There was a
winner in yesterday’s Republican primary that hasn’t been
mentioned in today’s newspapers. His name is Mark Sanford.
Incumbent
Republicans who faced primary opposition got a scare
yesterday. One of them got a lot more than that. House Majority Leader
Rick Quinn lost his Columbia area seat to a political novice
by the name of Nathan Ballentine. Quinn said his focus on the
state budget made it impossible to connect with
voters.
More
accurately, Quinn’s association with the budget caused voters
to disconnect with him.
Incumbent lawmakers had suffered a three-year
involuntary spending diet demanded by revenue shortfalls.
When the economy
perked up, the lawmakers promptly fell off the wagon and
resumed their free-spending ways.
Governor
Sanford insisted that the legislature use the new money to
first pay off the state’s entire illegal deficit with
so-called “hard money,” that is money that is projected to
come in from taxes. He vetoed 106 items in the budget. The
House overturned 105 vetoes, and Sanford made his famous trek
to the capitol rotunda with two piglets under his arms.
Undaunted by
the overwhelming show of public support for the governor, the
Senate followed the House’s lead and overturned all but six of
Sanford’s vetoes. The episode created an anti-incumbent fever
that enveloped several primary races yesterday, most notably
that of Quinn.
The fever
killed Quinn and claimed other casualties. If the unofficial
tally holds up, Senator John Hawkins of Spartanburg will have
won his primary battle with Lee Bright by a scant 29
votes. Three
other high-profile state senators find themselves headed for
runoffs.
The lawmakers
consider this entire chapter in South Carolina politics to be
very unfair. To a small degree, they are right. The Republican
leadership largely cooperated with the governor and helped him
pass some significant legislation. But the House stopped
his school choice plan, the Senate stopped his tax cut, and
both the House and Senate fell off the symbolic spending wagon
by overturning his vetoes.
Conservative
voters want legislators to curb their spending appetite, and
they want major reform of tax and education policy. Governor Sanford ran on
those issues and he is publicly fighting members of his own
party to accomplish them. Many of them despise
him for it.
Yesterday, more
voters than anyone imagined said, “based on recent experience,
if you’re an incumbent, you’re part of the problem, not part
of the cure.”
Lawmakers have
about six months to decide how they will respond. They can try
to punish Sanford for their reelection wounds by being less
cooperative than before, or they can humbly accept the lessons
of the 2004 primary election. One of those choices will be
good for the state and for the lawmakers’ political careers.
The other will result in another trip to the woodshed in 2006.
I’m cautiously
optimistic they will make the right
choice.
