Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Bob Corker Continues to Take the Heat

It seems Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker just can't catch a break these days.

As you may remember, just within the past couple of weeks, Corker and his campaign caught heat when they were caught misleading voters about Congressman Ford.

Now Corker is taking heat from his own party.

In a post entitled, "Corker Chooses to 'Rub Elbows' in D.C. Over Debate of the Issues in Tennessee?," Blogging for Bryant reports:

"With just two weeks to go, former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker has finally come up with an excuse for boycotting the first and only scheduled Republican U.S. Senate primary debate - he plans to fly to Washington, DC to sit in the visitor's gallery at the State of the Union address.

Ed Bryant's U.S. Senate campaign issued the following press release 1/15:

BRENTWOOD, TN - Ed Bryant, former federal prosecutor and four-term Congressman, today invited former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, his family and staff to a post-U.S. Senate debate viewing of the President’s State of the Union address. Bryant's invitation comes on the heels of Corker's announcement that he has chosen to forgo the first U.S. Senate debate in Tennessee, hosted by Memphis-based Main Street Journal on Jan. 31st, in favor of traveling to Washington, D.C. to view the President's address in person.

“It is unfortunate that the first debate of the campaign falls on the same night of the President’s State of the Union address,” stated Bryant. “However, Tennesseans expect their Senators to balance their own needs with the needs of our state and our nation. As candidates seeking the honor of representing Tennesseans in the U.S. Senate, we owe it to those whom we are asking to entrust us with their vote to allow them ever opportunity possible to see us in person, side by side, discuss the issues that affect their lives every day.

"Therefore, I've arranged to watch the address after the debate at the Courtyard by Marriott Memphis/Germantown and invite Bob, his family and staff to join me, my wife Cyndi and our campaign team to view the President's important State of the Union Address immediately after Main Street Journal's U.S. Senate debate.

"I'd also encourage Bob to join me for a joint press conference following our viewing of the President's address where we will make ourselves available to members of the Tennessee media for discussion of the President's address.”

###

According to C4C, Corker is attending the State of the Union as the guest of U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp (R). Poor Zach Wamp. First Wamp had to put his '06 Senatorial ambitions on hold and break his House term limit pledge so that fellow Chattanoogan Bob Corker could run. Now he's having to give up his spouse's ticket to sit in the visitor's gallery so Corker can get out of debating the other Republican candidates. I bet if Zach Wamp were running he'd show up for the debate...."

The Van Wagon is also taking Corker to task in their post, "Mr. Corker Goes to Washington."

"Today, the Main Street Journal issued a press release detailing the first 2006 Republican Primary debate, which will be held on Tuesday, January 31, at 7:00 pm. As noted before here on VanWagon, the event will feature true Republicans Van Hilleary, Ed Bryant, and Jeff Moder.

Republican In Name Only (RINO) Bob Corker has long opted against standing side-by-side with his counterparts to give his vision for the future of our State and our nation.

Now, RINO Corker's scape-goat has come in the form of Congressman Zach Wamp, with whom Corker will attend President Bush's sixth State of the Union Address, held on the same night as the debate. However, even clever spin will not excuse RINO Corker for missing the first primary debate of the election season. Long before he secured a seat at the State of the Union, Corker refused to accept his invitation to debate in Memphis.

Corker has even more explaining to do after today's press release by MSJ, which also invites attendees to a post-debate reception, where "the candidates, the media (television and newspaper), and other elected officials [will] watch live the President deliver his 2006 State of the Union Address."

It seems RINO Corker's strategy is to avoid facing the voters directly, because they might ask questions such as, "Why did you raise taxes as mayor of Chattanooga before touting that you believe in lower taxes and less government spending?" Or how about this one, "Why are you now pro-life, when in 1994, you were clearly in support of a woman's right to have an abortion?"

It will be much harder for Tennesseans to get these questions across to Corker when he's nearly 1,000 miles away in Washington on January 31. If Tennesseans cannot get through to a candidate Corker to ask important questions now because he's in Washington, could they expect to get through to a Senator Corker in Washington to do the same? I think not."

Finally, the conservative publication Main Street Journal replies to the lies by the Corker camp regarding the GOP debate date.

"Despite all this, Corker’s supporters have taken another opportunity to bash this publication and the people who put it together. Writing on Corker’s unofficial campaign blog, “Mr. Evans” has this to say (emphases mine):

The debate is scheduled to begin at 8:00 EST. Who at MSJ made the grievous error of scheduling this event on the same night, at about the same time, as our president’s address? This type of scheduling faux pas does not speak well of the MSJ’s organizational abilities, I must say. Maybe someone there will wheel in a T.V. on a cart or something so others may watch the speech?

First, how is it a “grievious error” or a “scheduling faux pas” to set a date that is much later chosen by another group for another event?

Second, while it is true that the debate is scheduled to begin at 8pm EST, it is not true that the debate will take place “at about the same time” as the President’s speech. The debate will conclude at 9pm EST, at which time the President’s address is set to begin. Typically, the President doesn’t take to the podium and begin his speech for several minutes after that, meaning there should be ample time for everyone to mosey over to the Mid-America Reception Hall, where audience members will watch a live broadcast of the President’s speech and later have an opportunity to mingle with the candidates and members of the media.

Of course, this isn’t the first time “Conservatives for Corker” have attempted to defame the Main Street Journal, a new conservative monthly magazine. We first noticed the trash talk coming out of C4C at the beginning of this year and responded on January 3. They have since attempted to ridicule us at least twice, most recently in their latest entry, calling our event “a poorly managed and organized debate forum.” They also posted this:

There will be time for debating issues in front of TN voters, but this is obviously not the best time (President’s Address) or the place (debate put on by one candidate’s propaganda machine) to do it.

As I’ve shown, C4C is wrong on both counts.

One, the debate will not take place during the President’s address; by bridging the two events, everyone involved will get something extra: the audience will have more access to the candidates and will join with their fellow conservatives in hearing (and cheering) the President; the candidates will have more time to influence voters and gain media attention; and the media will have ready access to candidates in order to get their reactions to both the debate and the President’s address.

But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the MSJ really didn’t do a good job scheduling this debate. Let’s say we didn’t arrive at this date after consultation with the campaigns. Let’s say it was possible for us to have known in advance that we would be picking the same date the President chose for his State of the Union address. Let’s say that we didn’t have plenty of media attention on board, as we do. Let’s say that we didn’t have a distinguished panel lined up, as we do. Let’s say it hasn’t been as heavily advertised and promoted, or that more than just one of the candidates had opted out of the debate because we were simply inadequate debate hosts.

Even if all those things were flawed, would it be right or honorable for C4C to bash a group of fellow conservatives? Wouldn’t it still have been distasteful for Corker’s people to wage this sort of smear campaign against us? What kind of “conservatives” are they, after all?

Two, calling our publication “one candidate’s propaganda machine” is ludicrous, if only for the simple reason that last time C4C made a similar charge, we were somehow a propaganda machine for two candidates (Bryant and Hillary), rather than just one. Jeff Moder must really feel left out on this point, because we don’t seem to be his propaganda machine at all; but C4C may yet change their minds again, so I guess there’s still time!

To be clear, the Main Street Journal holds nothing against Bob Corker or his campaign, aside perhaps from his decision not to accept our debate invitation (as have Bryant, Hillary and Moder) or the offer we extended for him to write a feature article for the magazine (as have, to date, Bryant, Hillary and Ford, Jr.).

Why Corker refuses to support an upstart conservative publication, or why his supporters continue to bash their fellow conservatives… the answers to those questions are simply beyond my comprehension. I do not understand why a U.S. Senate Republican primary candidate would give such an enterprise the cold shoulder, or why his camp would continue to hurl unprompted insults our way. These things do nothing to endear us, or our (10,000+ and growing) subscribers, to his campaign… not to mention those West Tennessee voters who will turn out for the debate only to find Corker’s podium empty.

Why won’t Bob Corker and his supporters give the Main Street Journal, and West Tennessee, a fair shake? Why has he chosen to hobnob with Congressional spouses rather than address the voters in Memphis?


C4C has enthusiastically proclaimed Corker as the “first candidate to publicly accept debate.” They also said he’s “ready to debate,” passing along Corker’s statement that Bryant’s offer of holding a series of debates was a good starting point. Following this, C4C bashed Van Hillary in a post titled “No Debating Hillary’s Hypocrisy.”

I can only respond with three questions:

1. If it’s hypocritical to accept debates at one time and reject them at others, isn’t Corker guilty of the same crime?

2. If Corker is ready to debate his primary opponents, why not accept our offer and join the other three candidates in the first debate of the year (without using SOTU as a belated excuse)?

3. Finally, while Corker may have been the first to publicly accept a debate, isn’t he also the first to reject a debate (and where does that leave him)?"


Looks like Corker has some fence mending to do with his fellow Republicans.