My new Facebook friend (TN) Representative Stacey Campfield makes an interesting comment on Post Politics clarifying his remarks about (U.S.) Senator Bob Corker not being a "top-shelf" candidate in 2006:
By “Not top shelf” I mean he did not have some of the assets other Republican candidates had. Van and Ed have “the look” and are better speakers . Van and Ed had both already run statewide. Both had represented larger areas as congressmen then Bob had. Both had strong ties to the conservative wing of the party. Both knew the issues and players better by virtue of both having been in Washington as Reps before. Bob is nice and all but I think if you took his personal fortune and that of his immediate friends out of the race as a factor the results of his US senate run look dramatically different.
This doesn't really mean much anymore, but as someone who survived the Ford campaign, let me offer my outside opinion.
There was no reason why Bob Corker should have won that primary. He had the money but no name recognition outside of Chattanooga, Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant were much better known. However, the conservatives couldn't settle on either of them. If either Hilleary or Bryant had dropped out and allowed the conservatives to rally around the other. Instead, they spent the primary ripping each other apart, allowing Corker to stand back and look like the sane, moderate one.
That perception stuck in the general election. Corker certainly had the advantage of Ford shooting himself in the foot every opportunity he got, no doubt about that. But I think what may have attracted undecided voters to Corker was precisely that he didn't have "the look," that he wasn't as "Washington" as Ford. The perception was (unfairly or not) that Corker was more "in touch" with the average Tennessean than Ford. Some of that perception may certainly have been race-based, but that's not germane to my point.
So there's the contradiction. The Right has been desperate in the last few weeks to paint this country as a "center-right" nation, and Tennessee in particular as a conservative state that yet prefers moderation. So wouldn't a "center-right" candidate for a state-wide race been a perfect fit? I can tell you that on the night of the primary, everyone at the Ford campaign was praying for an Ed Bryant win, precisely because he could have been painted as extreme in a way that Corker couldn't have.
You can read the rest of Campfield's post, it's an excellent reminder in how denial is merely the first stage of grief. However, I will agree with the originally quoted portion that neither Ford nor Lincoln Davis are the correct candidate for the 2010 Governor's race. Ford hasn't done anything since 2006 and Lincoln Davis has nothing to offer.
6 comments:
even if Davis/Ford aren't the "right candidates," they should still run. For the same reason that Van and Ed helped Bob Corker. We need good candidates who can mobilize and inspire the base. I think Al Gore should run too.
Denial of what? We won! Our numbers grew.
The rep.
Yes you did. The denial part is thinking that it means anything outside of Tennessee and that Republicans winning big nationally again is imminent.
I never talked of the national scene. The national party has a lot to do to get their game back together like Tennessee did this last election. It can happen, but I think more needs to be done that I question the national parties desire or willingness to do.
The Rep.
Au contraire, sir, with all due respect (using a different language in Nashville while I'm still allowed to). The entire first part of your post is about how the national economy and the President will mean losses for the Democrats in 2010. Nothing to back that up, just your own audacity of hope.
It's not a huge thing I guess; you're correct in that if we end up with either Ford or Lincoln Davis as our nominee, then Bill Frist can go ahead and book the moving van.
I was talking about more losses for Dems at the state level (Thus Republican wins at the state level)caused by those national factors.
The Rep.
Post a Comment