I'd like for the NYT to very carefully and specifically define what they mean by this statement. Is this intended to mean that other "more responsible political leaders" should depose Mr. Sanford? Impeach him? Overstep their bounds and impinge on Mr. Sanford's rightful duties? Are they advocating the overthrow of the properly elected government of South Carolina, or perhaps just the Executive branch? Just what exactly does the editorial board of the NYT mean by this vaguely threatening statement?
It’s a “code word” for the South Carolina General Assembly and Congressional delegation to end-run around Governor Sanford and take the money anyway. And despite Republican domination, the General Assembly may well try it. Sanford has been slamming heads with them for seven years now trying to rein in spending, with mixed success. The executive branch in the SC state government has less power than in other states; the state legislature is where the real power is. And they want their pork, badly.
To give you one indication—state legislators for a particular county or group of counties can not only interfere with executive decision involving those counties, they can interfere with LOCAL government in those counties. “Home rule” of local governments was only codified into SC law less than forty years ago.
}:-)4
To the editor; I would submit that being employed by a corporation that finds itself required to a) sell its corporate headquarters and b) borrow hundreds of millions at usurious rates from a Mexican of questionable reputation, among others things; in order to be able to pay its bills, hardly qualifies you as experts on business and economic strategy. Have a nice day!!!