto Conservative,
Do you work for the Stoneridge group or are you the Senator’s aide?
Jul 02, 2009 @ 18:58:10
Marcus, you admitted that you count blogging as action, and for a political leader, simply issuing a public statement as Senator Bryant has done is action, because his word has a lot of influence. Now that he has made his position on this public, it will go a lot farther than just a “few political devotees” – trust me. Anyway, the investigations so far have revealed little that the Governor could actually be ousted for. Therefore, how would signing a petition be different from issuing a public statement? It wouldn’t. It would make no difference whatsoever.
Jul 02, 2009 @ 15:41:25
Hannah,
You put a lot of confidence in Sanfraud as well.
Jul 02, 2009 @ 14:00:38
I agree, Senator. Thanks for the wise way in which you’ve handled this. Our confidence is well placed!
Jul 02, 2009 @ 14:00:31
The general assembly has the power to oust the govenor. A show of solidarity among the senators would have gone a long, long way.
There is a BIG difference in writing something on a blog (seen by a relative few political devotees) and officially and publicly commiting your political will to the removal of a sitting govenor.
Jul 02, 2009 @ 12:41:11
What action results from a petition other than the transfer of ink onto paper? What practical effect would a petition have that a public statement does not?
Jul 02, 2009 @ 11:33:46
Priscilla, let’s assume I’m wrong. We’ll assume that Sen. Bryant came to his conclusions after thoughful deliberation (totally uninfluenced by the growing consensus that gov. Sanford is no longer politically viable). Let’s assume that now after thinking the matter through, he has decided that Sanford “needs to go and to go now”. What ACTION has Bryant taken to remove Sanford from office? Why didn’t he sign the petition calling for Sanford’s removal?
This is hypocrisy in REAL TIME. The Senator says he wants the govenor to leave, but won’t take actions to make it so. But surely he has a GOOD reason…
“It’s time for him to resign,” said Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, who generally supports the governor’s agenda. “We’ve heard from some people in recent days who separate the bedroom from the board room. I don’t. I look at the whole character of a person, the decisions they make and their dealings with their families.”
Bryant said he did not sign the letter [to remove Sanford] because IT JUST DIDN’T FEEL RIGHT…
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/847926.html
Jul 02, 2009 @ 09:33:48
So, he is taking action, correct?
Jul 02, 2009 @ 08:56:12
Marcus, for you information, there is great wisdom in thinking a matter through, and in some cases, waiting for a short time to see how events are going to continue to unfold before making a judgment. It takes TIME for all the details of a story to be looked into. It also takes at least a little time for you to be able to think clearly again after receiving so great a mental and emotional shock.
I for one, am thankful for a Senator who is wise enough to think a matter through in a clear-headed fashion before coming to a conclusion, rather than having hot-headed knee-jerk reactions based on initial impulse.
You would find something to criticize the Senator for no matter how he responded.
Jul 01, 2009 @ 17:29:41
By tone, I mean rhetoric. Senator Bryant is becoming increasingly aggressive in the way he speaks about Sanford.
On June 24th Bryant described Sanford as a good man that made a mistake:
“This is what happens when a good, decent person of principle gets caught up in sin.”
Today, Bryant describes Sanford as a betrayer who doesn’t deserve his office.
“As our quarterback, Mark intentionally threw a pick to the other team. This movement of reform needs a new quarterback and its time for the Governor to step aside.”
But where Bryant’s tone/rhetoric (whatever) has turned sharply against Sanford, his actions are still in line with Sanford’s supporters as is evidenced by his refusal to sign the aforementioned petition.
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/847926.html
Basically he’s YELLING really loud and DEMANDING Sanford’s resignation, but he hasn’t taken action. Unless you count blogging….(which I guess I do)
Jul 01, 2009 @ 14:36:40
Marcus, what does this mean: “But only in TONE…”?
Jul 01, 2009 @ 12:00:16
because while asking for Sanford’s resignation on his blog site, Sen. Bryant REFUSED to sign on to a petition asking for the governor’s resignation.
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/847926.html
Jul 01, 2009 @ 11:57:17
I wonder if Sen. Bryant is calling for the governors resignation now because he is appalled at Sanfords disdain for his wife and family. Or the way Sanford irresponsibly left the state leaderless during his tryst in Argentina. Or the fact that Sanford (until recently) funded parts of his indiscretions with taxpayer money. All of those are valid reasons, but all of those were valid reasons 6 days ago.
I believe (but can’t prove) that Sen Bryant is now “attacking” Sanford because he is the figure head of the reformist movement in SC. Sanford is the embodiment of the reformist ideology and Sanford has been made into a politcal spectacle. He is embarrassing the very people that so proudly followed after him. And NOW that he has become a political lightning rod, Sen. Bryant is distancing himself. But only in TONE…
Jul 01, 2009 @ 09:46:58
“Palmtto Coward, Of course you agee. You are one of the good senators sleaze peddlers. Moral consistency! You kill!”
Please inform us of your point when you get back on your meds.
Jun 30, 2009 @ 23:54:25
I totally agree with you, Senator. Toughing it out? Come on. Sometimes the right thing to do is harder (stepping down).
Jun 30, 2009 @ 21:22:38
I wonder what US Senator Al Franken has to say about all of this?
Jun 30, 2009 @ 21:18:18
“We claim ethical values and can’t be hypocritical.” LOL!
Jun 30, 2009 @ 20:00:45
Palmtto Coward
Of course you agee. You are one of the good senators sleaze peddlers. Moral consistency! You kill!
Jun 30, 2009 @ 19:55:50
Bryant courageously takes the stand he should’ve taken six days ago. Weak!
Jun 30, 2009 @ 16:56:50
Loserman, why would I talk him out of it? I agree with him. Have you got a point here, or are you simply confused by moral consistency given the dearth of it on your side of the aisle?
Jun 30, 2009 @ 16:53:20
I reluctantly agree. The lies and deception keep piling up.
Jun 30, 2009 @ 16:42:05
Nooo! Palmetto Coward, you must talk the good Senator our of this harsh stance! Blame it on the gays, or the immigrants, or even Michelle Obama’s relatives (wink, wink).