Before Gov. Mark Sanford arrived for a private meeting with legislators Wednesday, a Republican House member testily said, “I don’t know why any of us are in here.”

After he arrived, Rep. Annette Young, R-Dorchester, told Sanford: “I just want you to start governing.”

It’s a rare glimpse of the political showdowns that usually happen away from the public eye.

Exclusively in The State: Excerpts from a transcript of Wednesday’s meeting.

Here are excerpts from a tape recording of the Republicans’ meeting, picking up with the governor’s late arrival:

Mark Sanford Republican governor

Apologize ... I want to get together for two seconds to get one last sense of what you all think. The Speaker was very loud and clear in his point that he didn’t think it was a good idea.

My hunch, urge, gut — whatever you want to call it — is still to go ask the Supreme Court for declaratory judgment to this issue as to what is, what isn’t, single subject.

The reason I think it’s worth doing is, all of us at the end of the day are conservatives. All of us are Republicans. If you’re a Republican, one of the issues you should care about is process. ...

We talked about when I laid my left hand on the Bible, raised my right hand and swore to uphold the constitution, it was with that in mind, I called in leadership of the House, Bobby (Harrell) and David (Wilkins) and said, There’s a whole new issue, wrinkle, that’s come, and I’ve got to internally figure this thing out and say if the constitution says single subject, at the end of the day, in my gut, do I believe in my heart of hearts that this is a single-subject bill? I don’t believe that.

The question I laid out in my press conference was, Where do we go from here? One way is legislative route and create statutory change more narrowly defined single subject which, for instance, is what Florida has. Or go to the fourth (sic) branch of government and say, what do you think? We have a legitimate disagreement within the family.

What’s the third (sic) branch of the family think? That’s no crisis. ... One, I wouldn’t do this in any way adversarial against any one of y’all, but some of y’all might take it that way. It would be about how do you get this cleared up. ...

Y’all have been great on the House side. Y’all passed clean life sciences bill, clean venture capital bill, clean research bill. The problem has been on the Senate side. I don’t think we’ll be able to get that kind of statute through on the Senate side.

The question, then, is how could we get a more narrow definition, based on what the constitution says on single subject, and be part of the legacy that I think would be important to all of us, in more narrowly defining that. If you have too wide a definition of single subject, that gets very costly from taxpayers’ perspective.

David Wilkins Speaker of the House, R-Greenville

As I said this morning, I understand the theory, and that may be great in a perfect academic world, but this is politics.

Sanford

Sure.

Wilkins

You will be the first governor ever to sue the Legislature. We’re Republican, and you are Republican. It’s not some theoretical, governor brings suit. It’s Sanford versus ... members of the House. ... We don’t need this story out there.

You’re winning the P.R. battle. We know that. I’ll give you that. ... You can’t meet with us today with the press clamoring. You can’t have a press conference tomorrow to announce you’re going to do this and it not be a story for the next three or four days.

Our members are going to get asked, they’re going to defend themselves, their opponents are going to use it against them. It’s bad politics for us. It may be a great academic exercise for you, but it’s bad politics for us.

Your problem is not with the House. Your problem is with the Senate. ...

The second reason is, I think you’ll continue to worsen the relationship you now have with the General Assembly. I think you have a tenuous one, at best, right now. I think you have a better one in the House than in the Senate. I think this is going to worsen both of them, and I just think it’s not a good idea.

...

Rep. Bob Leach R-Greenville

We understood you were going to use a line-item veto. Why didn’t you do a line-item veto and take out that pork?

Sanford

I would have liked to have done line-item veto.

Leach

Were you pressured not to do it?

Sanford

I had conversations with some of y’all on that front. I think the bigger point ... I had conversations with y’all. (Sen.) Hugh Leatherman said in the press, we will bring suit.

The question was not about lawsuits. The question was whether this was or wasn’t an appropriations bill. I had conversations with y’all. Folks in the Senate said, We think it’s very clearly an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill, and if you treat it as appropriations bill, we’ll sue you.

We were on sandier ground of whether it was or wasn’t appropriations bill. We put that card down and said we’ll fold on that card. We will just veto the whole bill. I thought that was going to be the end of the story. ...

I’ll say this — with all due respect to the Speaker — becomes not an academic question. It’s a gut-check all of you have to have when you vote.

I really struggled with me being able to look anybody in the eye and being able to say this was single subject. I tried to get there.

...

Wilkins

If you’re consistent with it, you’ll never sign another bill into law.

The bill had those issues in the title. Your restructuring bill — 1,800 pages, 20 pages in the title — it’s got more than one issue in the title. You’re not going to sign that bill if it came to your desk? You’re inconsistent with this.

Sanford

I don’t think we are. We think all that dealt with restructuring, and that there’s a real difference between giving research universities power of eminent domain, a culinary school in Charleston, a convention center in Myrtle Beach, with all due respect to the convention center in Myrtle Beach, an expansion of LIFE scholarships.

...

Rep. Dan Tripp R-Greenville

You chose not to do the line-item veto because it was easier for you to veto the whole thing, rather than tell people across the state that their projects were pork. You made a political decision.

Sanford

I’m saying all those were considerations. At the end of the day, what the battle was or wasn’t about was not whether it was or was not an appropriations bill. The battle was a struggle with process. The question that came up the follow day was a constitutional question.

I’ve consistently shown if I believe in something, I’m willing to take political heat. The notion that I did that based on a desire to avoid political heat is at odds with a whole lot of things I’ve done over the course of my time.

Wilkins

If you file suit, I think you’re going to jeopardize the pharmaceutical company in Greenville, and that costs jobs. That’s a good reason not to do it right there.

...

Sanford

Based on conversations I’ve had with the Speaker, he said, Please, if you’re going to do this, please do not do this before filing.

Wilkins

I said don’t do it, but if you do do it ...

...

Sanford

Right, but you also said, If you’re going to do something like this, don’t do it before filing. And I said, Yes, sir.

The second question you raised about the pharmaceutical company. I had conversation with (Commerce Secretary) Bob Faith last week, conversation with Bob Faith this week.

His point was, no, at this point it’s not in jeopardy and this won’t change that.

Wilkins

That’s one guy saying that. Have you talked to the CEO, do you know that?

Sanford

I’ve talked to the guy who talked to the CEO.

...

Rep. Bill Sandifer R-Oconee

Something you said disturbs me a great deal. ... In reality, we see it as the same as an attack on the Republican caucus, repeated ever since you’ve been in office, no change. I believe it is wrong for any person to climb to the top by stepping on the backs of his friends, and that’s what we see you doing.

Sanford

Do you see if you put your hand on the Bible and you raise your right hand, that the constitution says single subject, that you wouldn’t struggle with it?

Sandifer

I think you have a moral obligation to look at it in the light of political reality.

Rep. Bobby Harrell House Ways and Means Committee chairman, R-Charleston

First of all, all of us put our left hands on the Bible and promised to uphold the constitution, as well. You said repeatedly about one subject in the bill. The rest of that section of the constitution talks about it being enumerated in the title, and that has consistently been determined by the Supreme Court, that what governs this, what was in the title.

The point beyond that, to me, is, if you did prevail, and I really don’t think you will, the title governs this. So we’re right. So it was factually constitutional. If you were to prevail, then anything that came to you, in fact, even if you didn’t prevail, when the Senate does send you Medicaid reform with income tax and cigarette tax. I can give you cigarette tax, but income tax doesn’t fit it. But your staff, at your orders, asked them to include that in the bill last year.

Asked them to include all three of those things in the bill. You’ve asked the Senate to do exactly what you’re talking about going to court to stop.

On restructuring ... it requires ethanol or some other fuel to be used for the fleet, it requires constitutional officers to become part of the Cabinet, gives more power to joint bond review committee. It does a multitude of things beyond simply saying this position goes over here. It adds a whole bunch of new stuff to the structure of government. I can’t imagine how, if you prevailed, you could sign that bill.

My point of this is, I don’t think a suit you would bring is a suit that would or should prevail. And you have other major priorities that you want us to consider. Restructuring would have to be 50 different bills, at least.

...

Wilkins

I have researched it thoroughly. We honestly believe your lawsuit has no merit. I’ve told the caucus that. Unless your lawyer tells you with as much certainty as mine is telling me, there’s only one way to interpret your lawsuit, and that is that it’s politics over substance, and you’re looking for a good P.R. battle, and you’ll win that.

Sanford

I don’t need to win the P.R. battle.

Wilkins

Then don’t sue us.

Sanford

If you look at my numbers, and I can give you polls, I’m just fine on that front, I don’t need help on that front.

Wilkins

If it was truly policy over politics, then you wouldn’t have a press conference tomorrow to announce you’re suing us. You wouldn’t have a big press conference.

You wouldn’t have the press out there waiting on us to talk to us today.

Sanford

I didn’t call anybody out there.

...

Rep. Annette Young R-Dorchester

I think this is another reason I’m very concerned. If you want to solve the problem, it’s in the Senate. Once it gets kicked back to us ...

Your attack on us, when the problem is in the Senate, is another reason this group is going to be terribly upset. I think that, if you want to do the lawsuit, Governor, let’s stand up together and say we don’t like bobtailing. Let’s stand up and attack where the problem is. It’s not the House.

You’re saying, House members, even though you passed no bobtailing, we’re suing you anyway.

I just want you to start governing. That’s what I think we can do, help get this thing ironed out.

Sanford

You outlined precisely why we would have a press conference, because we’d like to very carefully outline ...

Wilkins

So sue the Senate.

Young

Again, we’re feeling victims again. For the people who gave you your income tax bill ... nobody in this room loved that thing. Nobody in this room loved that thing. But we gave it to you.

...

Rep. Joanne Gilham R-Beaufort

Perception, when you get to the street, is everything. Our people don’t care about caucus, about this meeting today. They only read the newspapers. Who will be paying the bills (for the lawsuit)? The people?

Sanford

No, it will be privately funded. ...

Gilham

A Republican governor and Republican majority. So far all the people have seen is fighting and fussing. People say to me, What is our governor doing? And I have defended you. But honestly, I feel like this time ...

If you go forward with this, it’s going to be hard. And the people will listen to the truth. You really need to think about communicating to this caucus in a better way than you have in the past. ...

If you don’t need the numbers as you said, why not come to us and say, We have a problem, how can we work it out?

...

Rep. Rick Quinn House majority leader, R-Richland

In fact, some of the people who have had the most direct contact with their constituents are people that voted to sustain the veto. ...

I will tell you what will happen is the minute you lose in the Supreme Court, it’s going to make the whole issue of the title meaningless in the Senate.

You talk about your oath. There’s an explicit oath you took, to do in the best interest of the state. I don’t believe, in the long run, this is a productive thing for the office you hold.

The best thing for us to do is team up and get income tax done and restructuring done. What you’re going to do is ...

...

Rep. Gary Simrill R-York

I have the utmost respect for you. I want to see you elected to a second term, but I think if you start destroying what we have and the dominoes start falling, that creates real problems.

During that vote, your veto was overridden. You lost, I lost, we move on from that point. That’s where we need to be, move forward from here, not to look back. I am imploring you with the Speaker not to go forward with the lawsuit.

Rep. Doug Smith Speaker pro tem, R-Spartanburg

Governor, this is the worst I’ve ever seen our caucus. And we’ve been through some tough times. There are some of us here who actually served in the minority party. I can tell you, I don’t want to be here again to do that.

First of all, there’s two things that still confound me. I supported the leadership of the House. I looked at David and others as to what to do. I thought I was doing the right thing. I wished I did what Gary Simrill did (vote to sustain). ...

To me it’s the worst rug-pulling situation, because I would have loved to have been able to help you. I didn’t get that message. I don’t think most of us got that message. We’ll have to move on.

...

Rep. Jeffrey Duncan R-Laurens

I was excited about coming to serve in the General Assembly. I’ve been disappointed, since I came down here, by lack of unity.

...

Sanford

Communications can be a both-way process. If we veto and it’s immediately overridden in the Senate and it’s immediately overridden in the House, there isn’t much opportunity for communication.

There was a much longer communication that took place in the State of the State. In the chamber, two weeks into the session. You go out and say, I will veto this if it’s not a clean bill.

You say it multiple different occasions. In fairness to Tom, I think we did communicate where we were. It was there. I think we were fairly consistent on communication front.

If we did go down this road, I will go to bat for any of y’all for your campaign. Period. Because you’re Republican. That is a separate issue from trying to get a clear reading on this.

I haven’t gotten into primaries before, ever.

...

Rep. Lewis Vaughn R-Greenville

I think you’re making it extremely difficult for economic development people including your own man, Bob Faith, to go out and recruit to this state because of this kind of squabble. I think you’ve got to put this thing in order. Because we do not want to hurt people running.

...

Wilkins

Are you going to have any comments to the press about this meeting?

Sanford

Yeah, I’m not going to walk out of here without saying something. Whether I do or don’t go forward with this is, we have a problem with process, which is the Senate, which I’ve said before.

Wilkins

Are you having a press conference tomorrow?

Sanford

That, I don’t know.

Wilkins

Are you planning on filing suit?

Sanford

That, I don’t know. I am biased in that direction.

(END OF TAPE)