Black says Corker ‘should just sit back and be quiet’ in U.S. Senate campaign; Corker says ‘I guess I will’

A lengthy Politico report on the Bob Corker-Phil Bredesen-Marsha Blackburn melee includes multiple comments from Republican politicians; some on the record, some off. Among those identified is U.S. Rep. Diane Black, a candidate for governor, who deems Corker’s behavior “inappropriate” and says “he should just sit back and be quiet.” Corker says “I guess I will.”

Excerpt:

Corker’s lukewarm support for Blackburn is more than an annoyance: The center-right coalition he represents is critical to Blackburn’s prospects in the race. But Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans are generally fond of Bredesen and his past stint as the state’s governor, seeing him as a pragmatic get-things-done kind of pol, as opposed to a hard-edged conservative ideologue in Blackburn.

“He’s a person that would get things done,” Tom Cigarran, a former Corker donor and chairman of the Nashville Predators hockey team, said of Bredesen in an interview Wednesday. “Marsha Blackburn, not so much.” Cigarran, who credited Bredesen with revitalizing downtown Nashville and reforming Medicaid, is backing the former Democratic governor and said people in his social and political circles are, too — “unless they are far-right fanatics.”

There are others. Colleen Conway-Welch, the widow of prominent GOP fundraiser Ted Welch, held a fundraiser for Bredesen in February. And Autozone founder Pitt Hyde, a reliable Republican donor from Memphis, is considering supporting Bredesen, according to two GOP sources familiar with the talks. Hyde did not return a request for comment.

The drama between Blackburn and Corker, combined with Bredesen’s crossover appeal, hint at a potential train wreck for Republicans in November that could swing the narrowly divided Senate to Democrats….  Supporters argue that there’s still plenty of time for her to catch up before November and that she has backing from the vast majority of the state’s Republican officials.

But Republicans in Washington and Tennessee worry that Corker’s Bredesen-friendly comments amount to a tacit permission for pragmatic-minded GOP voters to cross the aisle. They want Corker to go to bat for Blackburn or sit out the contest entirely.

“I have no idea whether it’s gender or personality or whatever issue, but I think that it is inappropriate for him to be doing what he’s doing,” said Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican running for governor, about Corker’s comments. “If nothing else, I think he should just sit back and be quiet.”

Corker said he’d be just fine with that: “I’d be more than glad to stop talking about it. So I guess I will.”

Several Tennessee operatives said the Corker-Blackburn divide is emblematic of the party’s split between younger activist conservatives and older pragmatists. Bredesen has a chance, they said, as long as he appeals to moderate Republicans who are turned off by Blackburn’s style.

“She’s got a lot of work to do,” said Mark Braden, who ran Corker’s 2012 campaign but also supports Blackburn.

“[These] are people that want to see things get done,” said one Tennessee GOP leader who won’t support Blackburn and asked for anonymity to speak frankly. “They’d like to see more bipartisanship and they don’t view her as capable of doing that.”

Blackburn’s campaign argues that the race will hinge on Bredesen’s fealty to Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), not the party’s internal turmoil.

…The only reason Blackburn has not hit back at Corker is that it could backfire with the very people in her party that she needs to win over, this person said.

“If you’re Marsha, your inclination is to go out and blister his ass,” said the Blackburn ally. But that’s “just going to piss off all those people who are already skeptical of her.”

16 Responses to Black says Corker ‘should just sit back and be quiet’ in U.S. Senate campaign; Corker says ‘I guess I will’

  • James White says:

    The ONLY good thing about Marsha Blackburn running for Senate is that she may be out campaigning and will miss many votes. So she will not vote for More Omnibus spending bills or more Debt Limit Increases or more Stimulus packages.
    Of course if she quits voting, then she may turn out to be more conservative…. win-win !

  • William Upton says:

    I agree with Marsha on this one. Shut up Corker! Just fade away quietly.

  • Leslie Parsley says:

    Marsha must be feeling the heat. I say turn up the temperature.

  • Stuart I. Anderson says:

    Give the Democrats control of government and there’s no question they will get things done. Open borders in order to “fundamentally transform” our society, more regulations, higher taxes as part of income redistribution, capitulation to our enemies abroad – so much to do so little time. To compare Bredesen as mayor whose job was mostly ministerial i.e. “making the trains run on time” and governor when faced with a conservative legislature with how he can be expected to vote as a member if a far left Democratic Party shows that you can have/inherit loads of money without having any vestige of common sense.

    These are the people who control the Republican Party and have made it into centrist feckless “nothingness” it is today. They may have the money, but it’s time for conservatives to show them that they don’t have the votes

  • Eddie White says:

    It will be hard for Corker to stop talking since that is what he does best.

  • Steve L. says:

    Republicans are their own worst enemies. They have no identity beyond their own wallets. I am a Conservative and ultimately we will win.

  • Tab says:

    It is high time someone said “on the record” what many GOP activists have been saying privately. Black is correct. And anyone who believes that Bredesen will be anything less than a Schumer sycophant is not too familiar with how the Senate Dem caucus works during this era of “The Resistance”. He is not the Chief Executive of a state or corporation but would be a mere freshman Senator already indebted to Soros-funded 501(c)(3)s, other radical left wing PACs, Joe Biden, & that ilk. “[A] pragmatic, get-things-done kind of pol” indeed!

  • David Collins says:

    AMAZING! This group of republicans who claim to be “constitutionalist’s” [whatever the hell that is supposed to be] want to step on Bob Corker’s First Amendment rights to speak his mind on current events or upcoming elections. The biggest irony of all is it coming from Black. She does not have one-tenth of the experience or intellect of Bob Corker, yet she’s giving orders? Things might not be as bleak for the democrats as I once thought.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Perhaps I can help David. A “constitutionalist” is someone who believes that this country has a written constitution containing words in the English language that have meaning. The meaning can be derived from the words themselves as well as from the legislative history and the ratification debates. Once the meaning is discerned, a constitutionalist believes the provisions of the constitution should be enforced by judges as per their oath of office no matter what their own policy preferences.

      On the other hand, constitutionalists are opposed by those on the left who look upon the constitution as helpful when it can be used to impose their policies on others, but it can just as easily be simply ignored through judicial “updates” when it stands in the way of imposing those policies. It’s pretty much a contest between those who love individual liberty and regard government as a necessary evil restrained by the constitution and those with an authoritarian mindset who love government power as a means of imposing their will on others.

      • Bob Fischer says:

        It doesn’t sound to me like you even understand the purpose of a constitution. It defines the government and its goals and purpose. Government in and of itself, is only as good or evil as the people that would twist its purpose to their own benefit. As defined by our constitution, our government is morally neutral, its primary purpose to act in the general welfare of the citizens notwithstanding.

        • Bob Fischer says:

          And the idea that the constitution is some sort of set of rules in a contest between liberals and conservatives is simply ludicrous. Had the founders intended for our central government to be a weak institution without the power to steer federal policy, they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation and taken their chances.

          • Stuart I. Anderson says:

            David Collins raised the question as to what a “constitutionalist” was and I attempted to answer his question rather than give him a summary of Constitutional Law 101. The question hones in on the conflict that is and has been at the very core of the conflicts concerning the constitution since it was sent to the states for ratification in 1787. Whether or not you choose to recognize the existence of that conflict or its necessity for existence has absolutely no bearing on the reality of its existence.

            Between the Articles under which Congress lacked authority to impose taxes to cover national expenses, and the federal government had no independent executive or judiciary and absolute monarchy is the area where the framers wanted to create the federal government. They did so by establishing adopting a constitution which when you get down to it is simply set of rules describing the powers, procedures, and institutions of the federal government. Throughout the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification process it was obvious that our founders were very concerned with the power of federal government so federal power was limited to enumerated powers. Soon it became obvious that the hostility to federal power was such that the constitution would not have been ratified without the addition of a Bill of Rights placing further limitations on the federal government ending in the Tenth Amendment specifically reserving for the states and the people powers ‘. . .not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” It is the liberals’ annoyance with the limitations on the federal government by our constitution that constitutes the conflict that you feel doesn’t or shouldn’t exist.

      • Bob Fischer says:

        “It is the liberals’ annoyance with the limitations on the federal government by our constitution that constitutes the conflict that you feel doesn’t or shouldn’t exist.”

        Actually, it is the absolute dereliction of Republicans of their constitutional duties that annoy liberals. Rather than having legitimate debate over what is and isn’t general welfare today as opposed to 1787, Republicans have simply ignored their constitutional mandates to fund the post office and roads, arts and sciences, appoint judges, regulate trade and commerce and tax the wealth of the nation in and equitable manner. The tenth amendment argument is great for simpletons who forget that its primary purpose was to placate slave states and allow states to regulate arms and militias to avoid the high cost of maintaining a standing military, but the reality is that the commerce clause gives the fed jurisdiction over what most on the far right claim are rights of the state. There is very little in way of Supreme Court decisions to support any of the far right’s claims, and in fact, commerce rulings supersede most 10th amendment arguments.

        The conflicts of philosophy come not from hostility generated from differences outlined and defined by the constitution, but rather by whether business interests supersede the general welfare of the population and individual rights of people. The attempted highjacking of our constitutional definitions by the Norquists, Kochs and corporate powers to provide civil rights to corporations and apply money as free speech is where the modern conflict comes from.

        It’s the irony of the highjacking of the word, constitutionalist. It’s Orwellian, really.

  • Tommy Ray McAnally says:

    BLACK IS INAPPROPRIATE! BLACK DON’T FORGEG YOU THREW THE RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL under the BUS WITH YOUR VOTING TO MAKE RETIRED MILITART TO PAY FOR PRESCRIPTIONS. BLACK WHAT ARE YOU PAYING FOR YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS? By the WAY THANK YOU RETIRED MILITARY FOR YOUR SERVICE THAT IS WHAT DIANE BLACK SAID WITH HER VOTE ON RETIRED MILITARY PRESCRIPTIONS. GO PARSLEY GO. Folks you know how you can tell when BLACK IS LYING I THINK It’s WHEN HER LIPS ARE MOVING. People BLACK IS ALL SMOKE IF YOU VOTE FOR HER THEN YOU HAVE THE SAME REPUTATION. BY THE WAY BLACKBURN,COOPER,ALEXANDER AND DAJARIA VOTED WITH BLACK AGAINST THE RETIRED MILITARY. ALSO JUDD MATHENY,BETH HARWELL,JOHN RAGAN,RON RAMSEY,MCCORMICK AND GOOD O BILL YOU CAN BUY LIQUOR ON SUNDAY HASLAM AND MANY MORE THREW ALL VETERANS UNDER THE BUS WITH THEIR VETERANS PREFERENCE PASSOVER LETTER. THANK YOU LOSERS.

  • Donna Locke says:

    Well, Bredesen is great at corporate welfare and transferring taxpayer dollars to selected and unaccountable “business” black holes. And don’t forget his “driving certificates”/gateway documents for illegal aliens.

  • James Calloway says:

    ‘and said people in his social and political circles are, too ‘ – same logic that convinced the business class Clinton and Tramel would win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *