On what was otherwise a dismal 2006 election night for Republicans, one GOP senatorial candidate won a competitive race against a well-known and savvy Democratic opponent who tried to run to the center in a red state. Bob Corker, the only GOP freshman senator, did what George Allen, Conrad Burns, and Mike DeWine did not — win in a state that once was considered a safe bet for Republicans. He first won a tough three-way primary with 48 percent of the vote, defeating Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary, each popular with social conservatives and local tax-reform advocates. He then went on to beat Harold Ford Jr. by 50,000 votes (51-48 percent) in November. What does Bob Corker know that Republicans should keep in mind as they look ahead to House, Senate, and presidential races in 2008?

For starters, the Corker campaign knew Tennessee voters were not pleased with the job Washington politicians had been doing. This was a year, as his fellow Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander points out, in which “the voters were unhappy with the conduct of the war and of Washington in general.” Corker’s picturesque campaign ads highlighted his years of experience, all outside of Washington, in contrast to the years Harold Ford Jr. spent doing what most Washington politicians do — talking. Senator Alexander confirms that the campaign’s “from Tennessee not D.C.” tagline resonated with voters and that Corker was seen as having “plenty of experience but not Washington experience.” Corker made use of his impressive resume as founder of a construction company and the nonprofit foundation Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprises, and as state commissioner of finance and administration and mayor of Chattanooga. Tennessee State Republican Party Chairman Bob Davis agrees that Tennessee voters were attracted to someone who “had a family and met a payroll” and was not a Washington insider. Corker also kept in mind that not all voters are Republicans. Unlike the deep south, Tennessee has been extremely competitive between the two parties. Not too long ago Senators Gore and Sasser, both Democrats, represented the state. Although Corker prevailed in 2006, so did the Democrat incumbent Governor Phil Bredesen. Politicians from both parties understand that if you want to win Tennessee you need independent voters. Corker did capture a majority of the independents, something congressional Republicans across the country failed to do in 2006. According to Davis, his record of “bringing people together” as a local and state government official and businessman resonated with these voters. Corker agrees that his experience as mayor, state finance commissioner, and businessman appealed to independents and helped shift the race away from a national referendum on Republicans to a “Tennessee race.” This was essential in a year in which only 36 percent of his state’s voters believed the country was “on the right track”

When running a tough campaign, it of course never hurts to have a telegenic family. His campaign ads, which featured his wife and his teenage daughters (who plainly enjoyed getting the best of him), were a hit with less ideologically minded voters. Corker explained that the ads were shot early in the race but went unused until late in the campaign when they realized that many voters, especially independents, did not have a good sense of him personally. (The ads were so effective that Ford felt compelled to run his own ads showing pictures in the background of his nephews and nieces, since he does have any children of his own.) In short, he espoused conservative values without a “polarizing” demeanor or red-hot rhetoric.

Corker’s win also carries another lesson: Being a good Republican and a good loser can pay off. Corker lost a tough Senate primary in 1994 to Bill Frist but then campaigned for him in the general election. Corker says, “I’ve been in sports all my life and I understand when the game is over you shake hands.” Politicians remember the morning after the primary when Corker appeared at the Frist campaign office, knocked on the door to be let in, and asked what he could do to help win the general election. Corker campaigned not only for Frist that year but also for many state and local candidates. Again in 1996 he raised money for and supported Senator Fred Thompson’s candidacy. What did he gain from the 1994 loss, aside from making some political friends? “Maturity,” according to Davis. Corker agrees, saying that whereas in 1994 he was a “business guy and had started a nonprofit,” but it was his years as mayor and finance commissioner that gave him a “frame of reference vastly different” from his private-sector experience. Corker credits his experience as finance commissioner, which he describes as the COO of Tennessee, for his familiarity with Medicaid reform and nearly every other issue he would face during the 2006 campaign.

Corker also recognized that his future constituents were still conservative, but that it would not be enough, in the words of Senator Alexander, “to go around repeating the same things from 20 years ago.” Corker realized that voters didn’t want just platitudes, but wanted to see conservative principles translated into real solutions. Rather than simply tout “equal opportunity,” “merit pay,” and “educational excellence,” Corker could point to his success as mayor of Chattanooga working with the favorite conservative bogeyman, the NEA, to enact bonuses for teachers who worked in low-income areas.

Corker also successfully navigated the transition from pro-choice to pro-life. In 1994 when asked about abortion he indicated he was “personally pro-life” but that abortion was “not a government issue.” He candidly admits that in 1994 it was not “something he spent a lot of time delving into” and approached the issue as one of government intervention in adult decisions. Rather than point to any particular epiphany which changed his views, he effectively described a gradual shift in views based on his life experience. During the 2006 Senate campaign he was quoted as saying: “I’ve raised two beautiful daughters and I’m also in a different place spiritually. I’m a little older and anybody who has seen me on the campaign trail understands that there is no question that I am a pro-life candidate.” Aided by the campaign efforts of his defeated primary opponents who were strongly pro-life, Corker was able to satisfy the concerns of social conservatives. Today he repeats that, over time, he has “come to see this as an issue of innocent life.” Only two months on the job, Corker faces the challenges of most freshmen–moving into permanent offices, hiring staff, gaining committee assignments, and becoming a “student of the Senate.” He has already traveled to Iraq and devoted considerable time to briefings by the joint chiefs of staff and Secretaries Gates and Rice. He credits his past experience with helping him to grasp complex organizations and projects, seeing how specific policies will manifest themselves. He values his state government experience, which he says taught him to “bore in on issues” and keep in mind that “legislation must actually work on the ground.” He says he tries to avoid “red meat” rhetoric, which he finds largely unhelpful.

He already faces criticism from some fiscal conservatives. Displeased with Corker’s vote on the minimum-wage bill, Ben Cunningham of Tennessee Tax Revolt says that “the jury is still definitely out” as to whether Corker will be a strong fiscal conservative, but says, “I certainly hope he will dispel those doubts and be a strong advocate for taxpayers.” Corker does not intend to disappoint his supporters among economic conservatives. Although he voted for the minimum-wage increase, he did so only after Senate amendments were added to give tax breaks to small businesses. He reiterates that reducing the national debt, attacking earmarks, and instilling spending discipline are top priorities. What does Bob Corker bring to the Senate? Senator Alexander describes it as a “real outside Washington skepticism.” Rhetorical fireworks, three-day work weeks, and “nonbinding resolutions” may be the craze in D.C., but they are a far cry from Corker’s style. He decries the Washington “herd” mentality, which sends politicians running to climb on the most popular bandwagon or to sign on to the latest legislative amendment with little analysis. Clearly he sees the advantage in “constantly digging in and understanding” the details of issues like renewable energy and healthcare. He appears bent on learning difficult issues and coming up with real solutions. He is well aware, says Womack, that in Washington, D.C., it is all too easy to “get up Monday, blink and it’s Friday and you haven’t accomplished anything.”

Before they get to Washington (or can remain in Washington) Republicans in 2008 will need to win in competitive races. What suggestions does Corker have for fellow Republicans in tough races? He hesitates to say, explaining that he’s no expert on winning races in other states. However, he does offer some bits of sage advice. He cautions that 2008 may be another tough year for Republicans, depending upon progress in Iraq, and he urges Republicans to “make it a race the people in their state will decide.” He continues: “People want to know ‘Do you understand the issues I care about?’ People need to be able to relate to you as a person who could understand issues in their lives.” He reminds Republicans to avoid “Washington speak,” by which he means the tendency of some in his party to describe issues in “sterile, accounting” terms rather than in ways that relate to the everyday lives of voters. He says: “Make sure they understand you are a real person and understand their concerns in a visceral way.” If he can do that and master the intricacies of issues key to his state, Corker may be in Washington for a long time to come. Tennessee Republicans certainly hope Corker changes Washington more than it changes him.

– Jennifer Rubin is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.