Take this endorsement down and apologize
No, I kid about that and it’s an inside blog joke. But . . .
The Tennessean endorsed Bob Corker, stating that he is an honest, energetic man. Now, The Tennessean says:
One of Bob Corker’s television ads in his campaign for the U.S. Senate is seriously misleading.
That’s bad, but the Corker campaign turned what should have been a one-day story into a character issue by sticking with the flawed assertion even after it was exposed.
Corker’s original ad claimed that both of his GOP opponents, Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant, voted while in Congress to increase their pay.
That’s not true.
The bill in question was the massive appropriations bill in 2000; Bryant and Hilleary both voted for it. But there was no language in the bill that increased congressional pay.
Jack McElroy, whose paper also endorsed Corky, goes a step further and calls it a lie.
I wonder if these papers will retract their endorsement? Of course not. Instead of lying, shouldn’t you be telling us why you’re more against abortion than your opponents are? Or maybe telling us why you’re different?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:02 am
I appreciate the media’s calling Corker on his lie, albeit very gently doing so.
I happily voted for Bryant, and I am confident that he would make a great senator – certainly better than Frist has been of late (think – the Senate Immigration Reform (i.e. amnesty) Bill.
I got the chance to spend 10 – 15 minutes talking with Bryant a couple of months ago, and he took me through his efforts to prosecute Jr’s father, the inimitable Harold Ford (I ain’t gonna let no white boy tell me where to park).
Bryant’s efforts to try the case in Jackson, outside of Harold’s distrtict were thwarted when Janet Reno overruled him and cut a deal with the defendant’s counsel to retry the case in Memphis, where felonious Fords abound and are highly regarded.
Bryant resigned.
I think that he is a bona fide conservative and would make a great senator for Tn.
Nonetheless, if Corker prevails, I will try to get him elected.
Ford is a genuine bad egg, and he needs to go back to Memphis.
I am somewhat shocked that no one (that is you, bloggers and media) have not linked Harold’s and Junior’s financial windfalls from the defunct, bankrupt HMO – Access Med Plus.
I think that Jr was, at a minimum, the serendipitous beneficiary of his father’s receipt of hefty amounts of cash from the corrupt, and ultimately bankrupt, HMO.
I also think that Harold (or Junior) used some of the profits from the HMO to buy Harold and Junior luxury homes on some presitgious island off Miami, where Harold presently resides.
Why isn’t there any media interest in the Fords’ connections with Access Med Plus?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:23 am
I was unaware of that. Not sure why the media ignored it. Seems like there’s an awful lot of dirt on the Fords.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:54 am
The Fords are a dirty, dirty lot, but Jr. has so far managed to distance himself from the rest, and keep his hands mostly clean. That isn’t to say that I like him, but to my knowledge, the only real “dirt” on Jr. is that he’s related to a bunch of people who really are dirty. Guilt-by-association alone isn’t quite enough.
All that said, I don’t think there’s much of anyone worth voting for in the Senate race this year. As a liberal, I can hold my nose and pull the lever for Jr. Conservatives can probably reluctantly pull the lever for Corker, and would gladly do so for Bryant. The people I feel really bad for are the political moderates. There’s no candidate for them in this election.
And frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of every conservative ad in the state focusing on “I’m pro-life, and I oppose gay marriage,” as if those are the only two issues of import in the Senate. (Apparently, those two are enough to get you elected in backward-ass Tennessee…)
July 31st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
tgirsch,
Although I am pro-life ( I also believe a woman has the clearly implied right of self defense in the 2nd Amendment in the event of a life-threatening pregnancy) and oppose re-defining marriage to include same sex, I really agree with your last paragraph. Thjose are NOT the only two issues defining conservatives–which means conserving the Constitution, ALL of theBill of Rights and national sovereignity.
On another issue being pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the behind the scenes work for a North American Union, I called WLAC when Hilleary and Bryant appeared last Monday (Corker chose not to show). To my pleasant surprise, Bryant knew about it and emphatically stated that he would oppose such a thing and was very troubled that it was being kept out of the public discourse. He also tied it in the deliberate refusal to stop illegal immigration and the so-called free trade agreements ( Clinton’s NAFTA–Bush’s CAFTA) as being detrimental and really being treaties which should require 2/3 majorities.
Very good answers from my perspective.