The 411 on I.O.U.s

By Jennifer J. Foster

As California faces its new fiscal year and financial collapse tomorrow, state officials looking at issuing I.O.U.s to everyone from contractors to welfare recipients as a way to bridge the immediate cash gap.

GOP strategist Rich Galen sees some potential long-term problems with this short-term solution. Here’s a hint:

I mean, the only thing which makes a $10 bill worth $10 is if you and I agree it is worth $10.

So, if Californians decide that IOUs have the value of whatever it says on that paper, then the IOU becomes … currency.

Check out the rest of Galen’s column for the way he sees that story ending.

Also, if you need a quick primer on the financial situation facing the Golden State, click here for the 411 from the Associated Press.

And if you think you’re insulated from what’s going on in California because you live in Alabama, or Texas, or North Carolina or any of the other 49 states of the Union, think again.

From the AP roundup:

Q: How did the state get into this mess?

A: California’s problem is partly of its own making.

Lawmakers and voters have agreed to higher levels of spending over the years without identifying a dedicated funding source. Over time, that means the state’s general fund has had more obligations than it can afford to pay.

What?? Plunging headlong into deeper and deeper spending without paying for it?

Gee ... that sounds like another governmental entity I know.

Buckle up, nieces and nephews of Uncle Sam.

The good reverend is a grinder

By Jennifer J. Foster

Photography has given us innumerable memorable moments.

Unfortunately, while documenting the incredible, the amazing and the historic, it also documents the ... unfortunate.

Witness THE REV. Al Sharpton at Michael Jackson’s memorial service at the Apollo Theater in Harlem today.

Among the pictures of the good reverend dancing on stage with film director Spike Lee and others, Pic No. 5 shows him grinding on an unidentified woman from the crowd.

My first reaction: Curse you, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.

Jenny Sanford is a role model

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you saw my appearance on Friday’s edition of “Capitol Journal: Week in Review,“ you might remember that during the segment on Mark Sanford, I said that after watching the way the Sanfords have handled this situation that Mark Sanford created, South Carolinians may well be wondering whether they had the wrong Sanford at the top of their state ticket.

As her husband has embarrassed himself, their family and her before the world, Jenny Sanford has been an absolute picture of strength and dignity:

I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband’s infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago ...

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.

In the latest reminder of how much I love her work, Gloria Borger expounds in her new column today on how Jenny Sanford has provided a new example for women in the spotlight to follow when their powerful husbands stray:

The accepted political guidelines for jilted wives (see: wives, jilted) have always decreed that the wounded ones be seen, but stay silent. They are the suffering partners willing to literally remain in the picture out of political necessity. Their very presence helps to suggest that this love is worth saving, because this man is so special—to all of us.

Well, forget it.

In just one week, Jenny Sanford has shifted the paradigm of the political wife.

Faced with infidelity, she did not stand by her man—literally or in any other way. She did not try to soft-pedal the reality of his behavior. In other words, she did not make his life any easier.

Instead, she told the truth.

I would add only one thing to Gloria’s assessment, and that is this: Jenny’s example isn’t just for spurned political wives. Women in general would be wise to model her response as they face this situation.

You can read Jenny’s written statement here, and the fantastic story produced by the Associated Press here. The AP story, especially, is terrific; it captures Jenny Sanford’s frustration and the hurt, but also her willingness to forgive her wayward husband, in a way that makes you feel as if you’re sitting across from the coffee table from her. If you’ve heard all the dirt about Mark Sanford—and there’s been a lot of it, so how could you have missed it?—both are can’t-miss items.

Doing the right thing isn’t always easy or pleasant. But Jenny Sanford has done, and is doing, it—and her sons can be very proud of their mom.

Gina Smith: Newsbreaker

By Jennifer J. Foster

Last week I told you about Matt Pressman’s list of the Top 9 Reasons to Hate the Media.

Today, I give you an example of some excellent journalism.

Gina Smith is an enterprising reporter from The State newspaper in Columbia, S.C. It seems that Smith followed a hunch—and an anonymous tip—and headed to the Atlanta airport in time to meet a flight arriving from Buenos Aires at 6:15 a.m. on June 24.

As she stood there in the arrivals area, waiting for disembarking passengers to come up the escalator into the baggage claim and car rental areas, self-doubt and skepticism flooded her mind.

And then South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford rose into view.

As he stepped off the escalator, Smith’s reporter instincts took over, even as she stood in shock that he was actually there: She shot his picture, approached him and began asking questions.

I hope you’ll read her column about what happened next, before the widely covered news conference in which he admitted that he hadn’t been on the Appalachian Trail, after all.

This is the takeaway from Smith’s column: “Later that day, Sanford admitted to a room full of journalists that he had had an extramarital affair with a woman from Argentina. I always will wonder if the story would have broken if I had failed to catch him in the airport.“

There’s no way to know for sure. But this much is certain: If he hadn’t stepped off the escalator into a curious Gina Smith, her ready camera and her probing questions, Sanford’s Wednesday probably would have been a lot more pleasant.

And one more thing: You might have heard Jenny Sanford’s statements that her husband had actually asked permission to visit his mistress. Put that together with her statements from the previous week in which she told the press that she didn’t know where her husband was. Now, what do you suppose are the chances that the anonymous tipster who encouraged Smith to check out flights arriving from Buenos Aires was ... Jenny Sanford?

I hope it was.

See also:

You simple must read this post from RCP’s Sean Trende. The reasons to love it are many, and it starts with the headline: “Moron Sanford.“

Trende explains in the first line that he meant to write, “More on Sanford.“

Now that’s funny.

Trende offers three serious, thoughtful observations about the Sanford scandal. And then, when discussing Sanford’s e-mails to his Argentinean lover, Trende closes with this: “And apparently ellipses are the only form of punctuation in Argentina.“

Well done.

The transcript of Sanford’s June 24 news conference, which will long remain one of the most bizarre, rambling, uncomfortable things I have ever seen.

This week’s column: Step up on Iran

By Jennifer J. Foster

In case you missed it in Saturday’s Opelika-Auburn News, or if you live outside the print delivery area, my most recent column is now available online. Check it out:

Obama’s mixed signals on Iran are telling

Also, here are links to some of the stories to which I referred in the column:

The transcript from President Obama’s press conference, Wednesday, June 23

Survey raises questions about Iran vote results

The operative section is this:

.The survey made four main observations:

In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100 percent was recorded.

At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his announced victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent conservative majority.

In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad had received not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters and all new voters but also up to 44 percent of former reformist voters—despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

In the 2005 election, as in the elections of 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates—and Ahmadinejad in particular—were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That makes it “highly implausible” that the countryside swung substantially toward Ahmadinejad.

This column was filed before President Obama called the Iranian government’s actions against its citizens “outrageous,“ and it ran before the Iranian government arrested eight local employees of the British Embassy. Five of those employees have been released, but three “are still being interrogated.“

In a related item, CNN reports that according to a new poll, Americans are upset about what’s going on in Iran, but not so much that they want their own government to get directly involved.

What would “directly involved” mean? If it means swooping in there to support demonstrators, I wouldn’t be for that, either, but if it simply means supporting their struggles from here with rhetoric and holding the Iranian government responsible for their treatment through sanctions, then I’m all for it.

I would have appreciated it if this poll would have provided a definition of “directly involved.“ Without it, the poll is pretty useless; it’s unclear whether Americans have become blasé about their freedom or just their willingness to stand up for it for others.