Oh, get over yourself, governor

Again, our governor seems to have been Facebooking under the influence… of something. Strong emotion, perhaps.

Did you see this in the paper today?

The Senate approved a constitutional amendment that would have gubernatorial candidates and candidates for lieutenant governor elected on the same ticket, just as the president and vice president are elected now. Voters would have to approve the change in November.

But senators made sure the change would not take effect until 2018, when Haley’s term as governor, if she is re-elected in 2014, will expire.

Haley immediately took to her Facebook page to criticize the Senate, asking voters to call lawmakers and pressure them to change the effective date.

“I’m not the one taking it personally, they are,” Haley said Thursday in an interview with The State. “This is a reform I pushed for all through the campaign. … To have it go in front of the Senate, and then have them push it through, because they know it’s the will of the people, only to say, ‘Oh, no, we don’t want the girl to have it. We want to wait until 2018’ – they are the ones taking it personally.”…

Which raises a couple of points:

  • First, why would she care? What possible difference could it make to her whether this goes into effect in 2014 or 2018? Did she have some sort of grand scheme in mind, and this messes it up, or what? She’s going to have enough trouble gaining re-election (if she even seeks it) without worrying about who the lieutenant governor is.
  • Second… “This is a reform I pushed for all through the campaign…” Well, whoop-te-do. Some of us have been pushing it a lot longer than that — like since you were in school. I’ve been pushing this for more than 20 years. (As have a lot of other people.) But you don’t see me getting bent out of shape because I’m not given credit for it.

Maybe I should. Maybe this is what one does now. Maybe I should run over the Facebook and throw a total snit…

17 thoughts on “Oh, get over yourself, governor

  1. `Kathryn Fenner

    She can always sit out the next election and pick her Gov. Lite the next go ’round–but wait, why would it even matter–isn’t she headed to the national stage?

    She appears to have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a teenager. I mean, like, whateverrrrr

    Reply
  2. Brad

    Yes…

    Can you get your head around the fact that that was said BY THE ACTUAL GOVERNOR OF A STATE? And let’s not even go into the fact that it’s OUR state…

    I’m reminded, suddenly, of a passage in one of those Patrick O’Brian novels I love. In Master and Commander, our hero Jack Aubrey is brooding over a black mark that he fears may hold him back in his career in the Royal Navy. After a dispute with his first lieutenant early in his career, he was hauled in front of a group of post-captains and admirals and “officially reprimanded for petulance.”

    That’s a charge we need to bring back, say I.

    Reply
  3. Silence

    Brad, you don’t need to have a snit on Facebook. You are fully capable of having one on your blog!

    It is strange that she cares though. Or we could just take my advice and eliminate the Lt. Gov. position entirely, and save ourselves a few sheckels.

    Reply
  4. Leon Smith

    Hey, I have a bridge I want to sell you if you don’t think that this was politically motivated. However, it is politics as usual no matter what party is in control of the General Assembly. Case in point…back in the mid-1970’s when James Edwards was Governor and the Democrats were very much in control of the legislature, a bill was proposed to allow the Governor to serve 2 terms. It got nowhere because the Democrats did not want Edwards running for re-election. During Richard Riley’s first term a bill was passed to allow the Governor to serve 2 terms. Of course, the law applied to Mr. Riley and he was re-elected. Politics as usual for the good ole boys of both parties.

    Reply
  5. Mark Stewart

    I would be in favor of the legislature taking all of the steps that it ought to have done to appropriately reallocate government for at least the last 80 years and make them all effective in 2018. I could wait for that.

    It does really bum me out that the Senate is signalling that they fear Nikki will be around through 2017. I was sure she has other plans, as I do believe a majority of voters would now hope.

    Reply
  6. `Kathryn Fenner

    @ Leon Smith– You really don’t think the Ken Ard/Glenn McConnell debacle, hot on the heels of “Mark Sanford can’t resign because then Andre’d be Governor” had anything to do with it?

    The delay in implementation is surely political payback, but not because she’s a girl. Her sex is the least of it.

    I believe Nikki Haley has gotten a lot farther BECAUSE she’s an attractive Indian-American “girl” than she has been held back for it.

    Reply
  7. Leon Smith

    No, Kathryn, I don’t think that 2018 is because she is a “girl”. All I said is that the 2018 implementation date is a political shot at Governor Haley. I find it VERY hard to agree with Jakie Knotts on anything!

    Reply
  8. Juan Caruso

    Since Nikki will have SC’s “bully pulpit”, she can endorse any prospective candidate for light governor she wishes, and South Carolinians will pay it as little heed as they did her Romney endorsement.

    Her justifiable attribution of good ol’ boys discriminating against women, however, resonates not only with SC political tradition, but with Pelosi’s and Obama’s ridiculous assertions of Republican angst against women.

    By the way, keep your eyes on Henry McMaster as Nikki’s pick for Lt. Gov.

    Reply
  9. Mark Stewart

    Juan Caruso, you seem to speak with more than one mind and one voice.

    These posts sound more like Juan or Caruso – a pitcher’s game.

    Reply
  10. Juan Caruso

    Mark S.,

    Your observation has merit until you remember that our so-called two-party system is, in reality, lead by one league of highly networked (as in the lawyer-political complex (cartel may be a better word) lawyers.

    The leaders of both party’s are lawyers as are U.S. lobbyists in the employ of foreign entities who fund and guide them. The latter resent our unique constitution, the sovereignty of 50 states which thus far has been the single obstacle to its nullification.

    Without the unique free-market approach of the U.S., which has enabled our fabulous 230-year history of increases in living standards for all citizens, a new world order would never have to compare its citizens to what have been stellar U.S. benchmarks.

    What could be beneficial about eliminating such competition? It makes it easier to tell workers in other countries (as we are more and more hearing from our own corrupt government) that we must sacrifice even more. Do they? Perhaps at deceit alone they may.

    That sentiment has been the common voice of despots, failed socialist and communist regimes throughout history. Without individual liberties granted by our U.S. Constitution, et al, we will be sold out to the lawyer-politicians and their lackeys. I despise both major parties, but not every individual who becomes a temporary elected-office holder.

    Reply
  11. Steven Davis II

    I was in North Carolina this weekend and was asked twice what I thought about Haley being Romney’s running mate. I answered with, “I didn’t realize Romney was trying to throw the election.” and “That would pretty much guarantee South Carolina going to Obama.”. I don’t get where people outside of SC think that Haley is anything special. I pointed both people to Fitsnews… hopefully they’ll pass it on to others.

    Reply
  12. tired old man

    This suggestion is terrible.

    I have several objections.

    First and foremost is that the person selected by a gubernatorial candidate likely will be past his or her prime, or a major financial contributor. Why do I say that? Think of the would-be governor as A, and the one to be picked as the lieutenant governor candidate will be B. All the potential Bs have to expose their personal and political lives to A. To do otherwise would be folly. And to do so hands to A an open-ended invitation to a polite form of blackmail.

    In you have a political future before you, would you open yourself up to A’s current and future manipulations?

    Suppose the A/B ticket loses. If B ever wants to run for governor (or any other office), what happens if A — B’s running mate — favors another candidate in that future race? Think B has much of a chance with A murmurring all sorts of secrets into an opponent’s eager ears?

    For years the lt. governor’s post was a stepping off place for the governor’s mansion. Actually that held true in the first dozen or so of the last two dozen governorships. The last dozen lt. governors have failed to advance — and that does not take into account Ard or McConnell.

    So why do we want to create a unified ticket that would be dominated by the governor? If you do this, you have to remove the duties of the Senate presidency because otherwise the 46 senators would be under the ceremonial control of the governor.

    And what is wrong with Mark Sanford having to hold his ambitions at bay due to his animosity towards Andre Bauer, or with Nikki Haley sleeping uneasily because of the appeal of a mature, seasoned Governor McConnell?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>