Sanford, Haley Consultant Linked To Anti-Barrett Ad
By FITSNews || The principal campaign consultant to S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford and State Rep. Nikki Haley, Sanford’s anointed successor, has been linked by multiple sources to an “independent” television advertisement slamming U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett – one of Haley’s opponents in the 2010 GOP primary.
Jon Lerner – a longtime advisor to Sanford and a current political consultant to both Sanford and Haley – was “deeply involved” in the ad, which was paid for by Virginia-based issues advocacy group Americans for Job Security (AJS).
You can click here to read our story on the ad (includes a video link).
In fact, sources tell FITS that both Lerner and Sanford made personal appeals to numerous individuals in an effort to obtain funding for the advertisement, which blasts Barrett for his flip-flop on the Bush bailout and acceptance of stimulus money.
Unknown at this point is whether Lerner had a hand in the production of the ad, although its ominous narrative tone is eerily reminiscent of a negative ad that the Washington-based consultant cut for Mark Sanford in 2002 – an ad that Sanford ultimately decided against running on television.
A spokesman for AJS told FITS last week that Lerner is not currently a consultant to the organization.
For its part, Haley’s campaign has previously told FITS that the fourth-term state lawmaker “would not tolerate” any negative campaigning. It will be interesting to see if she follows through on that and ditches Lerner.
Barrett and Haley are currently engaged in a brutal fight for the GOP nomination with two better-known candidates, S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and Attorney General Henry McMaster.
Four democrats – Sen. Vincent Sheheen, State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, State Sen. Robert Ford and liberal lobbyist Dwight Drake – are also seeking the office, as is a recent new “independent” candidate, Morgan Bruce Reeves.
Comments
By Toyota Kawaski on March 5th, 2010 at 8:17 am
4th place Nikki
By Skidmarks on March 5th, 2010 at 8:49 am
It makes sense that Sanford is behind it, because the ad’s timing and purpose, other than negativity, make no sense.
By Roger Roger on March 5th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Are Sanford and Lerner still in contact? Is Sanford working on the Haley campaign??
By Mike at the beach on March 5th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Not only was the timing of this ad amateurish, but I think the negativity and hypocrisy demonstrate just how “reform-minded” Haley is. She’s just another pol, and she’ll obviously stoop to the same low level as any other last place hack.
By Walking Around Money on March 5th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Great news. Nikki will lose the nomination (that was already a guarantee) and she gives up her house seat. Back to selling clothes!
By Insider on March 5th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Unfortunately Will, this post is incorrect, nice and a very likely theory, but very incorrect.
By SC Moderate on March 5th, 2010 at 10:48 am
She may be in 4th place currently, but for some reason I feel Haley and Bauer will be the 2 in the runoff. Regardless of policy, Haley and Bauer seem to come across as more genuine (or that you get a more consistent feel for where they stand) than Barrett and McMaster.
So it will likely be two 38-40 year olds in the general, which would be refreshing at least (assuming Sheheen probably pulls out the Dem primary).
By TERESA on March 5th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Well,I’m disappointed in Haley-I know I should’nt be, a Politician is a Politician. My Great Grandfather always told me you can expect one thing from a politician “lies and more lies”. The hypocrisy continues.
By Matt on March 5th, 2010 at 11:03 am
There’s nothing wrong with the timing of this ad. Haley’s campaign is just doing what she should be doing right now.
They see that the easiest opening for them is against Barrett. The anty-Washington sentiment is at a fever pitch right now. She’s doing exactly what Perry did to Hutchison down in Texas–tie your Republican opponent to Washington spending and Obama. Doing it early allows her to define Barrett early on and make conservative voters suspect of him.
By No Name on March 5th, 2010 at 11:06 am
The only interesting aspect of this race so far has been the responce to the ad by Demint…..I did not see that coming….and the Fred support which I assume is expected but still surprising.
Henry is getting better at speaking and has no Fed tar on him.
Andre has already shown the best political nose by running the galvanizing ad on black welfare cheats that ran very well in the Upstate and woke up that crowd to Andre.
The subtext to this ….is which 2012 Presidential campaign controlls the State mansion….everyone seems OK with Romney so far…..some for the simple fact that a lot of the candidates that might come forward have privately expressed quite rational insight that our country is in a real mess and who wants to sluf through all this mess right now.
I still see Henry and Andre in the run off and then Henry pulling it out as the party rallys around him out of fear of Andre as Governor.
Haley looks like a spoiler….which is all she or Mark may be able to do.
Gresham had one bad day and one bad video moment that will sink him.
By Neocon on March 5th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Sounds like Barrett’s winning…?
By WorkingTommyC on March 5th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The implication with those discussing “negative” ads always seem to be that a candidate or organization producing such ads does not have a “positive” agenda or “plan of action” which, whether such is worthy of notice or not, I hope is not the case–at least among the candidates running for office.
Personally, I want to hear it all: good, bad, indifferent. It’s all information though not necessarily truthful nor truthfully presented. The Declaration of Independence is a great example of what is partially a “negative” advertisement against King George, III.
If not for negative ads, I doubt we’d hear much of anything negative about ANY of the really bad candidates who always seem to have the support of the socialist mainstream media.
If the charge is fair and truthful, hopefully it sticks. We’ve obviously been waaaay too forgiving of candidates’ faults in the past or we wouldn’t have US Senators and statehouse politicians who stay in office forever despite their obvious corruption.
The ad against Greshie Barrett is basically true in all respects. There is NO obligation on the part of the producers of the ads to make any qualifications while noting a candidate’s record or words. Neither is there any obligation for them to mention any “good” things he’s done. Rebuttal is up to the candidate himself.
If the bailout were Barrett’s only sin against taxpayers, which it obviously is not, then maybe it would be weighed on that basis. However, just the TARP bailout in and of itself seals the deal for me and many others. I’ll never vote for Barrett for ANY office. And, yes, I’m consistent–I’ll never vote for Lil’ Joe Wilson again, either.
By Garnet Spy on March 5th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
WHAT is negative about the ad? It doesn’t say Barrett kidnaps children or eats boogers. It’s a reflection of his record.
By follydude on March 5th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
i like the irony of Lerner working for “American’s for Job Security”.
with clients like Sanford, job security is a as strong as a wet kleenex.
By LowcountryGamecock on March 5th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Barrett’s campaign zombies just can’t face reality, judging by their trolling of these comments.
Barrett doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body; he’d sell out anyone or anything for political gain.
By Roger Roger on March 5th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
You’re kidding, right? It accuses him of “being part of the problem” Sounds negative to me.
It’s not even a reflection of barrett’s record — he voted against the stiumulus!
By Sam on March 5th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Barrett voted FOR the bank bailout, therefore the ad is accurate. Pointing out someone’s voting record is not negative campaigning.
By Tiger Dan on March 5th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Barrett did, in fact, vote for TARP, and it was the correct vote to make.
It is, however, entirely disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and simply incorrect to claim that any advertisement featuring ominous music, the statement that the candidate is “part of the problem,” and other loaded terms, is “not negative campaigning.” Claiming that this advertisement is not negative campaigning is either a major misrepresentation of the advertisement or indicates a severe personality disorder.
By WorkingTommyC on March 5th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Roger Roger:
Fascinating distraction tactic you attempt to employ:
“Barrett did not vote for stimulus, therefore the political ad was unfair accurately stating that he voted for the TARP bail out.”
[nomad probe] NON-SEQUITUR! YOUR FACTS ARE UNCOORDINATED! [/nomad probe]
By Darth on March 8th, 2010 at 9:14 am
The Sith believes Haley has the best legs…
By SC Integrity on March 8th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Clearly, Haley offers a stark contrast to good ol’ boy tactics.