Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
No, I don't think you can.
Entitled to a vacation? Sure.
Without telling anyone where you are, much less that you have left the country? Totally irresponsible for a Chief Executive. (Not to mention politically idiotic.)
I'm curious -- how do you know he didn't have any responsibilities with the session over? I know in my state, the governor has plenty of responsibilities whether the legislature is in session or not. That doesn't mean that the governor can't take some personal time or vacation. But it does mean that (1) she makes sure that things are in order as far as possible before she leaves, and (2) she makes sure that people know where she is and how to contact her immediately.
|
This may be a personal bias coming through (as noted by my weak attempt to hedge, with "other than 'standing responsibilities'..."), but I just don't see the day-to-day role of governor of most states (barring CA, which is a disaster right now and anything could happen minute-to-minute) as something that requires constant contact, barring disaster. What exactly are his Saturday responsibilities? I'll admit that I'm assuming they're overwhelmingly ceremonial. It may be my disdain for most state executive branches shining though here - I'm completely open to that possibility - but I can imagine comparatively few things that would require immediate contact with the governor. In short: I don't see the effective difference between him being on the AT (and out of contact) and being in Argentina.
Now, with that said, it's clearly irresponsible, and it seems like obvious political suicide - and, as I noted before, it's kind of suspicious behavior to say the least. It feels more creepy than anything, the more I think about it. I just don't really care to the extent of the insinuations that the executive branch of the state of South Carolina was somehow compromised by this bit of creepiness.
Hybrid Mode
