Thursday, September 14, 2006

Governor Sanford not in trouble

Governor Sanford not in trouble

The Greenville News ran an article recently that suggested that since Governor Sanford was campaigning up in the upstate, he was in some sort of political trouble this fall.

The article emphasized the disagreements with the State House of Representatives the Governor has had, quoting Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper of the upstate.

While there might be some level of discontent among the members of the House and Senate in the upstate, and even some partisans in the upstate, the Governor is not in trouble.

The Governor is not in trouble because the upstate is no longer the kingmaker in Republican politics. More people live and vote along the coastal areas of South Carolina. And, woe to you those in the upstate, which I am a native of, the Governor has the juice upon the coast and frankly a few dissenters in the upstate just does not matter the way it once did.

I personally wish the Governor was better at getting along with the legislature than he is. However, look for the Governor’s campaign to paint the legislature as odd and out of step with progress. That type of campaign will play well to the voters along the coast. Those voters are mainly made of up of folks who have not spent their entire lives in South Carolina and see our state as backwards by reflex. It is those voters, the new South Carolinians along the coast, who are now the kingmakers in South Carolina politics.

If the under funded Tommy Moore can somehow make a dent in the coastal vote, the state senator from rural Aiken county might have a chance at victory. However, it is my guess he won’t, and that the Governor will win easily, no matter what folks in the upstate do.

Politics in South Carolina just ain’t the way it used to be. Upstate activists no longer hold all the cards, so to speak. That is how Mark Sanford won his nomination and election four years ago. Governor Sanford will win re-election despite the upstate.

It will be four more years of the same “get hardly anything done” agenda from the Governor. That is where the power of the upstate legislators and activists is really felt. But, they can not and will not make the under funded Tommy Moore Governor. Sanford will win in a walk, and he will do so by rolling up big numbers on the coast.

And, the folks have reasons to vote for Sanford. He stands for tax cuts and more responsive government. The Governor stands up against the wasteful Clyburn Bridge project, a project those on the right and left in the Midlands oppose. The Governor stands up against the state legislature, which polls show many of us think inept, (unless you are talking about our own state representative or state senator.)

Add it all up, and that is why Sanford will win, but more of the same will be delivered to the state and its voters. We voters will return the Governor who stands up against the legislators we individually elect. A few griping voices from the upstate will not keep the Governor from being returned his role as griper in chief.

4 comments:

  1. Brian:
    I agree that Gov. Sanford is OK!
    Recent poll numbers confirm your specualtion.
    However, review county voting results for GOP candidates and the Upstate is what drives the victories.

    Rick Beltram

    ReplyDelete
  2. In GOP primaries, the upstate makes a big difference.

    However, in the last two Governor's races, it is who carried the lowcountry that won.

    Hodges did in 1998. Sanford did in 2002.

    I think Sanford will carry the lowcountry this year and that is why he is a lock to win, even if there is a revolt in places like Greenwood, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian,

    Governor Sanford may serve a second term, but it will be without my support.

    You know me-I have good GOP credentials. I served my county twice as GOP Chairman and worked in Gov. Campbell's administration. That said, Sanford has been nothing but destructive to Greenwood County. Let me lay it out for you.

    1) Sanford came to Greenwood and endorsed a tax-cheat over our incumbent house member because he voted against his vetoes. Sanford vetoed the nursing programs at Piedmont Tech and Lander. The largest employer in this county is the hospital, and nursing is the best way to create new jobs here. Greenwood had 11% unemployment at the time. Sanford called our jobs PORK!!

    2) When a vacancy occured in the clerk of Court, Sanford ignored the party's recomendation for an appointee and appointed a man who had no experience for the job. On top of that, the appointee sued the county over his salary.

    3) When the Chairman of the County Council met with Sanford and begged for help in a county that had 11% unemployment, Sanford told the Chairman that he was the governor of 46 counties and that he was just to busy to help.

    Frankly, I am very tired of being called a RINO for doing what is right for my county. I am tired of our House members being attacked for trying to stop the loss of jobs in this county. I thought Republicans were supposed to be pro-jobs and pro-business? And who in the state has beat more Republicans than anybody else-why Mark Sanford of Course!! That's right Brian, Mark Sanford has beat more Republicans than the Democrat Party!!

    HE SHOULD GO!!

    I do not know an elected official in this county that is supporting Mark Sanford!

    I will be 40 this year, and I can say that I have never voted for a Democrat since I registered to vote. I don't care if they put it on my tombstone-HERE LIES A REAGAN REPUBLICAN WHO VOTED FOR TOMMY MORE IN 2006.

    RIP
    Trey Ward
    Greenwood, SC

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trey, I know your credentials, and I am glad you read my blog and take time to comment.

    That said, I am no fan of the Governor's. I just don't think he is going to lose. I could be wrong.

    I did mention Greenwood, because I had heard of a revolt up there. I think it is probably justified. But, the problem is that it is not going to make a big difference.

    Sanford will win relection. But, he won't get much done, and there goes his Presidential ambitions.

    ReplyDelete