S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford’s effort to launch some “not-so-friendly-fire” in the direction of his ideological allies during the impeachment battle is now drawing some fire of its own.
Reported exclusively by FITS two weeks ago, Sanford is actively courting Republican primary opponents against the four GOP lawmakers who are sponsoring the S.C. House’s current impeachment resolution against him.
Three of those lawmakers have joined Sanford in calling for expanded parental choice, while another, Rep. Gary Simrill (R-York), has been a consistent supporter of Sanford’s education, economic and government restructuring reforms.
Randy Page, President of South Carolinians for Responsible Government (SCRG), unloaded on Sanford in a conversation with FITS this week.
“So many conservatives just wish Sanford had spared the state the embarrassment of this impeachment circus and just resigned,” Page said. “His latest attempt to smear good school choice supporters like Gary Simrill, Greg Delleney and Mike Pitts is unconscionable.”
“Good grief – Gary Simrill has always been one of Sanford’s biggest allies on so many issues,” Page added. “The governor’s effort to unseat these guys is personal, petulant, vindictive … and wrong.”
A friend of Simrill’s had even harsher words for Sanford.
“I don’t want him impeached, I want him tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail,” Simrill’s friend told FITS. “He has crossed the ‘ultimate line’ with me by going after Gary.”
Sources close to Sanford maintain that he is not targeting these lawmakers, although multiple sources on the ground – in each district – tell us the opposite is true. Some of the threats are reported to have come directly from Sanford himself, who is said to have boasted of the sizable cash balance that remains in his political campaign account.
Sanford’s administration came under intense scrutiny earlier this year when the governor took a secretive trip to Argentina to see his Latin lover, Maria Belen Chapur. After being caught lying about his whereabouts, Sanford later confessed to the affair.
Shortly thereafter, the governor refunded several thousand tax dollars that went to fund a prior “economic development” mission to Argentina, a trip that now appears to have been set up solely for the purpose of facilitating a liaison between Sanford and Chapur.
Multiple additional travel and campaign finance violations have been alleged, some of which may have exposed the governor to a tax liability.
Barring any unforeseen bombs, the governor seems likely at this point to escape impeachment … although at what cost?
By Pause December 3, 2009 at 10:40 am
We have seen how Mark Sanford has devolved into a paranoid narcissist.
Now we see he is willing to turn on his own supporters and allies.
He is a caricature of a self-serving political elite masquerading as victim
If he had one shred of principle in his body then he would Go back to Buenos Aires and commit to his “soul mate.”
By Scott December 3, 2009 at 10:59 am
It’s one thing to vigorously go after folks who disagree on core policy…but I believe it’s quite another when it involves personal stuff. The only reason Sanford is going after these guys is because they dared to stand up and actually do the House’s job of going through an impeachment hearing.
If Sanford would’ve been half a man, he’d of resigned months ago…but no, it’s so much easier to slam those who do their jobs even when you don’t.
By Michael S. Smith II December 3, 2009 at 11:18 am
Regarding the Argentina Leg Added to the 2008 Trade Mission to Brazil
On September 8, 2009, Gov. Mark Sanford took calls from parties interested in speaking with him as a guest on Keven Cohen’s WVOC talk radio program.
During the third segment of the hour-long program (see http://www.thesunnews.com/1014/story/1057627.html for recording), I called to ask the governor about his 2008 trade trip to Argentina. Specifically, I asked why he decided to add the Argentina leg to the S.C. Department of Commerce’s 2008 trade mission to Brazil. (Here’s how The Post and Courier documented my participation: “Michael S. Smith II of Daniel Island asked Sanford why he had extended a state trade mission to Brazil in 2008 to include a stop in Argentina. The governor’s mistress lives in Buenos Aires.”)
For me, it was a bit odd that the governor had made the trip at all. A little more than a year beforehand the governor met with Argentina’s ambassador to the United States when he visited the Palmetto State to participate as a featured guest for the S.C. World Trade Center’s Ambassador Series dinner forum. During the dinner hosted in Charleston to honor his visit, Ambassador Bordon advised Sanford had just informed him strengthening trade ties between Argentina and South Carolina would not be a priority for the Sanford administration.
Around two-thirds of the way through the third segment Cohen described accusations that Sanford’s trade trip to Argentina in 2008 are an example of the governor’s history of (mis)using state resources for personal purposes as the stuff of a “witch hunt.”
Responding to Cohen’s assertions, Sanford noted his frustrations with such allegations. Sanford then proclaimed: “I’m looking for the truth.”
Then came my turn to highlight Sanford’s meeting with the Argentine ambassador, and ask why – despite his having already advised the country’s chief representative in this country that he did not plan to try to expand trade relations with Argentina – the governor decided to add the trip to the trade mission to Brazil. A trip Sanford subsequently repaid the state for not long after his June 24 press confessional in the State House.
Me: “Governor Sanford, thank you for joining us today. … Speaking of the truth … [background info regarding Sanford's meeting with the Argentine ambassador] … I’m curious about what changed your mind …”
Governor Sanford’s reply: “You’re down there. You’re in that neck of the woods. … [followed by several minutes of evasive rambling regarding South Carolina's European and Asian trade offices, and something about a beachhead in Shanghai].”
As I mentioned in a letter published in The State regarding this exchange, if I’d had a chance to ask another question, it would have been: “Gov. Sanford, why did you just evade my first question?”
If the House Impeachment Subcommittee is looking for a place to start when it comes to analyzing the extent of any wrongdoings committed by the governor when he added that leg to the 2008 trade mission to Brazil, they should start by asking about Sanford’s meeting with Argentine Ambassador Jose Octavio Bordon in 2007. They should also ask why Sanford compensated the state for expenses he incurred using taxpayer dollars to fit the bills associated with that special trip, but did not compensate the state for the expenses incurred by the Department of Commerce Staffer who joined him.
Finally, if they want to really pitch some hardballs, they should ask Mark about Department of Commerce Spokesperson Kara Borie’s role in Sanford’s original gubernatorial campaign. She did such a great job of helping the governor spin the press soon after June 24.
MICHAEL S. SMITH II
CHARLESTON, S.C.
By Minto W. McGill December 3, 2009 at 11:19 am
So who knew that “going after” Gary Simrill would be “crossing the ultimate line?”
By HIPAA Violator December 3, 2009 at 11:33 am
Mark Sanford is an embarrassment to himself, his family, his policies, and this state. I am counting the days until he leaves office, hops on a plane to Argentina and, if we’re lucky…never comes back.
By Ynot December 3, 2009 at 12:42 pm
There is still more to this story.
By Earl Capps December 3, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Minto, good point.
It’s amazing how so many of the Governor’s fans have been so willing to turn the other cheek to his targeting of political opponents, as well as HOW he went about doing that.
It’s ok to channel in tens of thousands of dollars of outside money when it’s for the right reason, but when it’s for a different reason, it’s suddenly not ok.
It’s ok to engage in character assasination, but when it’s for a different reason, it’s suddenly not ok.
Then again, they said about the same thing in Nazi Germany. “As long as it’s not us going to the camps, we’re not worried.
The ends never justify the means. Perhaps those who are just turning against Sanford now, should have realized that and stood up to him a long time ago.
By Scott December 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Wondering what Minto and Earl Capps don’t get about the difference between Sanford personally intimidating those like Simrill, Delleney and Pitts for daring to question his personally [and then actively trying to find primary opponents while the House is conducting hearings on impeachment in the House] versus Sanford and his allies working against incumbents who disagreed with them on ISSUES. It should always be about ISSUES, not personal stuff. I can’t help it that Bill Cotty and Carl Gullick were two of the biggest spenders in the General Assembly…after Sanford went after him on an ISSUE, Cotty suddenly found religion on spending.
By OhNoNotAgain December 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm
What strikes me as interesting is the anonymous sourcing that goes on in stories on this blog.
Simril’s friend said “”
etc.
Now, GOP and conservative types have long blasted what they call the mainstream “liberal” media for the practice, but here we have one of those who might have been asked to denounce the practice when he was the Mouth of Sanford, but he uses it extensively.
It’s not a criticism. Just an observation of an interesting dynamic.
And it’s not like you’re using the method to get “back” at liberals or the mainstream. But it’s obvious you see the necessity of it.
I hate the practice, but see the necessity.
By Ynot December 3, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Sanfraud is an evil evil man.
He needs to be gone.
He harasses citizens too.
By 2 cents December 3, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Why not, why not tell what you know on Sanford.