CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:52:57 -0000

Thank you WCW, all other comments while funny are exactly the "pile-on" that WCW was talking about in her first comment. Anyone and everyone can play the blame game but Blago is gone, the ineffectiveness of this year can no longer be blamed on him. It's on the legislature.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:24:51 -0000

I can't believe those who said that they would be willing to accept Blagojevich over Sanford or Spitzer.

I would take a philanderer over a corrupted blowhard anyday as governor.

Re: Question of the day

sanford's the one — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:33:49 -0000

Sanford. He seems to have done it for love, for free. Which has a bit of Southern charm about it.
So that's better than paying hookers.
And better than extorting contributions.
And Sanford actually looked distressed as he rambled along actually APOLOGIZING. None of the sorry if I hurt you stuff. He really apologized.

Re: Question of the day

Suburban Republican — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:25:38 -0000

1. Is George Ryan an option?

2. I think Sanford should resign. That is probably what will happen in the near future.

3. That being said, he was by far the best Governor out of the three choices, and his personal flaws aside, he was the only one who was not corrupt in a public sense. So, it seems like an easy choice.

If only Blago knew when it was time to "take a hike."

Re: Question of the day

Boone Logan Square — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:30:22 -0000

Spitzer is the only one of the three who demonstrated actual competence at his job (though he was better suited to be AG than governor). Sanford and Blagojevich were congressional reps who wanted to be executives, yet preferred grandstanding to managing. (Sanford earned bipartisan wrath in SC well before he went MIA.)

With Spitzer and Sanford, I don't care about the sex. How the sex affected their abuses of office (Spitzer breaking the laws he used to enforce, Sanford abandoning the responsibilities of his office without alerting the lt. gov), however, is worth discussion of leaving office. Credit Spitzer with actually taking responsibility for his actions and resigning. Imagine Blagojevich doing that...

It's too bad Bob Taft didn't have a sex scandal, as he was an awful governor. He did, however, plea no contest to a crime and remained in the governor's mansion. That's worthy of mention.

Re: Question of the day

Pat collins — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:35:20 -0000

Sanford, blame NAFTA. He is trying to expand his international chops,

Didn't Palin get dumped on for lack of passport? Too bad for Sanford he had one :)

Re: Question of the day

Wumpus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:05:08 -0000

Skeeter my friend...Re: Sanford, blame NAFTA. He is trying to expand his international chops, why not expand it to Argentina.

Didn't Spitzer choose a NJ girl? How disgusting.

Re: Question of the day

Secret Square — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:56:04 -0000

Ben, thanks for the clarification. Still, I never stop marveling at the way members of the same political party often fight each other far more fiercely than members of the opposing party do.

Re: Question of the day

Will County Woman — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:46:23 -0000

@Randolph - Thursday, Jun 25, 09 @ 12:45 pm

I agree; you're right, he's not liked by his legislative branch anymore than blago or spitzer were theirs.

I just couldn't believe the way people were making spitzer out to be a saint, or the fact that they seemed oblivious to what was at the crux of his resignation. sure he was facing possible criminal charges and clearly the infidelity issue, but he was barely functioning as a governor prior to his scandal.

and to other people's point...yes, he was a good AG, but aren't they all ususally? It's the type of office that lends itself to doing good things and looking good.

Re: Question of the day

Ben S. — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:43:13 -0000

Secret Square, to be fair, Spitzer was dealing with a Republican Senate, although he did have a Democratic house.

Re: Question of the day

Secret Square — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:52:24 -0000

Has anyone besides me noticed the one thing all three of these guys have in common besides scandal: they couldn't get along with their legislatures, even when (in the case of Blago and Sanford; not sure about Spitzer) BOTH houses were controlled by their OWN party?

Re: Question of the day

pmels — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:42:31 -0000

Gail Collins gets her hat handed to her each and every week in her little banters with David Brooks. She is qualified for nothing more than the lowest brow talking points from the Democratic Party (note how she claims having an affair is "less responsible" than hiring hookers on a regular basis--why? because Sanford is a Republican, thats' why). That said, I would like to have Spitzer as governor-he would take on the Madigan machine in a big way.

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:35:07 -0000

LOL, Rich. this is very amusing. Spitzer. cause he's book smart and he wrote the template on how to be an aggressive AG for the people. we'll never know what good he could have done as gov. next, Blago. cause his methods are madness but his policies are not so far off the mark. last our newest shameful face, this nut Sanford. total right wing jerk who does not do as he forcefully wants others to do. Don't cry for me Carolina.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:19:32 -0000

Pat Collins and Siriusly,

A reporter from the paper has already said they held onto the emails because they received them from an anonymous source and had not been able to confirm the content.

You can remove your tinfoil hats now. :)

Had any "liberal" media wanted to derail his supposed presidential bid they would've come out with the emails before he went on Fox News every week for weeks on end to rail against the Obama Stimulus Package.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:11:58 -0000

Lawrence v Texas was about the 14th Amendment...

I'm not sure how that applies if this became a court case since the wife and family were in theory harmed by the admitted offense (not just a crime against "society") and while the actions were clearly consensual between the two adults engaged in them a third adult (Mrs. Sanford) most obviously did not consent.

Also, there is no "discrimination" present in the language of the SC law because unlike the Texas law that was struck down it is not written in such a way to exclude or include only one particular group of citizens.

...And this is where Rich steps in and says stick to the topic...

Re: Question of the day

big_low — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:07:11 -0000

He didnâ€™t abuse his office for personal gain as far as we can tell. He never shook down anyone.

Sure... unless you consider his refusal to take stimulus funds, and in turn trying to harm his state, in order to improve his national standing among conservatives.

Re: Question of the day

Pat collins — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:07:09 -0000

Why did the SC paper wait 6 months to investigate or publish those emails? What gives with that?
Rampant speculation alert

They were going to ambush him if he ran for president. When he was "gone" they saw it was coming out now, so no need to hang on any longer.

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:04:28 -0000

Sanford has been the best governor of the three. (BTW, South Carolina has term limits and he is in his second -- and final -- term.)

Looks as though he found and fell in love on his last trip to Buenos Aires for fact finding. He got an obviously warm reception in Argentina, and was stooped enough to do an email correspondence. On the other hand, had his trip sent hm over the Andes to Santiago, he would have gotten a Chile reception there.

LOL

Re: Question of the day

Pat collins — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:56:24 -0000

â€œhiking the Appalachian Trail.â€

maybe it should be hiking the Argentine trail? :)

SC law

Given Lawrence v. Texas I doubt that could stand a constitutional challenge.

Re: Question of the day

doc — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:49:12 -0000

Sanford seemed to do the best job. Spitzer was talented, but too prone to abuse his office. Blago was an across the board disaster.

Re: Question of the day

Randolph — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:45:40 -0000

Levois- Blago was the only one of the three arrested, so in essence, Spitzer only got caught cheating too.

WCW - None of the three had good relationships with their respective GAs. Heck, Sanford's staff even cited that as a reason he was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." Heh, new euphemism

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:45:05 -0000

WCW is right about Spitzer. He was a raving madman in his dealings with the legislature.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:44 -0000

Will Co Woman,

The NY General Assembly is in the midst of an all-out civil war even now...

I don't think that Spitzer being governor was the cause of the problem.

Re: Question of the day

Anon A. Muss — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:40:57 -0000

Spitzer, hands down.

Spitzer was an excellent Attorney General and seemed to be doing a very good job as Gov before he was caught with his pants down (metaphorically speaking). Moreover, he was willing to work with the legislature to get the job done - unlike Blago and, to a lesser extent, Sanford.

Re: Question of the day

Will County Woman — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:39:39 -0000

you people who are voting for spizter...are you aware that he and the NY GA did not get along and many legislators had come to despise after he became governor? There was legislative gridlock and turmoil when he was governor. He was not very well liked in Albany, which undoubtedly hastened his decision to pack it in and resign.