Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Senate 2006
Blogging for Bryant makes a pitch that Ed Bryant is most likely to beat Harold Ford, Jr. by continuing to cite a Rasmussen poll within the margin of error. This is done in conjunction with a Bryant appearance in Johnson City, where Bryant says
Bryant said he is consistently pushing what separates himself from Hilleary and Corker - the appointment of federal judges, gun rights and traditional family values.
Sounds like a rhetorical distinction without a difference. I would certainly like to see what one would consider evidence that Bob Corker isn’t a conservative on any of those issues. At least the Bryant campaign is finally following my suggestion regarding Van
I too would be shocked to see anyone get out, knowing the dynamics as I do. In the meantime, Ed and Van need to differentiate themselves if they hope to peel votes off one another. I don’t see how either one can win otherwise.
This sort of thing could get very, very interesting.
UPDATE We apparently have a misunderstanding as to where the burden lies in the comments below. A Van-Ed supporter defaults inexplicably to the position that Bob Corker is against guns, against families, and for bad judges. The proof that Corker is a conservative comes from the way he leads his life and what he says. You can check out the website if you want, if you care to read and explore other options. As far as how anyone can seriously question his commitment to the Second Amendment, conservative judges and family values is beyond rational discourse. The burden is on you, the individuals claiming he is against families, guns and good law to prove otherwise. He has stated where he stands. If all you can say is “he’s a liberal”, and cannot support that position, you’ve not met your burden. Try again.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
“Bryant said he is consistently pushing what separates himself from Hilleary and Corker - the appointment of federal judges, gun rights and traditional family values.”
I don’t think that’s a direct quote from Ed, just what the reporter wrote. Ed’s been making the case that what differentiates him from Van/Corker is his qualifications. All the candidates talk about judges/gun rights/family values, but with Ed’s background as an Army JAG officer, professor of constitutional law at West Point, federal prosecutor and serving on the House Judiciary cmte - he’s in the best position to get a seat on the Senate Judiciary cmte. where he can actually make a difference on the issues conservatives care about. Ed won’t just be another vote like Van/Corker, he’ll immediately make an impact in the U.S. Senate.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
“I would certainly like to see what one would consider evidence that Bob Corker isn’t a conservative on any of those issues [gun rights, family values, appointment of judges].”
May I turn the tables and ask what evidence there is that Corker IS a conservative on those issues?
December 31st, 2005 at 4:59 pm
I’m with you Nathan…the burden is on those who say Bob Corker is against families, guns and good law to prove it with credible evidence. I’ve publicly heard Bob Corker discuss his support for judges that uphold the law as well as his views on gun rights and family values (very conservative).
Happy New Year to you and your family
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Howdy y’all.
With all due respect to these other folks running for office, the candidate who’s REALLY conservative - and who has actually articulated specific policy ideas that go beyond the usual “traditional conservative values” rubric - is Bo Heyward. Check out his website at http://www.boforsenate.com.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 am
OK, other than what Bob Corker says, do you have any actual evidence?
July 29th, 2006 at 10:23 am
zgpqdlkjlbw
lhlvjfxha cezsk fengnxacf