Brad Warthen of
The State (Columbia, SC) tells it like it is about Gov. Marshall Sanford.
http://www.thestate.com/...
Highlights after the break. This is Olbermann good.
In 2002
The State enthusiastically endorsed Marshall Sanford over then Gov. Jim Hodges. Hodges had been a mediocre governor and had a generally forgettable four years in office.
The State saw Sanford as a man with a bold vision that would reform state government move SC into the 21st Century.
Boy, were they wrong.
Brad Warthen explains The State's change of heart on Marshall Sanford. (emphasis mine)
Trouble is, he did have a vision: He didn't want government to be more effective as much as he wanted it to be cheaper. It was about tax cuts and privatizing everything he could, including public education. He had proposed moderate versions of these concepts as a candidate: phasing out the income tax while raising the gasoline tax; providing vouchers for a very few of the most disadvantaged kids. We opposed those things, and said so, but they were no big deal.
After he got into office, his tax position morphed over time into just cut a tax, any tax. Eventually, his anti-government rhetoric became far from moderate.
He had run as a conservative, but he wasn't that. He was as close to an ideologically pure libertarian as you can get. You can't be a conservative and a radical at the same time. And folks, it doesn't get more radical than his veto of the entire state budget.
Meanwhile, all the rich anti-tax extremists in the country started sending their money this way in a clear effort to undermine the very concept of public schools. And the governor -- whose presence was the reason they saw our state as fertile ground -- supported their proposals to give the affluent tax breaks as an incentive to abandon public education. And that was not an incidental part of the proposal. As the House sponsor said during this year's session, the plan had no political traction without those tax cuts.
Why attack the public schools? Because that's where state government spends the most tax money, and that makes public education a deeply offensive institution to the extremists. Why did the governor not even condemn their most extreme attacks on our public schools as a "failed monopoly"? Because he agreed with them. In fact, he was right out in front, characterizing increased spending on public schools as having been a waste, even as the accountability reforms begun by a previous Republican governor were starting to pay dividends.
This alone would be enough cause not to back him: It is dangerous for him to remain as governor -- not for what he does, but for what comes with him. As long as he is governor, the flood of anti-school money will keep coming to South Carolina. That may not sound so bad, until you consider what the money is used for -- to trash the schools that our children depend upon, and to kick out of office some of the very finest of our representatives.
I haven't seen this much of a threat to the integrity of our Legislature since video poker was trying to buy it. Nor have I seen such contempt for the will of the people of South Carolina. Their proposals aren't that popular, so the outsiders tiptoe around details in those slick, cookie-cutter brochures they use to try to stack the Legislature with their puppets.
Those are Republicans they're going after, by the way. If you're supporting the governor under the impression that that's what loyal Republicans do, you should talk to some GOP leaders who have to deal with him every day. They'll set you straight. Those out-of-state, anti-government radicals are his true party.
He's not our boy, or yours either. He's theirs.
Massive amount of out-of-state money for a primary challenger caused the Republican House Education and Public Works Committee, Rep. Ronnie Townsend (R-Anderson) to retire. (Humourously, the Republicans in Townsend's district weren't buying it. Despite his mountain of cash, voucher supporter Dan Harvell lost to the relatively unknown Mike Gambrell in the primary.) They got his neighbor, Rep. Becky Martin (R-Anderson), though. They have also been spreading money in Democratic primaries to elect voucher supporters in majority Democratic areas.
They are also financing Karen Floyd for Superintendent of Education. During the primaries, it was revealed that 47% of her funding came from out of state, and about half of that came from Howard Rich. It should be noted that Floyd has absolutely no experience in education.
Sanford is not a tool of the Norquist crowd, he IS one of the Norquist crowd, and the State of South Carolina has suffered for it. The state's bond rating dropped, unemployment has risen to one of the highest rates in the nation at a time when North Carolina's unemployment rate has fallen. Sanford was the only Governor rated "one star" by Inc. Magazine and he shared the dubious distinction of one of "America's Worst Governors" with Kathleen Blanco and Bob Taft, according to Time Magazine.
Wealthy, radical, Grover Norquist libertarians are trying to buy the state of South Carolina. Kudos to Brad Warthen for calling a spade a spade and letting the people of South Carolina know how it is.