Commentary: Establishment Attacks on Humble Reveal More About Their Fear Than His Record

Update as of 9/24: TN Star article linked in commentary below was edited between the initial publishing of this report and today. Screenshots below reflect edits made by TN Star and how their article currently reads.

Mark Pulliam is not just another commentator lobbing careless accusations—he is an attorney. And as an attorney, he knows better. That makes his recent commentary against Gary Humble, published in The Tennessee Star, not simply misleading, but seemingly willfully disingenuous.

Pulliam accuses Humble of hypocrisy for pledging to “put Tennessee voters back in charge,” while opposing HB 855/SB 799—the law that forces political parties to select nominees exclusively through state-run primaries rather than through county-level caucuses. He frames Humble’s stance as anti-voter, anti-military, even anti-democracy. But this narrative depends on half-truths, omissions, and distortions.

 The False Frame on Term Limits

Pulliam begins by dismissing Humble’s support for legislative term limits, claiming we already have them because “they are called elections.” That is a lawyer’s trick—technically true, but practically meaningless. Voters can remove incumbents, yes, but history shows entrenched politicians with donor pipelines and establishment backing can hold power for decades regardless of how poorly they serve their constituents. Term limits exist precisely to break that cycle and restore genuine accountability. Pretending otherwise is simply cover for career politicians.

 Misrepresenting the Caucus Debate

Pulliam’s central charge is that Humble favors caucuses because they are “easier to rig.” Here, omission becomes outright deception. Senate races—such as Humble’s prospective re-match against Jack Johnson—are not subject to county caucuses. They are state-level partisan races, and state law already requires primaries. Pulliam knows this. His legal training ensures he understands jurisdictional distinctions. Yet he deliberately frames his argument as though Humble’s position were self-serving.

The truth is straightforward: caucuses only apply at the county level for local partisan offices. That means Pulliam’s claim that Humble wants caucuses to tilt his own Senate race is baseless. If anything, caucuses threaten the establishment because they check one of their most relied-upon tactics: crossover voting.

 The Crossover Problem

Pulliam dresses up primaries as the purest form of democracy, pointing to absentee ballots for the military and seniors as proof they are more inclusive. What he omits is that primaries are wide open in Tennessee, and anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—can vote in them. That means Democrats routinely subsidize establishment Republicans by crossing over and tipping primary elections. The very people who never vote Republican in a general election are shaping which candidates’ conservatives are allowed to choose from in primaries.

Caucuses, by contrast, are closed to non-Republicans. They require participants to meet “bona fide” standards of party involvement, keeping Democrats from meddling in Republican races. That’s the real reason establishment figures like Pulliam and Johnson oppose them. Their power depends on crossover votes, not grassroots support.

And let’s be clear: primaries are not sacred rights. The right to vote in a general election is constitutionally protected; primaries are internal party processes to determine nominees. To cloak the defense of crossover primaries in rhetoric about military voters or disabled citizens is manipulative. This was never raised as a supposed crisis until caucuses became a viable tool to protect Republican voters from Democrat interference.

 A Manufactured Villain

Pulliam paints caucuses as corrupt, controlled by insiders, and designed to “rig” outcomes. But that caricature ignores the fact that primaries, with their porous eligibility rules, are already rigged—just in favor of establishment candidates backed by corporate donors and crossover voters. What terrifies the establishment is not that caucuses could be abused, but that they cannot rely on Democrats to carry them across the finish line.

It is also telling that Pulliam casts Humble as the villain while ignoring Jack Johnson’s record: a man who routinely chooses political credit or donor dollars over principled action. By attacking Humble’s character with smears like “Elmer Gantry of Tennessee politics,” Pulliam reveals the establishment’s fear more than Humble’s supposed hypocrisy. When you cannot win the debate on substance, you attack the man.

The Bigger Picture

Pulliam’s essay reads less like honest commentary and more like coordinated establishment propaganda. And that should surprise no one. Increasingly, The Tennessee Star functions less as a source of news and more as a megaphone for the Tennessee GOP establishment—amplifying their narratives, whitewashing their records, and smearing grassroots challengers.

The grassroots in Tennessee see through this. We understand that defending open primaries is not about protecting democracy but about protecting entrenched incumbents. We understand that dismissing term limits is not about respecting voters but about securing political careers. And we understand that smearing men like Gary Humble has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with fear of accountability.

 Conclusion

Mark Pulliam, an attorney who certainly knows better, has chosen to distort the debate rather than enlighten it. His omissions and misrepresentations may serve the establishment, but they insult the intelligence of Tennessee’s grassroots conservatives.

The truth is simple: Gary Humble is fighting to protect Republican voters from establishment manipulation. And that is exactly why the establishment is fighting so hard to tear him down.

If you support what we do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!