Updated – Sanford’s Report Card
HOW DID THE GOVERNOR FARE IN THIS YEAR’S REPUBLICAN ELECTIONS?
FITSNews – June 27, 2008 – With the dust finally beginning to settle on the 2008 Republican primary season in South Carolina, it’s time to turn our attention to analyzing the performance of a guy whose name wasn’t even on the ballot – S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford.
After lifting nary a finger to help conservative candidates in two previous election cycles, the governor finally got off his ass this year and did what incumbent lawmakers have been accusing him of doing for years – overtly campaigning against them. Our friend Rep. Nathan Ballentine – an incumbent who didn’t have a race this year – puts Sanford’s record at 6-4 in those contests in which he directly endorsed candidates this election cycle. That’s good, but certainly not spectacular. And probably not quite enough to accomplish some of the things the governor wants to accomplish.
But did Sanford do enough? And did he use his political capital in the right places?
We’ve been harshly critical of the governor’s “failure to launch” on multiple occasions in the past. Simply put, our belief has been that Sanford relishes playing the cowboy iconoclast in the white ten gallon hat, and that if there’s a legislature in place that’s actually doing his bidding for a change, well, there go all the positive press clippings.
Every cowboy needs convincing bandits, lest your show be canceled à la “Woody’s Roundup” in Toy Story 2 (and yes, we’ve been watching quite a few Pixar films these days).
That’s been our theory, but others have maintained that the reason the governor waited so long to get engaged was that he actually did want to get something done – and didn’t want to completely alienate the people he needed in order to do that.
This year’s GOP election results could be seen as a confirmation of either theory.
On the one hand, Sanford did expend a considerable amount of political capital in an effort to bring in some new blood, but on the other hand he left certain incumbents alone (particularly at critical stages of the pre-candidate filing period earlier this year) so as to attempt to preserve some semblance of a working relationship with legislators … if only in his own mind.
The mainstream media has focused on two key State Senate races as barometers of the governor’s performance – Sanford’s “success” in helping his former Chief of Staff Tom Davis trounce incumbent Sen. Catherine Ceips in Beaufort, and his “failure” in opposing State Sen. Jakie Knotts, a gubernatorial archenemy who cruised to reelection in Lexington County.
On the surface, these two outcomes indeed seem to symbolize the “mixed bag” Sanford had this go-round in the primary races in which he engaged. And a “mixed bag” isn’t terrible for the governor, as even the uber-liberal La Socialista has acknowledged the basic mathematical equation we’re dealing with here – namely that a “split” for the forces of change translates into pure gains when it comes to legislative votes.
But the questions still stand … did he do enough? And did he spend his capital wisely?
Sanford, who is fond of conversing in symbolic expressions, likes to say that he can’t “fight 500 fires at once,” a way of arguing that there is only so much open conflict that can be managed simultaneously.
It was this rationale that – in spite of the overt warfare being waged in some races – prevented the governor from getting involved in numerous other races at critical points. Sanford “played ball” in ten or so contests, sure, but there were multiple other legislative districts where his soaring public approval ratings went completely to waste.
Just look at the list of status quo incumbents who didn’t have opposition in the primary – starting with this guy.
Had Sanford engaged the process much earlier, we would have been looking at a significantly higher number of seats in play – which means that a “split” outcome would have produced much more in the way of an actual shift in the balance of power.
But alas, he didn’t.
Then there’s the question of the races Sanford chose to invest in – most notably the Knotts’ race.
Start with the makeup of Richland and Lexington Counties, folks. We’re talking about the epicenter of state government, the home of the South Carolina’s largest University and ground zero for the so-called “pro-public education” movement. It’s a bureaucrat breeding ground – and bureaucrats vote.
Lexington County may be the “most Republican County in the state,” but the truth is you don’t start seeing real Republicans until you get way out to Rep. Nikki Haley’s district.
Closer into town, you’re dealing with fiscally left-leaning Republican voters who simply don’t dance the “less government” jig. Why not? Because so many of them are government.
Just look at Lexington-Richland County Republican Sen. John Courson, whose Midlands district borders Knotts’ domain. He claims he’s a “Goldwater Republican,” but he’s got a voting record that’s worse than Lyndon Johnson’s. Why? That’s what his left-leaning constituents demand.
The Greater Columbia Metropolitan Area is a Democratic stronghold, people. And the only Republicans who have survived in this concrete wasteland are the ones who traded in their conservative ideals in favor of big nanny government a long time ago.
On top of all that, Sanford hasn’t exactly endeared himself to Lexington County Republicans – particularly the few that reside in the carefully-drawn “RINO district” in which Knotts and Katrina Shealy were competing. Sanford lost Lexington County as an incumbent governor in the 2006 GOP primary, and our bet is he probably lost Knotts’ Senate district by an even wider margin.
Our point is this – what would have happened if Sanford had chosen to invest that political capital elsewhere, like the numerous districts in which his approval ratings border (and in some cases exceed) the 90% mark among registered GOP primary voters?
What would the lay of the land be had Sanford engaged districts like the one belonging to Rep. Carl Gullick, where we watched this dyed-in-the-wool Democrat (posing as a Republican) cling to his seat by only 159 votes … or the district represented by B.R. Skelton, where we saw another Democrat-in-hiding remain a “Republican Representative” by just 245 votes?
There are other examples, to be sure, but the bottom line is that Sanford’s selective 2008 engagement probably could have been better targeted.
Of course as we noted in our post-election wrap, there’s no denying that the conservative cause is emerging triumphant from the primary season with at least a six-seat positive swing in both the House and the Senate, perhaps even more depending on how a few of the new Republicans decide to vote come 2009.
Sanford did a fair amount to help that effort, and so we give the governor a “C-” this go round, which is certainly an improvement over the “F” grades he earned during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles.
Comments
By Some one who cares.... on June 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am
He had impact on two and half races:
1) Davis/Cieps- I call this one the half b/c she ran such horrible campaign that Will could have beaten her. But, nevertheless, the Gov got his man in the Senate. I wonder if Campsen is feeling jealous yet?
2) Knotts/Shealy- he did a bang up job in this one. His top target squeeks into a run off, the Gov comes out guns blazing and it actually HELPS Knotts……
3) Talley/Bright- this is the best example of the Gov’s influenece. He can actually take credit for taking down Scott Talley, and that’s a real shame. Never mind that he didn’t apply the same “too many lawyers” logic to the Davis race, Talley was a person that voted witht he Gov often but, would have also had instant credibitlity in the Senate. Bright is going to get a seat next to Davis in the back corner and either will be lucky if they get the Republican Caucus meeting notices more than five minutes after the meeting has adjourned. Way to go Mark, you got your guy but he won’t do you any good.
Singer, Few, Rumsey…. well we’ll just assume they were bad candidates and won’t lay those loses at the Gov’s feet.
By Toyota Kawesaki on June 27th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Gov.Moonbeam keep you libertarian ass out of Aiken County.
By Likeabadpenny on June 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Can someone explain to me how it HELPS the reform agenda to have your sitting governor go after incumbent legislators during the last cycle of his term in office?
All I can see is that the new guys will have ZERO ability to get anything done for their constituents unless they think that throwing hand grenades at the legislative leadership is actually accomplishing anything.
The leadership is going to be around for a lot longer that the governor…and while some activists think that the Governor is going to have clout AFTER 2010, that is simply wishful thinking on their part…there will be a new sherriff in town at that point.
The governor backing a slate of candidates early in his term would have been brilliant….at this point it is nothing but trying to go out with a bang and unfortunately the real losers are gonna be those people who won this year and wont have the governor to protect them from the bitter enemies they will face in the legislature for the foreseeable future.
By upstate on June 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Libertarian my ass. All that would happen is the gov’t would end up regulating private schools more closely. How people consider paying white families to go to a private school a libertarian concept still eludes me. Anyway, for all the $$$ that Howard Rich and Co. pumped into these races, their returns on their investments sure were shitty.
By Amazing on June 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Sanford is an autocratic blow hard….. if he doesn’t get his way he pouts…. He targets those who oppose him…. he had a chance to be considered for VP, but his arrogance and praise of Obamma killed that for him….
The man doesn’t have a clue what is going on…. he has his hand in transactions that he shouldn’t….
I will be really great when he leaves office and THEN MAYBE THINGS WILL CHANGE
By Matt Moore on June 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I think the governor’s impact was pretty substantial. He endorsed in six Senate races and only one was for an incumbent – Senator Ryberg. Of the other five, one was an early open seat endorsement for Mick Mulvaney (which helped prevent primary opposition) and four were remarkably against sitting legislators (Ceips, Knotts, Randy Scott, Scott Talley).
While going against four sitting legislators, it is quite impressive that the Sanford-endorsed candidates won in five of six races. On the Senate floor Wednesday, Randy Scott even said his pollster had him still winning his race after the DUI ruling until Sanford and SC Club for Growth got involved.
Although there have been some occasional public disagreements with House leadership, the governor didn’t need very much help on that side of the aisle where the fiscal conservatives have been growing in numbers and clout. That being said, I think he picked up plenty of support through the high-profile defeats of anti-reformers like Bob Walker and the enormous number of open seats that will be filled by candidates running to support reform efforts.
The problem area has been the Senate and absent some new faces, I can’t imagine that much would have changed. The winning candidates above, combined with other newcomers to the body like Phil Shoopman and Shane Martin, should provide real reinforcements to the small group of reformers already there and dramatically move the Senate forward in areas like restructuring, tax reform and controlling spending.
Matt Moore
Executive Director
SC Club for Growth
By HP on June 27th, 2008 at 9:33 am
#3 — It HELPS the next generation and the next body politic when we strive to structure a government that will FACILITATE logical, self-sustaining improvements. It is being magnanimous toward those who will ‘inherit’ our seat at the table.
Knotts’ habitual squelching of accountability, his assaults on anyone attempting to break the cycle — will continue short of a Damascus Road Experience. He simply cannot see any other pathway to keeping his Plum Seat on the Gravy Train.
By SCHotline.com on June 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
You political hacks need to go back to school… 1. TV is no longer the medium of choice 2. If you don’t give people a reason to vote then why would they and 3. If you don’t know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun in delivering a message please get out of the business before you so incompetently hand the whole legislature over to the RINO’s!
By Thad Viers on June 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The governor helped me out substantially and was worth at least 5% pts in my race and may have saved me from a very expensive, nasty runoff which would be very similar to the Knotts/Shealy fight.
Specifically, he invited me to the illegal immigration bill signing, allowed me to speak, and provided me the opportunity for pictures that were used in the campaign as via a wonderful direct mail piece produced by BBPR {robert Cahaly} as an issue and GOTV.
I am convinced that those pieces not only carried me to victory, but blunted the hate pieces sent out against me.
THANK YOU GOVERNOR SANFORD FOR STAYING WITH ME AND ACTIVELY SUPPORTING SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS YOUR CONSERVATIVE AGENDA!
By Jimmy on June 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Good job at running you line of bullshit, Matt. Too bad that people actually look at wins and losses, not the ridiculous spin you like to put out. By the way – y’all never endorsed Shane Martin. Taking credit where no credit’s due?
By SCHotline.com on June 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Correction: TV is not the ONLY medium of choice and cookie cutter DM goes right in the trash, message and targeting seems to be sorely lacking in the biz.
By Truth Seeker on June 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am
isn’t Phil Shoopman a member of the Christian Exodus Movement?
By Likeabadpenny on June 27th, 2008 at 11:25 am
The reform movement is larger than Sanford.
Sanford has more wins and losses this primary season….good for him, although I would find it hard to consider it a SUBSTANTIAL win in any way.
However the reform movement…you know, the principles and cause for which a number of us passionately believe in, has lost as much ground over Sanford’s tenure because of his childish, immature approach to political reform.
The biggest villains?
1) Legislative leadership who work to maintain their power;
2) Sanford…who doesnt have the judgment to know when his petty little feuds are getting in the way of reform;
3) And groups and people like the Club for Growth who roll over and take it in the rear for Sanford, instead of urging him to let go of his pettiness and focus on the bigger picture.
By Drove the Chevy to the levy on June 27th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Well, with 60% on his test, I think that is a “F” in even SC schools.
By GOP on June 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Matt and Club for Growth:
You show your ignorance every time you move or speak. You made endorsements based on the number of veto votes where people voted to sustain, cutting off the list just where Merrill could make it. You neglected to look at WHO actually supports legislation in “your platform”. That tells me your endorsements don’t mean much cause you spent all of 5 minutes on them. Next time, dont start your pig tour in the district of one of your allies, or do you not know districts that well. I guess you don’t, but you sure know how to try to turn allies into enemies.
By GreenBoy on June 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It amazes me that Jeffrey Sewell continues to spew his garbage all over the web despite never running a campaign in his life.
By Chris Griffin on June 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
How stupid of anyone to think we should try something new in South Carolina. Almost last in education, almost last in jobs, almost last in anything that matters. But as long as the mini-kings in the legislature are getting their pork, who cares!!!
By HP on June 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
That’s right CG. It seems superficial for me to challenge you to look at the poster child of Pork Boys, Jake Knotts — but you tell me:
Been lapping up the gravy a tad excessively?
By HR Pufnstuf on June 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
First of all, let’s dig a little deeper. The loss to Jakie in Lexington County is much bigger than it seems for one reason: psychology. If Sanford had won that seat, his ego would have skyrocketed (more than it already has). Jakie saved us from a governor who would have assumed more power than he actually has, and for that, we should all be thankful.
In Beaufort, Tom Davis (an ideal candidate for any party) did extremely well against Catherine Ceips, a candidate who looked like Helen Keller trying to play “Battleship.” Ceips had the Wallace Scarborough issue, had not run against a strong opponent in years, had to deal with Shealy’s slip-ups, and had the local “golden boy” (Sanford) endorse her opponent. This would be like George Bush endorsing someone in Texas– good as gold. But I don’t give Sanford credit for this win. Tom Davis, as mentioned, was/is a strong candidate and won this election on his own.
Now, here’s my question… Come January, who will know how to govern? And on that note, Davis will be like a fish out of water. For the first time in his life, he’ll have to answer to constituents. Knotts, who is “for the people” has just been given an energy boost that will carry him strongly through the end of the Sanford term. Knotts will continue to reign over the Senate with the Leatherman’s, Peeler’s, Martin’s, Courson’s, McConnell’s, etc. On the other hand, Davis will be a non-factor with the Bryant’s, Ryberg’s, and Campsen’s… Thank God. Davis can keep the Sanford fight going for years after Sanford is out of office, but four years from now, that won’t be a tag anyone wants.
By Likeabadpenny on June 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
#15,
TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN!
By Marianne on June 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
What we don’t need in Aiken County are 308 or so good old boys who now expect Tommy Young Jr. to pay them off after electing a known Democrat to the SC House over a proven conservative in Scott Singer and we especially don’t need any ignorant Toyota Kawesakis involved in our politics if they are so excited about the status quo backward and redneck State Government that we have.
By Clay Pit Crew on June 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Marianne Peckerhead, you need some edumakation. You and your buddy Lord Singer are the left wing liberals. Tom Young is a life-long Republican. Singer hopped the GOP train since he couldn’t win as a liberal Dem. Peckerhead, why don’t you go back to California or New Yawk or whatever sewer it is you crawled out of. Thanks for the redneck slur, b***h!
By Stroker Ace on June 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Marianne,
Tom Young and his family have lived and grown up in Aiken all his life. You can’t be a democrat in his district…even one in hiding. I have known Tom from the days of college republicans, and one thind he is not is a Democrat. Say what you will, but you are wrong on this one. I did hear Singer is a truly a northern lib though so is that what you meant by proven conservative?
By Silence Dogood on June 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Fits I still don’t get it, you noted that:
“Closer into town, you’re dealing with fiscally left-leaning Republican voters who simply don’t dance the “less government†jig.”
Yet this is in part for not supporting millions an millions of state tax dollars going toward public schools? I don’t “get it” how the hell is expanding govenment spending to subsidize private school part of the small/less government “jig?”
By Shame on You Bad Boys on June 28th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Marianne, thanks for telling the truth, I am sure the 308 have already begun to line up on Park Avenue and shame on Harry Shealy and his band of conservationists for supporting Tom Young – Shame on them for not standing with Scott when he has stood with them on numerous issues in the County. Shame, Shame
By Mr. Blackwell on June 28th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Jake “Knocky” Knotts can continue to fight against the conservative principles that will make this state better. He won because he threatened Sturkie into endorsing him and called on Democrats to campaign for him. Remember the fight over the Senate rules a few years back? He went to both Dems and Rep (his own party!) and asked what he would be given to vote with them. That was a close election until he pulled his dirty tactics the last 2 weeks. People are tired of him, he’s not invincible and there’s another shot at him in 4 years. Wear these guys down. Constituents are tired of them. Every election, make them accountable. That’s the key. Oh, and John Courson calling himself a Goldwater Republican?! Goldwater would laugh in his face, granted he’d have to pull him out of the coat closet to do it.
By Toyota Cowasakis Aunt on June 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#21&25 this is just the start WATCH Good BUY jane,dick,dick,fred,butler,bunker,and singer.Just WATCH
Trackbacks