Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
in response to Mortothpnt: There is a major factual error in this story: the controversies referred to by Campfield in this interview with regard to fundraising methods, use of funds, and accountability DOES refer to the TENNESSEE Legislative Black Caucus, and were revelations that resulted from his initial inquiry into what they did. It is unfortunate but also of interest that this type of misbehavior is mirrored in the Congressional Black Caucus. So the writer's parenthetical attempt to discredit Campfield instead discredits the writer's full understanding the the topic he is attempting to enlighten us about. So, what is new. It is exactly why people vote based on what they see when the guy talks to them face to face. It is all you can really trust. Take him or leave him, it is up to you. But don't believe much of what you read in the papers.
in response to Mortothpnt:
There is a major factual error in this story: the controversies referred to by Campfield in this interview with regard to fundraising methods, use of funds, and accountability DOES refer to the TENNESSEE Legislative Black Caucus, and were revelations that resulted from his initial inquiry into what they did. It is unfortunate but also of interest that this type of misbehavior is mirrored in the Congressional Black Caucus. So the writer's parenthetical attempt to discredit Campfield instead discredits the writer's full understanding the the topic he is attempting to enlighten us about. So, what is new. It is exactly why people vote based on what they see when the guy talks to them face to face. It is all you can really trust. Take him or leave him, it is up to you. But don't believe much of what you read in the papers.
I did a Google search looking for "TENNESSEE Legislative Black Caucus Corrupt" and found nothing. When you make a serious accusation like you have done, you should cite your sources or at least defend your allegations with some kind of substance. And " ...revelations that resulted from his initial inquiry into what they did..." doesn't count unless you can corroborate that statement, or at a minimum explain what revelations these were. Please provide some explanation.
You are so Knoxville if . . . you think opinions on Blogs are more informational than a college education.
I saw Big Brother and the Holding Company (sans Janis) at the Fair at Chilhowee Park sometime in the '70's. Don't remember much about it except that they were so bad I left after a couple of songs.
Sounds like part Mark Twain, and part Stacey Campfield.
Cas Walker's prices just can't be beat.
Jack, for someone who rarely dabbles in politics, you nailed this one. You are describing exactly the cluster of multiple ironies that has been startling me since this embezzlement hit the front pages.
We need to get control over these mini-fiefdoms. Period.
And those that argued so vociferously against the Charter Amendments should be doing some real soul-searching in light of this scandal - and the Property Assessor scandal - which have both come to light since the election. Not to mention the abuses of power by the Sheriff's office in the past administration, and who knows what all has gone on in the past and may be continuing. I'm sure we have just seen the tip of the iceberg.
Your article states (or at least implies) that Republicans will come out in droves because of the formidable leadership of Councilman Joe Bailey, and will vote against the amendments.
In fairness you should have noted in your article that Joe Bailey is on the record as strongly in support of passing the amendments. Frank, are you playing a shell game?
Sorry Vdon08. I did not intend to disparage anyone by referring to them as "un-elected activists" or "passers-by." Some of my closest friends, including myself, sometimes fall into one of these categories. My point was that 1) any amendment that will become part of the County Charter and re-shape our government structure should be thoroughly vetted before put to a vote in order to avoid unintended consequences and legal challenges and repurcussions down the road; 2) that the County Commission has the resources and, as our representatives, should have been a first step in that process, which they carelessly - and arrogantly - declined as noted in the above article; and 3) as brilliant as your average Knoxville voter may be, I question whether they have the resources, time, inclination, or available information - as our Founding Fathers did - to properly grasp all of the implications of a single amendment, much less multiple ones.
I certainly do not. That is why I asked the question concerning legal implications of the amendments. Challenge to laws - even wars - have come about by the mis-placed comma. I agree with the intent of many of these amendments, but I would have liked to have seen more public debate. Unfortunately, they are now in stone. They cannot be changed or re-worded if unforeseen problems are identified. And my question has not been answered. I guess I will close my eyes and vote.
Peace,
Frank, I think you pointed out on a "Tennessee This Week" show a while back that some of the amendments contained unconstitutional provisions (e.g., term-limits on Federal officials). It appears that these have been cleaned up in their current format. Is that correct? Since the County Commission and / or Law Director failed to perform any due dilligence on these amendments, I will ask you: do you see any particular details in the current charter amendments that might be construed to be unlawful or litigious? And what happens if they do get on the ballot and there are legal ramifications? I assume that the County Commission must keep their hands off of them and if deemed legitimate the amendments would need to go on the ballot as-is. Right? I would appreciate it if you - or anyone with a good grasp of the facts - could expand on that a bit.
The reason I am asking is that I think that the County Commission dropped the ball on this (surprise, surprise), and really failed to gauge the public's anger at their actions and inactions. And secondly I am concerned that the "sausage-making" process as performed by un-elected activists and passers-by on the street corner would not ordinarily be suitable to the task.
Thanks,
Newt Gingrich was who popped into my mind as well. You beat me to it oldwoman. He might deserve an A+ since he was successful in getting his wife to sign their divorce decree as she lay sedated in a hospital bed. Now that's effectiveness.
