A pattern of feuding between Gov. Mark Sanford and fellow Republicans in the S.C. House has replaced pledges of renewed cooperation vowed less than two months ago — making this election-year legislative session a candidate for stalemate.

At stake for all involved is the fear of agendas falling victim to the spat, the stigma of party unity yielding little more than bickering and an approaching June date with voters who could judge them.

For South Carolina residents, the locked horns means initiatives on a range of issues — from streamlining government to tax reform — are more likely to fail.

Since taking office in January 2003, Sanford and fellow Republicans in the Legislature — particularly those in the House — have repeated a cycle reminiscent of a couple that bicker and make up, bicker and make up.

That was amplified by a public feud and private makeup over the past two weeks.

As has often been the case, the underlying cause was the state budget. Sanford has advocated a tighter approach to spending than some in the General Assembly.

This year, Sanford put particular emphasis on trying to limit the inevitable increase in spending to a percentage based on South Carolina’s population increases and the rate of inflation. That would be about 5.5 percent.

As the House began its annual mission of writing a new state budget, Sanford was public in his encouragement that the budget stay within that percentage growth. When House panels began compiling proposals, Sanford grew concerned the budget would blow his limits.

Just as the budget-writing House Ways and Means Committee was set to begin its first full review on Feb. 22, Sanford pre-empted them with a news release, setting off the latest fight.

The 4:43 p.m. release said House budget writers were “headed in the wrong direction.”

Three House leaders — Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg; Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Harrison, R-Richland; and Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee chairman Harry Cato, R-Greenville — were quoted as supporting the governor.

But these were not three random House members. These were the three lawmakers who lost the race to become House speaker last year. That struck many in the State House as a direct slap at Rep. Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, who won the race to become speaker.

The next day, House leaders were bewildered and angry. They canceled that afternoon’s budget session and called a meeting of the Republican Caucus that took place behind closed and locked doors.

Afterward, the caucus released a “unified” message that was sharply critical of the governor.

Efforts to reach Sanford for this story were unsuccessful. His spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said the governor had known his press office was working on a statement about the budget process and had seen a draft. He also knew it was going to quote a few House members, Sawyer said.

But Sawyer is not sure if Sanford knew who was to be quoted. The fact the three quoted were the failed speaker candidates was “just not something that was on our radar screen.”

That, said House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Cooper, R-Anderson, shows Sanford “hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been going on around here the last year.”

FORK IN THE ROAD

As the dispute played out, Sanford moved on two fronts. First, he went on the road and continued to criticize the proposed budget. But he also asked for a private meeting with House Republicans to take some of the heat, and to make his case again.

While speaking to the Chester Rotary Club this past Tuesday, Sanford said, “We don’t think that particular budget is so good.”

The House, Sanford said, was proposing to spend nearly all of the hundreds of millions of dollars in new money the state is expected to bring in next year, thanks to a growing economy.

“We feel very strongly we don’t want to go back down that road,” Sanford said. “Let’s just not spend it all.”

The next day, Sanford spoke to the Republican Caucus at a breakfast meeting at the Town House Hotel on Gervais Street.

There the governor apologized to Harrell, Cato, Harrison and Smith.

Sawyer said the governor attended the breakfast meeting to let Harrell and others know “that nothing coming from this office was meant as any sort of attack.”

But, he said, “95 percent of the meeting was laying out where the governor was coming from. He wanted to make the case for the need to limit government growth to the caucus, face to face.”

House leaders, including Harrell, were appreciative of Sanford’s appearance. They said it’s best when the governor communicates directly with them.

Later that afternoon, the Ways and Means Committee agreed to split the state budget bill into three parts. One part would include a base budget that keeps spending under Sanford’s proposed cap. The other bills include hundreds of millions in additional spending.

That’s no solution, Sanford believes.

“It’s not a true spending limit,” Sawyer said, “when you compare apples to apples of the way we calculated growth in our executive budget versus this Ways and Means budget.”

Cooper said Sanford’s executive budget has no place in reality.

“The only person who has to approve it is him,” he said. “I’ve got to get 63 votes in this House.”

GOING FORWARD

Many in the House say the latest dispute could hurt the governor’s future agenda, Cooper said. But Harrell said Sanford has one bit of good news in that regard.

“The good news for the governor is his agenda was pretty much copied from our agenda,” he said.

That is true — to an extent.

Both the governor and the House Republican Caucus have called for workers’ compensation reform, better protections for private property owners against government condemnation and new charter school rules.

But Sanford’s big-ticket agenda items, the things he campaigned for four years ago but has not gotten passed, are very much in doubt. That includes plans for government restructuring, school district consolidation and a more centralized coordination of the state’s higher education system.

This fight, and the culmination of three years of disputes, also threatens other priorities of the governor. That would include his proposal to send $400 rebates back to S.C. families with the millions in unexpected revenue.

But there are risks on both sides. Sanford still has the power of the veto and is not particularly fond of the House plan to eliminate most property taxes homeowners pay.

The governor says this dispute is not about personalities. It’s only about policy, Sawyer said.

But for many legislators, calling them out in public with no warning makes it personal.

Harrell said he was most disappointed by how that day, Feb. 22, went down. That morning, he said, he and other House leaders were in Sanford’s office discussing the budget. As 10 a.m. approached, Harrell said he told the governor he had to go gavel the House into session.

“I said, ‘Governor, to be continued,’” Harrell said.

At 5 p.m. that afternoon, Harrell found out about Sanford’s news release.

Harrell said he would describe his current relationship with Sanford as “a little strained.” But, it’s “something that can and will be overcome in short order.”

Harrell, Sanford and other House leaders stood together in January to crow about a new era of cooperation. And that seemed to be the case — until now.

According to the cycle, the Republicans will soon be united again. But that means another flare-up is only a matter of time.

And the time until the June 13 Republican primary is quickly running out.

Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658.