Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Worth Noting
Apparently, Ed Bryant supporters are now unknowingly parroting Harold Ford, Jr. supporters when attacking Bob Corker.
What can we called this new mixed breed? B-ord? F-ryant? Har-ed?
ACK gets the nod on this one.
How utterly classic.
UPDATE I have been forthwith challenged by one of the more infamous Blogging for Bryant supporters (both contributors have weighed in in the comments) to debunk the letter written by the newest Ed Bryant ally, the perpetrator of Forward with Ford.
Ahem.
Here we go, in pure Fiskian fashion.
I totally agree with The City Paper that Bob Corker’s record must be studied in historical context (“Study Corker’s record in context,” p. 6, May 25).
In this editorial, however, The City Paper misses the mark when it justifies the “hard decisions” that Corker made as mayor of Chattanooga while opting to ignore the truth about Corker’s record.
Well, nothing has been said as of yet. The straw man of “context” has been dutifully set up in preparation for being knocked down. I hold my breath - the suspense is killing me
While his most recent TV ad claims that Corker lowered property taxes to their lowest rate since the 1950s, the facts paint a different picture. The facts are this: Corker raised property taxes in Chattanooga by 25 percent. Corker even publicly stated on several occasions that he had no intention to roll the tax increase back and the facts show he never did.
That’s a mischaracterization of the ad, and Ford’s minion, as well as Rob and JB, all know it. Because of Bob Corker’s governance, the city’s taxes fell, a lot. Then again, as of late Democrats aren’t exactly known for fiscal policies that spur economic growth
So how can Corker claim to have lowered property taxes to their lowest rate since the 1950s? The city’s taxes were lowered not because of anything Corker did, but because of a countywide property reappraisal that took place three months after Corker left office! Three months!
Leaving aside the overuse of ! (seemingly Ford supporters prefer exclamation points and Van supporters prefer ALL CAPS), to say that property taxes went down “not because of anything Corker did” is ludicrous on its face. The growth of Chattanooga that enabled the lowest property tax burden in decades stems directly (not indirectly, sorta, or kinda) from the vision and governance of Bob Corker as mayor. As soon as Ford or Bryant show me an unbiased poll asking Chattanoogans how much they wished they recalled Mayor Corker, these attacks continue to hold no water.
The facts are that Bob Corker takes a similar approach to taxes as Don Sundquist and no creative 30-second TV ad can hide that.
Actually, Bob Corker opposed the state income tax. That’s on the record. I have more than adequately addressed this complaint in desperation by Bryant, Hilleary, and now Ford supporters, on this blog.
As a reliable commenter notes below, it is funny to see a Democrat make such a contorted argument.
May 31st, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Nathan -
Corker, Ford - what’s the difference?
Come Election Day, my friend, there won’t be one on my ballot.
Cheers,
Rob
May 31st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
It’s America -you’re free to write in whomever you want.
May 31st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Does the fact this dude supports Ford change the legitimacy of what he wrote? Name one thing in that letter that isn’t true?
I think this letter makes a great case for why Corker shouldn’t be the Republican nominee.
May 31st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
It is a bit funny when Democrats bash Republicans for supporting Sundquist’s tax policy, when it was Democrats in the Legislature that supported it the most.
May 31st, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Nathan -
I didn’t issue any challenge as you stated in your “update” (that’s usually a red flag for a strawman, isn’t it?), but the response is kinda funny.
Corker did raise taxes in Chattanooga. Whether they were lower than average before he came into office, whether his business cronies benefited from all of the social programs he instituted, or whether people are happy living near the Georgia border so they can avoid some of Corker’s taxation is immaterial. (If it were, during my time as an ALJ serving primarily in Chattanooga, I would estimate that 75% of longtime residents had a beef with the tax structure left behind by Corker.)
Corker raised taxes. Corker supported abortion rights. Corker supported his buddy Don Sundquist’s income tax proposals.
I will give you credit in that you need to confuse the issues and rewrite history to allow your candidate wiggle-room (ala Bill Clinton). However, none of those tactics expose the truth.
Cheers,
Rob
May 31st, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Give up, Nathan. Vote for Ed. If Corker ends up on the ballot, it’s gonna make Ford look good to single-issue voters like me (on immigration control, for the time being) who are “liberal” (actually truly conservative) on some issues.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:40 am
Out of curiosity, what issues are you “liberal” on Donna?
June 1st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Nathan - You didn’t really point to anything that wasn’t true. You just provided explanations, which to your credit is more than Corker is willing to do. There are three undisputable facts here:
1. Chattanoogans are paying more in property taxes than they were before Corker was Mayor.
2. Corker never lowered taxes or even proposed lowering taxes.
3. Three months after Corker left office, the tax rate was lowered because of a statewide property reappraisal.
Arguing that Corker can take credit for the property tax rate going down because of a reappraisal after he left office sounds an awful lot like the argument Bredesen made in ‘02 when questioned about the property tax increase he supported as Mayor of Nashville. It’s misleading.