published Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

Today's Special

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

77
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Tax_Payer said...

I understand that the Latino community wants chickens running around in their yards like the had in Mexico. Maybe, in the near future, a portion of Chattanooga will be called "Little Mexico."

October 6, 2010 at 12:09 a.m.
whatever said...

He's probably afraid people would insist he bring some ideas and not just insults and deposit slips.

Pity we can't recall Federal officials.

October 6, 2010 at 12:12 a.m.
acerigger said...

Tax-payer,I'm not sure what you're trying to say,but,Latinos are not the only ones around here(or elsewhere)wanting to have chickens in the yard.

October 6, 2010 at 2:59 a.m.
Tax_Payer said...

acerigger, I don't need a rooster waking me up every morning. Especially when I have a night job.

October 6, 2010 at 4:51 a.m.
moonpie said...

I always thought it was a malapropism when I heard people say "run from office."

Perhaps this is what they were talking about.

October 6, 2010 at 6:50 a.m.
Francis said...

maybe if the opposition ran someone other than a wacko leftist every year he might have more of a sense of urgency.

especially this election season when we have a wacko in the white house. by now everyone has memorized wolfe's socialist mantra.

obama already has desiginated, at least in his mind, arizona to be "little mexico"

October 6, 2010 at 7:55 a.m.
junepop55 said...

Francis, I absolutely agree that Chuck would be legitimizing a fringe candidate by agreeing to debate Wolfe, but c'mon now - tying in Obama to every single one of your comments weakens your arguments. A lot of times you have good logical arguments buried in a bunch of Obama rant and it just kind of knocks the legs out from under your position. Obama's missteps make him an easy target - take your shots at him when it's on topic and you might open the eyes of some the moderate left posters/readers here.

And on the by and by, ignore those who are bashing what they perceive to be a lack of formal structure in your posts. Every time I see those short little line lengths I think, "Cool, someone's written a little a poem."

October 6, 2010 at 8:19 a.m.
pemallard said...

Maybe everyone should be reminded that there are also Independent Candidates running for office that also have Conservative values. Mark DeVol has signed a 1 million dollar bond on term limits, he believes we have gotten away from the Constitution and he is still in the race. Don't give up, this is not a two horse race and Chuck is NOT your only recourse.

October 6, 2010 at 8:26 a.m.
whatever said...

I only hope Tennessee redistricts without Gerrymandering before the next election.

October 6, 2010 at 8:46 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

I think that I have never seen A Francis post that wasn't mean, And as election day grows near He just spews more hate and fear. The tea bag crowd is lacking charm As they sound the call to arms, Republican Senators still obstruct but the party of NO is out of luck. They think that they can gain control Of Congress with their big bankroll, But voters won't get fooled again By candidates who are insane.

October 6, 2010 at 8:47 a.m.

C'mon folks. We all knew the election for this position was back in August.

October 6, 2010 at 9:06 a.m.
whatever said...

Blackwater, you need to work on the rhyme in the last couplet.

Maybe you could try "once more" or "any more"

Ah, who am I kidding, of course the voters will get fooled.

October 6, 2010 at 9:22 a.m.
Clara said...

What business does/did Fleischman run in Chattanooga?

October 6, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.
whatever said...

He was a lawyer.

I don't know that I'd call him a businessman because of that. It's a professional field, but not quite something I'd describe as a business.

October 6, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

whatever:

If you place the emphasis on the second syllable (a GAIN) it works better.

Can we get fooled again? Sure. We sent the village idiot to the White House TWICE!

But a guy can dream.

October 6, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.
whatever said...

Yeah, I just don't like forcing the rhyme pattern.

October 6, 2010 at 10:08 a.m.
bret said...

John Wolfe tells the truth and has solutions to real problems. That gets him called a "wacko" by the rightards who prefer their candidates to simply repeat meaningless drivel about cutting taxes, lowering the deficit, and cutting government. It doesn't even occur to these fools that cutting taxes on the rich will raise the deficit tremendously. Geez, doesn't anybody remember Reaganomics?

October 6, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.
whatever said...

They just remember it was morning in America, and associate it with the smell of fresh coffee.

October 6, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.
OllieH said...

junepop55- Legitimizing a fringe candidate?

John Wolfe is the Democratic Party's nominee for Congress. That's hardly the fringe. And if Wolfe's positions are so radical (as you claim), then Chuck Fleischmann should have no difficulty discrediting them in a debate.

The truth is (and Clay got this just right), Chuck Fleischmann is a coward. He is simply running scared and is petrified by the prospect of a debate John Wolfe. The Fleischmann campaign has pulled up in the four-corners offense here, and is now simply trying to run out the clock.

I don't care how far ahead he is in the polls, or how resounding the Republican majority is in District 3. His absolute refusal to engage in a real debate with the candidate from the other major party is a disservice to the electorate he wants to serve, and it's a telling indication of Chuck Fleischmann's character.

I'm sure he'll will win the election, but when he does, realize that he did it without ever putting himself in any position of risk. He accomplished it, not by meeting his opponent head-on, and proving himself the better man, but by running away and avoiding Wolfe at every turn. I'm sure we'll all be very proud to have such a courageous and confident man representing Tennessee's third district.

If Fleischmann is such a milquetoast that he won't stand up to John Wolfe, what makes you think he'll stand up to the powers that be in Congress? And if he's such a coward that he won't even fight for your vote, what makes you think he'll have the guts to fight for your interests in Washington D.C.?

October 6, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.
whatever said...

Weird, there was a link to an article about other candidates ducking public appearances, now it's gone...

Was that objectionable somehow?

October 6, 2010 at 10:43 a.m.
Duford said...

I respect Mr. John Wolfe's character and request for a debate.

He was on 95.3FM the other day discussing his platform; a libertarian called him out on his stance on Social Security. After some back and forth, Mr. Wolfe exclaimed, more or less, that "to function in this society, you have to give up some autonomy."

Progressive for sure. At least he's honest.

October 6, 2010 at 10:55 a.m.
whatever said...

That is what society is about, respecting that you aren't alone, and that you are not free to behave however you like with no restrictions.

October 6, 2010 at 11 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Guess some folks don't want it to be known they have cowards running. Heck, I posted the article knowing it even mentions the Democratic avoider of the press.

For the search engine of choice the article title is: Candidates Literally Hiding From Media

October 6, 2010 at 11:11 a.m.
junepop55 said...

Ollie, fringe was probably a poor word choice as I wasn't referring to his platform and made no claim that John's positions are radical. I meant that John's always been the candidate who struggles for legitimacy in his never ending quest for public office. From a strategy standpoint, if Chuck chooses to debate him, I feel he helps legitimize John as a candidate and shouldn't do so if he wants to win. That being said, we the voters are therefore cheated from learning more about the candidates. It's a weakness of our two party system when a district is so heavily one party. I'm not endorsing either candidate, by the way and your observations on Chuck are in some ways fair. As far as John goes, I've had several one on one conversations with him and he is. . .odd.

October 6, 2010 at 11:15 a.m.
whatever said...

Chuck should debate John Wolfe...or anybody, or at least make a show of somehow telling us what he's got to offer because he wants to serve the public, and to treat us with respect.

I don't think the problem is the two-party system, or being in a biased district (though I do think those are problems), I think the problem is that we can have a minimal turnout and whoever gets the most votes...wins. Somehow I just don't like low numbers of the electorate participating.

Compulsory voting anybody?

October 6, 2010 at 11:20 a.m.
junepop55 said...

whatever, I think any solution to a problem can't work against human nature or you get a band-aid and not a true solution. Compulsory voting won't get you informed voters. Here's an idea: make voting day a holiday. You get the day off from work, you make it fun, you make it a party. And if you can figure out how to get the market to make money off it like the other holidays, you'll have an unstoppable force of record high voting turnouts.

October 6, 2010 at 11:32 a.m.
whatever said...

Being an informed voter is not a requirement of voting. I would support encouraging it as part of a civics curriculum, but I can't quite see any way to mandate it that would not be prone to more mistakes that it would solve.

Moving elections to a holiday, or even to a weekend might have some impact, but then we've got states that do voting by mail, and early voting, and I just don't know how much that has changed things.

October 6, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.
acerigger said...

Charles and Brenda Fleischmann(wife I presume),attorneys for "commercial and consumer collections,personal injury,and workers compensation", according to the yellow pages ad.Otherwise known in the vernacular as "debt hound and ambulance chaser"

October 6, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.
acerigger said...

Tax-payer, thanks for clearing that up.

October 6, 2010 at 11:49 a.m.
Francis said...

those who talk about giving up "autonomy" ,or about giving up freedom in any form, don't think it will apply to them....i guarantee you the jackasses running our governement feel none of garbage they're heaping on the citizenery will apply to them or they'll find ways around it. obama, pelosi, reid..and wolfe...view themselves as entitled to restrict freedom, but only for others.

October 6, 2010 at 12:27 p.m.
whatever said...

Hmm, I wonder who it is who would stop people from masturbating, who would force women to bear a child even in the event of incest or rape, who would make only some people deny their sexuality, who would force their prayers to be said by others...

I wonder.

October 6, 2010 at 12:35 p.m.
rolando said...

At last count, about 75% of the citizenry, whatever.

October 6, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
whatever said...

Well, I guess it's a good thing we have protections in place to stop majority rule from being absolute. Otherwise it'd just be another tyranny.

October 6, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
mtngrl said...

75% of the citizenry would stop people from masturbating? where on earth did that number come from?

October 6, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

this is a real stupid discussion at this point.

Chuck has run a successful Law business for approximately 20 yrs. While he was not my first choice for the office, he will get my vote this November. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of the two evils.

October 6, 2010 at 1:20 p.m.
whatever said...

this is a real stupid discussion at this point.

Well, yes, because we don't have a candidate to discuss, it's kind of left us in a vacuum. And nature abhors a vacuum, but it isn't selective about what it picks to fill it.

I would much rather be hearing him and the other candidates debate each other, or even just answering tough questions from the citizenry.

Too bad I won't get that wish. Guess I wasted my birthday candles.

October 6, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Debates should be compulsory for any candidate running opposed for office. I do not trust ads to be the only source of information about the candidates platform. No one too chicken to answer live questions will get my vote regardless of their party.

October 6, 2010 at 1:54 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

ok, lets talk about a debate.

If I was a NFL football team and I was issued a challenge from a High School team, I would definitely not take that challenge. First off, I would demolish the opponent, but second, it would not profit me anything to beat up on a lesser opponent and may only get a valuable player hurt thru some stupid play.

So likewise, Chuck only has something to lose by debating Wolfe. Sort of like when we were in college. If your grade average was good enough, professors would not let you take the final since it would only do your grade harm.

I think Chuck is being reasonable in this decision.

October 6, 2010 at 1:55 p.m.
whatever said...

Except John Wolfe, and the other candidates ARE in the same election. NFL teams still have to play the other teams in the league, even if they have a 0-11 record.

So your analogy fails.

I think Chuck is being unreasonable, and failing us, the people he expects to serve, with his cowardice.

I'm sure your reasoning is correct, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

October 6, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
rolando said...

"Otherwise it'd just be another tyranny."

Instead of the Alinsky-inspired one we have.

October 6, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.
whatever said...

Keep fearing your phantoms!

Me, I still want Chuck Fleischman to show up for a debate.

That's not a phantom, it's a real issue.

October 6, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.
junepop55 said...

An Alinsky reference? I think I detect the odor of canary droppings. . .

October 6, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.
rolando said...

mtngrl said, "75% of the citizenry would stop people from masturbating? where on earth did that number come from?'

The masturbating limitation came from whatever's "freedom of expression" in response to someone's comment on another thread, mtngrl. The original comment addressed the much broader subject of sodomy...whatever ran with it, as always. Same for the other exaggerations and limitations dealing with abortion-as-birth-control, same-sex marriage, and freedom of religion.

He/she will no doubt deny it.

October 6, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.
whatever said...

Are you sure it's not the free-range chickens from earlier?

October 6, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.
whatever said...

I'll certainly say I have no earthly clue what you're talking about.

No clue whatsoever.

October 6, 2010 at 2:11 p.m.
mtngrl said...

I have not seen anything that would define which opponent is lesser or greater - that is specifically what debates are for.

I saw nothing in Chuck's primary run that defined him, or his positions other than "Robin Smith is bad" and "Huckabee like me" - neither of which help me wanna vote for him.

And how would he be hurt by debating a "lesser" opponent?

October 6, 2010 at 2:12 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

In a debate anything could happen. He may get angry and say something he regrets later for example. That is certainly something that would happen to me if I were in that situation. Sometimes my mouth gets ahead of my brain if you know what I mean.

October 6, 2010 at 2:33 p.m.
whatever said...

Still don't see avoiding it as commendable.

October 6, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
whatever said...

That is probably because you've posted 907 posts in less than a month of posting on this site. It must be hard to keep up with your own words when you post that many... and you call Francis the troll. lol.

Wow, somebody's got things personal. Trolling is not a matter of volume. You can troll with a single post.

Like here. Thanks for showing your character.

October 6, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Trolling with one post is different than 909 now...

You have definitely shown you character over and over again, while Musicman has been very consistent on this site as a very honorable man.

October 6, 2010 at 2:42 p.m.
whatever said...

Not to me, not in this thread. His only contribution? A worthless personal attack.

Maybe you can respect that, maybe you agree with it. I find it one of those things people should avoid doing.

Why do you think such behavior is appropriate?

October 6, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Yes, anything can happen in a debate - on either side.

Anything can happen once they get to congress too. If he's too chicken to handle what may come up he shouldn't be in congress.

The voters deserve to see how they would handle whatever may come up

October 6, 2010 at 2:48 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

My point is that I doubt you have read the same amount of post from Musicman that he has from you so your character assassination is more unwarranted than his. He has seen more than enough to know how irrelevant your posts are.

October 6, 2010 at 2:53 p.m.
whatever said...

Well, the TFP has removed the post, so I'm not going to discuss it further.

Let's get back to Chuck Fleischman.

Again, I just don't find it commendable to be avoiding the electorate.

October 6, 2010 at 2:58 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

I called you out directly. If that is disrespectable or dishonorable in your opinion, I understand.

What I find increasingly more and more disrespectable and loathsome is your constant one line, passive-aggressive posts. Passive-aggressive behavior gets on my nerves... badly. Sorry if I offended you with my comment though. It's just the way I honestly see it.

October 6, 2010 at 3 p.m.
whatever said...

Musicman, your post was removed, I'm not going to discuss it further with you either.

October 6, 2010 at 3:02 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Hey Musicman:

Sorry to butt in on this scintillating verbal joust, but what the heck does "disrespectable" mean?

Did you mean despicable? Disrespectful? Despotic? Despondent? Disingenuous? Delusional?

You used it twice so it can't be a typo. Please use your spell checker. I doubt you'll make more sense but at least I'll be able to follow along.

Oh, maybe that's why you loved Bush so much. People "misundestimated" him, too.

October 6, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Good eye, bw. Disrespectful is what I was intending. Typing in a hurry, whenever I have a chance to, at work takes its toll at times. And I didn't love Bush as much as you wish I did. My favorite non-word of his was "sovereigninities."

October 6, 2010 at 3:53 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Definition of DISRESPECTABLE

: not respectable

BW next time use your Merriam Webster before you call someone out. Either Disrespectful or Disrespectable will do.

October 6, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Lol, thanks nurse. I was taking his word for it for some reason, but I too was thinking disrespectable is a word, which is why I didn't doubt myself on it when typing that post so quickly earlier.

October 6, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

as they say at chic-fil-a, "my pleasure"

October 6, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Thanks Nurse Betty.

It looks wrong to me but you're right!

I should learn to use spell checker:)

October 6, 2010 at 4:53 p.m.
rolando said...

Here is a portion of a page I use to point out the silliness of the nitwitted who insist on proper spelling, etc.

"I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulacity uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid is it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae."

The only necessity is having a human mind and brain.

The purpose of language is to communicate...Musicman was successful in doing that.

October 6, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.
hambone said...

WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE?

No one makes any sense today!!

October 6, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
whatever said...

Maybe if Chuck Fleischman had agreed to a debate then...

October 6, 2010 at 5:13 p.m.
JoeCuppa said...

Both are Lawyers. John chases ambulances. Chuck is a collections lawyer.

I'll take the one that stands up against the big insurance companies for the everyday man instead of the one that goes after the everyday man in favor of his big credit card and mortgage clients.

October 6, 2010 at 5:15 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

rolado offers up another morsel:

"the silliness of the nitwitted who insist on proper spelling..."

I wasn't just questioning the spelling. I didn't know what word he was going for. I didn't know what he was saying.

He said he intended to write 'disrespectful."

He writes in a hurry and that's cool. Then Nurse Betty provided the definition of the word he used.

I apologized.

There's nothing wrong with proper English. When did ignorance become chic?

October 6, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.
rolando said...

The jibe wasn't aimed at just you, blackwater. it wasn't aimed at you in particular at all.

There are many here who deliberately aim acidic or acerbic comments at folks who make spelling/grammatical/compositional errors. It was for their "enjoyment" that I made the comment.

I am truly sorry you took it so personal and apologize for any inference that it was aimed at you in particular.

October 6, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

rolando

Sorry I blew up at you. I'm not a grammar snob. English was hard for me. I was a poor speller when I was young and had to work hard at getting it right.

I still have my well worn dictionary from college on a bookshelf in my office.

Appreciate your apology. I'll accept yours if you accept mine.

October 6, 2010 at 7:25 p.m.
whatever said...

I'll take the one that stands up against the big insurance companies for the everyday man instead of the one that goes after the everyday man in favor of his big credit card and mortgage clients.

Why pick the lesser of two evils? Let's get a divorce lawyer in the running!

Also, as far as spelling goes, I don't mind the occasional mistake, but I do mind people who take an arrogant pride in their sloppy spelling and disregard for how poorly they communicate. That's a bit much.

October 6, 2010 at 7:56 p.m.
Oz said...

We have another choice. Mark DeVol and he is not a lawyer.

http://www.markdevol.com/

October 6, 2010 at 9:23 p.m.
ITguy said...

To get back to the point. Chuck will not debate because he has nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Chuck has nothing but simplistic solutions to complex problems. The more the voters learn about him, the less they will like him. He will win easily by just being the republican on the ticket.

October 6, 2010 at 9:33 p.m.
Oz said...

Marilyn Lloyd and Zach Wamp used the same plan. It seems to work well in the 3rd district.

October 6, 2010 at 9:53 p.m.
views said...

A debate with John Wolfe and two Independents has been posted at votejohnwolfe.com under "Wolfe Pack Dumps Some Tea". There is also a video of John and Chuck speaking with some Q&A under "Wolfe Speaks To Cleveland Associated Industries". John speaks first because Mr Fleischmann was about a half hour late. Wouldn't a debate be somewhat like a job interview? You wouldn't hire somebody without first interviewing them.

October 6, 2010 at 9:57 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Wolfe debated a couple independents? Good start, though there are more than two. Independents have likely put more thought into politics than most big-party people and may have more interesting ideas and more use of courage. Worth hearing from them. Let him keep ond ebating them if Chuck keeps (understandably) ducking.

The format for the Lincoln-Douglas debates was an hour speech from one candidate, 90 minutes from the other, 30 from the first. Bit much now, but we've gone to the other extreme. Try various formats?

October 7, 2010 at 6:29 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.