Friday, The State reported that Sen. Vince Sheheen’s gubernatorial campaign made a few erroneous endorsements in a list sent out last week. It’s an easy enough mistake to make, which is why we wonder why campaigns put out lengthy endorsement lists. There always seems to be a cock-up one way or another.

In the story, Rep. Anton Gunn, who was included as one of the endorsers, said, “I haven’t endorsed anybody. I’ve got my own [re-election] race to concentrate on. I’m not mad [at Sheheen's campaign staff]. I know it was an honest mistake.”

The best part of the story was reporter Gina Smith ironically making a mistake of her own. Several times, she called Sheheen campaign manager Trav Robterson “Trav Roberts.”

Trav Roberts, Sheheen’s campaign manager, is taking the blame.
“This was an oversight on my part,” Roberts said Thursday. “We got very excited that nearly 60 percent of Democrats in the House and Senate were endorsing Vincent. Blame it on an overzealous campaign manager.”
Roberts would not discuss how the list was put together. He noted, even with the six Democrats removed from the list, a majority of Democrats at the State House are backing Sheheen.

But hey, it’s the Friday before St. Pat’s. Everybody gets a mulligan, right?

Maybe it’s just us, but it seems like the gentleman who likes to roll over people’s feet got a little owned Monday evening through some Twitter exchanges. Couldn’t happen to a better fella.

GinaNSmith: Spent the day flying around S.C. w/ Gresham Barrett for a story. So windy that little plane was flying sideways! Glad 2 b back on ground!

PalmettoScoop: @GinaNSmith I’m sure you’ll straighten it all out in your “objective” story about @GreshamBarrett.

GinaNSmith: @PalmettoScoop excuse me?

SCSenatelawyer: @GinaNSmith didn’t get the memo? Unless you’re biased in our favor you’re not objective. :)

SCSenatelawyer: @SCSenatelawyer and I didn’t mean “our” as I’m a mcmaster guy

LoganJames: @GinaNSmith I’m also interested in his explanation. If you’re gonna take cheap shots, at least make them understandable :/

GinaNSmith: For the record, we’re writing profiles on each of the 10 gov candidates. Each candidate gets their own story. We’re hanging out w/ em all!

GinaNSmith: t fair reporting? Oh well. Thanks for letting me vent.

GinaNSmith: dSCSenatelawyer hi. Yeah. I find it hillarious when BLOGGERS who get paid under the table question our objectivity. What the heck do tho …

GinaNSmith: dSCSenatelawyer hi. What do those guys know about fair reporting? Oh well. Thanks for letting me vent.

wesleydonehue: @GinaNSmith you’re not direct tweeting him. you need a space between your d and “scsenatelawyer”

wesleydonehue: @PalmettoScoop You’d think that after @ginansmith’s ass kicking of Gov Sanford, you’d learn not to screw with her. I did.

scott_english: @wesleydonehue @GinaNSmith What Wes said. Also Ubertwitter is good.

It was with some pleasure that we found ourselves on the “Power 100” list created by the Capital City Clown. What makes him think that he’s somehow the arbiter of who is powerful in this state (beyond an ego that’s so large it’s devouring itself), we’ll never know. Evidently, our upstart operation caught the court jester’s attention again, landing in the “Dishonorable Mention” slot.

We could search and search for what the guy actually knows, but it would be easier to fill a tome with what he doesn’t. And really, it was an honor just to be nominated. The company isn’t half-bad, either, as we’re alongside Rep. Jimmy Merrill, S.C. Chamber of Commerce’s Otis Rawl, SCBIPEC’s Tom DeLoach, The State’s Cindi Ross Scoppe, S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce’s Frank Knapp and Columbia mayoral candidate Steve Morrison, among others. Not a bad crew to run with.

Friday, The State’s lead editorial was a basic defense of Columbia City Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine’s oblique relation to another loan from the Sumter-Columbia Empowerment Zone. The last mini-scandal came when her mother used a loan to purchase a building that was then rented out to Devine’s law firm. The money had to be paid back to the city, which the city then paid back to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This time, a company that has Devine’s husband as a vice president is getting a loan from the SCEZ to purchase property on Patterson Road. The State does a bit of hemming and hawing, and comes down to saying that there’s no wrongdoing going on, and making light of what it calls “the perception issue.”

Here’s the problem with perception and the actions — and associations — of City Council members: the city has been in the shitter when it comes to policy, finances and general decision-making for some time now. The main governing body for Columbia has to take responsibility for that. While the second loan is a lot less damning than the first, both show lack of ability to appropriately think things through, as it comes to, yes, perception, of city governance.

It’s beyond time for city councillors to think their actions through, before the public and the press have to do it for them.

For the third time in as many days, Gov. Mark Sanford called a press conference to go on the offensive against his perceived opponents. Yes, there are people in the General Assembly who smell blood in the water and are setting their sights on the Governor. Of course. If Sanford hadn’t endorsed Will Folks’ proposal to declare war on more than half the GOP caucus last year, maybe things would be different.

But, the Governor cast his lot with the biggest douchebags in S.C. politics, and now his has to lay down in that bed. Thankfully, after days of asking, Sanford finally said he would waive confidentiality as it came to a State Ethics Commission investigation of his travel practices. However, according to the South Carolina Radio Network, the SEC has yet to receive notification from the Governor’s Office waiving its right to confidentiality. As well, there’s no confirmation that the investigation is going on, though per an SCRN tweet, the Governor’s Office has sent its paperwork to lift the veil on the real/potential investigation.

One of the most absurd things to happen Friday was when The State’s John O’Connor asked Sanford a question, and he responded, “I don’t work for you.” It’s a good thing we weren’t a beat reporter for a paper there, because we would have hounded the d-bag-in-chief until he gave a genuine answer.

The Herald-Journal reporter Jason Spencer got a little torqued off, as we did, but did a much better job at explaining the situation:

Last I checked, reporters paid taxes and most, if not all, register to vote. They tend to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

Last I checked, many reporters were more informed about the processes of government than the average man on the street and, sometimes, even elected officials.

Last I checked, elected officials should look at EVERY reporter — from the smallest weekly to the largest daily — as virtually thousands of people rolled into one. People as in taxpayers, constituents, residents. It’s a bit of advice I got from an editor at the first weekly I worked at after college. The Internet only exponentially increases a news organization’s reach.

Last I checked, millions of people still rely on news organizations to not only report information, but to do so in the larger context of how that information is presented. (Sanford complained that The State reported on his current conflict, and not as much on the records his staff pulled on past administrations and even sitting lawmakers.)

Last I checked, newspapers still employee people in this state, pay taxes of their own and have to deal with travel budgets. Many of those travel budgets are shrinking or in some cases being eliminated — and they are wasted when media outlets send reporters all over the state for press conferences in which the person speaking refuses to answer any questions.

Last I checked, Elected Office 101 taught elected officials never to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Or, today, has access to unlimited space online. Why? They’ll never get the last word. Ever.

And, last I checked, every reporter is keenly aware that it’s not always obvious ethical or other infractions that must be avoided — it’s the appearance of impropriety that can cost a someone his/her credibility.

Perhaps, governor, that last part is the most important lesson of all.

How the hell can Sanford get away with this? Sure, he may not like getting asked hard questions for once, but O’Connor is a resident of this state and is paid up on his taxes. That means that, yes, Sanford does work for him.

Somebody get Marky Mark a dose of laudanum and wake him up when he starts making sense. Because right now he’s not helping anybody out, least of which himself.

If you wondered if The State’s editorials and columns taking on Gov. Mark Sanford made an impact in the Governor’s Office, wonder no more. Through the more than 3,300 emails turned over because of a FOIA request, a number deal with spokesman Joel Sawyer being tasked to “push back” on the paper in general and, usually, associate editor Cindi Ross Scoppe in particular.

More often than not, it seemed to encompass a grousing phone call. We, however, rather enjoyed this email thread.

Over the past week, The State has been receiving plaudits for its coverage of Gov. Mark Sanford’s meltdown, and conducting the sort of reporting that a publication does when it totally owns a major story. In fact, The State is probably guaranteed a number of SCPA awards already. But, they better not break their arms patting themselves on the back just yet.

The fact is, The State was lazy. For the six months that it had the emails blowing up Sanford’s affair with Argentine businesswoman Maria Belén Chapur, the paper acted like a number of other papers act in South Carolina — gumming the subject. No teeth to be seen. In fact, the emails were sent to the paper via the letters to the editor function, but no one thought to tell then-editorial page editor Brad Warthen about it, who was on a short vacation.

Did The State take advantage of their resources, or McClatchy’s resources, to aggressively pursue the story? No. The emails sat around while the legislative session went on.

If it weren’t for Sen. Jake Knotts keeping a watchful eye on the Governor and alerting the media to the fact Sanford had skedaddled without telling a damn soul where he was, those emails would still be languishing in The State’s offices and Sanford would be gearing up for his book launch. You see, it’s up to the press to hold elected officials accountable and monitor their actions. Papers, especially when given primo inside information, shouldn’t have to wait for a political opponent of an official to make a claim to get on a story.

Right there are the two big breaks — poached emails and an investigation of the Governor’s whereabouts — neither of which were turned up through original sleuthing by the paper. The story, and this is what galls us the most, was fucking given to them on a silver platter.

Perhaps one of the reasons that this pisses us off so much is that our big story about Sanford was gone after in a totally different manner. Before knowing exactly what was going on, we went hell-bent for leather looking for the story, high and low. Contacts and conversations initiated by us led to our possession of the hit list proposal. Then we shopped it to the Free Times, because, frankly, we couldn’t trust The State to do it right.

There was a lot of blood, sweat and tears that went into investigating and publishing that story. It wasn’t handed to us. It didn’t come gift wrapped. It was a royal goddamn pain-in-the-ass two month ordeal. Investigative journalism isn’t easy. Throwing yourself into a story to that degree makes you want to bang your head against a wall and tear your hair out.

The State had it easy.

In Thursday’s edition of The State, you might find an interesting looking ad on the Nation & World page, considering the shenanigans that Gov. Mark Sanford ‘fessed up to on Wednesday.

Really.

via @cophotog

In what is perhaps the strangest turn this story could take (next to a trip to a hooker-filled bacchanal or hunting men), Gov. Mark Sanford told The State that he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said, but was in fact returning from Argentina.

Instead of going to the mountains, which he had considered, Sanford, who was by himself, opted at the last second to fly to Buenos Aires and ride up and down the coast. Must be nice for the millionaire crackpot state executive.

“I wanted to do something exotic,” Sanford is quoted as saying, explaining his decision to change plans.

This bizarre twist in the story comes along with the fact that the Governor said he has no clue as to why his staff said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail, and he didn’t understand what the fuss was all about. Naturally, many South Carolinians have thought that if Sanford liked his trip so much and doesn’t see any problem going off the grid for a week, he can do it for the rest of his term and we can all be happy.

MEDIA BONUS: We all make mistakes, not the least of which are bloggers that, normally, don’t have a copy editing staff. So, it’s funny when The State has to run a clarification on its own Facebook post on the Sanford ordeal.

Most people would thing that the conventional wisdom going into the 2010 elections is that, no matter who is running the party or who the gubernatorial nominee is, Republicans will most likely clean up. There simply doesn’t seem to be the momentum or the money on the Democratic side for South Carolina’s minority party to present a decent challenge. But, if you were reading The State on Sunday, you would have received a different impression.

Gina Smith, in one of her better stories, wrote that Dems are ready to capitalize on the failures of the administration of Gov. Mark Sanford and take advantage of the poor economy that has South Carolina in the top tier of states in unemployment. She quotes Tim Kelly of Indigo Journal, who said, “There’s a lot of talk in many [Democratic] circles that no candidate is generating much enthusiasm right now. But so much energy has gone toward this stimulus fight in the last couple of months. There’s still plenty of time for the right candidate to garner support.” Professor Scott Huffmon of Winthrop said that 2010 looks much better for Democrats than the near-total failure of the 2006 cycle.

John O’Connor, in a story headlined, “Economy, Sanford baggage could burden GOP,” wrote a similar story to Smith’s, but from a different point of view.

The campaigns of South Carolina’s Republican gubernatorial hopefuls will likely be dominated by the nation’s economy, with one year to go before primary day, observers said.

Campaign donations will be harder to come by. Voters will ask tough questions about jobs and economic issues. Economic policies from bank bailouts to the stimulus could impact candidates.

After the economy, experts said, the competition among South Carolina’s geographic regions and the legacy of Gov. Mark Sanford will also likely affect the race.

It’s understandable why S.C.’s largest newspaper would pick up this meme, not the least of which is to fill space or to look at a different take on the elections. But, let’s face it: this is a conservative state with a conservative electorate. If the state Democratic Party is going to pull of another cycle like 1998, it will take a massive amount of money and — this is key — moderates and some conservatives that are so disaffected with the way things have been going that they will switch to the Dems and not just look for a better Republican to elect.

But, that just doesn’t seem very likely right now. Whichever Republican that can make it out of what is going to be a contentious primary for the gubernatorial nomination will start out with a large fundraising base and a solid amount of voter support. It’s much more probable, not to mention likely, that the 2010 elections will look more like 2006 and 2002 than 1998.