Why I didn't vote for Governor

Those of you who know me, and some who don't, know I have been a big supporter of Governor Mark Sanford, and campaigned extensively to oust former Governor Jim Hodges in 2002. Ya'll may be surprised that at the top of my ballot, I DID NOT VOTE for either Mark Sanford or Oscar Lovelace, just like all those New Yorkers in the movie Brewster's Millions.

After all I've done for Sanford ... why would I do that?!?

While I feel that Mark Sanford is far more qualified to be Governor than any of the Democratic candidates, I believe that neither his record, nor that of Oscar Lovelace, was worth my vote in this election. Mark Sanford had the potential, as an "outsider", to be a strong reformer, but instead has chosen to engage in legislative approaches that have been petty, ineffective, counter-productive, and even abusive.

Governor Sanford seems more concerned about scoring media points and upholding the purity of principle than trying to get anything passed. While a lot of the time I've agreed with him on principle, I'd much rather have seen him try to get something now, and come back for more later, a far more successful style which characterized Campbell's tenure in the Governor's office.

His first major fiasco was the defeat of his "all or nothing" plan to streamline the constitutional offices. His practice of submitting dozens of budget vetos got him nowhere, as most were easily overridden in a bi-partisan manner not often seen in many years at the State House. This has included the bizarre vetoing of a number of budget items that his office had requested.

Disagreeing on policy does not make someone a bad person, but that's not how it seems with the Governor's inner circle. Make one wrong move, and you could have them turn on you, or a press conference held in your backyard, complete with a choice of livestock.

I've even been warned not to post this, "or else". Little ol' me - imagine that?

While a second Sanford term seems to offer little more than benign gridlock, there is little to recommed Mr. Lovelace to me. A minimal political resume, support for a massive tax increase, and many of his supporters seem motivated by a desire to get even with Mark Sanford - that's no more encouraging.

Although I may agree with some of the reasons these people are disgruntled, being disgruntled, in this case, doesn't warrant my active involvement or vote in this race. Neither candidate has given me anything to vote FOR - so I voted for neither.

I can only hope that Mark Sanford, should he return to the Governor's Mansion next year, will reflect on how he has soured so many, like myself, who did so much to support him over the years, and attempt to regain our lost trust.

Maybe he doesn't need us, but earning and keeping trust, showing appreciation for those who've been there for you in tough times, and tackling major challenges are some of the key attributes of leadership.

We'll see what happens ...

12 Response to "Why I didn't vote for Governor"

  1. Anonymous 8/6/06 10:52
    Earl, I also see little to recommend Lovelace or any of the myopic Dems that the Sanford campaign ads appear to be focused on countering.

    Now for all the reasons you've posted that he hasn't earned your vote, how much more effective would Governor Sanford be as a lame duck? For all the putative unity of the GOP team, three quarterbacks in the same backfield won't

    Democrats positioning themselves for a time they won't have an incumbent to run against, "South of the Border" money in their coffers or not are willing to try for a hail mary campaign hoping for an issue that will stick. And absent any real vision beyond buying the house on Arsenal Hill back on levys from our wallets, quoth John Graham the Wise. "Pork alwasy wins".
  2. Earl Capps 8/6/06 11:20
    Frankly, I don't think Mark could do much worse than he's already doing. If he chooses to continue, he'll continue to have little influence or relevance.

    I expect Mark to win the nomination, and I'll vote for him then, but it's the lesser of the given evils for me.

    That's sad.
  3. Anonymous 8/6/06 14:31
    "This has included the bizarre vetoing of a number of budget items that his office had requested."

    I was wondering if you could explain this statement in any more detail.

    Thanks.
  4. Anonymous 9/6/06 09:15
    Yeah I know, now if you could cast a vote in the house 119 seat, where Rod's candidate is on the record chastizing your cousin John Graham for not being nice to gays (thank you City Paper), is there one you'd favor over the chameleon Stavarnakis?
  5. Earl Capps 9/6/06 09:23
    I don't live anywhere near 119, nor do I have any involvement in that race whatsoever.

    I do know a couple of the candidates to some degree. Jane Barr is a really nice gal and a hard worker. Chris Cannon is a pretty fun guy to be around as well.

    But do I know the candidates, their stands and the issues of concern? No, I don't.

    Therefore, I'd be grossly mistaken in trying to suggest how people should vote.

    However, I would recommend they get to know all the candidates in the race and pick one who listens to their concerns and will give them the kind of representation they desire.

    As to what Rod's candidate (who is that anyway?) is saying about my cousin, I'd suggest he worry more about what the other candidates want to do than someone who is retiring from the seat.

    Beating dead horses just isn't very effective.
  6. PalmettoNeocon 9/6/06 10:23
    earl, i am interested to know what you think of Bob Staton getting Kerry Wood's endorsement so close to the election
  7. Earl Capps 9/6/06 10:48
    Beats me. I bumped into Kerry last night, and he was still talking like a candidate at 8:30 pm in Manning.

    As to what Kerry Wood is going to do, why he is doing it, or what impact it may have, I'm not even going to guess at.

    Why is everyone asking me what I think ... have I become THAT important out there?!?

    If I'm considered authoritative, I'm not sure if that's really a good sign.
  8. Daniel 9/6/06 13:52
    Earl,

    I'm really curious as to what you were referring to with this comment - "This has included the bizarre vetoing of a number of budget items that his office had requested."
  9. kristin 10/6/06 19:38
    The problem with Republicans is that we are ALL smarter than the people we elect.
  10. Earl Capps 10/6/06 22:48
    kristin - i'm a little confused, please clarify that comment.
  11. -CH 11/6/06 02:12
    Earl,
    So what, did you do, a write in? Maybe your favorite College Republican from school? OR...wait...wait, no, no there's No Way a "Sullivan's Island Republican, Polo and boat shoes" would ever consider voting for a [whispering now] Democrat. THAT would not be what Daddy would do. But such is the juxtaposition of the Southern way. A deep-rooted insecurity born from poverty that does nothing but perpetuate the Good 'Ol Boy system. Apparently "I didn't vote" is the new "viva la revolucion." Get a clue, clown shoe.
  12. Earl Capps 11/6/06 09:47
    In addition to being too chicken ... salad ... to put a name to your posting, you seem a little confused.

    I'm not from Sullivan's Island, don't know jack about Polo, and I have checkerboard Vans, not boat shoes.

    Also, you can't do a write-in on any primary ballot. If you'd ever voted in either party's primary, you'd know this.

    My skipping the race isn't a revolution, it's was a choice. I vote for candidates who give me reasons to vote FOR them. Neither of them did so.

    As to favorite College Republican ... well, they booted me out when I helped run a campaign for the openly-gay College Democrat for SGA President.

    I've got a clue, and the stones to put my name with what I have to say. What about you?

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.