SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[DaemonSeid]

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was in South America during a dayslong unexplained absence, not hiking the Appalachian Trail as his staff told the public when state leaders raised questions about his whereabouts, the governor told a newspaper.

The State reported that Sanford arrived Wednesday morning at Atlanta's Hartsville-Jackson International Airport on a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Sanford's spokesman Joel Sawyer declined to comment Wednesday morning to The Associated Press

The Republican told the South Carolina newspaper he decided at the last minute to go to the South American country. The governor says he had considered hiking on the Appalachian Trail but wanted to do something "exotic."

Sanford said he was alone on the trip. He declined to give any additional details about what he did other than to say he drove along the coastline.

Sanford was last seen at work Thursday. On Monday, a state legislator raised questions about where he was after hearing reports from security officials that the governor could not be contacted and his whereabouts were unknown. The governor's wife, Jenny Sanford, told The Associated Press she had not seen him since Thursday but was not concerned because he'd told her he wanted to get away and do some writing.

Late Monday, Sanford's staff said he had been hiking the Appalachian Trail. They said Tuesday that he had called in and planned to cut his trip short and return to work Wednesday because of all the attention his absence was getting.

The governor's spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Sanford wanted to get away to clear his head after the legislative session, during which he lost a key battle. Jenny Sanford said Tuesday, "Leave us to our privacy."

When The State asked Sanford at the airport why his staff said he was on the Appalachian Trail, Sanford replied, "I don't know."


link


"Leave us to our privacy."?

A state that has one of the highest unemployment numbers and a governor who has critics who don't see him turning the economics around...disappears....lies about where he is going?

Yes he turned down stimulus money as is his right and there were enough South Carolinians who disagreed with that choice...but he disappeared on duty.

"Leave us to our privacy...."

I'm sorry, I don't think that's gonna happen.

Of course what has to be running on the minds of many...what the hell was going on in ARGENTINA that he lied about his whereabouts and who footed the bill?

If he EVER runs for president...an ad should run stating, "If the phone rings at 3am, do you know where your president will be to answer it?"

[MysticCat]

Apparently, even his wife didn't know where is was. She said he missed spending Father's Day with their four sons because he "wanted some space to get away from the kids."

And apparently, before he left on this trip, the South Carolina General Assembly, which is controlled by Republicans, overrode 10 of his vetoes.

Here is the story in the Columbia newspaper.

Anyone from South Carolina who can fill us in more?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Apparently, even his wife didn't know where is was. She said he missed spending Father's Day with their four sons because he "wanted some space to get away from the kids."

And apparently, before he left on this trip, the South Carolina General Assembly, which is controlled by Republicans, overrode 10 of his vetoes.

Here is the story in the Columbia newspaper.

Anyone from South Carolina who can fill us in more?

Right....when you are responsible for about 4mil. people...you can't just "get up and get away." and not tell ANYONE.

[KSigkid]

This is just such a bizarre story - no one knew where he was, and they can't even come up with a coherent story between him, his staff and his family. The fact that his wife is making those comments to the press I think just adds to the weirdness of the situation.

I don't know that it would be such a big deal if he had come forward with it originally - it was at the end of the legislative session, and government leaders make trips all the time.

Good work to his chief of staff though in getting him back in the country - can you imagine the awkwardness of that conversation?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Right....when you are responsible for about 4mil. people...you can't just "get up and get away." and not tell ANYONE.

Actually, you really can.

He didn't have any responsibilities (other than the obvious "standing responsibilities") with the end of the legislative session, and he is entitled to vacation time. The government still functioned in his absence, and while there would have been some awkwardness should an executive decision be needed, the dustup would have been much more related to a poorly-phrased Constitution in SC than anything - besides this, the reasonable chance of this happening is almost zero, and even an emergency or disaster would have allowed the Lt.G or etc. to make the necessary decisions.

Honestly, I don't have any problem with what he actually did (leaving/being furtive), although the public relations portion and the aftermath have been handled extremely poorly - apparently, he does similar trips every year after the legislative session, because he's a high-stress/high-accountability type (he moved his family into the pool house to save the state money, etc.). If this is what he needs to do to be effective, so be it.

It's weird, and I feel like there's more to the story, but on a bare-bones level I don't really care about the trip itself. Now, if he was fondling underage hookers in Buenos Aires, obviously that's a different story - until we have word on the hookers, though, I'll go with "meh" I guess.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Actually, you really can.

He didn't have any responsibilities (other than the obvious "standing responsibilities") with the end of the legislative session, and he is entitled to vacation time. The government still functioned in his absence, and while there would have been some awkwardness should an executive decision be needed, the dustup would have been much more related to a poorly-phrased Constitution in SC than anything - besides this, the reasonable chance of this happening is almost zero, and even an emergency or disaster would have allowed the Lt.G or etc. to make the necessary decisions.

Honestly, I don't have any problem with what he actually did (leaving/being furtive), although the public relations portion and the aftermath have been handled extremely poorly - apparently, he does similar trips every year after the legislative session, because he's a high-stress/high-accountability type (he moved his family into the pool house to save the state money, etc.). If this is what he needs to do to be effective, so be it.

It's weird, and I feel like there's more to the story, but on a bare-bones level I don't really care about the trip itself. Now, if he was fondling underage hookers in Buenos Aires, obviously that's a different story - until we have word on the hookers, though, I'll go with "meh" I guess.

LOL....

Let me put it that way...yes...gov't officials deserve to go on trips and vacations and such...but the CALLOUSNESS of it all is the problem.

Lying about where you are going and then not really leaving someone in his stead or at least informing his Louie that he he was leaving.

It doesn't help either that he has a history of having ditched his security detail before.

The way he did this whole thing was like, "Imma lie and tell Mom I was at John's house around the corner, when I was really at Joe's house on the other side of town....and pray I don't get caught in a lie!"

He is a grown ass 50 year old man...why lie about where he went?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Right....when you are responsible for about 4mil. people...you can't just "get up and get away." and not tell ANYONE.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Actually, you really can.

He didn't have any responsibilities (other than the obvious "standing responsibilities") with the end of the legislative session, and he is entitled to vacation time. The government still functioned in his absence, and while there would have been some awkwardness should an executive decision be needed, the dustup would have been much more related to a poorly-phrased Constitution in SC than anything - besides this, the reasonable chance of this happening is almost zero, and even an emergency or disaster would have allowed the Lt.G or etc. to make the necessary decisions.

No, I don't think you can.

Entitled to a vacation? Sure.

Without telling anyone where you are, much less that you have left the country? Totally irresponsible for a Chief Executive. (Not to mention politically idiotic.)

I'm curious -- how do you know he didn't have any responsibilities with the session over? I know in my state, the governor has plenty of responsibilities whether the legislature is in session or not. That doesn't mean that the governor can't take some personal time or vacation. But it does mean that (1) she makes sure that things are in order as far as possible before she leaves, and (2) she makes sure that people know where she is and how to contact her immediately.

[sdeason1]

He is in the public lime light and is responsible to the citizens of his fine state. He needs to make an accounting or it will haunt him in the future.

[DrPhil]

If MysticCat's theory that he wanted to get caught isn't true, why do idiots risk SO MUCH for these emotional and/or physical affairs?

ETA: From the article I posted:
The woman, who lives in Argentina, has been a "dear, dear friend" for about eight years but, Sanford said, the relationship didn't become romantic until a little over a year ago. He's seen her three times since then, and his wife found out about it five months ago.

This puts a spin on it, as far as I'm concerned. He disappears around father's day for a "mysterious trip" and his wife knew about this woman for months. His wife may not be the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL is making her out to be. Maybe his wife was just being full of guamguam.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

ETA: From the article I posted:
The woman, who lives in Argentina, has been a "dear, dear friend" for about eight years but, Sanford said, the relationship didn't become romantic until a little over a year ago. He's seen her three times since then, and his wife found out about it five months ago.

This puts a spin on it, as far as I'm concerned. He disappears around father's day for a "mysterious trip" and his wife knew about this woman for months. His wife may not be the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL is making her out to be. Maybe his wife was just being full of guamguam.

He also said that he was going to Argentina "to end the relationship." HA! It does not take five days to end a relationship. He could have done that over the phone! He also claimed that he "cried for five days straight." Yeah right! He did :::ahem::: something else for four days, cried the last day, and went home.

Also, what wife would let her husband leave the country by himself for almost a week to "say goodbye" to his mistress?

This has more holes than Swiss cheese.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

He also said that he was going to Argentina "to end the relationship." HA! It does not take five days to end a relationship. He could have done that over the phone! He also claimed that he "cried for five days straight." Yeah right! He did :::ahem::: something else for four days, cried the last day, and went home.

Also, what wife would let her husband leave the country by himself for almost a week to "say goodbye" to his mistress?

This has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Hey hey hey you skeptics!!!

Maybe he did exactly what he says he did. Let's pretend that he did.

He STILL had an affair and subjected those of us who read articles to a BS mysterious trip story. Then his wife played dumb. Poor sons...I feel sorry for the sons...why don't parents think of their children if they can't think of their spouses?!

[DrPhil]

I am apathetic to such scandals.

I think politicians are full of guamguam (I'm in cussin' rehab), anyway, and that includes infedility.

But, I'll discuss a politician's antics if there's nothing else to discuss.

[DrPhil]

I don't trust the personal integrity of any public figure unless I know them personally. I don't "like" politicians and I don't really like politics because I think it's all crap and fluff.

But, I interpret politics to mean that there's a professional integrity requirement. The person can be a complete moron who is dishonest in her/his personal life, but wears a different hat when it comes to doing her/his job. Until we do the ultimate background check and quality assurance where we micromanage all of their personal lives, we will run ourselves ragged reacting to everything.

I don't know how well that will apply in reality because we don't want politicans running more wild than they already are. Doesn't Europe have a more liberal approach to politicians' lives?

[JonoBN41]

Isn't adultery a crime?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Isn't adultery a crime?

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

ETA: Cite to SC law: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm