From the Ridiculous To The Sublimely Ridiculous
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on March 11th, 2009 in Republican Clown ShowTrying to sell a Senate seat for personal gain is an impeachable offense, as we all know. How about shamelessly sacrificing the welfare of your state for your own selfish political aspirations?
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has probably set a new record for reckless disregard of his duty to his constituents:
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) has completed his review of the recently enacted stimulus package and will be sending President Obama a letter in the next few days asking for permission to apply a quarter of South Carolina’s stimulus money, approximately $700 million, to paying down state debt rather than using the money to fund government programs.
[...]
If Obama turns down Sanford’s request, the South Carolina governor will not seek the $700 million in stimulus funds which are under the governor’s discretion. …“In the unfortunate case that the President would deny our request, I will not seek the funds, as I believe doing so would not help our current economic problems and would do real harm to our future financial picture,” writes Sanford.
By the way, it’s not like Sanford is gracefully accepting three-quarters of South Carolina’s stimulus money. That $2.1 billion is “beyond the governor’s discretion”.
Sanford is supposed to represent everyone in South Carolina, isn’t he, not just the one person who fancies his chances in the 2012 presidential election?
Bobby Jindal’s attempt to reject $90 million in stimulus money was pathetic enough. But Sanford is in a class of his own.
joelpalmer wrote:
Sanford is one ogf the GOP dead enders who absolutely don’t get the last election or the near eclipse of their party.
Americans are fed up with a party that is largely responisble for the policies of huge tax cuts for the very wealthy and irresposible spending on programs that only benefit their friends (Medicare prescription bil for example) The results are horrifying; GOP has run up 7 trillion in debt among Bushes (herbert walker and herbert hoover) and Reagan with NOTHING to show for it. No health care no day care nothing.
The voters got wise in 06 and 08; when 10 rolls around the GOP will not know what hit them. Only one in 20 is a fan of limbaugh (that fat crypto nazi); not enough to win an election thank god
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 6:50 am ¶
matt wrote:
>when 10 rolls around the GOP will not know what hit them
i think it might be you who will be surprised.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 8:27 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
There may be legitimate grounds to criticize Obama (on many fronts) but the Republican party right now is just such a complete joke, it’s hard to see 2010 turning out to be an unpleasant surprise for Democrats.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 9:39 am ¶
Shadysider wrote:
Agree with sarabeth – Though I will be voting for Specter. (although to some Republicans this is tantamount to voting Democrat)
Sanford is acting ridiculous, though I agree in principle that debt should be paid off before new spending. He had been wholly against the stimulus, then against it unless it stimulated the economy, and now he wants to use it to subsidize his state’s budget.
We also should not forget that Bush signed the first of these recovery acts.
I’m in favor of having an opposition party as much as anyone, but what if that party has no ideas, relies on demonization and rhetoric, does the same thing they accuse their opponents of, and if their base constituency can’t accept or acknowledge that their party did a lot of destructive work over the last 8 years?
Not to mention that I and many others agree with the Republican Party only in their espousal of fiscally responsible and economically conservative issues.
I doubt 2 years will completely remove what many see as the failures of the last president from most people’s memory. It really comes down to where our economy is in 3 and a half years. Even then I’m not sure that many can forget and get over 2000-2008 in order to vote for Republicans that soon, again.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>it’s hard to see 2010 turning out to be an unpleasant surprise for Democrats.
no it isn’t. polls show voters giving obama until ~sept 2010 to make significant progress on the economy. a combination of factors (the problem is bigger than he is, his bad econ policy) make it unlikely that he will make much progress.
dems must defend a lot of lean read seats in the house and will have to defend more seats than republicans in the senate.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Though I will be voting for Specter.
shadysider is an embarrassment to my former hood/school.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
even if there isn’t significant progress on the economy, the choice is still going to be between Democrats and the joke that the Republican party has allowed itself to become.
and I wouldn’t be surprised if voters are willing to make allowances for economic recovery taking longer than hoped, especially when it is spun as being partly due to Republican obstructionism.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 5:22 pm ¶
matt wrote:
2010 is a mid-term. traditionally new presidents do poorly in these elections. if the economy is still in bad shape, challenger republicans in these red and purple districts can localize the elections, and they will. rush and steele won’t have anything to do with it, local unemployment, foreclosures, taxes etc will.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 9:40 pm ¶