I've said it before, you could make a Web site devoted just to the battle between South Carolina Gov' Mark Sanford and the federal stimulus package.

Read more stories on this subject in our politics topic page.So, as to not inundate our readers with 50 stories, here's the latest on the battle in roundup form (presented in a vaguely chronological order):

In order to accept some stimulus dollars, South Carolina has to commit to expanding some services. There's fear that those could be expensive long-term commitments

Sanford is claiming he only has jurisdiction over some 10% of South Carolina's stimulus funds, and he has asked Obama to allow him to use that $700 million to pay down debt instead of using it on schools, health care, etc. Sanford has said that if he isn't allowed to pay down the debt he will reject the $700 millon.

South Carolina's leading U.S. House Rep., Democrat Jim Clyburn, has called the whole Sanford affair a grandstand for 2012.

Sanford has compared the stimulus project to Zimbabwe's economic policies (and destituteness). It's a comparison Sanford's caught some flak for.

South Carolina has hit 10.4% unemployment, second only to Michigan. It's a fact that many are using to question Sanford's logic to reject stimulus money.

The state's Legislature is preparing to override Sanford, should he choose to reject any stimulus funds.

Buttressing the Legislature, Charleston Mayor Joe Riley has rallied some 50 other state mayors to "urge the General Assembly to override the Governor’s decision."

A Slate political reporter is suggesting that Sanford's claim that he can only reject $700 million is a convenient interpretation, as "[Sanford] not only gets to dramatically redirect a portion of the money -- which has been reported all over as 'rejecting' the money and which either the White House or the South Carolina state legislature will probably override -- but he can also claim that he would reject the entire monstrosity, if only he could."

The Democratic National Committee is using a TV ad to attack Sanford's stance. Saying he's choosing to play politics over caring for his citizens.

So, there you have it.

In my opinion this whole Sanford vs. stimulus funds boils down to this: South Carolina is a firm Republican state headed up by a minimalist Libertarian-leaning governor. Sanford likely believes (and perhaps rightly believe) that accepting stimulus dollars will increase the long term size of our state's government. It's something he more than likely detests as very unhealthy. As such, he doesn't want to increase the size of the government, but it's hard to look a multi-billion dollar gift horse in the mouth.

And, that's why you see him asking Obama to pay down debt and not spend it on programs.

For Sanford this financial crisis could be a way for him to trim what he sees as unnecessary state programs; and for the Democrats, they can add stipulations to the money to expand programs they see as vital.