TN Congressional Districts

[sleepy]

If you talk to establishment White Democrats, they really don't want to have Junior as a standard-bearer (as most know Junior's chances), but if they oppose him, well, they come off looking like racists. He is qualified to run, after 10 years in the House, but his problems are that he is too liberal for this state, and he's a Ford. The Ford name is synonymous with big-city machine politics, corruption, and, last but not least, voter fraud and stealing elections. Short of the Republican nominee being a child molestor, he won't be winning a statewide office, all that outstate money notwithstanding.

Personally, I thought Kurita was a very attractive candidate for the Democrats, minus the baggage that a Ford would carry, but she wasn't going to be able to compete financially against Junior in the primary, but she would be a far stronger candidate in the general.

Ford's a conservative democrat. He's supported Bush on social security, the Iraq war, medicare prescription, the bankruptcy bill, etc. He's hardly a liberal. Rumor has held that if he's elected, he'll switch parties, though I doubt that.

If he's not elected, it will not be because of his politics but because of either his race or his name. His name shouldn't be a factor--though it will be of course--since from day one he's distanced himself from the shenanigans of his family and is clean as a whistle. Race shouldn't be a factor either, but it will be.

I'm just sorry Kurita pulled out.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Ford's a conservative democrat. He's supported Bush on social security, the Iraq war, medicare prescription, the bankruptcy bill, etc. He's hardly a liberal. Rumor has held that if he's elected, he'll switch parties, though I doubt that.

If he's not elected, it will not be because of his politics but because of either his race or his name. His name shouldn't be a factor--though it will be of course--since from day one he's distanced himself from the shenanigans of his family and is clean as a whistle. Race shouldn't be a factor either, but it will be.

I'm just sorry Kurita pulled out.

I shot my drink out my nose when I read "Ford's a conservative Democrat." Sorry, Sleepy, but that doesn't pass the smell test. Of course he's a liberal, perhaps occasionally veering towards reasonable positions, but usually he's firmly planted on the left. He reestablished his record as the most liberal member of the delegation in 2005 (seizing it back from Jim Cooper). His demogoguery on the Ports deal as of late also established his liberal credentials. His liberal record very much is largely why he will not be elected to the Senate, along with his name. He can "distance" himself all he wants from his horrendous family, but he still remains a puppet for his father, who has dreams of seeing him as President (Lord help us all !).

I'll tell you that the real test in a state for racism is to nominate a non-White mainstream candidate for a given state (in Tennessee, for example, a Black Conservative Republican) and see what happens. It's hard to cry "racism !" with a straight face when a non-Caucasian candidate is far out of the political mainstream. Prime example of a racist vote -- Louisiana in 2003 when Bobby Jindal (a dark-skinned Indian-American) narrowly lost to Caucasian Kathleen Blanco. The upscale urban parishes Jindal did quite well in (even performing better than any Republican normally would in Orleans Parish), but the cracker parishes went with the White lady (the reverse, to a degree, of the infamous Edwards-Duke '91 contest). That's something the whole state regretted, and will rectify next year when Jindal is expected to take the Governorship in a landslide.

[Rural King]

I don't think Ford fits either a liberal or conservative Dem label, instead I think moderate is the more applicable term. John Tanner and Lincoln Davis are more in the conservative populist mold, if either of them had ran I think they would have be extremely strong candidates who would have a much easier time winning this open seat.

Ford is a very charismatic campaigner, and when people hear him speak they tend to like him, agree with most of his positions, and see a difference between him and his family. The problem is, how he going to meet enough people to convince them of that fact. I'm not sure TV ad spots can do it, so he will have to do an amazing amount of ground work.

As far as who he can beat, he could beat Corker or Van Hilleary I think if things went right, but if Bryant is the Republican nominee I don't see a scenario in which he could win. Van Hilleary is a horrible campaigner and Ford could come off looking real good against him by election day, plus regional biases would help Ford do better in West and Middle TN. Corker would be closer to Ford on issues and is WAY less popular among the conservative base, so if they stayed home and the regional factor came into play, Ford could be sitting right nice on election day. Bryant on the other hand, campaigns very well, takes away the geographic advantage a West TN candidate would have against a more East TN related candidate, and would clean up in West Tennessee outside of Memphis.

Pull what? Leaving the district alone as it is increases its democratic voting in East Shelby's 7th.

To account for level population growth, the 9th might just as easily expand north into the more working-class white democratic areas of North Shelby.

I feel that north Shelby should stay in the 8th (esp. Millington), and the East Shelby areas should be split between the 8th and 9th if they redraw the 7th to be more compact. There is no IMO reason to add more Dems to the 9th, more Republicans would do the district good

[sleepy]

Lincoln Davis is Ford's campagin manager. Ford is also a member of Tanner's blue dogs.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I don't think Ford fits either a liberal or conservative Dem label, instead I think moderate is the more applicable term. John Tanner and Lincoln Davis are more in the conservative populist mold, if either of them had ran I think they would have be extremely strong candidates who would have a much easier time winning this open seat.

Ford is a very charismatic campaigner, and when people hear him speak they tend to like him, agree with most of his positions, and see a difference between him and his family. The problem is, how he going to meet enough people to convince them of that fact. I'm not sure TV ad spots can do it, so he will have to do an amazing amount of ground work.

As far as who he can beat, he could beat Corker or Van Hilleary I think if things went right, but if Bryant is the Republican nominee I don't see a scenario in which he could win. Van Hilleary is a horrible campaigner and Ford could come off looking real good against him by election day, plus regional biases would help Ford do better in West and Middle TN. Corker would be closer to Ford on issues and is WAY less popular among the conservative base, so if they stayed home and the regional factor came into play, Ford could be sitting right nice on election day. Bryant on the other hand, campaigns very well, takes away the geographic advantage a West TN candidate would have against a more East TN related candidate, and would clean up in West Tennessee outside of Memphis.

I feel that north Shelby should stay in the 8th (esp. Millington), and the East Shelby areas should be split between the 8th and 9th if they redraw the 7th to be more compact. There is no IMO reason to add more Dems to the 9th, more Republicans would do the district good

Ford wants to appear to be a "moderate", but again, his votes betray that stance. Tanner & Davis might have a better shot at the seat, yes, but then, they'd have to explain how their presence in the Senate would be putting the Democrats 1 seat closer to putting extremists like Kennedy/Leahy/Rockefeller, et al, closer to Chairmanships. It's becoming a very convincing argument in states that vote Dem at the Presidential level with the voters not to elect GOP Senators and vice-versa for those that vote GOP for President.

I don't know who these people are that are convinced that Ford is so great and "agree with most of his positions", when his voting record is liberal (maybe in the 9th, but the rest of the state generally is anything but liberal). He tends to remind me, however, of the bad old days of Gore and Sasser in the Senate, both of whom bamboozled the public at home into believing they were right-of-center voters when they moved farther and farther to the left with each successive year. It took 18 years for the public to smell the coffee with Sasser and 16 with Gore, and I pray we don't enter back into those dark ages again.

I, of course, am a firm Bryant supporter, but all the polls indicate that Van Hilleary and RINO Bob Corker would likely dispatch Ford (I'd say that perhaps the only Republican that Ford could defeat would be the RINO Sundquist, if only because he is the most personally reviled ex-Governor since Ray Blanton).

After the '94 elections, I gave consideration to the notion of trying to place more Republican voters into the 9th (believing, erroneously, that Rod DeBerry's 40% was going to be typical of future GOP base, and to rejigger the lines to squeeze an additional 10%+ GOP voters more from East Shelby would make the election of a Black Republican possible, but ever since then, the GOP performance there has been shrinking (the only locale in the state when Dem performances are actually tending to increase) to the point that it no longer seems a feasible endeavor. Conceding, sadly, that it probably a Dem district until we can finally break the frightening deathgrip the party has over Black voters, I would strongly urge the district be as maximized to being ultra-Dem as possible and paring over the GOP voters into the 8th (as I mentioned several times before) so they can be utilized to get a Republican into Tanner's seat. In that way, Dems can be happy with their Rep. in the 9th and GOP voters aren't disenfranchised and placed into a seat where they have absolutely no say and no representation.

[Rural King]

Ford wants to appear to be a "moderate", but again, his votes betray that stance. Tanner & Davis might have a better shot at the seat, yes, but then, they'd have to explain how their presence in the Senate would be putting the Democrats 1 seat closer to putting extremists like Kennedy/Leahy/Rockefeller, et al, closer to Chairmanships. It's becoming a very convincing argument in states that vote Dem at the Presidential level with the voters not to elect GOP Senators and vice-versa for those that vote GOP for President.

I definately see that strategy. I think its a bad reason to vote for a US Senator or Congressman, I would much rather people who would vote for who would represent their local/state interests best, not who they would vote for in leadsership. I think the counter-argument would that by electing conservative/moderate Dems and moderate/liberal Republicans people would be electing representation that would draw their parties back towards the moderate center, where the majority of the nation and both parties lie.

I personally don't see Tennessee being that polarized by looking at the state's modern political history; rather its history seems more moderate, even if it trends Republican. Thompson, Frist, and definately Alexander and Baker were not hard-right. Nor were Sasser or Gore hard left. Sundquist, McWherter, Alexander, and Bredesen were all moderate modern governors as well.

The only district that seems to have elected hard-right conservatives to national office (by my standards) is the 7th (Bryant and Blackburn). There are more of those type Republicans on the state level though, mainly from the burbs.

I think under the right conditions Ford can win (except against Bryant), but its a hard sell. I think Corker can win the primary too, if Bryant and Van Hilleary keep splitting the conservative base. In my opinion what makes Bryant so attractive is the geographic advantage he would have to possibly win bigger over Ford in the general in a year that otherwise looks good for the Dems on the state level.

[rocky top buzz]

Sorry sleepy, but I bet you and anyone else who says Ford is a 'moderate' also thinks Hilary Clinton is a moderate. Yes, over the past few years, she has voted moderately, but she's starting to show her true colors as the presidential election nears. First she says she wants all illegal alians deported, and now she wants them to stay and clean up after us!

I've been burned too many times by thinking someone didn't carry the baggage of a family member. The old saying 'the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree' is absolutely correct. If elected, Ford will embarass us by voting with the far left which is consistently opposite to Tennessee values. We also risk being embarrased by corruption. He won't lose because of race, or solely because of his names. He will lose because the majority of Tennesseans are conservatives. We elected a democratic govenor because he is conservative. He should learn that it's us republicans who put him in office, and he too needs to distance himself from Jimmi Naifeh as election time nears...

I also will agree that our republican senators haven't done the job we sent them to do, but do we then turn around and send a senator who will do the opposite of what we want? Unfortunately at this point, the republicans are the lesser of two evils.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I definately see that strategy. I think its a bad reason to vote for a US Senator or Congressman, I would much rather people who would vote for who would represent their local/state interests best, not who they would vote for in leadsership. I think the counter-argument would that by electing conservative/moderate Dems and moderate/liberal Republicans people would be electing representation that would draw their parties back towards the moderate center, where the majority of the nation and both parties lie.

I personally don't see Tennessee being that polarized by looking at the state's modern political history; rather its history seems more moderate, even if it trends Republican. Thompson, Frist, and definately Alexander and Baker were not hard-right. Nor were Sasser or Gore hard left. Sundquist, McWherter, Alexander, and Bredesen were all moderate modern governors as well.

The only district that seems to have elected hard-right conservatives to national office (by my standards) is the 7th (Bryant and Blackburn). There are more of those type Republicans on the state level though, mainly from the burbs.

I think under the right conditions Ford can win (except against Bryant), but its a hard sell. I think Corker can win the primary too, if Bryant and Van Hilleary keep splitting the conservative base. In my opinion what makes Bryant so attractive is the geographic advantage he would have to possibly win bigger over Ford in the general in a year that otherwise looks good for the Dems on the state level.

The subject of voting one's interests is now polarized upon where one lives, which didn't use to be the case, but now tends to be. The Republicans are basically the party of the suburbs and rural locales, the Democrats, the party of the cities. Democrats sending members from rural areas is often not in their best interests because the bulk of those who would be in charge of committees are often at odds with them, and the argument can be made for Republicans with what few bonafide urban members they have (although I argue every city in the country would benefit with unapologetic GOP leadership), since most committee chairs conversely hail from the 'burbs and the sticks. In the case of Tanner, or Davis, or Gordon, for that matter, it remains harder and harder to justify that their rural/suburban districts are better served by a party and leadership hostile to the values and objectives of their constitutents.

I, too, have heard the arguments about moving the parties to the "center" as such. Where I disagree is on a few points, and that is basically that I don't believe the country IS centrist (it may be if you add up and divide certain areas), I believe the country is polarized. Frankly, I think there are far too many Republicans who are liberal/"Moderate" RINOs that do great damage in attempting to halt badly-needed reforms and changes to our government. While it would behoove the Democrats to encourage more right-of-center members, of which there are few remaining at the national level, their presence only adds to the power of a party that continues to move unapologetically leftward with each successive election (if anything, I think the GOP is also similarly being dragged that way). My big problem with the GOP is that I don't think they fully recovered from the psychological damage inflicted by Clinton after barely a year in power (the infamous so-called "government shutdown") and still suffer from a "minority" mindset after being the #2 party for effectively 60 years (which damaged the nation greatly). The Democrats, conversely, still have a large part of their leadership from the time when the GOP was an irrelevent afterthought and still act like they're in control and their liberal positions are "desireable" or remotely mainstream (aided and abetted by their media arm). I always thought of the GOP as a battered spouse of the Dems, far too afraid and timid to take action, even after the latter is rendered powerless.

I would agree that many of TN's leaders have tended to be more moderate, at least the Republican ones, though a bit too much for my tastes (I'd like to see some leaders so far to the right that I get a nosebleed, but no such luck). The problem with moderates, though, is that they simply don't make for dynamic leaders. Of the 6 Governors in my lifetime, starting with Winfield Dunn, I can't point to a one of them that I would describe as being remarkable or noteworthy, most being lackluster at best, and criminal at worst. Lamar! Alexander (always have to add that arrogant exclamation point after his "r") was perhaps the most overhyped of my lifetime. I was a "yoot" liberal Democrat during his administration, but even after I switched parties, I never held him in high regard. He left the GOP an absolute irrelevent and dead entity by the time he left office in 1986, to the point of being one of those nightmarish one-party Democrat banana republics that the south was nearly unrivaled at producing (although the northeast is working on it). I find it amazing that the GOP has managed to grow in this state despite its pitiful leaders.

Where I take considerable exception is the description of Gore and Sasser as moderates. Taking Sasser first, he might not have ever been elected in the first place had he not gotten past John Jay Hooker and taken advantage of Sen. Bill Brock's troubles in '76, but Sasser was never a moderate except while campaigning. He always voted with the liberal bloc of his party, never veering away from that. He escaped defeat for so long because he managed to come up for reelection in '82 (when it was a referendum on Reagan, alas, shortly before economic news would indicate his plans were working) and in '88 when Alexander's aforementioned reign left the GOP moribund to even put up a challenger. I still give enormous credit to Dr. Frist in dispatching that blight on Tennessee in '94, finally waking the people up to that phony after 18 years of misrepresenting the state (and it was nice to see that my vote to kick him out actually meant something).

Now, as for Gore, he was a bit different. I will cite that the Gore that first got elected to the House in 1976 (and even the one who was elected to the Senate in 1984) was not the Gore who ran for President in 2000. Although his father was clearly a liberal by the time he was defeated for a 4th term in the Senate in 1970, Gore, Jr. was a moderate, even somewhat of a Conservative (!) when he succeeded Joe L. Evins, and came perilously close to being one of those "stubborn" Boll Weevil Democrats of the early '80s that helped President Reagan in the House push through his economic agenda (to the chagrin of the ultraliberal Speaker Tip O'Neill). He tried conspicuously to not make the same mistakes as his father did with his political career, and by the time Howard Baker's Senate seat came open, this then fairly unoffensive pro-life moderate was able to manage a smashing victory over an incredibly unprepared RINO (and future Knoxville Mayor and current Ambassador to Poland) Victor Ashe, despite the Reagan landslide of 1984. Gore's vindication of his father's Senate loss was avenged, but he wasn't quite done, yet. His father had also wanted to be President as long ago as the '50s (his dad's hysterical behind-the-scenes behavior at the 1956 Dem Nat'l Convention which saw the VP slot go to his TN colleague, Estes Kefauver, instead, smashed his chance to become the standard-bearer for 1960), so Gore was going to avenge that, too. It was interesting when the 1988 Dem Presidential primaries came that Gore was pretty near "the most" Conservative leading candidate, which had people like Rev. Jesse Jackson terrified at the time (Jackson blasting him as "the son of the segregationist" Sen. Albert Gore, Sr.). For a brief, shining moment, Gore could actually claim the model of Dem. moderation as he ripped into Jackson and the liberal demogoguery of his own personal record. But once he failed, privately, Gore had his "George Wallace moment."

What's a "George Wallace moment ?" A George Wallace moment is the political epiphany the infamous former Governor of Alabama had in 1958 following the Dem. Gubernatorial primary (then, of course, being tantamount to election in the state). Wallace had been, up until 1958, a moderate/liberal "progressive" in the mode of his mentor, Big Jim Folsom (progressive with respect to Civil Rights). Wallace had expected to win the election until his main opponent, Attorney-General John Patterson, who was pro-States Rights, and the state KKK portrayed Wallace as the candidate of the NAACP (in much more racist and explicit terms, mind you). In a moment of outrage that his political image before the public as a moderate was repudiated by the state voters, he bellowed that he would never be "out-ni**ered again !!" Meaning, no more Mr. Nice Guy. Since in those days an Alabama Governor couldn't succeed himself, when Gov. Patterson stepped down 4 years later (and ironically, Patterson enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the Kennedy White House), Wallace did indeed "out-ni**er" the competition, blasting all racial moderates and making Patterson's '58 campaign look like a pleasant Sunday afternoon picnic. Although Wallace would later regret a lot of his demogoguery and apologize for it in his latter runs at office, that image of the 1962 Wallace still sticks in most folks' heads.

So what does this have to do with Gore ? Well, Gore realized that being a "moderate", indeed even a "Southern Conservative" as some had portrayed him, was going to get him nowhere in the Democrat party circa 1988. It surely would not get him to the leadership, and surely not the Presidency. So, by that time, Gore jettisoned most of the positions he had held (yup, even that pesky pro-life stance went buh-bye), and went left. When he ran for reelection in 1990 (at the nadir of 2 party politics in TN in the modern era), his victory was such that, if I recall, he carried every single solitary county in Tennessee, but he was already no longer the "moderate" of 6 years or even 2 years earlier, and the state at large was unaware of his transformation (but not to this then-teenage observer of politics !). By the time 1992 came, Gore was virtually ideologically indistinguishable from his liberal running-mate, the certain Governor from Arkansas. Watching Gore's "growth" (that being the term the liberal media calls a politician who moves leftward) as Vice-President was remarkable. By 1996, the Gore of 20 years earlier (let alone 8 years earlier) would no longer recognize this arrogant, brow-beating, "holier than thou" liberal demogogue. I stated without hesitation that year that if Gore ran for President in 2000, he would NOT carry his own state (most folks I told that to scoffed at me, saying that someone who had just carried every county in the state not but 6 years earlier surely would have no trouble carrying his "home" state (also deceptive, as Gore was a DC native, never a Tennessean, until he was an adult)). I said that I firmly believed enough voters in this state had become aware of Gore's "transformation" and did not like what they saw. Needless to say my prediction that Gore's liberal DC values would lose to Dubya's rural Texas values were dead on the money.

Gore was always going to be in a Catch-22, there was no way as a "rural Democrat" that he could rise to the heights of leadership in the party carrying their "bourgeouis Conservative values." Indeed, so many of those representing the districts similar in nature to what Gore represented in the '70s and '80s are now largely, if not firmly, within the GOP's control. But also, in moving leftward enough to be acceptable to the Dem grassroots, he'd no longer be acceptable to the majority of voters, not only in Tennessee, but most of the area of the country he purported to represent.

As for Bryant and Blackburn, I'd not call them "far-right" by any stretch, they're just basically your average Conservative Republican. There's very few in office today I could even remotely term as "far right", usually only the liberal media (they themselves "Far left") employing such terms to denigrate these individuals. Perhaps Tancredo of Colorado, but even the public is moving more in Tancredo's direction on his premier issue of illegal immigration (does that make the nation "far right" ? ;-) ). Surprisingly, I've been disappointed with Blackburn as a Congressmember, she becoming nearly as low-key as Jim Cooper. She was my personal favorite State Senator prior to her DC tenure, and I rather wished she had stayed put, as she could've been a considerable threat to Bredesen more from that perch than the one she occupies now.

I agree with you about Corker winning the primary if Hilleary and Bryant split the Conservative vote (frankly, I wish the White House would intercede on Bryant's behalf after the screwing they gave him in '02, and make it clear that he is the preferred candidate). Hilleary needs to get out. With no primary runoff in Tennessee, it would be dreadful if Corker clears around 35% of the vote with the remaining 2/3rds going to the other two (of course, he could never prevail in a runoff). These lack of runoffs not only end up seeing an unrepresentive individual of the majority of the base get the nomination here in Tennessee, but have been causing problems in many other states, too (such as California where liberal RINOs just received the nomination for special elections in Conservative GOP House and State Senate contests, for starters).

Forgive my long soliloquy here, as this is my own area of expertise... the most useless of all sciences, political science.

[Rural King]

^ My point was in the case of Gore and Sasser by national standards, not conservative or liberal standards, were fairly moderate in their voting (IMO), esp. compared to the more liberal coastal Dems. Same holds true IMO for Alexander and Frist now, they do the party-line votes but do have a moderate streaks, esp. Alexander.

I agree with you on Gore though. The man needs to figure out who he is. If he had been the Gore of 1992 and had came home at all during his VP years he certianly would have won those extra 5 points needed to win TN in 2000 and been president IMO. He got way out of touch as VP, esp. with things like free trade.

I think our points of views are just different on where liberal, conservative, and moderate fall with you being considerably more conservative than my more moderate/centrist self. So where as I think TN modern political landscape has had some great leaders, Alexander and McWherter, you tend to not be as content with the era. It's just a difference in what we want (or don't want) out of government.

Sorry sleepy, but I bet you and anyone else who says Ford is a 'moderate' also thinks Hilary Clinton is a moderate. Yes, over the past few years, she has voted moderately, but she's starting to show her true colors as the presidential election nears. First she says she wants all illegal alians deported, and now she wants them to stay and clean up after us!

I think Ford is a moderate (center-left), but definately do not think Clinton is one. Ford does not vote in-step with Pelosi and the left-ward crowd now and has whatever his intentions has acquired a moderate voting record in the House, I have no reason to think that would change in the Senate, unless he wanted to be a one term Senator. Now I know to more conservative folks his record is not what is considered moderate to that side of the political spectrum, but to folks in the center it is. This is proven IMO by folks on the liberal end thinkings he is too conservative, and those on the conservative thinking he is too liberal.

Off Topic: My biggest fear is that she would be the Dem 08 Prez nominee. I would much rather see Sen. Bayh (IN) or Gov. Warner (VA) (prefereably on the same ticket: Warner Prez, Bayh VP) as the party's nominee(s)....thats a long ways away though.

[rocky top buzz]

McWherter as a good leader? Isn't he the one who imposed HilaryCare (aka Tenn Care) on us?

[Rural King]

True, TennCare was introduced by McWherther in the last half of his second term, but it was Sundquist who allowed run amok and eventually about break the state for 8 years. I would blame him for its failure, plus for running the state about as haphazardly as possible during his second term. I can't think much Sundquist accomplished, except for getting the entire Republican base of the state to hate him with his support for and pushing of the income tax.

Even if you blame the major problems TennCare gave the state on McWherter, the rest of his record of improving the state infrastruture (esp. road projects), better school funding ( "21st School Program"), implementing the "Sunshine Law" more aggressively, etc., all showed he had many positive and popular accomplishements during his terms in office.

Back to redisticting though, FDJ one of your major gripes about McWherter was his redistricting. Have you a conservative and/or Republican perspective that you could share on his redistricting plans as Governor?

[fieldmarshaldj]

^ My point was in the case of Gore and Sasser by national standards, not conservative or liberal standards, were fairly moderate in their voting (IMO), esp. compared to the more liberal coastal Dems. Same holds true IMO for Alexander and Frist now, they do the party-line votes but do have a moderate streaks, esp. Alexander.

I agree with you on Gore though. The man needs to figure out who he is. If he had been the Gore of 1992 and had came home at all during his VP years he certianly would have won those extra 5 points needed to win TN in 2000 and been president IMO. He got way out of touch as VP, esp. with things like free trade.

I think our points of views are just different on where liberal, conservative, and moderate fall with you being considerably more conservative than my more moderate/centrist self. So where as I think TN modern political landscape has had some great leaders, Alexander and McWherter, you tend to not be as content with the era. It's just a difference in what we want (or don't want) out of government.

I think Ford is a moderate (center-left), but definately do not think Clinton is one. Ford does not vote in-step with Pelosi and the left-ward crowd now and has whatever his intentions has acquired a moderate voting record in the House, I have no reason to think that would change in the Senate, unless he wanted to be a one term Senator. Now I know to more conservative folks his record is not what is considered moderate to that side of the political spectrum, but to folks in the center it is. This is proven IMO by folks on the liberal end thinkings he is too conservative, and those on the conservative thinking he is too liberal.

Off Topic: My biggest fear is that she would be the Dem 08 Prez nominee. I would much rather see Sen. Bayh (IN) or Gov. Warner (VA) (prefereably on the same ticket: Warner Prez, Bayh VP) as the party's nominee(s)....thats a long ways away though.

No, Sasser was not only very liberal by Tennessee standards, but he was amongst the most liberal Senators in the Senate, coastal or anywhere else, for that matter. The ACU, which since 1971 has measured key votes of members of Congress (which tends to agree with other groups, such as the ACLU), consistently ranked Sasser well on the left (% Conservative figures)

1977 - 17%

1978 - 30%

1979 - 14% (George Mcgovern scored a 10% that year)

1980 - 5%

1981 - 31%

1982 - 47% <---election year (very substantial opponent)

1983 - 16% (reverting back to form)

1984 - 18%

1985 - 26%

1986 - 17%

1987 - 12%

1988 - 9% <---election year, no substantial opponent

1989 - 8%

1990 - 9%

1991 - 5%

1992 - 7%

1993 - 20%

1994 - 22% <---election year, defeated

You have to remember that Sasser was scheduled to ascend to succeed George Mitchell as Senate Dem Majority Leader for the 1995 session, and no "moderates" need apply for such a position.

My beliefs about Gore and his voting record was even worse than I recalled, as apparently most of his Center-Right posturing was at odds with his final votes:

House

1977 - 29%

1978 - 13%

1979 - 13%

1980 - 11%

1981 - 13%

1982 - 29%

1983 - 20%

1984 - 22% <---election year to the Senate

Senate

1985 - 17%

1986 - 9%

1987 - 6%

1988 - 9%

1989 - 8%

1990 - 9% <---election year, no substantial opponent

1991 - 14%

1992 - 0% (identical to Ted Kennedy & John Kerry)

I think this generally tends to point to the fact that prior to the advent of the internet and absolute control by the liberal media these guys were allowed to get away with getting elected continuously in a Conservative state without close scrutiny of their voting records. But I would definitely say that Gore of '92 had already clearly "left the reservation" with regards to his votes, apparently he left it long before then, too.

I do have to vigorously disagree with your assessment of Ford, Jr., because you're tending to fall victim to a lot of his posturings (where he seems to be following the "Gore of the '80s" model). Where the media tends to "portray" him as a moderate comes from his challenging Pelosi as Dem. House Leader, which was nothing more than demonstrating a knowledge that having someone from the radical ultraleft bastion of San Francisco (where being a regular run-of-the-mill liberal gets you labelled a "right-wing extremist") is bad for the party's image. Make no mistake, he is clearly a liberal, and would surely vote that way in the Senate. You have to remember that the base of the Dem party nationwide has gone so far off the western political horizon that people like Joe Lieberman (who has consistently scored zeroes from the ACU) are considered "too rightist." Why the party even calls itself "Democrat" anymore is a head-scratcher. At best they'd at least be honest and change the name to Socialist (like Bernie Sanders of VT, who incidentally, is NOT the most leftist member of Congress, which should tell you something about what has happened to the Dems). More disturbing to realize just how radicalized the Senate, for example, has become is to note there is now only 1 Democrat in the entire chamber who scored higher than 45% (Ben Nelson of NE - 60%). By contrast, there are 5 who scored to the left of Nelson (Snowe & Collins of ME - 32% each; Mike DeWine of OH - 56%; Gordon Smith of OR - 58%; Linc Chafee of RI - 12%), with the GOP representing a far broader stroke of the ideological bandwith (alas, Mr. Chafee is so far to the left that he would instantly become one of the most liberal members, even as a Democrat).

You certainly have warmer feelings regarding Alexander and McWherter than I do. I've largely covered my reasons for my dislike of Alexander, namely that his departure left the state without a viable Republican party. My dislikes for McWherter run far deeper, and it was his campaign in 1986 that made this liberal Democrat young 'un a solid Republican (I was the one-man machine, running the "Dunn for Governor" in my mixed junior/senior high school). McWherter, to me, embodied virtually everything wrong with Tennessee's politics. First elected in 1968, his baptism-by-fire was seeing his first session presided over by a Republican Speaker (now 1st District Congressman Bill Jenkins), the first Southern state to have a GOP-led body since the 19th Century, during the latter half of the Buford Ellington regime (ostensibly the last Conservative Democrat elected Governor of TN to date). Once the Dems scored a razor-thin majority 2 years later, his goal was a simple one, destroy the GOP as a viable legislative force, at all costs, both at the legislative, and Congressional level. He ascended to the Speakership in 1972 after an incredibly short 4 years in office, following another razor-thin victory for his party, and coming as it did that year, and with Watergate looming on the horizon, he couldn't have arrived at a better time. Consolidating his power as Speaker, he proceeded to help reduce GOP representation to barely 1/3rd of the electorate, its effective strength prior to Baker v. Carr, the landmark Supreme Court decision mandating one man/one vote based on Tennessee's horrendous district lines. During his unprecedented 14 years as Speaker, the rise of Dem corruption on his watch exploded, which continued unabated after he became Governor. He knew full well of the mass-scale corruption of the Blanton regime, a fellow West TN Democrat, but largely chose to look the other way. He liked to point out his role in getting Lamar! sworn in early, but that was nothing but a farce, since he waited so long to do anything, virtually to the point that Blanton was going to issue blanket pardons that could've seen a ghastly number of hard-core felons given a "get out of jail free" card, and that only to cover his own political a$$ (and aside from Lamar!'s victory in '78, the state GOP was in such disarray that it couldn't similarly exploit the Dem party corruption that was even worse than Watergate was to TN).

My problems with McWherter the Governor had to do with the fact that Tennessee was practically in a dark age for his 8 years in office, and most of the predictions I made where his regime was concerned almost all ended up coming true, from the near economic depression the state found itself in, his statist approach to governance and problem-solving, and the never-ending string of Dem corruption probes (from Rocky Top which saw the Sec of State commit suicide, to a member of the House leadership being reelected from his cell in a federal pen). I was a backer of Dwight Henry's in 1990, whom I had hoped could've exploited the corruption scandals and the very bad times of the period, but being badly underfunded and receiving no publicity (though he still ended up with a respectable 40+% of the vote), we weren't able to end the disaster 4 years early. Unfortunately, had I known how awful Sundquist would turn out to be, with similar ethics to Blanton & McWherter, I would've voted for someone else. Actually, in 1998, this Republican unapologetically supported John Jay Hooker clear to the general. Hooker was more a Republican and interested in a by-the-book Constitutional way to governance than Sundquist was, and I'm rather sorry we didn't get him in. At the very least, he would've been damn entertaining !

As for 2008, that's definitely going to be a very interesting challenge for the Democrats as to whom to nominate. Ideally, a Warner-Bayh ticket would be a more appealing one (as a slightly left of center combo), but having spoken to at least one prominent Michigan Democrat pol and party activist, he assured me that a ticket that would be composed of at least one of those two gentlemen would cause an internecine civil war. Bayh's problem to the base is that he favors some reasonable abortion restrictions, and that alone would be enough to deny him a slot on the ticket. Although Warner would bring to the ticket a Governor who was able to work fairly well with a GOP legislature, and whose popularity helped carry in the most left-wing Democrat elected Governor of VA in memory (Tim Kaine), Warner is considered, as with Bayh, far too "rightist" by the base. The "angry ultraleft" is similarly venting their rage at Sen. Hillary Clinton (a la Joe Lieberman), with the "100% liberal ain't good enough" schtick. A big question this year remains what her reelection victory will be in New York. I'm backing Conservative former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, who is running a kamikaze mission against her, for the sole purpose of driving her reelect numbers below her victory against Rick Lazio in 2000. I think if the grassroots gets their man, it's Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold. Ostensible the most ultra-left of the ultra-left in the radical Dem. Senate caucus, this guy has been raised to "folk hero" status with his championing Bush Impeachment. Personally, I hope he is nominated. Feingold will make John Kerry look like Jesse Helms. The worst thing that could happen for the Democrats is for them to take the House this year and then put up Feingold in '08, it'll be like 1920 for the GOP all over again (1921-23 was the high-water mark for GOP in Congress, never before or since have they had as many members). Hopefully we won't put up a modern-day version of Warren Harding, though !

[Rural King]

^ As you know I am not a big believer of rankings of members by organizations who I feel rank folks by their own standards and are rather subjective to what issues they cover. I feel folks should rank their representation by their own standards, which Tennesseans clearly did by ousting Sasser. I do agree that before the internet the public had much less access to the votes to see what their representation were doing and hold them accountable. Nor do I argue that Sasser or Gore were not center-left or that the longer they stayed in DC the more they drifted into party rank voting and got out of touch with the local/state concerns. I think thats just politics for better or worse, with both parties often having officials lose touch the longer they stay in the "beltway", which I think is currently illustrated by Republicans becoming as big of spenders as the Dems. I'll leave it just at that as I don't want to get into a big discussion on these points.

We do differ on how we view how the state did economically under Alexander and McWherter. Most people I talk to in general speak highly of those years (I was too young to be paying attention to such) as being when alot of industry and economic expansion happened. You had big Japanese investment in Middle and East Tennessee (Denso, Nissan, etc), with solid expansion of manufacturing firms like Dana, Johnson Controls, etc in West TN. The state also has a terrific bond rating and the state was often praised for its fiscal management.

As for Congress, even with the anti-incumbant tide coming the odds of turning over the House is steep IMO due to re-districting. The US House has a incumbacy victory rate of what 94% or so? The Senate is a real long shot with the Dems having to win every competative race (including TN). I see gains being made though, and maybe the House flipping with tiny margin, but I really don't want Pelosi as Speaker, Rep. Kaptur of Ohio would be much better for my tastes or some other blue-collar Dem from the Midwest or South.

A race to watch in the House as an indicator is Schuler vs Taylor in NC 11. If Schuler can pull off a win there, it will probably mean (in my estimation) there is a big enough tide to change the House.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^ As you know I am not a big believer of rankings of members by organizations who I feel rank folks by their own standards and are rather subjective to what issues they cover. I feel folks should rank their representation by their own standards, which Tennesseans clearly did by ousting Sasser. I do agree that before the internet the public had much less access to the votes to see what their representation were doing and hold them accountable. Nor do I argue that Sasser or Gore were not center-left or that the longer they stayed in DC the more they drifted into party rank voting and got out of touch with the local/state concerns. I think thats just politics for better or worse, with both parties often having officials lose touch the longer they stay in the "beltway", which I think is currently illustrated by Republicans becoming as big of spenders as the Dems. I'll leave it just at that as I don't want to get into a big discussion on these points.

We do differ on how we view how the state did economically under Alexander and McWherter. Most people I talk to in general speak highly of those years (I was too young to be paying attention to such) as being when alot of industry and economic expansion happened. You had big Japanese investment in Middle and East Tennessee (Denso, Nissan, etc), with solid expansion of manufacturing firms like Dana, Johnson Controls, etc in West TN. The state also has a terrific bond rating and the state was often praised for its fiscal management.

As for Congress, even with the anti-incumbant tide coming the odds of turning over the House is steep IMO due to re-districting. The US House has a incumbacy victory rate of what 94% or so? The Senate is a real long shot with the Dems having to win every competative race (including TN). I see gains being made though, and maybe the House flipping with tiny margin, but I really don't want Pelosi as Speaker, Rep. Kaptur of Ohio would be much better for my tastes or some other blue-collar Dem from the Midwest or South.

A race to watch in the House as an indicator is Schuler vs Taylor in NC 11. If Schuler can pull off a win there, it will probably mean (in my estimation) there is a big enough tide to change the House.

I cite the ACU ratings because their impeccable credentials at ascertaining key votes for the last 35 years is usually supported by ideologically opposite groups that rank similar votes. I would surely expect these groups to measure by their own standards, since they are the ones that set the benchmark for what is of a certain ideological persuasion. There are other determining factors, of course, but generally when these groups say (and show) that so-and-so votes this way or that, you can take it to the bank.

I will concede Alexander scored some successes with business recruitment, such as Nissan (my former next-door neighbor worked at the Smyrna plant), but my personal recollection of the McWherter regime is very poor (I became a registered voter during his term). I don't know of many who regard that time as a very good one for this state on many fronts. I think the Gentry Crowell incident pretty much was the cherry on top of that truly rotten time.

If the House does flip, and it could, if Pelosi doesn't become Speaker, then it will go to her equally ultraleft fellow Marylander (even though she represents San Francisco, her family ran the infamous Baltimore Dem political machine, the D'Alesandros), Steny Hoyer. Kaptur would never get a high leadership position because of her somewhat pro-life record (unless a sudden rash of pro-life Dems flooded the House, and that's not going to happen).

Regarding NC-11, I'm no fan of Charles Taylor, I think he is a genuinely strange man, though he usually votes right and his district is a Republican one. I'd prefer he retired and allowed another Republican to succeed him. As for Heath Shuler, the people I've talked to regarding him consider him a lightweight jock with not a lot of brain power. If Shuler wins, it won't be an affirmation of his candidacy, but more a referendum on Taylor's personal problems. North Carolina is rather similar to Tennessee in that it is a Republican state dramatically overrepresented by Democrats (at the legislative level) and gerrymandered at the Congressional level. Despite their best efforts, no Republican has been beaten at the Congressional level there since 1996 (one, David Funderburk, was beaten in a GOP seat, because he was involved in a very bizarre car accident; the other, Fred Heineman, who scored a shocking upset in '94 over the embarrassingly liberal David Price, but that seat was simply too Dem (and Heineman had health problems and was pushing 70 - I don't think he knew he was going to win the first time around !)), and aside from the aforementioned David Price, all of the 3 other White Dems in the state represent districts that should be sending Republicans.

As an added aside, I agree with your mention of the GOP and its spending habits. The argument for military and national defense spending goes without saying, but a lot of domestic pork-barrel spending is totally out of control, and they're not looking particularly (fiscally) responsible for it. And then, there's the illegal immigration issue which has gotten thoroughly out of hand. Failure to deal with both issues is angering the base beyond belief, and that could certainly be key to suppressing turnout in GOP-leaning districts that could go Dem.

[Hankster]

What's everyone take on Phil Bredeson as Governor? For a Democrat, he's realtively palatable to me (I'm a lifelong Republican myself). I feel like he's pro-business, and far right of the national Democratic party. I definitely perfer Bredeson to Sunquist. Sunquist, in my opinion, was the most disappointing Governor of Tennessee I can remember, and that even includes Ray Blanton. I guess it's because he was a Republican that let me down really bigtime.

[Rural King]

What's everyone take on Phil Bredeson as Governor? For a Democrat, he's realtively palatable to me (I'm a lifelong Republican myself). I feel like he's pro-business, and far right of the national Democratic party. I definitely perfer Bredeson to Sunquist. Sunquist, in my opinion, was the most disappointing Governor of Tennessee I can remember, and that even includes Ray Blanton. I guess it's because he was a Republican that let me down really bigtime.

I like Governor Bredesen and think overall he is doing a great job. I feel he has gotten the state back on track after years of mismangement under Sundquist and has done a good job in making Tennessee competative again in attracting new businesses and industries to the state. I think he should have a no problem gaining a second term.

[fieldmarshaldj]

What's everyone take on Phil Bredeson as Governor?

Let's put it this way... I don't regret having voted for Van Hilleary in 2002, and I'll crawl over broken glass to vote for Jim Bryson, hopefully our next Governor come January.

[rocky top buzz]

I moved here during Sundquists reign of terror. I didn't know anything about him other than he was an R, so I thought that had to be good, and then I heard HE WAS THE ONE PROMOTING AN INCOME TAX?????

I didn't vote in the 2002 election, but I probably would have voted for Van Hilleary because one of my co-workers worked on his campaign, and I think he would have done a great job as govenor (the fact that he lost that race makes me question who to support for Senate. Van would be my first choice, but if he couldn't when a statewide election then, why now?).

All that said, I haven't completely decided against voting for Bredesen this time around. Bredesen won because he is pro business. IF Bredesen would come out and verbally support an amendment banning the income tax, I probably would vote for him. I'm going to have to wait and see what happens in the campaign on that one. I must admit regardless of who I support or who wins, I do have more respect for Bredesen and taking on TennCare even though his primary Democrat constituency was against it.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I moved here during Sundquists reign of terror. I didn't know anything about him other than he was an R, so I thought that had to be good, and then I heard HE WAS THE ONE PROMOTING AN INCOME TAX?????

I didn't vote in the 2002 election, but I probably would have voted for Van Hilleary because one of my co-workers worked on his campaign, and I think he would have done a great job as govenor (the fact that he lost that race makes me question who to support for Senate. Van would be my first choice, but if he couldn't when a statewide election then, why now?).

All that said, I haven't completely decided against voting for Bredesen this time around. Bredesen won because he is pro business. IF Bredesen would come out and verbally support an amendment banning the income tax, I probably would vote for him. I'm going to have to wait and see what happens in the campaign on that one. I must admit regardless of who I support or who wins, I do have more respect for Bredesen and taking on TennCare even though his primary Democrat constituency was against it.

I'll credit Sundquist with one thing, he educated that me that necessarily supporting ANY Republican over any Democrat is not always the best thing. I learned a lot that this strain of RINO elected officials extended far beyond the Tennessee borders. We had such high hopes for him to be a great Chief Executive after the very dark days of the McWherter regime. Sundquist came in with a bang by eliminating the always troublesome Public Service Commission as an elective body (at that time, aside from Governor, it was the only other statewide, non-federal office the public got to vote on), which eliminated Sara Kyle (of the Clement family) as a potential contender for 1998. And then... nothing. So many needed reforms of state government had to be tackled, but he just sat on his hands and allowed things to remain status quo. I started to get a real sickening feeling when I saw the crowd he was running with just prior to his reelection in '98, the "Memphis crowd" and even, appallingly, our utterly crooked former Davidson County Sheriff Fate Thomas. I really smelled a 'Rat, and thought we'd been had, and worried greatly what stunt he'd be likely to pull in a 2nd term (which is why I ended up backing John Jay Hooker, who sadly, never really campaigned outside his favorite West Nashville restaurant).

I always tended to think of Sundquist as being the 3rd and 4th terms of the McWherter regime, and was not surprised in the least when he trotted out McWherter's old plan to foist a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional state income tax on the public. I suspect I woke up about 2 years before the public and the state GOP did to this creep. As he finished up his last term, as a final parting shot to the GOP, he gave the thumbs-up to a plan to disenfranchise House Republicans to the point of (despite receiving well past 50% of the vote) reducing their strength to 1/3rd of the membership. The plan was all set to go through to delete an estimated 10 Republican seats when the DEMOCRAT leadership thought it so unwise that it would set off a civil war in the legislature, and, in the end, only merged 2 GOP seats into 1 and left virtually every other seat as-is from the mid '90s gerrymander. One reason why the White House foisted the tired old Lamar! onto the Republican voters for Fred Thompson's Senate seat is because Sundquist had initially been the intended successor, but he was persona non grata, both to the party, but also to the state (Sundquist was so massively unpopular in 2000 that there was some concern that he could cause a negative reaction that would counteract Gore's equally considerable unpopularity, and cost Dubya Tennessee (and hence, the election), but fortunately, that didn't happen).

Now, as for how Bredesen won in 2002... That was a bit more complex. Mind you, the public was somewhat angry at Sundquist, so any "R" was going to suffer (nevermind that Sundquist was effectively a Democrat in policy and in actions, and a very nasty one at that). What doomed Hilleary was that Sundquist attempted to destroy him for the fall election by running a liberal Sundquist RINO ex-House Minority Leader from East Tennessee (this guy was so brilliant that he LOST his own House seat in a Republican district years earlier) whose entire goal was to force Hilleary to spend a ton of money, which proved successful. Unlike Bredesen, Hilleary was no Rockefeller. Bredesen's fall campaign was thoroughly audacious on so many levels.

Bredesen, who during his 1st term as Mayor, attempted an early exit in '94 to run for Governor, losing by a fairly solid margin, but this time vowed to spend whatever amount was necessary. He absolutely saturated the airwaves to the point that it seemed like he ran 10 ads to Hilleary's 1. Bredesen ran into a little problem that any Republican would've gotten sandbagged over, but thanks to the Democrat hacks that infest all other statewide offices (all of which are unaccountable to the public, the worst example being Attorney-General), the AG ran interference. The issue was campaign finance laws that prohibited "X-amount" of money from being loaned from a wealthy candidate to their own campaign. Mind you, it would later be struck down, but the state AG had an obligation to hold Bredesen accountable for his flagrant violations of it, and he simply sat on his hands (if Bredesen had been a Republican, the AG would've filed charges before you could say "boo"). Now, with the full-scale media saturation, Bredesen went on to portray himself as the second-coming of Ronald Reagan, with jaw-dropping misrepresentations of his record as Mayor when he presided over an explosion in the crime rate (most especially murders), leaving the department and the Chief utterly incapable of meeting the public's demands, and the explosion in the property tax rate. Now, he didn't dare try to hose middle Tennessee too heavily with that horsecrap, where we knew that didn't pass the smell test, so instead, he played it to the hilt in ancestrally GOP East Tennessee and other areas where Sundquist's primary RINO ran well. He figured, "What do those hicks know ?" The calculation paid off, and Bredesen's goal of suppressing the usual GOP performance by our party's candidate in the East succeeded, though Van Hilleary did just about as well as could be expected in middle TN, still lost by a narrow 48-51% margin.

The problems I have with Bredesen is a simple one, I have never trusted him, neither when he was Mayor, and his antics with the Gubernatorial contest only solidified my negative opinion of him, and it hasn't changed whatsoever during the past 3+ years. It seems like we have seen nothing but mishandling of issues from TennCare to his highly suspect posturings on a state income tax (sorry, but this guy has NEVER shown an aversion to hiking taxes), and other statewide Dem scandals (from Auntie Ophelia, to Dave Cooley, and other missteps too numerous to count). If Bredesen gets his 2nd term, he will surely feel "emboldened" to pursue a course of action that will render him unaccountable to the public (a la Sundquist's 2nd term). The issues for this election are honesty, accountability, and ethics, and Bredesen's administration has fallen far short of that.

One aside on Van Hilleary's run for the Senate. He most assuredly does NOT have my support for the primary. This Senate race is about correcting the error in nominating Lamar! in '02 in a race that Ed Bryant was the most qualified and strongly supported amongst the grass-roots, and worked damn hard to try to take (but like with Bredesen buying the Governor's race, Lamar! bought the Senate nomination). Bryant deserves the nomination, and Hilleary's "surprise" entry into a race he has no business running in could end up seeing a liberal RINO, Bob Corker, take the GOP nomination, worse than useless, and a horrific embarrassment if it happens. Hilleary had many other options, including running for either his old House seat (held by Dem Lincoln Davis) or against Bart Gordon, or above all else, a rematch against Bredesen. I still strongly urge he withdraw against Bryant before it's too late.

[Rural King]

I don't think Van Hilleary's came off to well during the 02 election. He seemed like he really didn't know a lot about what was going on in the state other than he was the "conservative" Republican, and totally seemed lost on TennCare. Bredesen came off as the one with the grasp of the issues while also being seen as conservative enough to pass muster with most voters on the fence, and thats why I feel at the end of the day he won by the close margin he did. I think in 02 Tennesseans just wanted someone who seemed compentant running the state, and Bredesen fit that bill alot better than Van Hilleary did.

As for McWherter's income tax, didn't Alexander also "un-officially" ponder the notion in his second term? Seems like Bryant raised that as an issue in the 02 primary as a way to undercut Alexander at one point as not being conservative enough.

As for the current Senate race, if I had to choose a conservative Republican I would choose Bryant, as he seems very compentant. Van Hilleary just does not strike me as the most capable person.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I think had Van Hilleary been able to compete on equal footing as Bredesen (as Bredesen got little more than a free ride in the primary), hadn't been deliberately sandbagged by Sundquist and his stooge, Jim Henry, who wasn't a serious candidate, I believe he would've won by perhaps 5%+. The fact that Hilleary had ALL those strikes against him and still managed to get nearly 49% of the vote, despite being massively outspent, tells you something.

[Rural King]

^ I agree that Van Hilleary probably would have been able to walk into the Governor's Mansion had it not been for Sundquist's turning off swing voters to TN Republicans in Republican tilting year nationally. A comparable situation would be how Democrat AG Ben Chandler could have won the 03 KY Gubernatorial race had it not been for Patton's scandals late during his second term.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^ I agree that Van Hilleary probably would have been able to walk into the Governor's Mansion had it not been for Sundquist's turning off swing voters to TN Republicans in Republican tilting year nationally. A comparable situation would be how Democrat AG Ben Chandler could have won the 03 KY Gubernatorial race had it not been for Patton's scandals late during his second term.

Possibly, but in the case of KY, there was the added problem of going 36 years without electing a GOP Governor (and most of the other statewide offices, as well), despite enormous growth of the party at the federal and legislative level. Most conceded, too, that the '95 election was a fraud and Republican Larry Forgy was the actual victor. I feel very sorry for Dr. Fletcher having to clean up the dreadful banana republic patronage system that was virtually 100% Dem dominated, and his being the victim of the sleazy and ethically-challenged Atty Gen Stumbo's witch hunt, all for doing nothing more than wanting Republican appointees (the horror !) in some of these jobs. Outrageous.

At least Chandler ended up with a fairly decent consolation prize... Fletcher's Republican-leaning Congressional seat.

I must add one thing, that I can't complain too much about fmr. Gov. Patton, because about a decade ago he gave me a rather expensive "gift" (a book) that helped me to personally obtain hundreds of political autographs (my hobby) of former members of Congress that I likely would not have ended up without his office's help.

[rocky top buzz]

Looks like the three of us are enjoying this topic!

I didn't realize so many conservatives don't like Lamar? I had heard about the "pondering" of an income tax, but that he did nothing of the sort. I also was concerned he was going to come out in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, but so far, I have no problems. More of my problems lie with Frist, who has the power to control the policies of the senate but seems to sit on his hands!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Looks like the three of us are enjoying this topic!

I didn't realize so many conservatives don't like Lamar? I had heard about the "pondering" of an income tax, but that he did nothing of the sort. I also was concerned he was going to come out in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, but so far, I have no problems. More of my problems lie with Frist, who has the power to control the policies of the senate but seems to sit on his hands!

No, Conservatives have never much cared for Lamar! or considered him to be "one of their own." Despite his lame attempts to portray himself as a populist (the plaid shirt schtick), he is really a member of the establishment/country-clubber/Nixonite-Baker wing of the party. I think the one and only time he ever tried to be honest about whom he really was, was during his 1974 run for Governor. Ray Blanton, who had been decimated in 1972 by Sen. Baker in the Senate race, was able to portray Lamar! as being nothing but a Nixon yes-man who came straight from being a White House staffer to try to take the Governor's office (which was so audaciously on its face -- here was Lamar!, who had NEVER run for any office before, was all of 34 years old, thinking he was just going to march in from DC and take the Governorship without batting an eyelash), and Blanton effectively came off as looking more in line with Tennessee's voters (and with several terms in Congress under his belt, more experienced). Of course, we know how that turned out with Blanton...

In any event, Lamar! always seemed a johnny-come-lately with Conservatism. After his tenure as Governor, he would become head of UT-Knoxville, and I heard stories of his diffident and undistinguished performance there (essentially a "business as usual" mantra). His service in Bush I's administration as Ed Secretary was laughable at best. In his Presidential run in '96, I could not be counted on to support him on his silly candidacy, where he attempted to duplicate his '78 Gubernatorial run. I was a Dole supporter in that race (and although he was himself never considered a model Conservative, I always had profound respect for the man, and he was always a comforting presence to me during the darkest days of the first two years of the Clinton Regime). After his final, abortive, Presidential run in 2000, most of us were relieved that that would be his final run for office. Unfortunately, when the White House dug up his political corpse for '02, we were all less than amused.

I remember first seeing him right after he made the announcement, he looked tired and worn-out, certainly no "warrior" for the Conservative cause. Contrasting him with Ed Bryant, who was well-versed on the issues and seasoned from the impeachment trial, it just was no contest who was more deserving of the seat. But Lamar! did perk up, effectively "whoring" himself to GOP voters that he'd be whatever they wanted him to be (i.e. "Conservative") and a vote for Dubya. I have a serious problem with politicians who come in with no core values and blow with the prevailing winds, and that is what Lamar! represented to me. I strained a lot of my own personal capital saying to fellow Conservatives that we needed to support him over Bob Clement in the general (with some sword-rattlers looking to punish Lamar! and vote for the more liberal Clement, but given the dynamics of the '02 race, we simply had no choice but to support him in order to take the Senate back following Jeffords' apostasy). He has been an even bigger disappointment than I could've imagined, certainly providing no definitive leadership, and even championing some outrageous positions, including that of taxing internet purchases (a big issue with me). I contacted his office and presented an aggressive argument knocking down all of his reasonings for the tax, only to hear back from him -- with the same crap arguments repeated that I had knocked down ! His other "recent" discovery that (gasp !) there's "liberal bias" in education was so breathtaking in its stupidity as an 80-year old man in Arizona discovering the sky is blue. I'm expecting at some point this year that Lamar! will figure out that gasoline costs money and that we breathe oxygen. I look forward to his retirement with tingling anticipation.

As for Frist, well, I think his high point was dispatching the troglodytic leftist charlatan, "Mumbles" Sasser, who had the distinction of having a voice even more unpleasant than Lee press-on nails traversing across a blackboard (I remember being so excited at his defeat in '94, sitting in a motel room in Bangor, Maine, that I nearly shot myself off the bed and through to the next floor -- of course, I saved my biggest excitement the next morning when I heard Speaker Foley was defeated, and my parents had to stop the car in the middle of the street, where I jumped out and proceeded, in front of some puzzled onlookers, to dance a jig celebrating the liberation of the republic from 60 years of oppression. But I digress...). I think Frist's problem is that he was never suited to a leadership position, he was OK toiling in the background, but as for taking a firm hand as Majority Leader, it just isn't working. To me, I think most would cite Lyndon Johnson as the absolute premier Majority Leader, and I think any Republican would do well to study him. There needs to be a level of ruthlessness to being a leader, and for many Republicans, there's way too many "Mr. Nice Guys." But when you do get an effective leader from our side, such as Tom DeLay in the House, who surely must've studied his fellow Texan LBJ's style, you have to prepare for an onslaught from the liberal media who will brook no "strong-willed" Conservative leaders. No, only Maurice Milquetoasts who capitulate to the left and their Democrat betters with a small GOP minority will the media speak fondly of (Bob Michel of IL being one of those, of whom I am quite grateful never got to be Speaker).

I expect if the Dems get back control come January, they will rain hellfire and brimstone and exact enormous revenge upon the GOP and the nation for daring to stop "their mandate" from a higher power for 12 years, no hesistation at all in what their leftist leaders will seek (Impeachment ! Evisceration ! Revolution !). It might almost be worth it to allow that circus to happen, if it guarantees the GOP remains in charge for the following 50 years, but you don't put clowns in charge of national security. Now if only the GOP (including the President and Congress) would get their respective act together (even when they're at their worst, they're still better than the Kerrys, the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the McKinneys, and the Starks, but why should we settle for their worst ?!), we might actually get something done.