January 27, 2005

Bubba Blows It Bigtime

South Knox Bubba slams Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen in a long and rambling post today in which he voices concern that some "heartless right-wing 'Christian' conservatives and rabid neo-conservatives bent on world domination" are "singing his praises" and talking up Bredesen's 2008 presidential prospects and claims I have been "inconsistent" in what I've written about Bredesen.

As a whole, SKB's post is a fine example of the incoherence of the Left today in the aftermath of its wide and deep 2004 electoral defeat. On the one hand, he says he supported John Kerry even though "he wasn't my first choice," but then wonders if Bredesen might be a "sellout" because - get this - Bredesen doesn't kowtow to the Left's ideology lock, stock and barrel.

He then goes on to link to and quote from things that both Glenn Reynolds and I have written about Bredesen:

Just look at some of these gushingly backhanded endorsements of the Bredesen Way...

Glenn Reynolds says:

Bredesen's secret is no secret at all: It's respect. He doesn't view rural people, or southerners, with the thinly disguised contempt that is found, all-too-often among national Democratic figures. And he's also not afraid to talk with people who disagree with him. In fact, one of the striking things, to me, is that he does so well on conservative talk radio. He speaks clearly, doesn't duck questions or retreat into sound bites and blather, and treats others with respect while not acting ashamed of his own positions. The result is that talk-show hosts, and listeners, respect him too. If this is hard to replicate, it says bad things about the rest of the Democratic field; this sort of thing ought to be Politics 101, not the advanced class.

But at least Bredesen gets it.

Is he an ideal national candidate? Well, no. Movie-star charisma isn't his strong suit. But the Bush-Kerry race wasn't exactly awash in movie-star charisma. Neither was the Bush-Gore race. And Clinton-Dole wasn't exactly a barnburner. At any rate, after what are likely to be several more exciting years, steady competence and mutual respect may look more appealing than charisma anyway. In which case Bredesen may turn out to be a pretty strong candidate.

Bill Hobbs on Bredesen in 2005:

While some of Bredesen's deals do not generate a positive ROI for Nashville in and of themselves, they did boost Nashville's economy and its psyche in ways that the deal's bottom line alone can not measure.

Bill Hobbs on Bredesen in 2002:

One of the two main candidates believes in and has a track record of fiscal restraint and opposition to higher taxes. It isn't Phil Bredesen, whose record is one of higher taxes and big spending. Only one of the two main candidates firmly opposes the income tax. It isn't Phil Bredesen, whose position on the income tax is best described as "moveable."

Only one of the two main candidates favors adding a Colorado-style Taxpayers Bill of Rights provision to the Tennessee constitution, to guarantee sensible fiscal policies in the future. It isn't Phil Bredesen. He opposes any restraint on taxes or spending.

Both candidates talk the talk on fiscal restraint. But only one walks the walk. He is Van Hilleary.

Yes, indeed. The inconsistency is typical, but the conservative support is revealing. Maybe Bredesen just needs to take off his disguise and change parties. Or maybe he needs to show some results on socially and fiscally responsible progressive reforms and see if the other side still sings his praises.

In 2002, I commented that Bredesen did not have a fiscally-conservative record as mayor of Nashville and that, as a gubernatorial candidate, he was not in favor of many of the measures that fiscally conservative voters might like. In 2005, I was writing about Bredesen's economic-development deals during his eight years as Mayor of Nashville and commenting that, while they are hard to defend fiscally, they did have a positive impact on the city's self-esteem. Inconsistent? No, not at all.

And, for the record, I have not endorsed nor will I endorse Phil Bredesen for president. I'd lose less sleep if he won than if, say, Barbara Boxer won the White House - but there is no likely Republican nominee - not Condi or Rudy, not Bill Owens, or Jeb Bush, or George Allen - whom I would reject in order to vote for Bredesen in 2008.

I do think Bredesen is one of the better candidates the Democrats could nominate if they want to have a chance to win. I do think Bredesen understands how to win as a Democrat in a red state. Bredesen could win the White House if he's nominated. Republicans need to know that.

And that's part of the reason I write about Bredesen and started Bredesen Watch (and registered the BredesenWatch.com domain name) - to highlight Bredesen's policy and political successes so that Republicans outside of Tennessee know what they're up against if Bredesen manages to get the nomination. The other reason? To expose the warts of Bredesen's record, and highlight the non-liberal portions that will turn more liberals against him so that, like Bubba, they are less likely to vote for him in the Democratic primaries.

The way for Republicans to keep Bredesen from winning the White House in 2008 is to convince the Left to reject him in the Democratic primaries.

The link to Bubba's post today is: http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/archive_2005_01.php#3900 Copy and paste if Bubba is still playing his juvenile game of redirecting traffic from a link from HobbsOnline to FreeRepublic.com.