Comments on: Sanford’s “Misery Loves Company” Strategy

By: Notafan

Notafan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:03:31 +0000

Hi FITS,

Ever thought of putting a “reply to” function on the individual comments? That way I could really rip into people like Candi and Barney Fife, who are inexplicably defending the indefensible Sanford. Just a thought.

It’s great that this website exists. You are helping to shine a light on the disgusting underbelly of this state. It’s like picking up a rock that’s been sitting in the same place for 200 years…

By: patricia

patricia — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:22:43 +0000

I could care less about Sanford’s affair or his travel. GET TO WORK AND GET SC JOBS. We underlings cannot achieve a “zen-like” mindset such as Sanford’s without a freakin JOB !

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:59:20 +0000

BlueTiger: Jim Barker is not the only one happy Sanford is eating up the MSM spotlight. Glenn Mcconnell is happy he is off the hook on the Hunley imbrolgio for the year, Jean Toal is happy nobody is snooping around her court administration offices right now, Henry McMaster is happy no one has any time to really investigate his campaign and failure to investigate anything not politically expedient, Pastides is happy no one has time to look at Innovista and the list goes on……

By: bluetiger

bluetiger — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:22:37 +0000

CNSYD– Honestly,, no rumors on Barker, himself, and affairs about the only redeeming thing that can be said for him. He spends his time covering up thoses type transgressions of his direct and slightly lower staff. Then, allowing the lower level employees get harassed, persecuted, become victims of underhanded retalliaton and and facing a continuing campaign to chase them off from their chosen way of livelihood.

Just a group of dirty old men, with the strong protection of those above who don’t really give a damn.

VP’s, Associate VP gone wild – in their playgrounds at Clemson.

other than that, Give’m a fit tigers – need a big season. The Athletic Department, despite some questionable leadership, seems to be our last stronghold of decency amoung the Staff.

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:35:09 +0000

clemson insider, it is the norm for research university presidents to have seats on corporate boards. It helps get grants for research from private companies. Use of a university plane may or may not be OK. First you have to determine who actually owns the plane that was used. Most Div 1 schools have a plane(s) owned by their athletic department and not bought with state funds. Sometimes plane(s) are owned by the university’s foundation. IRT Hendrix’s comment. He is a pompous ass who married into his first “executive” position so he is one to talk about “training”.

By: clemson insider

clemson insider — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:20:23 +0000

Sanford is very right on this one.The spotlight needs to shined especially on Clemson and President Barker’s use of the university’s plane. In the year ending 2008,alone, Barker received compensation totaling over $150,000.00 for sitting on the Board of Directors of the Shaw Corporation where the Clemson Trustees used connections to get him a seat in 2004 so he could, in the words of trustee Bill Hendrix,”get some executive training.” The S.C.Ethics Commission may allow state employees to “moonlight,” but the Commission has ruled specifically that state employees cannot use state equipment in the pursuit of their outside employment.Breaking news from the Clemson campus may reveal as early as next week that Barker has used the university plane to travel to Shaw board meetings since 2004,and has not reimbursed the State Treasury for his personal use of the plane.

By: aprice2

aprice2 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:05:42 +0000

Cicero – These aren’t “minor” travel violations. He spent taxpayers dollars to fly to a football game for his son, a dental appointment in Sullivan’s Island, and a hair cut in Columbia.

As for impeachment…you bet your bippie he should be impeached (which doesn’t mean he will resign). Mark Sanford willfully, surrepticiously, and deceitfully abandoned his post as governor of the State of South Carolina for six days.

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:02:26 +0000

Barney and Cicero, Whether a Governor flies coach or first class or whether they deserve to is not the point. The point is what do the rules say. If he violated the rules then he has to be accountable and the “everybody else does it” excuse is not valid. What appears to be happening is that when stones are overturned many small infractions appear that show a pattern of behavior. That pattern is wilfull breaking of rules, no matter how minor. If EVERYTHING has been above board in ALL that he has done, then why did he reimburse the state for the Argentina trip?

By: Oh boy

Oh boy — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:50:08 +0000

Make sure these people at the Universities were taking trips internationally that just happened (I mean conicidence of coincidences) to correspond to the city where there mistresses lived at the time. Also, make sure they staked their entire reputation on being frugal, small government, no government waste officials before caring what their travel is worth even spitting at. Wheter Sanford’s travel itself is an impeachable offense (likely not) his hypocrite status grows each time he points out “hey everyone else was doing it” whereas he has said for the past 12 years or so – “Look at me, I am doing it right, everyone else doing it doesn’t make it right.”

Big deal, Sanford found his “sole” mate in living on government graft and abusing his travel budget expense account, while empowering his own feeling of entitlement at the same time as he made government employees room at trailer parks and double at the same time while he flew to China and to see his mistress first class. Big whoop, he just full of shit, what’s new under the sun now?

By: Cicero

Cicero — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:21:44 +0000

I don’t understand FITS’ point. You’re saying the governor is a hypocrite so he should step down. That’s a legitimate position. It leaves it to Sanford to make the decision. The concern I have with the way the debate is going is that many people assume that, if he doesn’t step down, he should be impeached. REgardless of whether one thinks he should stay in office, the step to impeach should only be taken on ver specific constitutional grounds. If minor travel violations that every top official is likely guilty of becomes the standard for impeachment, then essentially any official can be impeached for any reason. Politics will take another step toward pointless perpetual warfare.