By Tom Griscom
Publisher and Executive Editor
U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker recently stated that Tennessee voters would have a difficult time finding a dime’s worth of difference in the positions among the three contenders for the Republican nomination.
A surprising statement in a contested primary in which the three candidates all cling to the mantra of being conservative, leaving it to the primary voter to sort out the reasons to favor one over the other two.
To date, the issue of abortion has been at the center of the debate. Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant, both former members of Congress from Tennessee, point to their previous positions and votes as being pro-life. Mr. Corker distances himself from a 1994 public stance, which now he says was “wrong,” and casts himself as pro-life. His two opponents dismiss the new stance.
The second defining issue to date has been taxes. Mr. Corker’s two opponents attack him for having raised property taxes while mayor of Chattanooga and for his work as finance commissioner for former Gov. Don Sundquist, who proposed a state income tax. Mr. Sundquist also contributed to Mr. Corker’s Senate campaign.
The time-tested Republican message of “tax and spend” typically is hung around a Democratic neck, but in this case, Mr. Corker has been wearing the tax mantle unchallenged for weeks.
In mid-June, he struck back in a talk radio town hall forum.
He charged that both Mr. Hilleary and Mr. Bryant supported tax increases while serving in Congress.
“I’m going to say that all of us have a record of supporting tax increases,” Mr. Corker told listeners on Steve Gill’s radio program in Nashville. “One of the first things Van Hilleary did when he came into Congress was to support a tax on student loans. Ed Bryant voted for a $2.7 billion tax increase.”
The political tactic of blurring the lines among candidates is designed to remove an issue from the lexicon of political debate. Mr. Corker took that step, acknowledging his tax increase, which is a matter of public record, and attempting to tar his opponents with a similar claim.
Mr. Bryant says he will “stack my record of cutting taxes against Bob Corker’s record of raising taxes any day.” To lend credence to his position, Mr. Bryant brings former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey along with Tennessee Congressmen Zach Wamp, Bill Jenkins and Jimmy Duncan into the discussion. Those five were among other Republicans who supported the tax increase cited by Mr. Corker, according to Mr. Bryant.
For Mr. Hilleary’s part, he called on Mr. Corker to apologize, stating that his vote was to cut taxes by $245 billion.
For those who serve in public office, particularly in the legislative branch, any number of votes are cast, many often procedural, that later are used to show inconsistencies and even “flip flops” on various issues.
Final passage of a bill is clouded by other votes on amendments that either add to or take away from the legislation.
Voting records are instructive but at times they can be misleading.
Mr. Corker points to a $17.3 million shortfall in the city’s budget when he took office and proposed a property tax increase. He then quickly moves to having only a 1 percent increase in city spending over the ensuing three years. Having laid out his record, Mr. Corker claims his two opponents while in Congress saw the federal budget go up 43 percent in non-defense, non-entitlement spending.
Voters will continue looking for the dime’s worth of difference among Mr. Bryant, Mr. Corker and Mr. Hilleary, and whether the lines really are blurred or clearer.
To reach Tom Griscom, call (423) 757-6472 or e-mail tgriscom@timesfreepress.com.
Publisher and Executive Editor
U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker recently stated that Tennessee voters would have a difficult time finding a dime’s worth of difference in the positions among the three contenders for the Republican nomination.
A surprising statement in a contested primary in which the three candidates all cling to the mantra of being conservative, leaving it to the primary voter to sort out the reasons to favor one over the other two.
To date, the issue of abortion has been at the center of the debate. Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant, both former members of Congress from Tennessee, point to their previous positions and votes as being pro-life. Mr. Corker distances himself from a 1994 public stance, which now he says was “wrong,” and casts himself as pro-life. His two opponents dismiss the new stance.
The second defining issue to date has been taxes. Mr. Corker’s two opponents attack him for having raised property taxes while mayor of Chattanooga and for his work as finance commissioner for former Gov. Don Sundquist, who proposed a state income tax. Mr. Sundquist also contributed to Mr. Corker’s Senate campaign.
The time-tested Republican message of “tax and spend” typically is hung around a Democratic neck, but in this case, Mr. Corker has been wearing the tax mantle unchallenged for weeks.
In mid-June, he struck back in a talk radio town hall forum.
He charged that both Mr. Hilleary and Mr. Bryant supported tax increases while serving in Congress.
“I’m going to say that all of us have a record of supporting tax increases,” Mr. Corker told listeners on Steve Gill’s radio program in Nashville. “One of the first things Van Hilleary did when he came into Congress was to support a tax on student loans. Ed Bryant voted for a $2.7 billion tax increase.”
The political tactic of blurring the lines among candidates is designed to remove an issue from the lexicon of political debate. Mr. Corker took that step, acknowledging his tax increase, which is a matter of public record, and attempting to tar his opponents with a similar claim.
Mr. Bryant says he will “stack my record of cutting taxes against Bob Corker’s record of raising taxes any day.” To lend credence to his position, Mr. Bryant brings former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey along with Tennessee Congressmen Zach Wamp, Bill Jenkins and Jimmy Duncan into the discussion. Those five were among other Republicans who supported the tax increase cited by Mr. Corker, according to Mr. Bryant.
For Mr. Hilleary’s part, he called on Mr. Corker to apologize, stating that his vote was to cut taxes by $245 billion.
For those who serve in public office, particularly in the legislative branch, any number of votes are cast, many often procedural, that later are used to show inconsistencies and even “flip flops” on various issues.
Final passage of a bill is clouded by other votes on amendments that either add to or take away from the legislation.
Voting records are instructive but at times they can be misleading.
Mr. Corker points to a $17.3 million shortfall in the city’s budget when he took office and proposed a property tax increase. He then quickly moves to having only a 1 percent increase in city spending over the ensuing three years. Having laid out his record, Mr. Corker claims his two opponents while in Congress saw the federal budget go up 43 percent in non-defense, non-entitlement spending.
Voters will continue looking for the dime’s worth of difference among Mr. Bryant, Mr. Corker and Mr. Hilleary, and whether the lines really are blurred or clearer.
To reach Tom Griscom, call (423) 757-6472 or e-mail tgriscom@timesfreepress.com.
