Sanford, Bauer, Time, Money and Numbered Days

Yesterday’s post about Mark Sanford and impeachment was so doggone long, I figured I’d covered just about everything.  I was wrong.  A few arguments/reasons that have circulated for a few months were left out, so here we go again with a bit about what wasn’t written yesterday.

Lots of good, intelligent and reasonable people have posted varying opinions on this blog and on Facebook.

Some folks argue that the impeachment process is a waste of money. Some say it’s a waste of time. Some assert that Sanford’s term is almost over anyway, that his gubernatorial days are numbered, so why bother? Still others contend that a lame-duck do-nothing Sanford is better than the person “waiting in the wings”, i.e. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.  You know him: he's the Jeff Gordon lookalike.

One thing’s for sure: if I’m ever charged with some sort of crime, I hope some of these same arguments will be used: “Trying her would be a waste of money. She’s so old she’s probably not going to be around much longer anyway, so why spend the time and money?”

What about someone who is charged with murder but happens to have some terminal disease? Is it okay to just drop the issue because a trial is expensive, takes time and the person is going to die anyway? Or consider a lesser offense, like shoplifting (the same one I used in yesterday’s post.) Should an alleged shoplifter not be brought to justice because she is terminally ill? Are time and money considerations in bringing about justice? Is illness?

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I might argue that the impeachment process is a great use of time: it keeps elected officials busy so they won’t be passing more unnecessary laws, meddling in our personal lives, raising our taxes, etc.

Then there’s that other person who seems to be a consideration to some people – Andre Bauer.

First of all, if an employee has done enough wrong to be fired, does the employer ever refuse to deal with the wrongdoing because of the next person in line who might be promoted? Does the employer fail to dismiss an employee who has embezzled money because there is no one available to fill the slot or because he doesn’t know much about the person who may step in?

If there is a teacher in a school who is not doing a good job and is actually a hindrance to the learning process, is he kept in the classroom for another year because the most likely replacement has an unknown track record?

I’m not arguing for or against Bauer. I just don’t think he should be a consideration in whether Sanford is punished for wrongdoing.

Or, to put it another way, have you ever heard the saying that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt? No, I am NOT saying Bauer is a fool.

But to those who say letting him serve a few months in office would give him an advantage in the next election or that he would not be a good governor, I ask this: Isn’t it just as possible that giving him the opportunity to step in also gives him the opportunity to mess up and prove his critics right? I can think of several people who have filled unexpired terms at various levels, only to lose in the next election. 

So, all in all, just how much wrong-doing, how much misconduct, how much dereliction of duty does one excuse for whatever reasons?