Comments on: Sanford, Haley Consultant Linked To Anti-Barrett Ad

By: SC Integrity

SC Integrity — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:45:28 +0000

Clearly, Haley offers a stark contrast to good ol’ boy tactics.

By: Darth

Darth — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:14:30 +0000

The Sith believes Haley has the best legs…

By: WorkingTommyC

WorkingTommyC — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:12:37 +0000

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: Tiger Dan

Tiger Dan — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:07:51 +0000

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: Sam

Sam — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:17:19 +0000

Barrett voted FOR the bank bailout, therefore the ad is accurate. Pointing out someone’s voting record is not negative campaigning.

By: Roger Roger

Roger Roger — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:46:34 +0000

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: LowcountryGamecock

LowcountryGamecock — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:24:17 +0000

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: follydude

follydude — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:05:53 +0000

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: Garnet Spy

Garnet Spy — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:52:54 +0000

WHAT is negative about the ad? It doesn’t say Barrett kidnaps children or eats boogers. It’s a reflection of his record.

By: WorkingTommyC

WorkingTommyC — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:40:48 +0000

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.