COLUMBIA - Gov. Mark Sanford's relationship with his Republican colleagues in the General Assembly is in tatters, and his legislative agenda hangs in the balance.

The schism that exists between Sanford and the legislature has developed since Sanford was inaugurated in January 2003 but has widened in the past few weeks.

There have been several flash points, but none brighter than Sanford's threat to sue the General Assembly after lawmakers defeated his veto of a major economic development bill.

"I wish Mark would work with the legislature as effectively as he works the press," House Majority Leader Rick Quinn, R-Richland, said.

Despite his criticisms, Quinn was one of 24 House members who voted to uphold Sanford's veto of the Life Sciences Act, the economic development bill in question.

Tom Davis, Sanford's co-chief of staff, said House members should not be surprised that Sanford vetoed the bill or that he held a press conference the next day to criticize them for it. Nor, he said, should they be surprised Sanford is threatening to sue - that is who he is.

Sanford's legacy during six years in Congress "was sort of being the party pooper," Davis said.

As Sanford and Republican leaders maneuver against one another, the governor remains wildly popular among voters, according to recent polls that show his approval ratings to be nearly 70 percent.

More than halfway through his second legislative session as governor, Sanford's top priorities mostly have failed. Eventually, Rep. Gary Simrill, R-York, said, Sanford will need legislative victories before he faces re-election in 2006.

Some say privately that if he continues on the path of discord with his fellow Republicans, he could face the prospect of opposition from his own party.

S.C. House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, said it is unlikely that will happen, but, "I've heard people wonder about it."

A short-lived honeymoon

Sanford was elected in 2002 as Republicans around the state relished the idea of controlling the House, Senate and governor's office for the first time since Reconstruction.

The honeymoon was short-lived. Early in his first session, Sanford angered House leaders by pushing a cigarette tax increase days after they killed a similar proposal, seemingly at his urging. That was the low point of the 2003 session, but things improved as the session ended.

The 2004 session likewise began with optimism, and the relationship seemed to coalesce as the House used Sanford's executive budget as a basis for its own annual appropriations bill. After the House finished its work on the budget, its leaders proclaimed their relationship with the governor healed.

In the Senate, President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, sponsored one of Sanford's two legislative crown jewels: the massive plan to restructure state government.

Then, everything changed.

First, it was revealed early in the year that Sanford had commissioned a poll that reportedly found he was much more popular than the General Assembly.

Then, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which McConnell chairs, killed a major piece of the restructuring plan after Sanford appeared before the committee to urge their support - and after, Davis said, several members gave Sanford their word to support it.

"We watched as they went directly back on the word they gave the governor," Davis said.

Sanford declined to discuss the judiciary vote. But Sen. Jake Knotts, R-Lexington, one of the Judiciary members who voted against Sanford's plan, said he never gave Sanford his word.

"He never had the votes," Knotts said. "He knew he never had the votes."

Then came the Life Sciences Act debacle.

Feeling 'blindsided'

The Life Sciences Act, nearly two years in the making, began as a way to boost economic development by offering tax incentives to certain companies in the biotechnology and medical research fields.

Eventually, it was combined with another bill to create a state-funded venture capital fund. Sanford strongly supported both of those ideas.

Soon an amendment making USC-Sumter a four-year school was tacked onto the bill, as was a provision creating a culinary arts program at Trident Technical College in the Lowcountry. A measure to sell bonds to raise money for the state's research universities also was included.

The bill became known as a Christmas tree with many bulbs, one for most every interest group. The conglomeration angered Sanford, who said he abhors that kind of traditional political gamesmanship. He had threatened all along to veto the bill if it included all the extras.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bobby Harrell called Sanford to urge him not to line-item-veto the money for the research universities. It was important to the state, Harrell said, and he would be upset if that happened.

An hour before his deadline, Sanford vetoed the entire bill.

The next day, the Senate took up his veto. It would take a two-thirds vote to override it. The vote was nearly unanimous. The House was next. Again, the vote was overwhelming to override.

Before the House voted,

Davis said he did not know the House would vote that day. He did not have time to get the governor's detailed five-page veto message to each lawmaker.

Several Republicans asked Davis how the governor wanted them to vote. Davis told them to "vote their conscience."

Later, many Republicans would take that message and Sanford's subsequent threat as proof that they had been set up.

That is hard to swallow, Sanford said. He also said Davis did nothing wrong.

Sanford has said all along he would oppose a Life Sciences Act that had goody bags attached.

Wilkins said House members were "blindsided" by the press conference after being told by Davis to "vote your conscience."

In addition, Wilkins said, Sanford's news conference occurred hours after the House overwhelmingly gave its final approval to Sanford's other top legislative initiative, the income tax reduction plan.

"Within four hours of the House passing the governor's No. 1 agenda, he is having a press conference saying the General Assembly is trampling on the taxpayers," Wilkins said.

At the news conference, Sanford denounced the override as "politics as usual," and said he is considering a lawsuit to block the Life Sciences Act.

'Not anything to get inflamed about'

There is still more bad blood. The morning of the news conference, Sanford was interviewed on a Greenville radio station. The host asked Sanford whether he believed people should vote out lawmakers who did not vote to sustain his veto. Sanford's response: "Sure."

The governor went on to say that voters have to decide for themselves whether the override warrants new representation.

That day, Sanford read an editorial in The (Charleston) Post and Courier that said the new law might be unconstitutional because it was bobtailing: a legislative mishmash that results from lawmakers' tacking unrelated items onto a bill.

That sparked Sanford to consider the lawsuit.

Wilkins said he hopes Sanford does not take the legislature to court.

"Most members of the House, if there's a suit filed, will take it as another publicity stunt and just grandstanding," he said.

Again, Sanford disagrees with the analysis. If the executive branch and the legislative branch disagree, the logical thing to do is ask the judicial branch for help.

"That's not anything to get inflamed about," Sanford said.

Will there be reprisals against Sanford's agenda?

"No," Wilkins said, "I think the House leadership and the Republican caucus will continue to look for ways to work with the governor."

Senate leader McConnell defends Sanford and said he does not understand why his colleagues are so upset.

"He's got an agenda, and they have an agenda, and the two agendas just don't agree," McConnell said.