My dinner with Van Hilleary, er, Ed Bryant
I got to be a part of the bloggers bash with Ed Bryant today at the Sunset Grill (I think we are supposed to call it Nashville Area Political Bloggers group, but how do you say NAPB??).
First of all, thanks and props to Sunset Grill for allowing the bloggers to meet in a private dining room gratis, and for their always excellent food (not gratis, but reasonably priced).
Thanks also to Bill Hobbs and Sharon Cobb (who will be including a complete transcript of the luncheon tomorrow on her site) for their work setting this up.
Bryant's opening remarks began with his explaination for being late (he was barely late). He has been working with other West Tennessee Republicans to demand a recount/explaination/possible reversal in the Ophelia Ford 12-vote landslide victry over Republican John Roland. It sounds like Bryant and colleagues are putting just as much energy in demanding a re-count as his counterparts in 2000 did in stopping recounts.
One thing that surprised me, even though it certainly fits in with Bryant's conservative philosophy, is that despite what went on in Memphis (possibly the dead rose and voted according to Bryant) and the other electoral chicanery that has occurred over the years on a state and local level, Bryant does not see any need for federal standards or rules governing how local and state elections are run. He still believes that standards should be set on the local and state level.
One thing I really wanted to know: What's the diff between Bryant and Hilleary and Corker, at least according to candidate Bryant. What I found out for sure is that 'moderate' is the new 'liberal' (moderates are baaaaaaaaad). Corker, according to Bryant, is the moderate candidate while he (Bryant) and Hillary are going to duke it out for the conservative vote.
Polls indicate that the candidate of the moderate wing (are there enough of em' to be even considered a wing?) is not getting much support. Bryant's polling shows Bryant in the lead, while, believe it or not, Hilleary's polls show that Hilleary is in the lead. Both have Corker trailing in single-digit-ville.
But, why would a Republican primary voter go into the booth and select Bryant over Hilleary (or vice versa) if said voter wanted to nominate a conservative? I'm still not sure, even though Bryant did claim the 'better set of tools' for the job, based on his congressional and judicial experience. Bryant claims that he will be appointed to the Judiciary committe, if elected, which will put him in the right place to encourage the nomination and installation of 'non-activist' judges to Federal and Supreme Courts.
My impression of a non-activist judge is that he/she rules in a way that agrees with what conservatives want, but maybe that's just me.
Bryant's three big issues in the primary are: judicial appointments, immigration and traditional values. The only traditional values that came up in the luncheon were abortion and gay marriage. Not much commentary re gay marriage, but Bryant is clearly anti-abortion/pro-life. According to Bryant, abortions should be illegal (not clear what you do to the moms who get an 'illegal' abortion) because life begins at conception, but birth control pills and other birth control devices should remain legal. Considering that some pills and devices are technically abortions, I see some inconsistency there. At least he didn't break into the Monty Python number, "every sperm is sacred'.
When asked why one should err on the side of life when it comes to a fetus, but not in the case of the death penalty, Bryant responded that the fetus does not have the due process rights of the convicted criminal. Based on statistics I've seen over the last twenty years, some folks get a lot more due process than others.
Bryant's immigration stance would be onerous, but unenforceable outside of police state circumstances. All illegal aliens should be removed and sent packing, according to Bryant, who also stated that he disagrees with President Bush's recent proposals regarding immigration.
Regarding Katrina, Bryant did admit that rolling FEMA into Homeland Security was probably a mistake, and that we need to be careful with the enormous amount of money that we will be spending to repair and rebuild the coastal area, with the addenda that we need to cut spending in other areas to compensate for the massive post-Katrina cleanup expense.
Bryant supports the Bush SSN proposal while admitting the proposal is seriously stalled. He believes that private accounts will eventually become a gateway issue again and will re-surface.
Bryant is a gracious, nice-looking plain-speaking man. He was friendly and appeared to genuinely enjoy answering our questions. Even though I disagree with him profoundly politically, I trust the man on a personal level and would like to hear him explain the ramifications of his immigration policy, and what should happen to people who get abortions in a society where abortions are illegal.
I still don't know of any philosophical or political difference between Bryant and Hilleary. They are both pro-tax-cut in the midst of the whirlwind spending and I suspect their judicial temperments are identical.
If either Bryant/Hilleary is nominated, we, the voters of Tennessee will have a clear choice between the moderate, somewhat liberal Harold Ford and the deeply conservative Bryant/Hilleary.
UPDATE 9/22/05: I've been informed in an email from Jennifer Easton that Ophelia's margin of victory was 13 votes rather than 12, and that Ophelia's opponent is named Terry Roland, not John Roland. I've got to get off the John fixation.
My apologies.
First of all, thanks and props to Sunset Grill for allowing the bloggers to meet in a private dining room gratis, and for their always excellent food (not gratis, but reasonably priced).
Thanks also to Bill Hobbs and Sharon Cobb (who will be including a complete transcript of the luncheon tomorrow on her site) for their work setting this up.
Bryant's opening remarks began with his explaination for being late (he was barely late). He has been working with other West Tennessee Republicans to demand a recount/explaination/possible reversal in the Ophelia Ford 12-vote landslide victry over Republican John Roland. It sounds like Bryant and colleagues are putting just as much energy in demanding a re-count as his counterparts in 2000 did in stopping recounts.
One thing that surprised me, even though it certainly fits in with Bryant's conservative philosophy, is that despite what went on in Memphis (possibly the dead rose and voted according to Bryant) and the other electoral chicanery that has occurred over the years on a state and local level, Bryant does not see any need for federal standards or rules governing how local and state elections are run. He still believes that standards should be set on the local and state level.
One thing I really wanted to know: What's the diff between Bryant and Hilleary and Corker, at least according to candidate Bryant. What I found out for sure is that 'moderate' is the new 'liberal' (moderates are baaaaaaaaad). Corker, according to Bryant, is the moderate candidate while he (Bryant) and Hillary are going to duke it out for the conservative vote.
Polls indicate that the candidate of the moderate wing (are there enough of em' to be even considered a wing?) is not getting much support. Bryant's polling shows Bryant in the lead, while, believe it or not, Hilleary's polls show that Hilleary is in the lead. Both have Corker trailing in single-digit-ville.
But, why would a Republican primary voter go into the booth and select Bryant over Hilleary (or vice versa) if said voter wanted to nominate a conservative? I'm still not sure, even though Bryant did claim the 'better set of tools' for the job, based on his congressional and judicial experience. Bryant claims that he will be appointed to the Judiciary committe, if elected, which will put him in the right place to encourage the nomination and installation of 'non-activist' judges to Federal and Supreme Courts.
My impression of a non-activist judge is that he/she rules in a way that agrees with what conservatives want, but maybe that's just me.
Bryant's three big issues in the primary are: judicial appointments, immigration and traditional values. The only traditional values that came up in the luncheon were abortion and gay marriage. Not much commentary re gay marriage, but Bryant is clearly anti-abortion/pro-life. According to Bryant, abortions should be illegal (not clear what you do to the moms who get an 'illegal' abortion) because life begins at conception, but birth control pills and other birth control devices should remain legal. Considering that some pills and devices are technically abortions, I see some inconsistency there. At least he didn't break into the Monty Python number, "every sperm is sacred'.
When asked why one should err on the side of life when it comes to a fetus, but not in the case of the death penalty, Bryant responded that the fetus does not have the due process rights of the convicted criminal. Based on statistics I've seen over the last twenty years, some folks get a lot more due process than others.
Bryant's immigration stance would be onerous, but unenforceable outside of police state circumstances. All illegal aliens should be removed and sent packing, according to Bryant, who also stated that he disagrees with President Bush's recent proposals regarding immigration.
Regarding Katrina, Bryant did admit that rolling FEMA into Homeland Security was probably a mistake, and that we need to be careful with the enormous amount of money that we will be spending to repair and rebuild the coastal area, with the addenda that we need to cut spending in other areas to compensate for the massive post-Katrina cleanup expense.
Bryant supports the Bush SSN proposal while admitting the proposal is seriously stalled. He believes that private accounts will eventually become a gateway issue again and will re-surface.
Bryant is a gracious, nice-looking plain-speaking man. He was friendly and appeared to genuinely enjoy answering our questions. Even though I disagree with him profoundly politically, I trust the man on a personal level and would like to hear him explain the ramifications of his immigration policy, and what should happen to people who get abortions in a society where abortions are illegal.
I still don't know of any philosophical or political difference between Bryant and Hilleary. They are both pro-tax-cut in the midst of the whirlwind spending and I suspect their judicial temperments are identical.
If either Bryant/Hilleary is nominated, we, the voters of Tennessee will have a clear choice between the moderate, somewhat liberal Harold Ford and the deeply conservative Bryant/Hilleary.
UPDATE 9/22/05: I've been informed in an email from Jennifer Easton that Ophelia's margin of victory was 13 votes rather than 12, and that Ophelia's opponent is named Terry Roland, not John Roland. I've got to get off the John fixation.
My apologies.
