Is This Where Sanford Really Was?

The Left is going crazy due to word from a local TV station that SC Governor Sanford was allegedly spotted at an Atlanta airport. It's being claimed that he couldn't have been hiking the Appalachian Trail as has been stated. Someone at dKos has even figured out that he actually flew to Alaska to plot strategy  for 2012 as a ticket with another "far right" loonie, Sarah Palin. Just who is the "loon" here?

I'm tellin' you they're meeting in Palin's War Room/Nursery

In any event, Google +Atlanta, "Appalachian Trail", -Sanford and behold: Sixty hikes within sixty miles of Atlanta - the Appalachian Trail. Also, Atlanta is home to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and Trail Club.

But of course, even if one assumes his being spotted there is true, it couldn't have anything to do with the Appalachian Trail. He's a conservative, after all. Why would he tell the truth? At most, I say, let's wait and see.

Comments

[mark l.]

if he says he was held prisoner in area 51, the dems lose half their party to the gop.

[cindi]

On a serious note. I thought being governor was a 24/7 job. Meaning he would have to be in reach with his staff?

[Ad rem]

He'll be ok as long as he didn't use the airport restrooms....heh...

[MarkJ]

"In a related story, sharp-eyed observers at dKos report they know 'where's Waldo'. They further assert they have discovered 'beyond all doubt' that Amelia Earhart is now living in a nursing home in Teaneck, New Jersey; that Jimmy Hoffa was not murdered but actually spirited away to the Planet Zircon; and that Jim Morrison didn't die in Paris but, instead, assumed a new identity as a tenured Theater Arts professor at his alma mater of UCLA. The dKos observers finally announced, with great fanfare, that they would immediately begin a campaign to make 'trainspotting' an Olympic medal sport."

[rael]

The loons are anyone who believes that he's been out hiking.

[cindi]

Have to agree with that rael. This guy is a public servant, regardless of party.

[mark l.]

there's a rumor that he was at an er for mental health evaluation...

the doctor asked him how many states there were, and he said "fifty-six".
clearly, the dude is a nut.

[Mike123]

What we are seeing is the divide between the nanny staters and "We the People".

The nanny staters are terrified that their "father" is missing and don't know what to do. Remember the pony tail guy at the Bush/Clinton debate claiming that Americans are "symbolically the children of the future president". These people are afraid of personal responsibility and Liberty. So when the Governor runs off, they panic like 4 year old little girls finding a spider.

The "We the people" people don't care because our lives are not dependent on the government. Frankly, "We the people" would do much better off if everyone in government took a five year vacaton. The We the people are responsible for our lives and cherish Liberty. Sadly, this spirit is in the minority as our public schools and media has trained our children and people to be Nanny Staters

[JWF]

Maybe he should just say he was on an extended burger run and the media would gush.

[Rob Crawford]

"What we are seeing is the divide between the nanny staters and "We the People". "

Combined with a sustained attack on a potential political rival to The One.

[rael]

> Combined with a sustained attack on a potential political rival to
> The One.

Sanford? A rival to Obama?

[Shady1]

Interesting that so many want to know where Sanford is and why. Has it occurred to any one that Wife and staff knew where he was but wasn't telling any one unless he was really needed.We do have bigger fish to fry in the WH . Is the media trying to help the Big O by pushing baseless stories? Keep your eyes on the money!FOCUS!

[Rob Crawford]

"Sanford? A rival to Obama?"

He's a Republican governor who made a public stand against The One's policies. Both of those make him a potential candidate in 2012.

[templar knight]

Careful, Rob, your continued reality checks are causing consternation. I noticed that none of your salient points were ever noticed or answered in the comments section on Dan's story about Conor below. I even kindly requested that Conor respond to your requests, yet Conor seemed to lose his place(haha).

Conor also never responded to my questions on his position on drilling off the coasts. Nor did he ever give his position on anything that might help us decide whether he might be conservative, or not. All I know is that he wants to play nice. I think he should take up checkers.

[Bob]

"But of course, even if one assumes his being spotted there is true, it couldn't have anything to do with the Appalachian Trail. He's a conservative, after all. Why would he tell the truth? At most, I say, let's wait and see."

Poor persecuted conservatives. They can't even make up lies about "hiking the Appalachian Trail" to cover up for a bizarre clandestine trip to Argentina, for Christ's sake, without the liberals making a big fuss over it. I predict this will only get better, and the initial knee-jerk apologists for Sanford will have an even harder time explaining it away. And Sanford is supposed to be the future of the Republican Party that the Dems are so terrified of? LOL. "Bring it on."

[Rob Crawford]

OK, Bob, so those are the ground rules you want to use? That we're to ALWAYS assume the worst of anything spun as odd by the press? Really?

Now, more recent reporting is sounding like Sanford did something stupid, and if true, then, well, he has no one to blame but himself. I just don't think the FIRST response should be to believe the press unquestionably and to abandon someone because they say we should.

[Bob]

Now Sanford is crying as he apologizes to his family, friends and staff. He's saying, "I've let down a lot of people . . . that's the bottom line." So it turns out he was having an affair with an Argentine woman. Again, what a poor, persecuted conservative. Obama is really shaking in his boots now, I'm sure. LOL.

[Bob]

"OK, Bob, so those are the ground rules you want to use? That we're to ALWAYS assume the worst of anything spun as odd by the press? Really?"

So then why were you assuming that the reason Sanford's disappearance was being made an issue of is because he took a public stand against Obama?

[Rob Crawford]

Getting your jollies off the pain of others, Bob?

[Rob Crawford]

"So then why were you assuming that the reason Sanford's disappearance was being made an issue of is because he took a public stand against Obama?"

Because until Sanford said there was more to it, there was nothing beyond the press not knowing where he was and their trying to make it sound dramatic. Given he's nothing more than a state governor, why give him such prominence? Because he's been targeted for destruction by the Democrat machine.

I was also saying we shouldn't convict based on an absence of evidence, while the left was desperately searching for a conspiracy theory to hang him with.

But what the hell. The guy stupidly had an affair; his political career is over. He should have taken cocaine and attended a white-power church for 20 years; we know neither of those are disqualifying for national office. (Or do those exclusions only apply to The One?)

[Bob]

"Given he's nothing more than a state governor, why give him such prominence? Because he's been targeted for destruction by the Democrat machine."

But you yourself were just bragging about how Sanford is "a Republican governor who made a public stand against The One's policies. Both of those make him a potential candidate in 2012." So one minute he's a candidate for the highest office in the land and the next he's "nothing more than a state governor." Meanwhile, you're jumping to conclusions yourself that the only possible reason for the press to be focusing on Sanford's disappearance is that he's a potential rival to Obama, rather than because it was a legitimate story about bizarre behavior by one of the top Republicans in the nation, which, incidentally, turned out to be even bigger of a story than anyone could have imagined. You can't have it both ways.

[Todd]

"He's a conservative, after all. Why would he tell the truth?"

I dunno. Maybe because he's a lying sleazebag ?