RE: “By making himself unreachable and refusing to take the simple step of turning his authority temporarily over to the lieutenant governor while he was out of the country, he left more than 4 million South Carolinians unprotected in the event of an emergency that only he had the constitutional authority to respond to, particularly one that would call for the assistance of the National Guard. That is inexcusable.”

Right—and we were all terrified in our homes—we could barely sleep at night—when the State graciously informed us of the Desperate Crisis that our state was in when the constitutionally weakest governor of the 50 states was “missing.” 

Poor old State.  They hate Sanford with a passion, and just when they thought they could focus on “the disappearance” [sic], he stole their thunder by confessing to an affair.

The amusing thing now is going to be watching them scrabble around trying to get back onto Sanford’s *political* shortcomings—not his moral shortcomings.  But I suspect that’s going to be awfully awfully hard now, State. ; > )

RE: “There are those in our state who understandably question whether he will be able to continue as our state’s chief executive, and believe he should resign as governor as well. We are not ready to join them at this point.”

And now we get to the next Really Troubling Thing for the State.

They don’t want Sanford to resign because it gives the governorship to Andre Bauer—and the State has other fish to fry.

What a crew.

It’s nice to see this silver lining—The State scrambling around trying to figure out “what we do now Kemosabee”—because it worked *too well*.

And of course . . . to “make amends” means according to The State . . . bringin’ in the pork, acceding to the Republicans [and of course Democrats, but that goes without saying] ridiculous demands for spending spending spending, and raising taxes and . . . you know   . . . .all those other things that would make Sanford a “good governor.”

This little quote from a great article over on NRO deliciously describes what The State and those of their ilk are going through right now:

Fred Wszolek, a veteran political consultant who lives in Sullivan’s Island, S.C. , notes that as much as the state’s political players may want Sanford gone, they may dread his replacement even more: “If Sanford resigns, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer would take over, and most of the rest of the state’s political establishment doesn’t want him becoming governor. First they don’t want him running the state in general, and then there are a congressman, an attorney general, and at least two state legislators who want to run for governor in 2010, and none of them want Andre Bauer to be running as a quasi-incumbent.” Those who seek to run the government may even find the post-scandal Sanford more to their liking: “It’s a weak governorship to begin with institutionally, and he’s now so weakened that he’s now completely beside the point. Now all he’s got is the bully pulpit.”

Boy, you’re on a tear this morning.  Don’t forget also that if Bauer becomes governor, the Senate President Pro Tem takes over as Lt Gov.  I doubt that Glenn McConnell is in much of a hurry to make that move.

Right—and we were all terrified in our homes—we could barely sleep at night—when the State graciously informed us of the Desperate Crisis that our state was in when the constitutionally weakest governor of the 50 states was “missing.”

Yes, the media played up this crisis a bit much. No, we weren’t shaking in our boots while Governor Sanford was absent. Still, leaving without providing some sort of contingency for an unexpected crisis that would require gubernatorial action was reckless. I don’t think he should be impeached for it, as it probably wasn’t illegal, but I don’t think I’m unreasonable for wanting to know who is “in charge.”

Not accepting the responsibility of governor seems a bit more serious than adultery, given the job description.  Romance made him a bit less conscientious, perhaps.  But that seems remarkably human.

If he is a good governor, he should stay.  I don’t think he made wise decisions in his home life, but the challenges of a marriage are a bit different than administering a government. 

Let him stay as governor.  Unless he is a bad governor.  What did God do to David?

RE: “Yes, the media played up this crisis a bit much.”

Yeh—but we now know why The State played up the “disappearance” [sic] story and why Bauer and Knotts publicized it so feverishly.  It’s because The State had those emails from last year, since December, [and somehow I suspect that Bauer and Knotts knew that] and they needed a reason to pull the trigger on that.

RE: “If he is a good governor, he should stay.”

Well, if he were a liberal good governor, sure.  They don’t claim to believe a lot of stuff that conservatives believe.  But as a conservative, Sanford needs to live up to the clearly and oft-stated principles of conservatives.

I certainly hope he lives up to those principles, and at least has that sense of honor.

I would not, of course, expect a liberal good governor to resign.  But Sanford needs to live up to his principles.

We’ll see.  Like I’ve said before if trends are followed, he’ll be gone.

Off topic, Fr Harmon, but if you have not already seen it, Elizabeth Kaeton has a post on her blog regretting that you will not be at GC.

Read the first paragraph in this editorial again. Now, explain please how this leaves him qualified to govern. That is, what standards does he meet ro which the first paragraph is entirely irrelvant? LM