“Hail hail the lucky ones,” Eddie Vedder once sang, and damn(it) if it “ain’t better to be lucky than good,” as the old adage goes.
Disgraced S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford knows what we’re talking about on both counts, as the full S.C. House Judiciary committee on Wednesday rubber-stamped last week’s decision by a six-member subcommittee not to impeach him – a vote which effectively guarantees that Sanford will serve out the remaining thirteen months of his second (and final) term in office.
The vote was 18-6 to reject sending a resolution of impeachment to the full S.C. House, which reconvenes in January.
At every step of this process – which began six long months ago with Sanford’s admission that he lied to the people of South Carolina about a trip to Argentina see his Latin lover – political considerations, not facts, ruled the decisions that were eventually made.
Sadly, that’s par for the course in this state.
Sadder still? A standard-bearer for the fiscal conservative movement in South Carolina – and the nation – has set a disturbing new precedent, namely that taxpayers can now be placed on the hook for international sex romps undertaken by our leaders.
Taxpayers can also now be placed on the hook for the legal defense … err, sorry … the defense of one’s “good office” after those sex romps are exposed.
Think there aren’t dozens of lawmakers already plotting ways to exploit that loophole?
Let’s recap all the ways this anti-climatic ending to the Sanford drama is wrong, wrong, wrong …
First of all, Sanford’s indiscretions were investigated by an agency whose commissioners he appoints. In fact, several of the so-called “judges” of his ethical conduct were actually donors to his gubernatorial campaigns. Then, those commissioners met behind closed doors (at taxpayers’ expense) for practically an entire day, at which point they spit out thirty-seven relatively insignificant violations against him.
At no time was Sanford ever properly investigated – particularly as it relates to the main charge against him.
(How guilty was the governor of using taxpayer funds to arrange a 2008 liaison with his lover in Buenos Aires? He repaid part of the money for the trip, people …)
Anyway, state lawmakers then got involved in the process, which made a bad situation even worse.
With House Speaker Bobby Harrell (who was – is – fearful of investigations into his own dirty laundry) leading by example, the legislature went to sleep on the investigation the minute they judged Sanford to have suffered sufficient public relations damage.
In other words, after bashing Sanford and demanding that he resign, they passed on the opportunity to make that happen. In fact, they worked behind the scenes to make sure that it didn’t happen.
Sanford initially feared a “kangaroo court” against him. Ironically, he ended up getting a “kangaroo court” with the deck stacked in his favor.
Furthermore, the one guy who should have conducted a real investigation (i.e. one with subpoenas, etc.) passed the buck not once, but twice.
Why?
Because there’s a gubernatorial election coming up, and one of the candidates in that race (Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer) would have gotten a jump start had S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, the alleged front-runner in the race, actually done his job.
Obviously Bauer’s used car salesman antics (i.e. offering what came off as a “30-day money back resignation guarantee”) didn’t help the situation.
At the end of the day, if you’re feeling like you spent the last six months getting jerked around by a bunch of self-serving politicians, there’s a reason for that.
You did.
Which is, again, par for the course in South Carolina.
By Crooner December 16, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Spent the last six months being jerked around by a bunch of self-serving politicians??!! Geez, Will, how old ARE you? Much more than six months.
By Michael S. Smith II December 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Too true.
But what did you expect, something other than good ol’ boy monkey business?
Today, members of the General Assembly should be awarded an A+ — for continuing to do an outstanding job of failing to act in the interest of our state’s future, that is. Maybe if the feds do try to launch a case against Sanford they’ll eye some of the people who sought to derail the impeachment for some sort of collusive involvements in the matter. Hey, don’t blame me for being hopeful.
… Of course this was a “political decision,” as Rep. James Smith put it more times than I can recall during the past week. If Sanford is to remain in office, it sure does make it easier for the Dems to sell their gubernatorial candidates. Their pitch: “Do you really want to support a party led by a guy like Mark Sanford?”
… McMaster is not the only one who doesn’t comprehend concepts like that which lawyers point to with terms like “conflict of interest.” The media has done a fine job of failing to point out another obvious reason a democrat on the impeachment subcommittee, Rep. Walt McLeod, who opposed the impeachment resolution should have recused himself of the responsibility to be involved in this matter in the first place: His nephew is running to become governor. Rep. McLeod honestly seems to believe Mullins has a snowball’s chance at winning the primary. And he seems to think the best way to help him is to both keep the joke who is Mark Sanford in office to bolster support for Dems running for governor, and do what he can to ensure his nephew (or the other more likely Dem to make it to the general election, Robert Ford) won’t face an incumbent challenger in the event Bauer advances to the general election.
… I love all of the talk about it being imperative for members of the GA to focus on economic development issues, and I look forward to seeing what they come up with to tackle growing levels of unemployment in the state. Here’s a hint: Asking Team Obama for more money to create temporary government jobs does not count as a plan to grow the state’s economy.
I hope the Republicans who stood in the way of this got the following memo: The brains behind Team Sanford (i.e. Jenny) jumped ship. If you decided to vote against impeachment simply because you were concerned about what Mark might do to derail your political future, which one Web site recently suggested he will try to do, your focus has been on the wrong prospective outcome of your actions. Another hint: Jenny will be the far more influential political figure between the two people comprising South Carolina’s soon-to-be-dissolved first couple — and you guys have just sided with the Loser. (I wonder what the real power player between the two of them thinks about the help you’ve provided Mark, and so should you.)
MICHAEL S. SMITH II
By Sam December 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Michael Smith sure has become a one trick pony.
Tiring, very tiring indeed.
By Ynot December 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Michael SmithII: how the hell can we get the feds here??????
By Jonny D December 16, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I believe that now is the appropriate time to express the following sentiment to all you rat bastard traitorous character assassins:
FUCK YOU!
By Spok December 16, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Well you fucking spineless lawmakers get ready to be voted out of office you son of a bitches. No gotdamn morals left in this state whatsoever.
By Todd December 16, 2009 at 8:01 pm
My favorite part of the show today was Todd Rutherford gettin’ all moral, honest and self-righteous about this circus and comedy show. HAHAHAHAHA. Oh, Todd, you are so funny. If it wasn’t for Jean Toal’s kangaroo court known as the ODC, you would be stocking shelves at WalMart for the holiday season.
By Mike Honcho December 16, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Wow, Michael S. Smith II has shot past Will Folks for Most Spurned Lover in a Political Bromance. Does he have staying power? Only time will tell.
Judging by the fact that Mr. Smith II seems to have an amazing ability to repeat the same exhausting political punchlines, he’ll be on the political ash heap in no time.
By ohara December 16, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Jackass legislators. Loved the way Harrison got all defensive with Rutherford when Rutherford pointed out that Sanford thinks legislators are idiots. “It borders on serious misconduct to call the Impeachment panel idiots. . .”
At least NOW we know what will constitutes grounds for impeachment. Theft of taxpayer funds? Nope-not misuse of office or abuse of power either. It’s calling Harrison an idiot. Un-friggin-believable.
By Groundball December 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm
They may as well cancel the State of the State address. There’s not one elected official in the State House or the Governor’s mansion with enough credibility to pull it off. I suggest we get the SNL team to make this spoof, I mean speech.
By 2 cents December 16, 2009 at 10:51 pm
What a complete, utter jackass. I hope Jenny burns him up in court. Does this mean he’ll get a lifelong check at taxpayer’s expense for his wonderful service to SC?
And yes, lawmakers, be prepared to get voted out. But, hell, I guess they’ll rig or buy those positions back.
Why does this state continually have to be run by corrupt crocks of sh*t who hurt their families and embarass this state, not to mention keep it at the bottom of everything?
By Dr Manhattan December 17, 2009 at 2:19 am
No goddman incumbents in the next election, with the exception of a few they are all fucking cowards and Sanfraud cocksuckers and dont give a fuck about the people of this state. Vote is your right and your power make sure you dont forget what happened this year when our lawmakers said FUCK YOU to South Carolina and its people and left a motherfucking criminal as our governor in power!!!
By anonymous December 17, 2009 at 3:39 am
Employment law
Serious misconduct:
If dismissal is for serious misconduct, the employee may be dismissed immediately and no notice or payment in lieu of notice is required – Payment of the employee is only required up to the moment of dismissal. The Workplace Relations Regulations provide a non-exhaustive definition of serious misconduct which includes:
-wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment; and
conduct that causes imminent and serious risk to:
-health or safety of a person; or the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business;
the employee, in the course of the employee’s employment, engaging in:
i.theft; or
ii.fraud; or
iii. assault; or
the employee refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee’s contract of employment.
************************************************************
THEFT or FRAUD IS SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.
In Sanfraud’s case, it’s Theft AND Fraud.
By Ynot December 17, 2009 at 8:56 am
conduct that causes imminent and serious risk to:
-health or safety of a person; or the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business;
GONNA BE PROVEN – HANG ON PEOPLE
By Michael S. Smith II December 17, 2009 at 8:56 am
YNOT: The answer to your question …
“Should the Feds Be Looking at Governor Sanford”
The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog (December 1, 2009)
By Ashby Jones
(Link to full piece:
Pulled text:
“A recent Law Blog post discussed the problem facing South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster as he considers whether to charge Governor Mark Sanford for misuse of public funds stemming from Sanford’s jaunts down to Argentina. McMaster is running for Governor against Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, and filing charges against Sanford might elevate Bauer to the very office McMaster seeks, giving his opponent a boost. The AG has rejected calls for a special prosecutor, asserting that “Law enforcement and politics do not mix.”
“While he’s right about that, it is the public perception that is just as important. This is a problem that state and local prosecutors face when called upon to consider charges against other elected officials. Most AGs and local district attorney’s are elected themselves, and many harbor ambitions for higher office. Sorting out the many potential conflicts that can arise makes it difficult for the public to believe the justice is being done an investigation of other elected officials is pursued – or dropped.
“The U.S. Department of Justice can step in to take over an investigation when the potential conflicts are just too great for state and local elected prosecutors to handle. While the United States attorneys are political appointees themselves, they are usually at least a few steps removed from local electoral politics. Unlike a sitting AG campaigning for higher office while acting as the state’s chief prosecutor, a U.S. Attorney can’t run for anything while in office.
“An arm of the Department of Justice that investigates corruption is the Public Integrity Section, which is staffed by career prosecutors who have no ties to local elected officials. Their involvement is no panacea, of course, as the flawed prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens shows. But federal prosecutors from Main Justice are much less subject to claims that they are seeking to advance their own personal political agendas.
“If the Department of Justice were to look at Sanford, there are at least two federal criminal statutes that could be used if charges are appropriate. First, 18 U.S.C. § 666 prohibits misapplication of government funds. Federal jurisdiction hinges on whether the state or local government receiving $10,000 in federal money over a 12-month period, something easily met by South Carolina.
“Sanford’s side trip to Argentina to visit his paramour while on a trade mission could well constitute a misapplication of state money, even though he subsequently reimbursed the state for the added costs. An ethics investigation of Sanford also shows that he and his family used a state airplane for personal or political trips, which again could constitute a misuse of state resources.”
Use the above link to read the rest of this entry.
MICHAEL S. SMITH II
By Michael S. Smith II December 17, 2009 at 8:58 am
YNOT:
Sorry, here’s the link to the full WSJ law blog posting by Ashby Jones, “Should the Feds Be Looking at Governor Sanford”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/01/should-the-feds-be-looking-at-governor-sanford/
MICHAEL S. SMITH II
By Charles December 17, 2009 at 9:47 am
Michael Smith is playing “blog tag and lead” with YNOT (probably himself). It is pathetic, and tiresome.
Smith, your run to get Sanford out and Bauer in has come to an end. You can only do your cause and candidate harm by continuing.
Drop the man crush on Bauer and the dependence of Mallory Factor money and prestige for advancement. There are larger issues to worry about; pick one, and begin anew.
By Dr Manhattan December 17, 2009 at 10:20 am
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1073593.html
WATCH THE VIDEO AWSOME, CALLING THEM IDIOTS LIKE THEY ARE NAMELY HARRISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE CALLLED THEIR FUCKING ASSES OUT!!!
By Michael S. Smith II December 17, 2009 at 11:15 am
Charles:
My wife just loves it when you guys call me gay! “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
… Don’t forget to mention I’m also a Tuesday-night-cross-dressing Marxist, Facebook-Friend-of-Hugo Chavez-, Lindsey Graham-Fan-Club-President-, hot-pink-ascot-donning troglodyte who is believed to sell electronic medical records systems to doctors’ offices as a representative of Bobby Harrell’s newest business venture. (At least some Republicans stand to benefit financially from Obamacare becoming law, Bobby! Can’t wait for Sanford to go after you for this one, Mr. Speaker.)
MICHAEL S. SMITH II
By Charles December 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Tiring….so very tiring
By Ynot December 17, 2009 at 1:31 pm
nope I am not Michael Smith II, for this record.
By Michael S. Smith II December 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Charles clearly wants to be like Mike.