Because Gov. Mark Sanford is still without a major legislative victory since being elected in 2002, you'd think he wouldn't veto a jobs bill that is important to state legislators.

But veto it he will, most likely. And interestingly, it probably won't cause him too many problems.

"Maybe he's a lot like the Chicago Cubs," one legislative insider mused. "He can lose and the public still loves him."

In the past week, the House and Senate approved a packed jobs bill that will benefit a lot of constituencies. Not only would it allow the state to borrow up to $500 million for college research and economic development projects, it also would provide incentive tax credits to attract pharmaceutical and biotech companies, including one that reportedly will bring jobs to the Upstate.

Furthermore, the bill would create a $50 million venture capital fund to help startup companies. It also would allow Trident Technical College to establish a four-year culinary arts program, which would help to mitigate Charleston's loss of the Johnson and Wales school that prepares young talent for restaurants.

Finally, the bill would allow USC-Sumter to transform from a two-year to a four-year university. This last bit is the rub for Sanford, who has threatened to veto the whole bill since last year because he believes it's inappropriate to expand the university system -- especially when he wants to close the USC-Salkehatchie and USC-Union campuses.

But remember, Sanford is scoreless on major legislative initiatives last year and this year in the General Assembly. Why would he veto something an overwhelming majority of House members and senators approved? Why would he consider such a thing when he wants state lawmakers to approve his income-tax reduction plan, a school voucher plan and a major restructuring of state government? Because he can.

First, he knows the legislature probably will override the veto. Second, they know he knows, so they're not really threatened by the potential veto. They'll just override it and move along.

A long-time Republican lobbyist called this a win-win scenario for state lawmakers and the governor. They'll win because they'll get the bill packed with a lot of legislative Christmas gifts. And Sanford can veto the bill without fear of looking hypocritical if had he signed it.

"I don't think he really cares what the legislature thinks," another observer noted. "He's more concerned with the public."

BAD HUNTING

Here's a dumb idea: Amend the state constitution to protect hunting and fishing.

For six years, I've sat on a nonprofit board of a large state hunting, fishing and conservation organization. In all that time, I can't remember any of the hunters or anglers saying their rights to hunt and fish were threatened. Yet that hasn't stopped an obviously partisan attempt to push through a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt and fish to South Carolinians.

The bill, offered by Rep. Brian White, R-Anderson, has passed the state House and now is in the Senate.

State wildlife officials say they didn't ask for the bill. They're more concerned with legislative attempts to cut their budget more. To the best of our knowledge, major hunting and fishing organizations aren't upset about the measure.

What's irksome about the proposal is it seeks to amend the S.C. Constitution with a measure that really isn't on anybody's radar screen. For the state constitution to maintain its integrity, lawmakers should resist attempts to fiddle with it -- especially over something like this.

Proponents of the bill appear to be pushing it for political purposes. They appear to think it will rally a conservative base to their side in a presidential election year.

But the bill may backfire. The unintended consequence may be that it gets animal rights people annoyed about something they may not have really considered an issue. Let's hope this one dies a quick death in the Senate this year.