JUNE 26, 2009 -- When Gov. Mark Sanford confessed at a press conference earlier this week that he’d been in Argentina visiting a woman with whom he’d been having a year-long affair, he answered the burning question of where he’d been for the past few days.
Unfortunately for South Carolina, Sanford’s confession has brought on several more questions that could deeply affect the state’s and the governor’s political future. An obviously rocked and shell-shocked Sanford shied away from the big question of whether he would resign at his Wednesday press conference; later news reports said he wasn’t resigning.
“That is a question only the governor can answer for himself,” said House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham (R-Columbia), as Sanford will have to decide if the job outweighs his family’s need for privacy.
Legislative response
So far, few in the legislature have called for Sanford’s resignation. Many have said his actions, so far, didn’t reach the level of impeachment, either.
Two top Statehouse leaders have made a priority of coming up with a legislative response to the governor leaving the state without passing on leadership duties.
House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R-Charleston) has said it was “imperative” to deal with the issue in the coming session, as has Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston), who said the current state law is unclear on the temporary transfer of power.
McConnell said he would put forward a bill when the General Assembly reconvened in January that “would provide a definition to the term ‘temporary absence’ so that we can ensure that the government continues to operate in a smooth and continuous manner and that we are also protected in case of an emergency.”
Some of the potential emergencies could include a prison riot, forest fire and other incidents that would need the governor’s oversight and approval to commit the state guard.
“I don’t know why the governor didn’t contact me,” said Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, second in command when the governor is seated.
Perhaps still awash in the shock of Sanford’s revelation, there has been little to no talk within the legislature of a measure of censure or a resolution condemning his choice to slip out of the hemisphere without properly informing the rest of the state power structure, according to several legislators.
“We can deal with that in January, if he’s still in office,” said House Minority Leader Harry Ott (D-St. Mathews.)
Political future in question
As news of Sanford’s infidelity, duplicity and abandonment continues to ripple through the political landscape, it has seemed to shake some of the loyalty of some of his closest political allies.
“Our quarterback has thrown an intentional interception to the other team,” said Sen. Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson) a member of the Sanfordian guard in the Senate, dubbed the Juicebox Caucus or, perhaps as Bryant prefers, the William Wallace Caucus.
One of Sanford’s most ardent supporters in the legislature, Bryant distanced himself from the governor this week, and said their affiliation is more political than personal.
Asked if the election were held today, whether he would vote for Sanford over then-gubernatorial candidate Tommy Moore, a Democrat who has gone on to become a lobbyist for the payday lending industry, Bryant distanced himself further from his fallen quarterback.
“Oooo … wow … that’s a tough question,” said Bryant.
Nixonian twist
Beyond personal condemnation for Sanford violating “the most sacred vow a man can take on earth,” Bryant said he wanted answers for questions of what Sanford’s staff knew and when they knew it.
“I also want to know if he was using a state cell phone when called from Atlanta,” said Bryant, referring to the last public spotting of Sanford in this hemisphere last week. “I want to know if that was a state-owned vehicle he drove to the airport.”
Bryant may soon get his answers. Sen. Jake Knotts (R-W. Columbia), one of Sanford’s harshest critics and biggest political enemies in the Statehouse, has already called for a full SLED investigation.
Already, the governor has reportedly admitted to having visited his paramour during a Department of Commerce-sponsored trip to South America last year, and has agreed to reimburse his portion of the trip, with his flights alone weighing in at over $8,000.
While several legislators have said it would be a far different situation if it came to light that Sanford had misused state money for his personal use, Bingham said that to hold the governor potentially liable for the “small personal benefit” of a cell phone call or a car ride would be ludicrous.
Personal hell
Many of Sanford’s adversaries and allies were impressed by Sanford’s forthrightness. But the question remained how would it be received at home.
First Lady Jenny Sanford issued a statement this week that said she had asked the governor for a “trial separation” before he ended up sneaking off to Argentina. She also said she was still willing to work toward reconciliation.
The First Lady did not stand, it should be noted, at the governor’s side during his fateful press conference, like so many other political wives have done before her.
Sanford will have many other questions to answer in the coming weeks, months and perhaps years. Questions like, given his surreptitiousness, when would he have come clean about the trip had he not been caught in Atlanta? And then there’s the over-arching question: Mark, what were you thinking?
Crystal ball: Many politicians have survived worse, like former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. But unlike Giuliani, who became a national hero following the 9/11 attacks, Sanford’s latest political fight against accepting the federal stimulus package was a disaster. Sanford could stay in office, knowing the tumult will subside, eventually. But if serious allegations of misuse of state funds surface, he might be on the next flight to, umm, Buenos Aires.