Sunday, April 04, 2010

The puzzling things around Leighton Lord's AG campaign

Leighton Lord’s campaign for Attorney General has a boatload of money to spend. That is evidenced by the mail he has sent out already, his tv ads already aired, and his slick website. However, there are some puzzling things around the Lord campaign.

First, it is puzzling why the Lord campaign greatly distorts Lord’s resume. There is no need to. Lord is the managing partner of a big law firm with proven experience running a group of lawyers. Yet, the Lord campaign seems bent on stretching things a bit. On his website, Lord’s “early law enforcement career” is touted. That law enforcement career is based on Lord’s service as Counsel to the United States Senate Subcommittee on Investigations. While that was important work, it was not law enforcement work. Lord was not out arresting or prosecuting the bad guys. Indeed, calling Lord’s time working for the Senate as law enforcement is like saying that someone who was counsel to the Agriculture Committee was a farmer.

The second puzzling aspect about the Lord campaign is an “attack” radio ad aired against Lord by The America Future Fund. The ad, aired in the upstate, complains about upstate tax dollars going to the Boeing plant to be built in the Charleston area. The ad suggests that people go to a website, www.BoeingBailout.com. The website claims to be against the Boeing project because it involves tax payer money. Fair enough. But, the news articles referenced are not really hard hitting, and the reference to Leighton Lord links to his resume on his law firm’s website, which is positive. If people were looking for something that was hard hitting and damaging to Lord, the Boeing Bailout site is not it.

Further, the America Future Fund is a group that plays loose with the rules to assist conservative candidates. They are to the Right what Move On is to the Left. Lord would typically be someone such a group would support. Such groups have always lined up behind the efforts of Mark Sanford, and Mark Sanford was a proponent of the Boeing deal.

Such got the staff of VUI scratching our heads. We were so puzzled we turned to an old pro in South Carolina politics and asked him his thoughts. That old pro would not, to our chagrin, let us use his name, but what he said made us think. Here are his remarks.

“Brian, what you see here is some smart politics. That Bonnie Blue guy and the Sanford people are sharp, and they are with Lord. Look at it. Lord can cry foul over a negative ad. But, the negative ad really helps where the votes are, along the coast. An attack ad against a man for getting jobs to South Carolina in this economy? Please. This is an old set up. He is hoping Wilson’s son and that other fellow take the bait. Lord would love to be portrayed as the man who got the Boeing jobs to the Low County. And for the ad to be ran by a group that would normally support Lord, well that tells you right there what those fellows are up to. It’s sneaky as Hell, but it’s smart.”

Some words to think on. Frankly VUI does not know what to think. We offer no opinion on the matter. Maybe the Sanford styled groups are eating their own. Check out the ad below and look at the website, consider the stretches about the law enforcement experience and make your own judgments.

10 comments:

  1. Mr. McCarty, this was a very stupid thing to write.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lord will destroy you and your career. Good luck at Wal Mart

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Fat ManApril 05, 2010

    You can help me with this. I have a bet with a friend. Who weighs more? You, Adam Fogle, or Rob Cahaly, (the Bonnie Blue Guy)? I am guessing Fogle, but I do not know.

    Who is the true heavyweight in SC politics?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The comments before mine are sad. You ask legitimate questions. The guy has made a ton of money in the private sector and now wants to be a public servant. The other two have experience (real experience). The comments that "Lord will destroy you and your career" sound like the same guys that swore by Sanford and Thomas Ravenel (look where that got us). Just because he is new to politics does not mean he gets to skip scrutiny, even as mild as this was. It is "puzzling" and they attack the questions because they don't have answers.

    By the way, Lord worked for Boeing, not for the state of SC, so it was his duty to squeeze concessions from the state. That was his job as their attorney, so I do not begrudge that. However, I am offended that he takes credit for Boeing coming here when he was hired to go against the state for concessions.

    Ask more questions. See if they continue to attack the questions rather than answer them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Leighton Lord is a fine attorney and true example of what a proven career in law enforcement can do for South Carolina. There is more to law enforcement then being some low IQ beat cop or half witted prosecutor who failed the bar exam.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Go Lord, I hope you do not speak for Lord. If you do, count me as voting for anyone but him. I am one of those low IQ cops. I never heard of Leighton Lord working a patrol, arresting a drug dealer or even sorting out a CDV situation.

    We in law enforcement do it because we believe in it. We don't make the big money. But, we do ask for some respect. And, for some lawyer who worked on some committee to compare that do what we go through is insulting. For someone who supports him to say its more important than what we do is outrageous.

    Think on this, big guy. Someone is breaking in your house. You dial 911. You want Leighton Lord to show up, or us?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon, I agree. I am not a police officer, but for Lord to try to come off as he has law enforcement experience is insulting. I guess he thinks his money can buy him a resume.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Leighton is not my LordApril 07, 2010

    You hit it Fred. Lord has the money and a ruthless consultant who will say and do anything.

    But, hey, McCarty, you are a lawyer, what do you have to say about this as being false lawyer advertising? Isn't their a rule against lawyers doing that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was wondering when someone with a blog (of course the main stream media is too broke to investigate) was going to ask the questions. The Lord campaign is fascinating for the question "why?" Look at his website and the video clip for WIS Lord states that as the "managing" partner he has no executive experience since he has to run the firm only by getting a majority of partners to agree. For all his touting his "leadership" his clip admits he has none.

    The video clip says he was raised elsewhere, when to a northern undergraduate school, then an expensive out of state private law school. At least Sanford attended an in-state undergraduate school before he threw his big-money "outsider" ideas around.

    Somewhere, he has to materialize a reason to vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pretty well written column. Where the comments come in kinda gets off point. Buying political office is never good, yet there is an absence of a reason for this guy to be running for one of the top jobs in the state. Under Lord's reasoning, because he is a "manager," he can manage do any management job without experience. Somewhere, he has to have experience for the job. Nice analogy about like calling himself a farmer. I guess if he worked for armed services he could challenge Petraeus as well.

    ReplyDelete