Bresident
Gullyborg speculates that Bredesen’s blog may be an indication of higher political aspirations:
Gov. Bredesen is positioning himself to be the anti-Hillary, the “red state” democRat who can win in 2008. Can he succeed?
He will have a hard time winning the primary.
I personally don’t think Hillary has a chance, she lacks her husband’s charisma and popularity. I do think Bredesen (or really any moderately conservative – and particularly southern – Democrat) could stand a shot in the general. The real indicator will be if they could make it through the primaries.
Bredesen, however, absolutely must save TennCare or he is doomed politically. People like their free stuff and don’t appreciate politicos (even fiscally responsible Democrats – never thought I’d say that) cutting benefits. And when the debate turns to MediCare, he’ll appear weak on the issue as his opponents can’t point out TennCare’s failings.
Bredesen is fiscally conservative and pro-gun. These are two traits any Democrat would need to succeed and Bredesen would need to hammer those points home. Howard Dean had the same traits going in but changed his position on guns when he ran for office. I guess his consultants figured such a change would play well in the polls. Bredesen would do well to stick to his guns. It seems to be working for Harry Reid as well.
May 11th, 2005 at 9:19 am
You still think winning the Democrat nomination requires charisma and personality?
Did you somehow miss John Kerry’s 2004 candidacy?
May 11th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Addendum: Also see Al Gore in 2000.
May 11th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Winning the election requires charisma and personality.
Look at the winners and losers the last few years
Bush v. Kerry
Bush v. Gore
Clinton v. Dole (pre Viagra Commercial)
Clinton v. Bush
Bush v. Dukakis
Reagan v. Mondale
Reagan v. Carter (and John Anderson)
Carter of course is an exception when he ran against Ford – an unelected president who was simply replacing Tricky Dick (someone with no shortage of personality or charisma BTW).
May 11th, 2005 at 10:22 am
I always liked bigwig’s explanation for presidential elections:
Jimmy Carter in 1980: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
Walter Mondale in 1984: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
Mike Dukakis in 1988: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996: “Ya’ll want a beer? I’m buying, and you have got to see the jugs on this waitress.”
Al Gore in 2000: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
John Kerry in 2004: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
May 11th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Not to get into this debate, but Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, his lack of charisma notwithstanding.
And yes Dems are fiscally conservative as a rule. Carter got the deficit down to about $35 Billion if I recall and Clinton got us surplusses. The Republicans have never been fiscally conservative, they’ve only been talk.
May 11th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I don’t know where you get the idea Bredesen is fiscally conservative. State spending has still gone up every year. Despite record tax revenue surpluses every year, he hasn’t reduced the sales tax. He has already, only a year after it was adopted, proposed using lottery tax money for purposes other than what it was voted for. He has started new programs (or tried to) that will require more future funding and has indicated he wants to start more. Where’s the conservative in all this?
May 12th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Well, Mike, maybe I should say more fiscally conservative than some other governors we’ve had.