We’ve got nothing against S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett or Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, but let’s face it … at a time when our state desperately needs to keep a fiscal conservative reformer in the Governor’s Office, the Republican Party has put up three status quo, social conservative panderers.
Seriously, when did Republicans winnow the field and determine that the McMaster-Barrett-Bauer “trifecta” was the best way to go? Are they trying to give up the Governor’s Office in 2010?
Of course, it could be that none of them even gets the nomination …
Wait … what?
We know, we know, that sounds crazy … except we’re not kidding, and as it turns out we actually know a thing or two about Republican gubernatorial primaries in this state.
In fact, we think McMaster, Barrett and Bauer might be even easier to defeat than the last triumvirate of GOP gubernatorial front runners – three men whose campaigns were, not surprisingly, managed by the same three political consultants who are currently linked to the top three contenders.
Let’s hit rewind, shall we?
Six years ago, the initial three front runners to challenge Democrat Gov. Jim Hodges were Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler, Attorney General Charlie Condon and Secretary of State Jim Miles.
Peeler’s campaign was run by establishment icon Warren Tompkins, Condon’s was run by legendary message man Richard Quinn and Miles’ campaign was managed by resident dirty prankster Rod Shealy.
Of course, we all know what happened.
The “establishment icon” didn’t have the juice he once did, the “message man” got thoroughly out-messaged and the dirty prankster’s candidate never even got off the ground.
It turned out the people of South Carolina didn’t want pandering, platitudes or pranks, they wanted somebody they could trust to protect their tax dollars – and so the three political machines took it on the chin in the person of Gov. Mark Sanford.
Using a rag-tag assemblage of political amateurs managed by the future First Lady out of the couple’s basement, Sanford’s insurgent campaign scored a surprise first-place finish in the GOP primary before pummeling Peeler by 20 points in the Republican runoff two weeks later.
Could history soon repeat itself? And if so, who will play the role of the spoiler?
That’s the only mystery in our dramatis personae for 2010, as McMaster is the Quinn candidate, Barrett comes from Tompkins’ farm and Bauer is Shealy’s longtime client.
As former New York Yankee great Yogi Berra once said, it’s “deja vu all over again.”
We suspect all three candidates will employ various combinations of consultants at different points throughout the campaign (in an effort to minimize the perception that they’re so squarely under these three influential thumbs), and we may even see Barrett and Bauer attempt to distance themselves from their longtime advisors.
But rest assured the “Big Three” won’t be far away from any major decisions …
So who holds the edge among the “establishment three” campaigns at this point?
Probably McMaster.
Financially speaking, he has $778,000 in the bank, compared to $436,000 for Bauer.
Barrett is competitive for the top spot with $718,000, but he’ll have to get permission from his donors to use that money in a statewide race as opposed to a federal election.
Shouldn’t be hard, but it is time-consuming.
Those new fund-raising numbers, incidentally, come from an informative new AP story on the 2010 race written by veteran political reporter Jim Davenport.
If he’s starting to pay close attention, you know that the campaign announcements won’t be far behind …
Editor’s Note: This is the first installment in an “early look” series we’re doing on the 2010 S.C. gubernatorial race … stay tuned for our next GOP-focused feature, entitled “Who Will Emerge?”
By Not quite January 19, 2009 at 2:02 am
barrett is with starboard.. so i guess that kind of destroys your premise
By liz shepherd January 19, 2009 at 8:22 am
None of these gentlemen should be elected Governor. They are all aware of a ” secret second shadow” Social Security system established in this state. That system is draining the real Social Security system, so everyone’s benefits have been put at risk by each of the men mentioned in this article.
None of these men will stop the abuse I am being forced to endure as a result of knowing about and being able to prove this system via my personal documents. I am being abused profoundly for this proof and knowledge.
Since I am the only person in America who voluntarily surrendered my disability account at the Social Security Administration, I know without a shadow of a doubt that someone received Social Security payments in my name every month that I worked ( eleven years) PLUS the system made me wait almost four years before anyone would allow me the opportunity to beg for my benefits.
Meanwhile, Medicaid is being cut. South Carolina’s sickest and poorest citizens are loosing opportunties for health care. There is but ONE SOURCE of funding the US Treasury. The US Treasury is being ripped off with political permission. These gentlemen don’t even turn their head, they watch~~
By liz shepherd January 19, 2009 at 8:23 am
additional explanation: I worked over the five year protective rule. In turn this rule was used maliciously…. and basically I have this information because I worked ” too long”
By medstudent January 19, 2009 at 9:13 am
Yeah, Sanford’s campaign and victory were pretty amazing, but that’s about the only thing amazing about Sanford’s time in power. I can’t think of a governor that has done less with his time in office.
By Parker January 19, 2009 at 9:54 am
If Joe Erwin runs as a pro-growth education-reforming Democrat and makes it out of the Democratic primary, he could probably win the general. If Obama remains popular and governs as a relative moderate over the next two years, any charges thrown by the GOP nominee at Erwin (or any Dem nominee) trying to tie them to the liberal Obama will look petty and will not work.
For my taste I’d like a governor who has not served in the General Assembly, Congress, or statewide elected office. Oh, and he/she should be in business and not an attorney. I only hope Erwin isn’t the only one who fits this bill, but if he is than it scores him points in my book.
By fitsnews January 19, 2009 at 10:40 am
“Not quite,”
Barrett’s with Starboard? Really? According to the AP, Barrett is also “with” Dyke Communications of Charleston …
Read the story, stupid:
“We suspect all three candidates will employ various combinations of consultants at different points throughout the campaign (in an effort to minimize the perception that they’re so squarely under these three influential thumbs), and we may even see Barrett and Bauer attempt to distance themselves from their longtime advisors.”
Idiot …
-FITS
By craig January 19, 2009 at 10:50 am
It is my understanding that Andre’ isn’t going to use Rod for this race. I figured that explained that he was hanging around Tompkins so much lately.
Even so, your operating premise is still there no matter which of the “Big” three they wind up using.
By Todd January 19, 2009 at 11:31 am
Jenny Sanford for governor. I mean it.
By Turbo January 19, 2009 at 11:45 am
I really can’t believe a true reformer has not emerged yet. We actually have affiliated legislators all over the state, the Club for Growth, SCRG, a popular governor who embraces the ideals. . . In other words, the movement is a lot more organized than it was in 2002 when Sanford won. Someone just needs to step forward. Maybe we need a draft movement.
By Calhoun January 19, 2009 at 11:50 am
The fact is Andre PROMISED not to run for Governor in 2006, and is breaking that promise. Without that promise, he loses to Mike Campbell in ’06; that’s why he made it in the first place. It’s “read my lips” all over again.
If Andre were to somehow manage to get out of the primary, he would lose a General. Many Republicans would cross over to oppose him because of his dishonesty.
It’s sad FITS that you choose to refer to the big 3 as “social conservatives”. First, I have my doubts as to the sincerity of those views – I think Andre’s simply whatever he thinks people want. McMaster might be somewhat malleable himself. Secondly, while I recognize you’re more socially liberal/libertarian than most SC Republicans, the problem with these guys isn’t that that they’re social conservatives (remember, for the most part, the Governor’s basically one too), it’s that they’re NOT fiscal conservatives.
Of the three, Barrett’s the best of them, despite being a fool on the bailout.
By HD January 19, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Even if Barrett’s bailout vote was a mistake (and under the circumstances, I don’t think it was), his conservative bona fides, fiscally and socially, are as strong, or stronger, than anyone likely to run.
By Agree w/ HD January 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Will — Can you report on Barrett’s lifetime scores with groups like Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, etc. He’s consistently in the top 10 or 15 out of 435. Granted, most of them are big spending liberals, but Barrett is a true fiscal conservative that would watch the taxpayer’s money and may actually be a pro-growth governor. that’s one mantle sanford cannot claim.
By Parker January 19, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Agree w/HD – Barrett’s scores for Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform are all available online with the rest of Congress.
Barrett scores from Club for Growth:
2007: Score=89%, Rank=50
2006: Score=78%, Rank=41
2005: Score=95%, Rank=14
Barrett scores from Americans for Tax Reform
2007: 95%
2006: 100%
2005: 96%
Barrett scores from National Taxpayers Union:
2007: Score=91%, Rank=8
2006: Score=76%, Rank=22
2005: Score=71%, Rank=20
I wouldn’t base your opinions on a candidate completely on these scores – it is better to look at the individual votes that a Congressman made on an issue and decide for yourself if they are conservative enough. These votes can all be found on these organizations’ websites.
By KP January 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Alright, with those Club for Growth scores, I MIGHT vote for him.
By fitsnews January 19, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Can somebody take the keyboard away from the Barrett fluffers, please?
It’s easy to be a “strong fiscal conservative” when you know your vote is irrelevant.
Here’s the real test … what happens when your vote matters? When it could actually determine the outcome of something hugely significant to the future direction of our country?
Yeah, the one time – we repeat, the ONE TIME – Barrett’s vote actually meant something, he folded like a cheap suit.
Will you hear that a lot over the next year-and-a-half?
“You betcha …”
-FITS
By KP January 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I like the 2007 Club for Growth scores. Will, the Libertarians are out.
By Fiscal Conservative January 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I’m pretty sure Barrett made a very consequential vote when he stood up against his party and against the President by voting against one of the biggest expansions in Medicare in history by voting against the Prescription Drug Bill.
That program now has ballooned to the tune of 2-3 TRILLION dollars when it was supposed to only cost $400B.
Will, there are plenty of other votes that have mattered. You say that vote was the only one that mattered, but the bill passed overwhelmingly, Barrett could have thrown his vote away like you say and voted no to keep his record on track, but he did what he thought was right for the people and the businesses of our state and nation. Report the FACTS or you will end up just like print media in our state, IRRELEVANT.
By Don't forget Lerner January 19, 2009 at 10:46 pm
No offense to you, Will, one of the “rag-tag assemblage of political amateurs managed by the future First Lady out of the couple’s basement,” but let’s remember the consultant out of DC that was really running Sanford’s race. Jon Lerner called all the shots, not just his commercials and polling, which we all know Sanford lived by. Few people knew that, which I thought was disengenious of the Sanford’s to pretend college kids were running the campaign when he was paying a DC consultant big money.
By fitsnews January 20, 2009 at 12:03 am
“Don’t Forget Lerner,”
Damn, dude. Thanks for the softball down the middle of the plate.
Let’s see … Lerner “ran the campaign?”
Well, he “ran the campaign” in that everything he wrote for Sanford had to not only be completely rewritten, but completely re-conceptualized.
Sort of like the “clinking glasses” kitchen ad that featured two women having the following conversation:
Woman 1: Have you heard of that Mark Sanford? I hear he received the Number One ranking from Citizens Against Government Waste!
Woman 2: You don’t say? Well I heard Mark Sanford was awarded the National Taxpayers’ Union’s most prestigious honor for his courageous stands in support of lower marginal tax rates and a population plus inflation limit on federal spending!
Woman 1: (glasses clinking) Tee-hee!
Woman 2: Tee hee! Tee hee!
Never heard that one before? Perhaps that’s because it never ran anywhere except in a beat-up boom box in Sanford’s basement.
Basically, every time Lerner wrote anything Mark would come downstairs to ask one of the “college kids in the basement” to start from scratch. As it turns out, one of them could actually write, too.
Of course, Lerner will claim to have been the key strategist, which ignores the fact that Sanford completely ignored his repeated advice to join Peeler and Condon on the lunatic religious fringe.
It also conveniently ignores what happened at the most vital point of the campaign – when Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler went hard negative in a desperate attempt to make the runoff against Sanford competitive.
That’s when Lerner proposed (and actually cut) a vicious counterattack ad that he and the future First Lady told Sanford he had “no choice” but to run.
Of course, two of those “college kids in the basement” (and a current State Senator from Beaufort County) told Sanford to stick to his positive message, and one of them even wrote an “I love our state” ad to that effect. Which Sanford ended up going with.
The result? A 20-point mega-landslide and perhaps the most compelling rebuke of negative politics in South Carolina history.
Additionally, Peeler’s campaign manager later admitted they were deliberately trying to bait Sanford.
Look, dude. If you weren’t there, STFU.
Of course the real reason Mark Sanford won the Governor’s Mansion in 2002 was that he worked his ass off raising money, he looked damn good smiling with that cute family on television.
That, and Jenny Sanford flat-out willed it.
-FITS
P.S. – In fairness, Lerner does produce great polling data (he’s a true wizard at crosstabs, incidentally). Just don’t ask him to formulate a theory or try and articulate a message based on any of them.
By Wade January 20, 2009 at 12:33 am
Maybe that state senator from Beaufort is the person we need to run.
By LA Conservative January 20, 2009 at 1:19 am
Who will Sanford support in 2010? That may be the real question. He is still hugely popular.
Someone I think would be a good choice is Joe Taylor at the Department of Commerce. A good mix of a Carroll Campbell in industry recruitment and a fiscal conservative like Sanford.
In the legislature, the best candidates for Governor are rookies. Tom Davis and Mick Mulvaney come to mind.
I don’t believe any of the “trifecta” will make it in the end. Especially in these times.
By BIN News Editorial Staff January 20, 2009 at 2:10 am
Yawn. Watching republicrats fighting is getting boring.
By baker January 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Will, did you just happen to be one of the “college kids”?
I remember Joel S. talking you up BIG TIME around then. Must have been an exciting time.
Pingback: Random guy for governor | The Palmetto Scoop
Pingback: Brent Nelsen for SC GOV? | The Belltower Voice