It’s time to set the record straight.
U.S. Senate Republican primary candidate Bob Corker, the former mayor of Chattanooga, recently announced his plan to attend President Bush’s State of the Union Address in person. Corker was apparently invited by Rep. Zach Wamp and will sit in the visitor’s gallery using the ticket reserved for Wamp’s spouse.
Coincidentally, the State of the Union address will be delivered on Tuesday, January 31, falling on the same day that all the other primary candidates will be in Memphis for the year’s first debate, sponsored by the Main Street Journal. Bob Corker’s campaign had previously declined the MSJ’s debate invitation in late December, saying Corker had chosen instead to participate in a “candidate forum” hosted by the Associated Press, which takes place on February 9, more than a week after ours.
The Main Street Journal was in contact with the Corker campaign beginning in October and consulted with each of the campaigns in setting the date. The MSJ’s first press release about the debate was sent out on November 10, at which time the Corker campaign requested that its participation be noted as “pending.” At that time, the MSJ’s blog had not yet launched, but our release was posted on several other blogs, including Blogging for Bryant on Nov. 11 and the Van Wagon on Nov. 14. (See our timeline below for a detailed look at how all this came to pass.)
At no point during the planning of the debate did the Corker campaign, or any other campaign, suggest that the date be changed in order to avoid being set for the same day as the President’s State of the Union address. At that time, late October, the SOTU’s schedule was not known, at least not publicly.
A cursory Google News search turned up December 12 as the earliest mention that the State of the Union would be held on January 31st, but the press was still treating that date as “tentative” as late as the first week of January.
In order to verify that there was simply no way the MSJ, or any of the campaigns, could have known that the debate would be held on the same date as the President’s speech, we placed a call to the White House (several calls, actually). A member of the President’s staff eventually directed us to the office of Rep. Dennis Hastert, who, as Speaker of the House, is responsible for the President’s invitation each year. A Hastert staffer verified that there was no way we could have known about the speech at that time, and that his staff hadn’t sent out its official releases until last week.
Still, we thought, could the MSJ have anticipated that the State of the Union address would be held on January 31, 2006, via some other method?
Isn’t the President’s speech always held on the same date, or on the same day of the week, or set according to some other historical standard?
Is it always delivered on a Tuesday, or always in January, or always on the fifth week of the year?
The answer to each of those questions is no.
In fact, since 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt re-established the tradition of delivering an oral State of the Union address before members of Congress, the President’s speech has only been scheduled for Jan 31st one time (1990) until this year.
Not including 2006, the State of the Union address has only fallen on the fifth Tuesday of the year four times in 71 years, or four times in 73 speeches (to include the two years in which both the outgoing and incoming Presidents gave speeches — 1953 and 1961).
That means there was less than a 5% chance the Main Street Journal’s debate would be scheduled for the same date Congressional leaders would later choose for the President’s address.
Despite all this, Corker’s supporters have taken another opportunity to bash this publication and the people who put it together. Writing on Corker’s unofficial campaign blog, “Mr. Evans” has this to say (emphases mine):
The debate is scheduled to begin at 8:00 EST. Who at MSJ made the grievous error of scheduling this event on the same night, at about the same time, as our president’s address? This type of scheduling faux pas does not speak well of the MSJ’s organizational abilities, I must say. Maybe someone there will wheel in a T.V. on a cart or something so others may watch the speech?
First, how is it a “grievious error” or a “scheduling faux pas” to set a date that is much later chosen by another group for another event?
Second, while it is true that the debate is scheduled to begin at 8pm EST, it is not true that the debate will take place “at about the same time” as the President’s speech. The debate will conclude at 9pm EST, at which time the President’s address is set to begin. Typically, the President doesn’t take to the podium and begin his speech for several minutes after that, meaning there should be ample time for everyone to mosey over to the Mid-America Reception Hall, where audience members will watch a live broadcast of the President’s speech and later have an opportunity to mingle with the candidates and members of the media.
Of course, this isn’t the first time “Conservatives for Corker” have attempted to defame the Main Street Journal, a new conservative monthly magazine. We first noticed the trash talk coming out of C4C at the beginning of this year and responded on January 3. They have since attempted to ridicule us at least twice, most recently in their latest entry, calling our event “a poorly managed and organized debate forum.” They also posted this:
There will be time for debating issues in front of TN voters, but this is obviously not the best time (President’s Address) or the place (debate put on by one candidate’s propaganda machine) to do it.
As I’ve shown, C4C is wrong on both counts.
One, the debate will not take place during the President’s address; by bridging the two events, everyone involved will get something extra: the audience will have more access to the candidates and will join with their fellow conservatives in hearing (and cheering) the President; the candidates will have more time to influence voters and gain media attention; and the media will have ready access to candidates in order to get their reactions to both the debate and the President’s address.
But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the MSJ really didn’t do a good job scheduling this debate. Let’s say we didn’t arrive at this date after consultation with the campaigns. Let’s say it was possible for us to have known in advance that we would be picking the same date the President chose for his State of the Union address. Let’s say that we didn’t have plenty of media attention on board, as we do. Let’s say that we didn’t have a distinguished panel lined up, as we do. Let’s say it hasn’t been as heavily advertised and promoted, or that more than just one of the candidates had opted out of the debate because we were simply inadequate debate hosts. Even if all those things were flawed, would it be right or honorable for C4C to bash a group of fellow conservatives? Wouldn’t it still have been distasteful for Corker’s people to wage this sort of smear campaign against us? What kind of “conservatives” are they, after all?
Two, calling our publication “one candidate’s propaganda machine” is ludicrous, if only for the simple reason that last time C4C made a similar charge, we were somehow a propaganda machine for two candidates (Bryant and Hillary), rather than just one. Jeff Moder must really feel left out on this point, because we don’t seem to be his propaganda machine at all; but C4C may yet change their minds again, so I guess there’s still time!
To be clear, the Main Street Journal holds nothing against Bob Corker or his campaign, aside perhaps from his decision not to accept our debate invitation (as have Bryant, Hillary and Moder) or the offer we extended for him to write a feature article for the magazine (as have, to date, Bryant, Hillary and Ford, Jr.).
Why Corker refuses to support an upstart conservative publication, or why his supporters continue to bash their fellow conservatives… the answers to those questions are simply beyond my comprehension. I do not understand why a U.S. Senate Republican primary candidate would give such an enterprise the cold shoulder, or why his camp would continue to hurl unprompted insults our way. These things do nothing to endear us, or our (10,000+ and growing) subscribers, to his campaign… not to mention those West Tennessee voters who will turn out for the debate only to find Corker’s podium empty.
Why won’t Bob Corker and his supporters give the Main Street Journal, and West Tennessee, a fair shake? Why has he chosen to hobnob with Congressional spouses rather than address the voters in Memphis?
C4C has enthusiastically proclaimed Corker as the “first candidate to publicly accept debate.” They also said he’s “ready to debate,” passing along Corker’s statement that Bryant’s offer of holding a series of debates was a good starting point. Following this, C4C bashed Van Hillary in a post titled “No Debating Hillary’s Hypocrisy.”
I can only respond with three questions:
1. If it’s hypocritical to accept debates at one time and reject them at others, isn’t Corker guilty of the same crime?
2. If Corker is ready to debate his primary opponents, why not accept our offer and join the other three candidates in the first debate of the year (without using SOTU as a belated excuse)?
3. Finally, while Corker may have been the first to publicly accept a debate, isn’t he also the first to reject a debate (and where does that leave him)?
Jeff Ward, who recently came out publicly in support of Van Hillary, has some kind words for us at the TeamGOP blog. But I disagree with him that Corker stands to gain anything by alienating a conservative magazine, shunning West Tennessee voters and remaining silent while his supporters trash their fellow conservatives. I also think it would be unwise, and counter-productive, to change the date of the debate, as he suggests. If we were to change the date at this point, we would miss out on all of the added advantages I describe above (all the synergy), all the advertising would go to waste, and it would cause quite a headache for the media and for the other three campaigns, who helped us in selecting this date and would most likely have other plans and conflicts preventing us from easily moving it to another day.
Likewise, I disagree with Pensieri, who says it is Corker’s “good fortune” that the State of the Union became his excuse to skip the debate.
I think, in the long run, Bob Corker will realize that he lost an opportunity to win over a large group of voters in West Tennessee, he will regret his failure to support new, influential conservative groups such as the Main Street Journal, and he will wish the unofficial blog supporting his campaign had treated their fellow conservatives and Republicans with a little bit more respect.
A ticket to see President Bush speak in person is certainly a rare treat, and we don’t fault Corker for wanting to go. For most people, that would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But if Corker continues to campaign as he is now, this may very well be the last time he watches the SOTU from a seat in the Capitol building.
We hope he enjoys it.
