Of course I read what I linked to and it says expenditures rose every year and Sanford raised taxes annually to pay for his rising expenditures. It’s not all the legislatures fault. There can’t always be someone else to blame.

Budget cuts don’t equal fiscal conservatism. And there is no way possible Sanford can be a fiscal conservative when he was using tax funds to pay for his affair on his wife. He didn’t just quit being a fiscal conservative the day he admitted publicly to his affair. He quit being one long before that, which was right about the time he was wanting budget cuts on services to the poorest of SC citizens. Again, budget cuts don’t equal fiscal conservatism.

If we play by Republican rules, then yes his entire career is judged by his private life immorality. Once incident proves he was never who he claimed to be. Fair is fair is fair, but boy it sure does suck.

How about this from the WSJ’s Kimberley Strassel re: Sanford:

The 48-year-old South Carolina governor is of the party wing that believes it failed in its core promise of fiscal responsibility, and in tackling the bread-and-butter issues (education, health care) that worry voters today. He’s made his name partly by confronting his own party, which runs the legislature.

Nearly every year since he was elected in 2002, Mr. Sanford has proposed to cap spending at state population growth plus inflation. His state senate has ignored him. He’s used his line-item veto more than 500 times, usually on pork projects. The legislature routinely overrides. Far from diminishing his standing, these lost battles have made him popular in the state.

His policies have made South Carolina more competitive. In 2005, the state passed its first-ever cut in marginal tax rates for businesses, and in 2007 broader tax relief. He’s shepherded tort reform, and crafted incentives to encourage property insurers to remain in the state after a spate of hurricanes. South Carolina still has problems (in particular, education), though since 2003 it has had the 16th fastest job growth in the nation. Its unemployment rate — the third highest in the country — has been exacerbated by record growth in the state’s labor force.

South Carolina is hurting, but Mr. Sanford argues a stimulus primarily designed to grow government will only cause sustained economic pain. He blames much of his state’s budget deficit on the fact that his legislature grew spending 40% from 2004 to 2008, and he rejects a bailout that would facilitate those excesses. That thinking outraged the state’s Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn, who responded with a provision in the House version of the stimulus giving legislatures the right to circumvent fiscally responsible governors.

I make no excuses for Sanford spending tax money to go visit the mistress, and believe he should pay back every cent from his own pocket. But I think you’re off-target in judging his entire fiscal record by this one incident. BTW, you must have missed the post where I called for his resignation.

It’s always someone elses fault for Republicans. Is that when you blame RINO’s?

The point is Sanford never turned down federal money. He only wanted to spend it elsewhere. He’s not against federal funds and he’s not against wasting tax payers money as exemplified by the fact that he used tax payer money to visit his mistress. Of course now that he got caught, he says he’ll pay the money back. Hummm…not very fiscally conservative of him is it? This is typical Republican behavior.

States have no say when the Feds order something. The federal government is in charge of all states. This is basic American history. So yes states can be forced to take federal money, it happens every day. And when the feds tell them it has to be spent on certain things then that’s what has to happen. Ever drive on an interstate? That’s federal money that states have to spend on certain projects, and actually it proves to be more of an expense for states than anything else because it’s the states that have to pay unemployment and benefits for DOT workers. Same thing as with Sanford’s crusade against the stimulus money. Why didn’t he ever oppose federal highway money that is more of an expense than anything else? The answer is because it was all a show. A way to stand up to Obama. A grand spectacle of Republican hypocrisy.

In the link Sanford calls Obama a socialist. Why wasn’t Sanford crusading against Bush is the real question. All of sudden when Bush leaves office and the Republicans have no power, Sanford, like so many others, becomes a self-labeled fiscal conservative again.

Thanks for the amusing link. I didn’t actually watch the video, but I noticed the caption said that Sanford blamed Bush for Obama’s socialist policies. He’s right. It was Bush’s fault. Nothing wrong with that either.

Lisa, personally I would have no problems separating his immorality from his politics. But sense Republicans have refused to do that for at least 30 years now, I’m not just going to change the rules and forget what Republicans demand from everyone else. And again, it’s not like Sanford opposed federal funds. He just didn’t want to spend it on unemployed people. He wanted to pay down the debt that he ran up. All the while portraying himself as a moral crusader against an evil socialist president. He was wrong, you know he was wrong and if we play by Republican rules, he’s no better than the evildoer terrorists.

I didn’ oppose the stimulus. I opposed the bailouts, but the stimulus I supported.

As usual, the Democrat gets a pass and the Republican is forced to resign. What a ridiculous cycle.

Sanford has always been a mercurial figure. I know he’s disappeared without explanation before, so now the question becomes have there been other women, or did this relationship with the Argentinian woman last longer than a year?

Whether or not he survives politically isn’t really the point to me. The fact is that if Sanford were a Democrat there would be little to no coverage on his ‘affair.’ Press accounts would go to extreme lengths to label the rumors as ‘an alleged affair,’ and rather than entertain ideas of resignation, he would vow to press on and clear his name. Oh, and the wife would be at his side at the news conference, looking forlorn, supportive and ready to fight.

I could care less about his affair but the guy is as dishonest and as fraudulent as they come. The affair had been going on for months and he never once wanted to resign from anything then. It was only after he got caught that he decided to apologize and come somewhat clean. All along, he portrayed himself as a moral values, Christian conservative and all along he was lying. I don’t see how that does not have anything to do with his views on the stimulus and federal issues. It entirely impacts who he is as a politician and as a human being, at least that’s how Republicans have played the game for decades.

Just like with lying about his “conservative” Christian morals, he also tried to have it both ways with the feds. It’s not as if Sanford didn’t want federal money. He wanted the money, he just wanted to spend it on other things than what the feds were telling him to. I don’t know anyone can say they are “conservative/state’s rights” when they gladly want the funds, they just want to be in charge of it. It’s like calling earmarks pork and vice versa.

For years, all we’ve heard from Republicans is how Democrats have no morals and values and can’t possibly be trusted on any issue especially management of money since they couldn’t even manage their own families. Well, it’s come full circle. You reap what you sow. And the GOP can’t possibly expect to separate Sanford’s lifestyle from his genuineness in governance. He was wrong about the stimulus and he’s wrong to forge an affair while simultaneously trying to deny funds to people who are out of work.