jump to navigation

Bobby Harrell Is Being Melodramatic October 10, 2007

Posted by fitsnews in SC Politics.
trackback

Harrell House of Cards 2

SOUTH CAROLINA’S “INSTITUTION PROTECTOR” GETS CRABBY WITH THE GOVERNOR … AGAIN

FITSNews – October 10, 2007 – Let’s start with the obvious, namely that Gov. Mark Sanford opened his mouth and inserted a loafer-full of foot at yesterday morning’s Cabinet meeting. How else can one explain joking in front of a bunch of reporters that the South Carolina State House was ‘kinda sorta maybe’ on his terrorist target wishlist?

Sure, Gov. “Funny Guy” was in the middle of making a perfectly valid point: We absolutely shouldn’t be spending $6 million to add terrorist protection to a building that’s a) not a terrorist target and b) is already quite well-protected, especially considering the fact that South Carolina currently leads the nation in everyday, “homegrown” violent crimes.

But was Sanford’s Bin Laden humor really advisable?

Of course not, and although we found it side-splittingly hilarious, we’re also crass, insensitive and immature people. Which is probably why the stuff we find funny (i.e man cleavage) is generally what the “Oprah nation” is furrowing its collective brow in politically-correct disapproval over the next day.

Speaking of the limitless brigades of opportunistic, politically-correct, “just what you’d expect them to say” politicians, their leading warrior against the governor’s comedic aggression yesterday was none other than House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who appeared to have hired Oprah herself to write his press release criticizing Sanford:

“Do we need something like an Oklahoma City-style bombing of our historic state capitol before the governor realizes there is a need to insure the safety of the people who come to our capitol?” Harrell asked rhetorically, almost as if he was personally wiping the Bald Eagle’s tears away in one of those post-9/11 lithographs. “This is about protecting the tens of thousands of people who visit the State House grounds every year, the history of our state and protecting the continued operations of government.”

Actually, with all due respect to Speaker “Happy Place,” that’s not even remotely what this is all about.

What it’s about is Harrell exploiting (fairly skillfully, we might add) a boneheaded move by Sanford to score political points with legislators who hate the governor … oh, and who love spending your money on fancy new government stuff. Basically, it was a made-to-order “two-fer” for a guy whose purpose in life seems to be defending the very institutions and excesses that Sanford is trying to expose, albeit clumsily and inconsistently at times.

Harrell’s statement, however deft it may have been, is reminescent of the same kind of trite, opportunistic drivel he dished out when Sanford said recently that a legislative slush fund disguised as a “competitive grants” program ought to be tapped to pay for a Greenville jobs project, not the vital state energy fund Harrell’s buddies ended up tapping for the project instead.

Sanford was challenging Harrell to use economic development dollars to actually pay for economic development, instead of a bunch of pig-themed local festivals and other crap that legislators are currently using the fund to pay for.

Of course, Harrell was able to successfully frame the debate about where the money was going, not where it was coming from, making it look like he was working to save jobs in Greenville while the governor was working to … well, not save them.

Don’t get us wrong, we’re not saying either release was a bad move for Harrell to make politically, but let’s not sit here and pretend that they were about him nobly fighting the good fight for worthy causes, either.

In both instances, he’s preaching to a legislative choir and capitalizing on Sanford missteps, not to mention exploiting the cheap and easily-sensationalized definition of what actually went down.

Just as there’s “no business like show business,” there’s “no outrage like faux outrage,” people.

Sanford’s challenge, in addition to avoiding such missteps in the future, is figuring out how to react effectively when Harrell pops him, which the Speaker clearly seems to have developed a fetish for doing.

If we were governor (editor’s note – a frightening thought), we’d just call his ass out, maybe by saying something like “if Bobby really wants to be governor he needs to learn how to take a joke, and then figure out how to tell a bunch of victims’ advocates that he’d rather spend money that ought to be going to them on an anti-terrorism boondoggle.”

Then we’d probably light a cigar, slap somebody on the ass, prop our feet up on the desk and exclaim with much satisfaction, “Who’s the Mayor of Importantville now, b*tches?”

Except given our history, let’s take out the whole “ass-slapping” thing and throw in a good chart or graph to illustrate our point …

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Taxpayer - October 10, 2007

It is all simple.
The State wants to spend 5 million. That is, if experience holds true, about twice as much as needed.

This is why Sanford is a loser…instead of using his authority and influence to cut the price in half, he will attempt to score political points by grandstanding the issue…moaning and groaning about excess. In the process pissing off a new set of people that will not be able to work with in the future.

Of course, if he really had any prestige amongst those that matter, he could kill the whole deal. But he lost that last year…so now the taxpayers pay for his arrogant misdeeds.

Keep up the good work Will…you are about all that is left of any real info coming SC politics.

2. King Richard - October 10, 2007

I feel safer now, knowing that Mark Sanford knows where terrorist targets are!

3. Natasha - October 10, 2007

Will, that was one funny blog dude! Go get ’em…

4. pork buster - October 10, 2007

great post and keep it up! Government does have a role and protecting citizens is number 1. Sanford should have said “amen” and pointed out that wasteful spending in the budget took away from that job. Concentrate on pork and not let th hide behind opposition to legitimate spending.
preach on will

5. Tom - October 10, 2007

Will: Thanks for admitting that Gov. Sanford’s remarks were not only inappropriate but insensitive given the fact that we are at war. Let’s hope that Mark’s gaffe doesn’t attract the attention of some terrorist cell looking for an easy target. Our SLED director was right to support additional security at the Statehouse as is Bobby Harrell.
By the way, we understand that the governor’s own security detail is costing taxpayers over $3,000,000 per year. Since Mark says we’re not a target, will he agree to cancel his security detail and save us taxpayers this needless expense? Didn’t think so…

6. G.L. - October 10, 2007

I don’t know about all the proposed increases but they do need a little better security from people entering the Statehouse from the garage and in some of the buildings such as the Brown or Dennis buildings.

7. Joe - October 11, 2007

Why do I think that a big chunk of this money is going to buy more golf carts and drivers (errr security guards) for the House and Senate members to be driven the physically taxing one fourth of a mile from their offices to the Chambers? Honestly, have you ever seen the boondoggle security setup the Senate has??? They have more golf carts in that garage than some of our local golf courses.

Sanford is once again siding with the voting public at large and against the out of touch, elitist legislators that always wonder how it is that he keeps winning elections and getting high poll numbers.

Kudos to Sanford for being the first state official to recognize that violent crime is going back up after we relaxed the tough on crime laws at the beginning of this decade.

8. Taxpayer - October 11, 2007

Of course Sanford is correct…the point is that he goes about it in the wrong way thereby ensuring that the money will be spent. Hell…everybody can talk against taxes and waste…only a leader can do something about it.

Sanford bought himself a headline today, and the taxpayers paid for it to the tune of 5 million dollars.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: