Appalachian Trail, my ass

Mark Sanford back in March, whipping up support in suburban Greenville for his anti-stimulus nonsense. Photo from the worshipful Greenville News.




Yes, we are continuing our sordid gubernatorial saga from yesterday, wherein South Carolina governor Mark Sanford goes on a binge... oops, I mean, decides to hike the Appalachian Trail all Father's Day weekend, without his four sons and (pointedly) not telling his wife where he is going.

What kind of patriarch is THAT, I ask you? Some Family Values THOSE ARE, Governor Sanford!

As stated yesterday, our chickenshit Gannett newspaper, ever-eager to tote water for the GOP, did not cover the story until it went national and people were giggling on cable TV outlets over it. Now, they have decided to (apologies to Gerald Graff) "teach the controversy" as a way of covering the story, without really covering it or doing any in-depth investigation.

Cagey!

Sanford's undisclosed getaway mocked in the media, criticized by lawmakers
Governor leaves town to 'recharge'
By Tim Smith • Capital Bureau • June 23, 2009

COLUMBIA - Gov. Mark Sanford has been hiking along with Appalachian Trail, his spokesman said this morning, and he will return to work tomorrow because of the attention this trip has garnered.

Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for the governor, said Monday that he could not disclose the location of Sanford. He said today that the governor’s staff waited until last night before releasing more detail, in part because “we wanted to have a little bit better understanding of where he was.”

He said the governor was taken aback by so much attention to his trip.

Sawyer said he did not know when the governor would finish his hiking trip or what section he was on of the popular trail, which runs from northern Georgia to Maine. Sawyer said there was no need to turn over his authority to the lieutenant governor.

Sawyer on Monday said the governor had left town last week to a secret location to “recharge” after his bruising political battle with lawmakers over the federal stimulus issue.

Sanford’s sabbatical drew the interest this morning of national radio talk show host Glenn Beck, who mused that the reason the conservative governor’s absence had stirred so much talk among politicians is because he poses a threat to the status quo.

“This guy’s a threat,” he told listeners. “What do they do? They smear him.”

Beck and his staff poked fun at critics of Sanford, mockingly suggesting that one reason Sanford’s wife had said she was not sure where her husband was could be because she had him killed.

“What’s next, Governor Sanford, fishing at Christmas?” Beck quipped.

One state senator questioned whether the governor’s location was known by his staff and criticized the governor for leaving without handling over control of state government to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

“I think everybody in South Carolina ought to have a problem with it,” said Sen. Jake Knotts, a West Columbia Republican and frequent Sanford critic. “I don’t mind him taking off somewhere to be alone. But the constitution says that in the absence of the governor, the lieutenant governor should be left in charge.”

Sawyer said the Republican governor was taking time away “to recharge after the stimulus battle and the legislative session, and to work on a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside.”

He said the brief sabbatical is not unusual.

Well duh! No, a sabbatical is not unusual, but not telling even your wife and children where you are, during Father's Day weekend, is just plain weird.

Further, it STINKS.

Does anyone believe this bullshit?

“The governor put in a lot of time during this last legislative session, and after the session winds down it's not uncommon for him to go out of pocket for a few days at a time to clear his head,” Sawyer said in a statement. “Obviously, that's going to be somewhat out of the question this time given the attention this particular absence has gotten.”

Before leaving last week, Sanford told his staff his whereabouts and let them know he would be difficult to reach, Sawyer said.

Should any emergencies arrive before his return, Sawyer said, the governor’s staff would contact other state officials to address them.

Knotts, a former police detective who first learned of the governor’s disappearance on Saturday, said Sanford left last week in a State Law Enforcement Division vehicle and that agency has not been able to contact him since. He said it is not the first time the governor has shaken his security detail.

“I understand that in other instances over the last several weeks, the governor has left without any detail and gone for short periods of time,” Knotts said, “but this is the longest.”

SLED Director Reggie Lloyd could not be reached for comment.

Knotts said he also had a problem with the governor taking a fully equipped SLED vehicle.

“I’ve had my battles with the governor,” Knotts said. “But this isn’t a battle with the governor. This is just plain out logical thinking.”

When Sanford first took office in 2002 he indicated he did not want a security detail watching him. He later relented after discussions with SLED’s chief.

Word of his disappearance on Monday prompted the leader of the Senate Democrats to say that he was praying for the governor.

“We’ve been concerned by the governor’s erratic behavior for some time,” Sen. John Land said in a statement. “We’re praying for him and his family. I hope he is safe and that he contacts the First Lady and his family soon.”

Sanford spent months opposing the acceptance of about $700 million in federal stimulus aid and even filed suit to try and get a federal judge to rule on the issue after the Legislature passed a budget with a provision that required the governor to apply for the money.

A federal judge sent the issue to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which ruled against the governor.

Why are we stuck with this jackass for a governor? Haven't we been punished enough?

And why DIDN'T he want a security detail? Oh yeah, all that Republican fiscal responsibility, right? Does anyone believe that?

I hope some intrepid, dedicated reporter with money and means, is snooping around the bank accounts as we speak, and looking for the brothel or the dope dealer or whatever else it is. Because I don't believe a single word of this CRAP.

"Born alive" bill moves a step closer to law

I wasn't sure if I should cover this, at first. It's just weird. But as a feminist blogger in South Carolina, I figured it is my unpleasant task to do so.

This sounds like more right-to-life grandstanding to me. Note last paragraph; this law was apparently inspired by ONE case back in 2003. And there is no proof that this fetus was the result of abortion or miscarriage.

I think it's another way to make people more uncomfortable with abortion, basically a propaganda ploy.

Barack Obama supports this? He must not think it will cost him any political support, since it's far too arcane to make any real difference.

"Born alive" bill moves a step closer to law
By Tim Smith • CAPITAL BUREAU • May 6, 2009
Greenville News

COLUMBIA – A bill that would prevent a fetus from being thrown away as medical waste or to die outside the mother’s body as a form of abortion moved one step closer to law this morning after it passed a Senate subcommittee.

Senators amended the House-passed bill to note that nothing in the legislation affects state or federal laws on abortion or affects generally accepted medical standards.

The “born alive” bill now moves to the full Judiciary Committee.

The legislation defines a person as anyone who is breathing or who is born with a beating heart, no matter the means of birth or whether the result of an abortion.

Orin Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, told the committee the bill is rooted in a federal law passed in 2002 as the result of aborted fetuses that were allowed to die. He said both former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama supported the federal legislation.

“I think we have broad support for the bill,” he said.

Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat whose wife is a physician, said he does not understand the need for the bill because it does not “change anything.”

Janet Scouten, director of research for Smith’s organization, said the bill would provide “an additional level of protection.”

Holly Gatling, executive director of S.C. Citizens for Life, a pro-life group, pointed to a report in 2003 in Columbia of a fetus found at a laundry company, wrapped in a blanket.

Does anyone else believe this is anything other than pro-life grandstanding?

Stimulus Deadline approaches, South Carolina appears fucked

...in ohhh, so many ways.


Photo of Governor Mark Sanford is from NBC news. He is the cause of all this. Inscribe his face on your memory. After he is out of office, he deserves to be made unemployable for the rest of his days.



States have until midnight on Friday to apply for the economic stimulus package, and as regular Dead Air readers know, our sorry-ass governor has yet to do so, citing some kind of half-baked, Ayn Randian bullshit. He is proudly refusing the funds on principle. And our state, of course (no thanks to him and his type), is in some pretty bad shape.

Needless to say, South Carolina is in some dire economic straits. Where is Sanford getting the idea that we don't need the money? Pulled right out of his clueless, rich, white-boy ass.

Of all 50 states, only my state and Montana have not applied for funds.

And only Governor Sanford can apply. It is all on him. And since he refuses, as my post title today proclaims: we are fucked.

There was a protest in Columbia, at the South Carolina statehouse, yesterday. According to the STATE newspaper (Columbia):

Rally urges Sanford to 'Take the money'
Educators, students, lawmakers rally at State House
By GINA SMITH - gnsmith@thestate.com

More than 1,000 teachers, college students and others converged on the State House Wednesday with a message for Gov. Mark Sanford: Take the $700 million in federal stimulus money.

Without it, an estimated 1,700 teachers, like Lisa Matthews, could lose their jobs, according to the state Department of Education.

Estimates by some Democratic lawmakers put the job loss number in the 3,000 to 4,000 range.

The House version of the budget uses $350 million of the federal funds to offset cuts to K-12, higher education and law enforcement.

Matthews, carrying a sign that read: “Pink Slip for Mark Sanford,” said she has been put on notice by Kershaw County school district leaders that she will lose her job as an in-school suspension teacher at Lugoff-Elgin Middle School if Sanford doesn’t accept the funds.

The governor has until Friday to make a decision but has already made it clear he won’t take it unless state lawmakers agree to pay down a corresponding amount of state debt.

“I just don’t feel like he understands, like he gets it,” said Matthews, who has been a teacher for nearly seven years. “He’s trying to make a name for himself. And he’s doing it.”

Behind her, Janet Haselden, a media specialist assistant at Lugoff-Elgin Middle School who also will lose her job without the stimulus funds, said she is disappointed with the governor.

“I don’t think he’s looking at the big picture right now. I don’t think he’s thinking about the needs of schoolchildren,” she said.

At least one of DEAD AIR's readers may also lose her job.

It's personal, Governor Sanford, you swine!

From Tim Smith, of the Greenville News:

Sanford has said he will only accept the $700 million -- part of $2.8 billion in stimulus money available to the state over two years -- if lawmakers agree to spend the same amount to reduce the state’s debt.

Sanford for months has protested the federal stimulus legislation, arguing it will only heap debt on taxpayers and not cure the economy. He said accepting the $700 million for the budget will only postpone dramatic pain to agencies for two years, when the money runs out.

Lawmakers argue that rejecting the money will in effect send South Carolina taxpayers’ money to other states without any of the benefits. And without the stimulus, they argue, thousands of teachers will lose their jobs, tuition will be hiked by double digits at state colleges and prisons will close.

Sen. Hugh Leatherman, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, met Wednesday afternoon with Sanford in his Senate office about the issue and told reporters afterward that the meeting was "utterly fruitless."

"He offered no compromise, no stepping back from the cliff upon which he has plunked our state," Leatherman said, who accused Sanford of becoming "personal" in the meeting and telling Leatherman he just wanted "to grow government."

Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for Sanford, said Leatherman’s complaints were an attempt "to distract from the real issue here: the governor has offered a very reasonable middle ground in taking a quarter of the stimulus money and using it to pay down debt." Sawyer said the governor is continuing to work with some legislators on a plan to spend the money on debt.

Leatherman said he told the governor the state couldn’t afford to use the stimulus on debt and is already in a bind over the potential loss of federal matching dollars if further cuts are made to education and Medicaid agencies.

One of Sanford’s closest allies in Congress, Rep. Bob Inglis of Travelers Rest, on Wednesday urged Sanford to accept the funds.

"It’s like this," he told the Gannett Washington Bureau, "a table full of food has been prepared. And South Carolina is going to join the other 49 states in paying for the food. That being the case, it seems irrational to me to refuse the sustenance."

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has also urged Sanford to accept the money, on Wednesday released a letter to him by Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, who said Sanford, not lawmakers, has to apply for the stimulus money. But Orszag said Congress should change the law.

"It would be unfortunate (and we believe unintended) policy outcome if the children of South Carolina were to be deprived of their share of federal stimulus dollars, which South Carolina citizens have already paid for," he wrote.

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Majority Whip, had tried to head off this week’s crisis by inserting language in the stimulus legislation allowing legislators to bypass governors who don’t accept the funds.

Clyburn on Wednesday said in response to the White House letter that Sanford’s refusal of the money would cut education funding for two-thirds of the state’s children who would have been helped by the money.

Meanwhile, on the state Senate floor, Sen. John Land, leader of Senate Democrats and the Senate’s longest-serving member, displayed what he called the "countdown clock to chaos," showing the time left before Sanford has to make a decision.

Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler asked the governor to change his mind, "pretty please with sugar on top." Others called Sanford "Don Quixote" or suggested his actions were influenced by White House ambitions.

Sen. Michael Rose, a Dorchester County Republican, pleaded for a compromise.

"This is mutually assured destruction. That’s what we’re headed for," he told the Senate. "This is too serious to risk brinksmanship."

But three of Rose’s resolutions, non-binding statements that he said were attempts to reach out to the governor, were sent to Leatherman’s committee, where he predicted they would die.

Leatherman said if Sanford doesn’t apply for the money Friday, he will seek passage on the first available legislative day afterward of a resolution asking for the stimulus money, as allowed by Clyburn’s provision.

Furious barely covers it for me, folks. I have pretty much been reduced to sputtering level, no good for a blogger.

Ohhhhh, won't someone help us?! (((cries))) (((howls)))(((starts singing any number of trad blues songs)))

As one commenter said on one of the above articles: Governor Sanford seems to have a pretty high tolerance for other people's pain.

I remember people used to actually engage in tarring and feathering. It's a thought.

Lindsey Graham releases White House response to stimulus dilemma

And the conservative wrangling over the stimulus isn't over. Are you kidding?

One doesn't quite know whether to laugh or cry.



Senator Lindsey Graham releases White House response to stimulus dilemma

By Tim Smith • CAPITAL BUREAU
Greenville News • April 1, 2009

COLUMBIA - The White House Office of Management and Budget says that only Gov. Mark Sanford can apply for $700 million in federal stimulus funds, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said this morning.

Graham, who last week called attention to a congressional report raising legal questions about a provision allowing legislatures to bypass governors in claiming the money, had asked for an opinion from the White House.

The White House letter follows release of an opinion on Tuesday by State Attorney Henry McMaster that said the governor would have to approve spending the money, even if the Legislature requested it.

Sanford, who has until Friday to request the money, has said he will only do so if the Legislature agrees to spend it on state debt. Lawmakers have warned that without the stimulus money, thousands of teachers will be fired, tuition at state colleges will increase by double digits and some prisons could be closed or inmates released early.

"Regardless of one’s opinion about the provision’s constitutionality, the Congress will not be able to fix this problem by Friday and allow the state legislature to apply for the funding," Graham said in a statement. "Also, it is unlikely other states would want to pass a legislative fix that would assist South Carolina. By doing nothing, other states increase the chances they will receive a portion of the funding originally directed to our state."

Graham repeated his opinion that Sanford should ask for the money because it is money paid by South Carolinians that could go to other states if he doesn't.. He also said he hopes the governor and lawmakers can strike a compromise.

"It is my hope a win-win solution which addresses our state’s needs today while building a solid foundation for future generations can be achieved,” he said.

The $700 million is part of $2.8 billion in stimulus funds available to the state.

Lindsey's fingers are itching, and he wants the money. This is, as far as I can see, the only way we might actually get it.

Help us Obi Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope!

NAACP wages new effort to bring down Confederate flag

CSA Battle Flag image from The Palmetto Scoop.

~*~

My first confederate flag thread is here, in which I said all I am going to say (too much, as usual). The NAACP's new campaign against the flag starts on October 2nd.

NAACP wages new effort to bring down Confederate flag

Governor says he won’t get involved

By Tim Smith • STAFF WRITER, Greenville News
September 23, 2008

COLUMBIA -- The South Carolina and North Carolina chapters of the NAACP called the Confederate flag that flies on Statehouse grounds here a symbol of evil and terrorism and said Monday they will join in their efforts to remove it.

“As long as this flag blows, it pushes a foul wind of separatism, division and racism that is not contained by the borders of South Carolina,” said the Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP. The two chapters of the organization used the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation to announce new efforts.

North Carolina’s NAACP plans to fight any cooperation between that state and South Carolina in film projects until the flag is removed, Barber said.

Dr. Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina NAACP, said press conferences supporting a boycott of South Carolina were held simultaneously in seven southeastern states.

“This is not a South Carolina issue,” he said. “This is a national issue.”

The battle flag was moved to its current location near the Confederate Soldiers Memorial on the north side of the Statehouse in 2000 as a result of a legislative compromise to take it off the Statehouse dome. The NAACP has protested its location ever since and organized a tourism and travel boycott of the state.

On Monday, Gov. Mark Sanford repeated his previously stated reluctance to get involved in the flag fight.

“That would consume the two years I have left, and I have to stay focused on the things that I originally made pledges to voters on,” he said.

This summer, Randolph revealed the civil rights organization was working with some officials in Hollywood to keep film projects from locating in the state as part of the NAACP’s campaign.

Randolph said Monday that he couldn’t yet disclose who in Hollywood is assisting the NAACP but said the organization planned to announce some “high-profile names” in time for the NAACP’s 100th anniversary early next year.

Both men said they are also working to block collaborative agreements between the two state’s film offices.

“We don’t believe our film industry in North Carolina ought to be doing collaborative work with South Carolina until such time as this flag is removed,” Barber said.

Barber said the battle flag is wrong morally “because it supported the evils of slavery.”

“We wouldn’t allow al-Qaida to fly their flag,” he said. “We wouldn’t allow the Bloods and the Crips to fly their flag. We wouldn’t allow another country to fly its flag. We should not allow that which represents terrorism and secession to be flown.”

Randolph said little progress has been made in the Statehouse on the issue but said change that benefits blacks in the state rarely occurs except as a result of war, constitutional changes, an executive order or the death of someone.

“The Klansmen don’t wear white sheets anymore,” he said. “They wear three-piece suits and carry briefcases. But they do the same damage that they used to.”

Randolph said the state’s 67th annual convention will be held in Charlotte, beginning Oct. 2, the eighth year the NAACP in South Carolina has moved out of state for its convention to observe the flag boycott.

----------------
Listening to: Louis Armstrong - Stardust
via FoxyTunes

Still fighting over THAT flag...

Left: Yes, you know what it is. (Image from The Palmetto Scoop.)

~*~

For foreign readers (and Americans who didn't memorize their history lessons): South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in 1860. Largely for this reason, Union forces fired on Fort Sumter, which is considered the official beginning of the Civil War. Yes, it all started here!!!!

How to honor such history respectfully, is the question.

It seems we still can't agree on that.

Although the CSA battle flag is on South Carolina statehouse grounds, it is no longer in the front and is displayed as part of a memorial to the deceased CSA soldiers. No one objects to the memorial itself (that I know of); it's the flag that raises objections and gets everyone all stirred up.

From the Greenville News today:

Confederate group plans response to flag flap

Organization denies comments about flying more flags to counter NAACP

By Tim Smith • CAPITAL BUREAU • July 17, 2008

COLUMBIA -- The Sons of Confederate Veterans plans a response to the NAACP's push to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds but denied Wednesday one of its officers' statements that it would fly flags around the state in reaction.

Meanwhile, in response to questions by The Greenville News on Wednesday about whether he supported moving the flag, a spokesman for the presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. John McCain said the issue of the flag has already been resolved.

"Sen. McCain has said repeatedly that he could not be more proud of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Carolina who have come together to resolve the issue," said Mario Diaz, a spokesman for the campaign.

A spokesman for the presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama couldn't be reached for comment.

State NAACP President Lonnie Randolph said Tuesday the national organization had asked actors and movie studio representatives to observe the NAACP's economic sanctions against the state until the flag is moved off Statehouse grounds. He said the civil rights organization had received "very positive" responses.

The battle flag flies behind the Confederate soldiers' monument near a busy Columbia intersection, the result of a legislative compromise in 2000 to bring the flag off the Statehouse dome.

Randy Burbage, who leads South Carolina members in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the group's officials will consider proposed responses to the NAACP actions when they meet in two weeks.

"We're weighing different options," he said. "We always respond to attacks on our heritage, and we feel like that's what this is."

He said he was "not at liberty" to describe what was being considered, but he denied the comments of another officer earlier in the day who said the organization planned to raise flags across the state in response to the NAACP's latest campaign to remove the flag.

"That's not true," he said. "He misspoke on that. There's no plan to do that. I'm puzzled as to why he even said that. He's not the spokesman for the organization. I've already spoken to him today, and he admitted that he misspoke on that."

Burbage said it was also untrue that the organization planned to raise a flag each time the NAACP complained or that the organization was negotiating with a landowner to raise a giant flag near a Midlands interstate, just as supporters have raised such flags in Florida.

"I don't know how I can put these fires out at this point," he said. "That's him speaking for himself, not this organization."

My observation? It never ends.

----------------
Listening to: Yo La Tengo - Moby Octopad
via FoxyTunes

Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments

They finally figured out a way to sneak them in. They are now "historical" documents and are included solely for that reason.

Of course, this begs the question: the Catholic or Protestant version of the Ten Commandments? (I bet I know the answer to that one!)

Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments

By Tim Smith • STAFF WRITER • May 23, 2008 • GREENVILLE NEWS

COLUMBIA -- The Senate passed a bill today that would allow displays in public buildings of the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer as historical documents.

The bill, without the Lord’s Prayer amendment, already passed the House and now returns there for legislators to determine whether they agree with the Senate’s change. If they agree, the bill goes to Gov. Mark Sanford.

Passage came with one prominent opponent. Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell said the Lord’s Prayer amendment is "constitutional quicksand" that will draw a court challenge and unnecessary legal fees.

"There are at least five different versions of the Lord’s Prayer," he said. "I have no problem personally with the Lord’s Prayer being publicly displayed. But the courts have spoken pretty clearly about where they are on the separation of church and state and these documents."

The bill would allow public bodies, including schools, to display a set of 11 documents lawmakers say help make up the nation’s foundation of law and government. Included are the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation and Martin Luther King’s "I have a Dream" speech, as well as the national motto, "In God We Trust."

The documents must include language included in the bill that explains each document’s historical significance.

"The historical documents bill passed by the Senate is a win because it will help to further educate people about the documents that formed the foundation of our country’s history and provide deeper meaning to the great and rich history that we have in this country," said Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens, who shepherded the issue through the Senate.

"It will also be a great tool for history, civic and government teachers to use in their classroom."

Martin said afterward that a number of senators were nervous about including the Lord’s Prayer but did so out of fear of what voters would think if they voted against it. The amendment was proposed by Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat.

"Some people felt like there was no way they could go back home and explain why they voted against the Lord’s Prayer," Martin said.

Sen. Mike Fair of Greenville said the bill is "sound." He added, "It’s not religious. It’s historical."

Parts of the Lord’s Prayer, Fair said, was referenced by an early governor of Georgia in removing a provision for debtors’ prison.

However, McConnell, the only senator voting against the bill, said if the Lord’s Prayer is left in, the bill will be overturned by the courts.

"I cannot vote for a bill when all of the advice from the lawyers leads you to the presumption that it is unconstitutional," he said.

"The taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill for all of this. If we had stuck to the documents that have been pretty much court tested, we would be fine. But we expanded it beyond that. And I believe it will cause the package to explode in the courts."

Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County Republican, disagreed. "It’s true that the Lord’s Prayer wasn’t included in some of the test cases," he said. "But the condition of the test cases is whether the item is placed into historical context. I think they made it where we have a good shot at maintaining the constitutionality of it."

Thomas said he doesn’t mind the bill being challenged because it could expand the documents that can be set in such displays.

What else qualifies? What else might we get put on display? (I see no foreseeable end to the Bible verses.)

And if this is challenged in the courts, I don't want to pay for it. Do I get a choice?