A politician taking money that is ethically questionable?

I’m SHOCKED.

[/sarcasm]

Five bucks says that money will never be returned.

By Evan Erwin on 07.17.06 1:09 pm

Terry –

Your obtuseness amazes me. Doesn’t surprise me, but amazes me just the same.

I will certainly answer your question….after you actually answer mine.

By Roger Abramson on 07.17.06 1:41 pm

Evan-

I can’t bet with you because I know you are right. It will never be returned.

And Roger, I’ve answered your question. I said that anyone who claims to be pro-life should return Boehm’s money, and that includes our President.

And what’s so “obtuse” about what I’ve said here? I guess accusing me of being dim-witted is the last resort of a man who can’t answer the question.

Just say that there are no standards regarding the money you’d accept and be done with it. Why hold back?

By Terry on 07.17.06 3:04 pm

(Thoughts off the cuff)
What is it, exactly, that the problem is with accepting Boehm’s money anyway? You haven’t really explained that (although to be fair, I don’t know that anyone has asked).

If the problem is that accepting Boehm’s money is a signal that Corker himself is not sufficiently pro-life, then the money isn’t the problem, it is merely your diagnosing tool.

Let’s assume for the moment that this is the case. Let’s assume that your critique here is that Corker, whose pro-life credentials are apparently in doubt, is revealing his true colors by refusing to return Boehm’s money. Is that a credible position? Maybe, as we’ll see.

As we all know, Corker is trying to convince the voters that he is in fact pro-life. If he could garner cheap political points by returning a meager $2,000, don’t you think he would (especially given how venal you consider the man to be)? He’d be all but buying votes, just by taking some meaningless stand. After all, accepting or rejecting the money will not affect his ability to later protect life or expand abortion rights, whichever he then decides to do. (And I am sure he could easily smooth everything over with Boehm, who would surely understand the position Corker is in.)

Given that, I see three possibilities: a) Corker is in desperate need of campaign cash; b) he is a disaster of a politician; or c) he is not inclined to engage in cheap political ploys.

It cannot be the first option, because Boehm and Corker surely could funnel the money so as to obviate the connection between the two – indeed, this is what they’d do if they really wanted to Corker to pull the wool over the state’s eyes.

I don’t know enough about Corker to know how sophisticated he is as a politician.

In this third avenue, however, Corker knows he is pro-life, he has made clear to Boehm that he is pro-life, and Boehm has decided that, nonetheless, he supports Corker either because he thinks that Corker would generally be an intelligent, able law-maker (even if they disagree on this issue) or because Boehm finds issues other than abortion more important for this election.

So, the way I see it, you’ve got to accuse him of penury, of imbecility, or of integrity. The first is not a likely choice, as noted. You’d have to do some serious legwork to make a case for the second, and I don’t know that it is a condemnation at all anyway that Corker is not a seasoned, wily politician. And the third, surely, is flattery.

By Tennessean on 07.17.06 5:38 pm

Tennessean–you’re very well versed and I’m glad you take the time to write on my site. It’s an honor, and I mean that.

However, the third avenue could branch two ways. One is the way you suggest, that Boehm is supporting Corker knowing that Corker has changed his views. But you failed to see the common tool of the “election time conversion” candidate–and that is, the ole’ wink and a nod.

That is, the politician who says to his buddies “let me just get through this and then I’ll take care of you. I’ve got to keep the hayseeds happy…”

This is Corker and the gang. They are not ideological conservatives. They aren’t ideological anything. Corker, for his supporters, is a tool. He will never be a Reagan, a Thatcher, a Churchill. He couldn’t if he tried. Great leaders really and truly believe something in their hearts.

And timing, chance, or fate–whatever you want to call it–provides a moment where they put those beliefs forward in times of uncertainty.

I’ve called on Corker to give the money back because he has repeatedly stated that he is “the most pro-life candidate in the race.”

That’s a pretty bold statement.

We can get into examining the details of motives, etc. But when you boil the cabbage down, there’s a reason pro-life groups like Tennessee Right to Life are endorsing Ed Bryant and why social moderates are supporting Corker.

Whether we agree or not on the issue of abortion, the reality is, the base of the Republican Party is anti-abortion. Corker’s claims to be the “most pro-life” candidate in the race don’t hold water, in light of many spots on his record—including not only the accepting of money from Boehm, but the use of Boehm’s name as a fund raising draw.

By Terry on 07.17.06 8:30 pm

I appreciate the comments and the extensive responses.

I don’t know enough about Corker to know whether he is an “ideological conservative,” although these days it is never clear whether ideological conservative means limited-government or extensive-federal-government, but that is a nomenclature exercise for another day.

That said, it seems to me that what this comes down to is not an indictment of Corker for being pro-life, but rather an indictment of Corker (at least on this evidence alone) for being a very poor politician. If he was truly pro-choice and was just hiding under a pro-life veneer, he could get the money from the doctor laundered several times over (or at least not so brazenly direct).

Since I don’t think you are buying my argument that Corker may be so principled that he realizes he can be pro-life even if someone who agrees with him on other issues is not, I think we are left with the competency charge.

As I said earlier, this is a charge I’m not educated to answer.

(But this competency charge does leave intact the claim that a pro-life politician need not per se return contributions from abortion professional. Both the doctor and the above-mentioned Duke have interests other than the limited spheres we’ve assigned them, and they may make contributions based upon those other interests, contributions which do not bind the recipients to turn their abortion/race positions into law.)

(PS – I try very hard to limit my comments to a very specific issue. Although I may or may not have stances on other issues, such as the broader issues of gay marriage or the right-to-life, I ignore those in writing these positions on press fidelity, political scheming, etc.)

By Tennessean on 07.17.06 9:09 pm

Tennessean-you may limit”comments to a specific issue”, but you try to cleverly sidestep the specific issue, by re-framinf the question. Terry attempts to stay on the issue pointing out to you “the common tool of the ‘election time conversion’” You try to sidestep the “very specific issue” by dismissively referring to “ideological conservative” as if it were the specific issue, and then go on to merely restate your point, which Terry had refuted.

By George Rand on 07.18.06 9:38 am

George: Please read more carefully!

I am not “cleverly” trying to sidestep any issue, casual aspersions notwithstanding — I am trying to discuss the issues that interest me brought to the fore by Ms. Frank’s posts.

Indeed, it is the “the common tool of the ‘election time conversion’” you claim I was avoiding that was the center of my discussion — my claim being that this theory does not, alone, hold sufficient explanatory power to address Corker’s decision not to return the contribution. To be believable here, it has to be combined with an assertion that Corker is not very good at the game of politics. (And so on …)

(I’m also not sure why you believe that “ideological conservative” is the issue I’ve elected to focus on — as I explicitly said, that is for another day! I think you’ve misunderstood the entire course of the discussion.)

By Tennessean on 07.18.06 10:05 am

I do read more carefully; that is why I am not diverted by your sophistry and point it out to those who don’t.

You should read more carefully-I didn’t say you were focusing on “ideological conservative”- I said “you try to sidestep the ‘very specific issue’”.(Although I suspect you did read it carefully and this is more rhetorical sleight of hand.)

By George Rand on 07.18.06 11:48 am

So what. You and your husband have accepted money from your parents who are on other sides of the political spectrum. I doubt seriously that you would ever give it back. There are more important issues regarding the Republican Party than Abortion. The Abortion issue is created by people such as yourself who need a cause to fight for, yet has absolutely nothing to do with Political Conservatism. If you call the Corkers ” Davidians”, I am extremely interested in the label to be associated with the Franks.
Gary Coleman jr.

By Gary on 07.18.06 12:33 pm

Mssr. Rand: Your “exposé” is a fantastic game.

In the interests of clarity (sophist?! How quaint!), let me attempt to outline the discussion. As the error is apparently mine, please let me know where I have gone false.

1. Terry Frank – Corker should return the cash from Boehm. Accepting the money reveals that Corker is venal and that Corker is not truly pro-life. Warning Tennessee voters: accepting this money shows that Corker is baiting-and-switching!

2. Tennessean – But if Corker were truly money-grubbing, he would not act as he has; instead, he would funnel the money to hide the trail knowing the high political cost of accepting the money.

Likewise, if he were truly a conniving abortion supporter, he would either hide the trail or, the risk being too great for a mere $2,000, he would refuse the money.

Instead, if he is a truly principled politician, he may accept the money knowing that, while he is pro-life, there may be other issues Boehm supports him on. Here, Corker has decided not to worry about cheap and meaningless points, but instead to campaign as honestly as he can and then, later, to legislate as well as he can.

Accordingly, by accepting the money, Corker is not signaling either that he is pro-choice or that he is venal. Instead, he is signaling either that he is not very good at the game of politics or that he is a principled man.

Certainly, I never did “cleverly sidestep the specific issue” — indeed, the main thrust of every word I put on here was to respond to the claim of what accepting the money meant.

My postscript, which seems to have disturbed you, is merely to point out that for purposes of determining what is or is not going on with Mr. Corker accepting this cash (or determining what is or is not going on with the press’s reporting on the American political landscape), it does not matter whether I personally am pro-life or pro-choice (or, correspondingly, how I might vote in November).

By Tennessean on 07.18.06 1:46 pm

Bob is pulling the wool over the eyes of all those who don’t know him well. He has “re-invented” himself for this campaign. He is no longer a libertarian, aka Bob the baby killer Corker, he’s now James Dobson and Pat Robertson rolled into one.

By Richard on 07.22.06 2:51 am

Tennessean–there is another option in point 2, i.e. he can’t “hide” the money without offending the Doctor. You forget that Dr. Boehm is obviously a man of great ego, and that he has appeared on a host committee.

And to Gary: You’re statements are ridiculous. I didn’t call Corker supporters “Davidians,” I called the three gentlemen Abramson, Moore, and Mr. Evans Davidians because they defend Corker, no matter what. There is a difference though you try to paint with a broad brush.

And there are more issues than abortion in the conservative movement. I’ve never stated that there weren’t. But if you want to live in the land of Naive and fool yourself into believing that it’s not a major issue for the GOP, then keep on trucking.

The truth is Mr. Coleman, that you’re pro-choice and you personally don’t believe it’s an issue. That’s fine by me, but to pretend like it’s a diversionary issue, well, you’ve obviously allowed your personal dislike for me to cloud your view of reality.

By Terry on 07.22.06 9:07 pm