I saw all four Republican senate candidates at the Davidson County Republican Party picnic in Centennial Park last weekend. Van's speech frightened me. Even the red meat Republican crowd seemed taken aback by his tone and tenor. I could not help but to think, "Thank God he lost two years ago." If we again make him a statewide nominee, we will be handing a Senate seat to whomever the Democrat's nominate.

(And no, I'm not affiliated with any of the other campaigns. I'll work hard for, and vote for whomever the Republican nominee is. Only, if it's Van, I know I'll be supporting the eventual loser--again.)

The only viable candidates I see myself supporting at this point are either Bob Corker or Beth Harwell. Van Hilleary would be my third choice, but I don't think he is electable at this point because he has kept a low profile since the Governor's race.

Ed Bryant's past association with Pat Robertson and his refusal to disavow the man's more extremist rhetoric is why I cannot support him. When I asked his campaign staff about it in '02, I didn't get a straight answer, which suggests to me there's something to hide. Robertson's rhetoric and conduct are offensive to me as a Christian and as an American, and Bryant's refusal to publicly disavow such indicates he must not have a problem with it.

Did "Evangelist" call on President Bush to disavow Bob Jones University's "extremist rhetoric?" Bush spoke there during the 2000 campaign and never, to my knowledge, spoke out against their policies. Does this make President Bush an extremist? If so, is it offensive to the "Evangelist" that none of the Republican Senate candidates, who all associate themselves with Bush, have disavowed President Bush's embrace of Bob Jones? One can only assume they don't have a problem with it. Right?

To answer the unnamed poster, indeed I said at the time that President Bush should disavow the extremist rhetoric by officials at Bob Jones University. I also think that the lefties should disavow the extremist rhetoric by officials at leftie schools, such as Harvard, UC Berkeley, etc. Neither extreme is in the mainstream.

President Bush visited BJU. He didn't work for it. Ed Bryant worked for Pat Robertson. There is a difference.

If people affiliated with BJU supported President Bush, they were signing on to HIS agenda. Ed Bryant worked for Pat Robertson, meaning he was signing on to Pat's agenda, not the other way around.

When, and in what capacity, did Ed Bryant work for Pat Robertson?

Interesting Evangelist, so if a candidate goes and speaks at a KKK rally, the Klansmen are adopting the candidate's agenda, the candidate has no responsibility huh?

Ed Bryant was involved in Pat Robertson's (thankfully) ill-fated Presidential candidacy in 1988. Given Robertson's penchant for outrageous claims, bigoted remarks and his belief that America had it coming on Sept. 11, I would hope that Ed Bryant would disavow those claims. I would also hope that his campaign staff would tell the truth about Bryant's past involvement with Robertson. When I asked them about it in '02, they didn't.

I seriously doubt any candidate would go and speak at a KKK rally. Well, maybe "Sheets" Byrd might, since he was a member of that group and has the distinction of being the only senator to vote against both Supreme Court nominees who were black.

For the most part I agree with the comments by Mr. Hobbs regarding Van Hilleary's 2002 loss, but I never once thought Hilleary came across as too "brainy and nuanced." If anything, he came across way too "aww, shucks" for most people. This was a positive when he was a member of the "People's House" from a majority Democrat district, but voters demand a more statesmanlike presence from their Governor, and especially from their U.S. Senators. Hilleary looked much too amateurish running against a well-educated, though generally cold, Phil Bredesen. If his folksy style, be it real or contrived, couldn't beat a man once thought too aloof to win statewide office I can't begin to imagine how badly he would be trounced by a good-looking, well-spoken and very likable candidate in Harold Ford, Jr. Oh, yeah, and Ford just happens to be a pretty smart fellow, too! I like Van, but Ed Bryant is a much better choice for conservatives on both style and substance- most importantly, he can and will win! Van, please drop out of the race and enjoy your new home in Murfreesboro- it won't be too long much longer now before Bart Gordon tires of being in a permanent minority and you can waltz back into a position for which you are suited and can win with ease.

I actually didn't intend to leave the impression that I thought Hilleary WAS "brainy and nuanced" during the 2002 race, but that he tried to come across that way on the Income Tax. I know what he was trying to do - be anti-income tax while not scaring off the moderate Republicans who actually think the income tax might be a good thing.

Thanks for the clarification. Not that my opinion really matters, but now I agree with you 100%! It is too bad Hilleary tried to play it too cute on the income tax in 2002, in hopes of garnering moderate GOP voters (and, more importantly, the campaign contributions of the Sundquist crowd), but he alone created that reputation for himself and it is only logical to assume he would do so again in 2006 on some other issue. It didn't work then since he earned neither enough votes or enough dollars, and won't work next year, either. On a side note, I am very new to the world of reading blogs and thoroughly enjoy yours. Keep up the great work!