Mark Brown Leaves Ward Cammack

36 Responses to “Mark Brown Leaves Ward Cammack”

1. Ft. Campbell Dem writes
   June 22nd, 2009 2:48 pm

   Cammack still doesn’t stand a chance.

2. Tyler Durden writes
   June 22nd, 2009 3:05 pm

   Yeah, right, Ft. Campbell. The MILLIONAIRE businessman doesn’t have a chance of breaking through a crowd of broke Democratic candidates in a low-turnout primary. We’ll see.

3. Ft. Campbell Dem writes
   June 22nd, 2009 3:22 pm

   In 2006 the Millionare businessmen in the 1st district GOP Primary finished third. Besides, if Cammack ever becomes a threat to the other candidates, I’m sure they will just remind the voters of his GOP past.

4. Ben writes
   June 22nd, 2009 3:33 pm

   At this rate, will there be any campaigns left by Election Day? Seems like they’re dropping like flies.

5. Ft. Campbell Dem writes
   June 22nd, 2009 3:35 pm

   I guess it happens in a culture where you have to begin campaigning as much as two years out.

6. Ben writes
   June 22nd, 2009 3:49 pm

   Good point, FCD. Seems like we’ve had one train wreck after another, though. No wonder Kyle doesn’t want to get in.

7. TennRod writes
   June 22nd, 2009 4:43 pm

   I look for McMillan to be out next, then Herron. This will boil down to McWherter vs. Cammack, and McWherter will win.

   Please remember, you heard it here first.

8. Heyron writes
   June 22nd, 2009 5:32 pm

   You’re a know-nothing blogger. It will be Herron v. McWherter. It will be bloody.

   You heard it here.

9. Clayton Farlow writes
   June 22nd, 2009 5:48 pm

   So much jockeying for something so meaningless. I’ve never seen so many so eager to be a sacrificial lamb.

10. JaStep writes
    June 22nd, 2009 6:48 pm

    The rich candidate in Virginia (McAuliffe) came in third, and he was a political veteran. Where does this move today leave a novice like Cammack?

    The campaign finance disclosure deadline at the end of the month is judgment day for Cammack, Herron, and McMillan. Cammack lost his political brain. Herron got beaten up for supporting guns in bars and flip flopping on a labor vote and not being completely upfront about it. McMillan hasn’t gotten any traction in over a year of campaigning. If they don’t put big fundraising numbers up, they lose all credibility.

    I can’t say the same about McWherter because he doesn’t feel like he has really gotten into the race yet. And Kyle HASN’T gotten into the race.

    I think Ft. Campbell Dem has a point, too. If Cammack does put up a credible fundraising number, his opponents will start beating him up for his Republican past.

11. Chris writes
    June 22nd, 2009 6:57 pm

    I heart cammack. he is the only person out there talking to democrats about important issues and job creation. So what if he used to be a republican? He’s a smart businessman who also believes in all of the progressive ideals I care about.

    Mark Brown drove our party into the ground. He can go suck an egg.

12. JaStep writes
    June 22nd, 2009 7:12 pm

    Mark Brown isn’t Cammack’s problem. Roy Herron, Mike McWherter, Jim Kyle, and Kim McMillan are his problem. They will beat him up as being a Republican in disguise if they think he is credible.

    And Cammack had better have enough sense not to follow your line of attack, Chris, and argue that these people “drove our party into the ground.” Like them or not, Herron, McWherter, Kyle, and McMillan are part of the Democratic family. A newbie like Cammack won’t get anything but rejection out of attacking them.

    Fairly or not, it’s a serious problem for Cammack. I’ve seen people attack him on the blogs for voting for Bush in ‘04 and Corker in ‘06. I have to admit that I don’t know if he did or not. When did he switch parties?

13. Ben writes
    June 22nd, 2009 9:43 pm

    It’s too bad because Cammack seemed to be doing a good job of getting his message out. Makes me wonder what will happen now that his communication strategist quit. Makes me wonder why the strategist quit, too.

    I definitely agree that Cammack can’t attack any of his primary opponents given his Republican background. Democrats will turn on him in a heartbeat.

14. Donna Locke writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:01 pm

    Cammack, why can’t you run as an independent? That would be attractive.

15. TennRod writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:05 pm

    Yes, Donna, I guess that would be attractive to you and every other Republican in the state.

    Heyron, your candidate is fading fast. Talk about knowing nothing. You take the cake.

16. Donna Locke writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:08 pm

    No, I’m serious. I said if I didn’t vote for a Republican, I’d go for Cammack. And maybe even instead of. Depending.

17. Ben writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:14 pm

    Running as an independent would be too difficult. No party money. Don’t forget about the RGA and DGA. No state parties running voter turnout programs. And you’re writing off the party’s contributor bases since their are credible candidates from both parties.Now that I think about it, I’m not even sure an independent could get campaign staff for this race.

    Just can’t be done.

18. Berger writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:21 pm

    Well, this all assumes that he really quit, doesn’t it? We’ve heard nothing from the campaign. Time will tell if this affects getting Cammack’s message out.

    Ben brings up a good point, indirectly- why is politics the only area where it is so completely taboo to change your mind? OK, there’s religion too I suppose…

19. Donna Locke writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:25 pm

    When it comes to choice of representation, I never like to hear something can’t be done. I wish someone would try it. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. I never voted for Reagan.

20. TennRod writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:26 pm

    There is much to be said for the two-party system. It is responsible for the relative stability of the United States, and because of that, we have the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Third parties are almost always based on some sort of personality cult, and independents are almost always running that way only because they have failed to succeed within one of the two parties, within a structure that has succeeded over the decades, within a broad but definable world view, within a system of activists and professionals. So independents almost always fail. Because independent candidates are already failures in some way. And who wants a failure in office.

    Oh, sure. Sometimes people get elected and that wind up failing in some way. (SEE: Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush.) But we enjoy a strong country, a robust political system, a dynamic economy even in hard times like now, and a vigorous competition for the support of the electorate — and this is due in large measure to a two-party system. The other factor that lends stability to America’s political stability is fixed terms.

    The two-party system and fixed terms of office. I wouldn’t trade that for any European parliamentary system. Ben is right: third parties and independent candidacies are dead end avenues ending in failure and, most often, humiliation.

21. Ben writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:47 pm

    You completely lost me, Berger. Do you think Brown didn’t actually quit and is coming back to the campaign? That makes no sense, but it is politics.

    I don’t see any way this isn’t a blow to Cammack. I think all objective observers would agree the campaign has been doing a good job with communication, maybe the best in the Democratic field so far. That, in itself, would seem to be an argument against Cammack letting Brown go, if that’s what you mean.

    On the other, candidates can switch parties, but they then have to prove themselves to the new party. That usually takes a while. Remember, Reagan didn’t leave the Democrats and immediately run for president as a Republican. From what I’ve read, Arlen Specter is in big trouble in Pennsylvania. Doesn’t he have a Democratic Primary opponent?

22. grover leland writes
    June 22nd, 2009 10:52 pm

    So much wisdom, so little victory.

23. Ben writes
    June 22nd, 2009 11:11 pm

    I agree, Grover. Cammack seems like a very intelligent person, but all of the candidates on the Democratic side are intelligent.

24. Dead Man Walking writes
    June 23rd, 2009 12:16 am

    A few questions for Tyler Durden.

    1. What makes you think the Democratic candidates will be broke?

    2. Primaries are lower turnout than general elections, but their turnout is made up of PARTY ACTIVISTS. Why would Democratic Party activists vote for a Republican (Ward Cammack)?

    3. How much money does Cammack have to spend on a campaign?

25. JaStep writes
    June 23rd, 2009 1:46 am

    Did someone actually write that “only time will tell if this affects Cammack getting his message out”?

    Uh, hello, he has no communication person. A campaign with no communication person is . . . Uh, well, a dead campaign. Every political junkie knows that.

    As for Cammack’s Republican past, Braisted pointed out that Brown was Cammack’s lone tie to the Tennessee Democratic Party. Now he has none.

    It’s really too bad because Cammack was doing fairly well, but his campaign is now dead.

26. Albert writes
    June 23rd, 2009 5:38 am

    JaStep, any Tennessee gubernatorial 2010 campaign that has a communications person now is, uh, well, a campaign wasting its money. Every political professional knows that.

    Ward Cammack will be out of the race before he files his campaign finance disclosure July 15. That disclosure will show (a) he attracted no interest from donors and (b) he has spent a foolish amount of his own money for, literally, nothing.

27. Ben writes
    June 23rd, 2009 8:40 am

    I disagree with your first paragraph, Albert. The Republican campaigns are all out there firing away in the media. If the Democrats don’t follow suit, they will sink into irrelevancy. That’s especially true for a candidate with no name recognition, like Cammack.

    Campaigns start much earlier now than they did in the past. The Democrats ignore that at their own peril. It looked like Cammack understood that. Maybe not.

    I don’t know what Cammack’s disclosure will show, but it seems like he’s sinking fast.

28. Louie Jones writes
    June 23rd, 2009 9:04 am

    I heard tell Mark Brown was askin’ for TWO paychecks from Ward Cammack — one for Mark Brown himself, and the other for Mark Brown’s fedora.

29. Trace writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:11 am

    I’m not sure what twitter or facebook you all are following BUT there have been plenty of updates from the Cammack camp since Brown’s departure. Check your facts before you start bashing any one candidate.

30. Ben writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:22 am

    Geez, Trace, don’t get so defensive. You’ll make everyone think you work for the Cammack campaign. This is a blog. People make comments. That’s the way it works.

    I’m not particularly wanting to bash on any candidate. In fact, I thought Cammack was doing a good job of messaging. Now all we get is a tweet here and there saying he’s going to an event. In my view, the activity level of that campaign has noticeably dropped off. I’d venture to say that I’m not the only person that has noticed.

31. Berger writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:33 am

    Ja Step- I was the one who actually said “only time will tell if this affects Cammack getting his message out”? Meaning that the position would probably be filled, the question is how fast and how well.

32. common sense writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:34 am

    Ward Cammack sinking? OK, that’s funny.

    Cammack has more principle and conviction in his pinky than the GOP candidates have combined. He didn’t leave the GOP. The GOP left him. And as he’s said repeatedly, he recognizes that we need to make strategic investments to make the state sustainable for the long-term.

    The thing about Brown (who’s gonna be just fine) is that he was more focused on what Cammack stood AGAINST than what he stood for. Cammack is a different kind of candidate and he’s running a different kind of campaign. He’s not interested in playing partisan parlor games. He’s interested in leaving the state in better shape for his 5 daughters. He knows how to invest, he predicted the credit/real estate crisis 10 years before it happened, he knows how to run a business, and he knows how to promote the common good.

33. Ben writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:48 am

    That may all be true, common sense, but the Republican candidates aren’t Cammack’s problem. He has to win a Democratic Primary against, as another commentor said, four old time members of the Democratic Party family. Candidates with connections to the Democratic Party. Candidates that have helped other candidates get elected. Also, as another commentor pointed out, Cammack has now lost his only tie to the Democratic Party establishment. How many Democrats did that turn off? There will be some.

    You haven’t offered any arguments that will convince Democrats to vote for a candidate that just left the Republican Party over four other candidates that have been Democrats for years.

    Just so I’m clear, I’m not trying to bash on Cammack or Brown. It just looks to me that a long-shot campaign - but one that had shown some signs of promise - just took a fatal blow.

34. Berger writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:54 am

    Good points Ben. All I’m saying is that I don’t think Brown was indispensible and it’s too early to declare a fatal blow. People come and go at campaigns all the time. There’s a lot of good comm. director talent out there with dem creds.

35. Ben writes
    June 23rd, 2009 11:57 am

    Sorry, Berger, my comments were meant for common sense.

    True on the comm. director position. It does hurt Cammack, who is unknown, inexperienced, and a recent convert to the Democratic Party, more than the other candidates.

    The real test is the upcoming campaign finance disclosure.

36. Berger writes
    June 23rd, 2009 1:05 pm

    Agreed. How much is he willing to invest on his own, and how much rank-and-file dem support has he earned thus far. I’m betting that come disclosure time, the other won’t have fared much better, and some worse.