Advertisement

What Do You Think?

July 04, 2009

Editor's note: Each week, The Herald-Mail invites readers to answer poll questions on its Web site. Readers also may submit comments about the poll question when voting. Each Sunday, a sampling of edited reader comments will run in The Herald-Mail.

Last week there were two poll questions. The first question was: Should Mark Sanford be forced to resign as South Carolina's governor?

"Of course not. I'm willing to bet that Sanford's record of going to work and doing his job is better than 99 percent of all government workers, especially Congress critters. If he used taxpayer money for one of his ... trips, he should pay that back."

"The fact that he should lose his job is a no-brainer. Not just because of the morality, but the honesty factor. If you have honesty and corruption issues at that level in one's life, how can the public trust them?"

Advertisement

"Bill Clinton set the standard. Americans forgave him and wanted him to remain in office. Should the governor of South Carolina be held to a higher standard than the president? When a country wallows in sex, violence and immorality on television and in entertainment in general, why does it recoil in horror when its elected officials stray from their spouses?"

"Sanford left his appointed role of governor without ensuring coverage of his responsibilities and duties pertaining to his position. Albeit a South Carolina governor has limited authority in that position, it still is a position of accountability and credibility. In that position, a governor should act with honor and, most of all, in a professional manner to represent the people of his state that elected him."

"I voted 'No.' The truest form of voter expression would be for the South Carolina electorate to start a recall campaign. If they do that then you would know where they stand. If they do not then you must assume that they don't have a problem with (Sanford)."

"Sanford should not be forced to resign. He should do the honorable thing and resign."

The second question was: What do you think of the 150-year sentence handed to Bernard Madoff for a multibillion-dollar fraud scheme?

"It's good his victims got some justice. But he is just a small fish in a large river of corruption. Now, how about going after the larger fish, and investigate those who caused the collapse of Freddie (Mac) and Fannie (Mae)?"

"Good day for the victims, but no matter how much time he got, not everyone is going to get their money back. I'll be surprised if he lasts 10 years in prison."

"I think what was done here was horrible and 150 years in prison does not seem like enough, but on the other hand, I have to wonder why was there a year placed on it? I think a life sentence should be able to be used in cases such as this one. He needs to spend the remainder of his days in prison knowing his family has lost everything because of him."

"Justice is served. For a change."

"Listen, the man is going to a country club prison for white-collar crimes. He will probably eat better than most of us, get great health (at no charge), work five to six hours in the laundry or outside cutting grass. Who cares how long he got. What really needs to happen is to have him pay back all the people he suckered in his scheme. What would be true justice if his family (wife and sons) paid back all the money and were broke!"

"The biggest problem I see with his sentence is that he was not made to tell who else was involved in this plot."

"Maximum security federal prison sounds like an oxymoron ... I'd bet that the worst federal prison is still better than the best state prison ... Put him in MCI or MCTC and see how long he lasts."

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|