Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Actually, you really can.
He didn't have any responsibilities (other than the obvious "standing responsibilities") with the end of the legislative session, and he is entitled to vacation time. The government still functioned in his absence, and while there would have been some awkwardness should an executive decision be needed, the dustup would have been much more related to a poorly-phrased Constitution in SC than anything - besides this, the reasonable chance of this happening is almost zero, and even an emergency or disaster would have allowed the Lt.G or etc. to make the necessary decisions.
Honestly, I don't have any problem with what he actually did (leaving/being furtive), although the public relations portion and the aftermath have been handled extremely poorly - apparently, he does similar trips every year after the legislative session, because he's a high-stress/high-accountability type (he moved his family into the pool house to save the state money, etc.). If this is what he needs to do to be effective, so be it.
It's weird, and I feel like there's more to the story, but on a bare-bones level I don't really care about the trip itself. Now, if he was fondling underage hookers in Buenos Aires, obviously that's a different story - until we have word on the hookers, though, I'll go with "meh" I guess.
|
LOL....
Let me put it that way...yes...gov't officials deserve to go on trips and vacations and such...but the CALLOUSNESS of it all is the problem.
Lying about where you are going and then not really leaving someone in his stead or at least informing his Louie that he he was leaving.
It doesn't help either that he has a history of having ditched his security detail before.
The way he did this whole thing was like, "Imma lie and tell Mom I was at John's house around the corner, when I was really at Joe's house on the other side of town....and pray I don't get caught in a lie!"
He is a grown ass 50 year old man...why lie about where he went?
Threaded Mode
