published Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

The race

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 ...

55
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.
chet123 said...

999

November 29, 2011 at 12:52 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

INSTANT CLASSIC

Great toon, Clay!

One might be tempted to call these guys the 'new' three stooges but that would be too easy. Besides there are more than three contenders. Don't forget Perry, Pawlenty, & Bachmann. Or Ron Paul, Roemer, & Huntsman. It's another roadside attraction with a cast of thousands.

But now it's getting serious. Primaries are right around the corner. Republican voters must decide between Herman 'sex scandal' Cain, Newt 'the richest historian in history' Gingrich, and Mitt 'multiple choice' Romney.

Very entertaining fellows and I especially enjoy that reality show, 'GOP Debates.' I swear some of that stuff must be scripted.

I wonder which of our tea bagging friends will be first to carp his or her disapproval of this cartoon?

November 29, 2011 at 1:09 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Can you run in temple underware???

I hope the gun is loaded with live rounds and was previously sold to a Mexican Cartel by the Feds.

November 29, 2011 at 1:36 a.m.
lumpy said...

You know, we have an icompetant fool in the White House, who seems to only be focused when he's eating a hot dog, a chilli dog or an ice cream cone, or when he's shooting hoops or watching some.

Every single one of the Republican candidates is better than Obama.

The Republican turnout will be massive in '12. Whoever the nominee is they will be backed 100%

Bennett and you Dems keep putting it out there that we Republicans are not happy with the field. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

I used think that Obama was a misguided idealogue and somewhat naive and immature. Well, now I think he's just quite stupid and extremely corrupt. What a combo.

You Dems and your media go over every aspect of these candidates lives with a microscope, yet you screamed bloody murder when anyone mentioned a "minor detail" about Obama's past, like his many, many questionable associations and his complete lack of a resume.

I'll guarantee you this, that the higher ups in the Democrat Party wish Obama would bail and Hillary would run. That speaks volumes.

I saw this photo of Obama on the internet taking in a game over the weekend. In the photo he was eating a hotdog. I've never seen him look so focused and so passionate, and concentrating so well. Too bad he's incapable of doing that on the job. Most of the time he has the dull looks of a trapped animal.

November 29, 2011 at 2:08 a.m.
fairmon said...

Add bumble butt Obama to the three and the 'toon is accurate.

November 29, 2011 at 3:14 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Good cartoon. I see the usual GOP degenerates have showed up.

November 29, 2011 at 6:50 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

And the donkey is pointing his gun where? Its only known candidate has solved the deficit problem by tripling the deficit, solved the joblessness problem by killing 1.8 million private-sector jobs (according to V.P. Biden quoted on Fox's Hannity?), and solved the inflation problem by raising the price of gas from under $2 to over $3 per gallon and selling 20 washcloths instead of 30 for $5. Thinking Democrats know they're in trouble with their candidate, and feeling Democrats, I've heard tell, don't like him all that much. (I think they should recruit Romney, or he them--let him show courage and imagination as well as the ability to wear a gray flannel suit.)

So what are the solutions and who has them? Speaker Gingrich has brought the federal budget into balance while the economy did OK. Herman Cain has improved two large companies while downsizing them. Even RINO Romney did less damage to Massachusetts than our President to our country, though less well than Perry in Texas. Even liberal columnist E. J. Dionne admitted Ron Paul could balance the budget without raising taxes.

(I remember a cartoon--Herblock?--while Carter was President featuring the GOP elephant consulting a fortuneteller, 'Your future in the cards,' looking at cards of Ford, Connelly, Rockefeller, and Reagan, and the elephant saying 'I want a new deck' ['new deal'?] Well, Ford and Connally [sp?] went nowhere, Rockefeller went to Hell, and Reagan, the most conservative, won and presided successfully, except for handing over to G. H. W. Bush, who raised taxes after promising not to.)

November 29, 2011 at 6:57 a.m.
potcat said...

bubble butt Obama, are you kidding? Newts fat ass is off the charts and Mitt with his secret bloomers adds at least a few inches and Cain looks like he has had every thing lifted including his butt,its disturbing to think about and creeps me out to even see him, someone needs to take his Viagra away.

Clay stop with the Cain toons, he's a LOSER.

Toons can make people at least think, so draw someone getting groceries or getting their Electric bill, house payments,Gas, insurance ETC.Better yet the Homeless and hungry AMERICANS. Plenty of material, and the FaT CATs you can have a heyday with, but enough of Cain Please.

These Bozos are a distraction to what we really need to be talking about, including Obama who will be the next President, for better or worse thats what it will be.

Every last one in Congress except for a couple should be sent packing, they are a DISGRACE!!

November 29, 2011 at 7:09 a.m.
fairmon said...

potcat said....

Every last one in Congress except for a couple should be sent packing, they are a DISGRACE

That is a couple more that shouldn't be evicted than I can identify.

November 29, 2011 at 7:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

It is nearly impossible to beat an incumbent. Once Obama swings into action with his $1 billion dollar and growing campaign fund and unleashes his elect Obama team it will be like the Green Bay Packers playing UTC. The only person that could cause Obama to lose is Obama. He has that ability but his managers are not likely to let that happen. People may soon regret not electing Hilary, she says she will not consider making a run at being president.

November 29, 2011 at 7:22 a.m.
PinkSalmon said...

lumpy said... You know, we have an icompetant fool in the White House, who seems to only be focused when he's eating a hot dog, a chilli dog or an ice cream cone, or when he's shooting hoops or watching some. Every single one of the Republican candidates is better than Obama.

Really??? Even Cain who can't seem to keep his pants zipped? Before one scandal ends, another one begins. Now, an alleged mistress has come forward to say they've been having an affair for over 13years.

Then there's Perry who doesn't mind covering up wrongful executions of possibly innocent Texas citizens.

Newt, who took money from Freddie Mac and Fannie May, all the while openly bashing them.

The list of these miscreants as potential presidential material is scary.

November 29, 2011 at 7:29 a.m.
davisss13 said...

harp3339 said...

It is nearly impossible to beat an incumbent. Once Obama swings into action with his $1 billion dollar and growing campaign fund and unleashes his elect Obama team it will be like the Green Bay Packers playing UTC. The only person that could cause Obama to lose is Obama. He has that ability but his managers are not likely to let that happen. People may soon regret not electing Hilary, she says she will not consider making a run at being president.

Riiiight. It has NOTHING to do with the quality, or lack of, in the Republican candidates. Making excuses already.

As far as the amount of cash? Nothing will ever match what corporations will dump into the next elections for Republican candidates. They have more money than anyone.

November 29, 2011 at 7:40 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

davisss13 said... "Riiiight. It has NOTHING to do with the quality, or lack of, in the Republican candidates"

If it was about quality we would never have had Obama for president, or even the Democrat nominee. It is an ideologically driven beauty pageant.

If it was about quality, Ron Paul would be leading every poll.

November 29, 2011 at 7:57 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

I'm gonna have to agree with harps 3:14 and 7:14 posts. They're right on target.

November 29, 2011 at 8 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

And also the last sentence from BRP's 7:57 post.

November 29, 2011 at 8:01 a.m.
librul said...

Cain sees a good looking female at the finish line; Newt just wants to show he can still compete (and give a boring speech on the podium); Romney can't decide why he's running and all three of them are unaware that Obama has already accepted the trophy.

November 29, 2011 at 8:02 a.m.
EaTn said...

Washington is in the best shape it's been for years--quagmire. Without any sign of bipartisanship, the worst thing that can ever happen there is a single party control--either party. If we're lucky we can have five more years of the same quagmire.

November 29, 2011 at 8:05 a.m.
alprova said...

Lumpy wrote: "You know, we have an icompetant fool in the White House, who seems to only be focused when he's eating a hot dog, a chilli dog or an ice cream cone, or when he's shooting hoops or watching some."

Just remember that your opinion is yours to hold and in no manner reflects the expression of fact.

"Every single one of the Republican candidates is better than Obama."

Ditto.

"The Republican turnout will be massive in '12. Whoever the nominee is they will be backed 100%"

And you are basing this on what? No clear front-runner has emerged thus far from the pack, they all have baggage that has prevented any great deal of support, and the support for individual candidates has been wavering for months.

"Bennett and you Dems keep putting it out there that we Republicans are not happy with the field. You're wrong. Dead wrong."

The polls tell a different story.

"I used think that Obama was a misguided idealogue and somewhat naive and immature. Well, now I think he's just quite stupid and extremely corrupt. What a combo."

You just go on believing that.

"You Dems and your media go over every aspect of these candidates lives with a microscope, yet you screamed bloody murder when anyone mentioned a "minor detail" about Obama's past, like his many, many questionable associations and his complete lack of a resume."

Perhaps that's because they are all based on lies.

"I'll guarantee you this, that the higher ups in the Democrat Party wish Obama would bail and Hillary would run. That speaks volumes."

Again, the polls tell a far different tale. Among Democrats, Obama is receiving on average, a 78% job approval rating, according to a very recent Gallup poll.

Compare that to the percentage of support among Republicans for any one of the candidates running for nomination. It's been a struggle to break 30% for any one of them.

"I saw this photo of Obama on the internet taking in a game over the weekend. In the photo he was eating a hotdog. I've never seen him look so focused and so passionate, and concentrating so well. Too bad he's incapable of doing that on the job. Most of the time he has the dull looks of a trapped animal."

Wow, now that's quite an observation, to take notice of how a man eats a hotdog, and to size him up based on a picture.

Is it any wonder why it's hard to take people like yourself serious?

November 29, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
mymy said...

Alpo said: "And you are basing this on what? No clear front-runner has emerged thus far from the pack, they all have baggage that has prevented any great deal of support, and the support for individual candidates has been wavering for months."

The liberal media never aired Obama's baggage and there was plenty! They continue to cover their behinds by not reporting the truth of what we are now dealing with today and Obama's part in it. The Republicans will know the candidates well and support whoever ends up with the nomination along with many independent. Probably a hand full of Democrats also who realize what a mistake they made.

November 29, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
fairmon said...

davisss13 said...

As far as the amount of cash? Nothing will ever match what corporations will dump into the next elections for Republican candidates. They have more money than anyone

You may want to check out who is getting how much from whom. The top contributors favor democratic candidates. Some contribute to both, just in case I assume.

Ron Paul is the only person in either party that speaks the truth. Reality and truth is not something the majority of Americans want to hear. They decide what they think should be and look for those that support their conclusions.

November 29, 2011 at 9:39 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

Clay you messed up this time. Perry should have been included in the pack. Definitely dead on otherwise. How about a new slogan for his enfeebled effort, "Too crazy even for Texas."

I see that the haters are already out this morning.

November 29, 2011 at 10:04 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

harp3339 said, "Reality and truth is not something the majority of Americans want to hear."

I disagree. The majority of people DO want to hear reality and truth. It is the political parties (both Democrat & Republican) and their controllers that do not want the people to know the truth.

November 29, 2011 at 10:24 a.m.
carlB said...

alprova said... "The Republican turnout will be massive in '12. Whoever the nominee is they will be backed 100%"


Reply: alprova, You made some good points, but my observation is that the people/voters are ready to get past the political and ideologue of the parties. The voters appear to not want this Republic taken back to the pre FDR days showing more interest in wanting to get this Republic back in balance and are turning against the direction the opponents of President Obama are trying to take this country.

November 29, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.
ibshame said...

Morally,the only difference between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain is the fact if Mitt decides to take a second wife as opposed to mistresses (as the other two have done) he would be in keeping with the teachings of his Mormon faith.

November 29, 2011 at 11:28 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

YAWN! Nothing else happening in your little world Clay? Open your curtains and look outside. Libs love diversity, be diverse.

November 29, 2011 at 12:13 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

alprova:

Yours was the most comprehensive, concise, and convincing post I've read on this site. (The alliteration wasn't intentional.)

There is one thing about Ron Paul that his supporters conveniently overlook. That is, he has a very limited base of libertarian supporters, who, regardless of how fervently they feel about him, can never be expanded to encompass a sizeable portion of the American electorate.

In particular, the following libertarian viewpoints are clearly outside the mainstream of the Republican party: the legalization of heroin and prostitution and the repeal of any restrictions on gay marriage.

While Ron Paul will always get a fair number of votes (in effect, a "floor" on his appeal), there is also a "ceiling" on how widespread his appeal can be. Thus, I think that the mass media is correct in giving him little attention, because he is the prototypical "niche" candidate.

November 29, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The only reason Ron Paul does not have a dominating position at this point is because the MSM and the Republican party machine are afraid of a real reformer and are doing everything they can to suppress his message.

November 29, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The RNC called last night asking for donations. I told them that they helped Fleischmann get nominated over better candidates for TN-03 and I would not help them do the same to Ron Paul...

Ron Paul has my money.

November 29, 2011 at 1:19 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

BigRidgePatriot:

You assume that everyone would agree with Ron Paul's ideas if they were exposed to them. However, the polls show that Ron Paul's ideas only appeal to a very limited number of people.

Stated in a slightly different fashion, I don't think that, even if Ron Paul got a great deal of publicity, his polling numbers would go up. Conversely, I don't think that a great deal more publicity would adversely affect his polling numbers.

I think that it is very significant that previously, Ron Paul has ran the candidate of the Libertarian Party, not of the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party's views are quite disparate from those of the Republican Party, particularly on social value and foreign policy matters. The principal area of confluence between the two parties is on limited government.

November 29, 2011 at 1:48 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

News_Junkie said... "You assume that everyone would agree with Ron Paul's ideas if they were exposed to them."

Not true.

Today's Libertarians hold positions that are very similar to the great leaders of this country's past. I believe that if his positions were more commonly understood enough people would come to know that he is the right person at the right time for the job of President. We need another Calvin Coolidge right now.

November 29, 2011 at 2:05 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If the MSM has properly vetted Obama he would never have been a factor in 2008. THAT is a fact!

November 29, 2011 at 2:07 p.m.
mymy said...

Rhode Island crashes into fiscal reality

Hope everybody took the time to read this article not just this toon. Ops, it's on the right side of the editorial pages--guess not!

November 29, 2011 at 2:25 p.m.

BRP,

in your world is no difference between facts and fiction...

Take THAT as a fact

November 29, 2011 at 2:38 p.m.
mymy said...

More from beyond this site:

The magazine that oddly, named Obama “Leader of the Year“ in 2009 and ”Man of the Year“ in 2008 while calling Sarah Palin ”dangerous“ and ”poisonous”, is coming out with a list of “The 25 Least Influential People Alive”. Barack Obama is on the list.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barack-obama-ed-schultz-make-gqs-least-influential-people-alive-list/

Lots of interesting comments. I like these two re his negative influence on this country and the world.

• AmeriCat Posted on November 25, 2011 at 7:32pm Very clever… ?Least Influential?….another political vote-seeking gimmick. They are still trying to blame anyone but him for our economy…not his fault, for the systematic fall of stable Middle East / N African states who left Israel alone…not his fault, for the dismantling of Eastern European defenses against the Communist Russia…not his fault, for the continued high price of oil and absence of any American energy plan, all the while giving access to American technology and resources to foreign countries…not his fault, and on and on… No…he has not influenced anything at all….much….. o spurjimmy Posted on November 26, 2011 at 8:33am That’s right, Americat. Obama’s corrosive and decadent influence in America and the world will take years to overcome. Right now, the tentacles of the treacherous policies and regulatory web created by his Czars and bureaucrats are choking America with his toxic agenda.

November 29, 2011 at 3:06 p.m.
davisss13 said...

The principal area of confluence between the two parties is on limited government.

Well, the Republican politicos talk the talk but rarely walk the walk. Case in point, Bush and the 108th Republican controlled congress expanded both the power and scope of the federal government beyond anything ever seen with the Patriot act. One of the GOP candidates is talking about rolling that back, Ron Paul, and he has no chance of getting the nomination.

Yet the rest still portray themselves as 'limited government'.

It doesn't sound like limited government to me.

November 29, 2011 at 3:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova posted...

Among Democrats, Obama is receiving on average, a 78% job approval rating, according to a very recent Gallup poll.

It may not be accurate but I have read where 33% of American voters are democrats. Don't you think that 33% will vote for Obama instead of only the 78% that approve. In my opinion Hilary would have been a better choice. I have no doubt Obama will win for reasons previously posted. I know you think he is the best thing since the invention of ice cream but to me he is like a robot or someone that plays like he is the president or king of the country but is an economics idiot.

November 29, 2011 at 5:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ron Paul has great ideas about shrinking government and helping the economy, but social conservatives would never elect him.

November 29, 2011 at 5:29 p.m.
LibDem said...

The trouble with the liberal media is that they are owned by huge benevolent corporations driven by a desire to do good. Wait 'til they learn the importance of butt size and eating habits.

November 29, 2011 at 5:52 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BRP, hopefully Ross Paul will see the futility of his attempt to secure the republican nomination and mount a third party bid. There is a sizeable contingent of Ron Perot supporters in this country (preferably 7% to 10%) that would throw down the gauntlet and get their voices heard, if they get the chance. BRP, it is your right, nay, your duty, to do all you can to garner as many electoral votes as possible for a free minded, free thinking Ralph Paul.

November 29, 2011 at 8:08 p.m.
carlB said...

harp3339 said..."I have no doubt Obama will win for reasons previously posted. I know you think he is the best thing since the invention of ice cream but to me he is like a robot or someone that plays like he is the president or king of the country but is an economics idiot.

Reply: harp3339, Since when have we had a President of the USA who was an expert Economist or had a degree in accounting? Just why would it be important to you if President Obama was an expert Economist? What policies could be instantly placed in service by him which would instantly solve the causes of the 2007 deep recession and the effects the recession caused? The total National Debt increaSE from $5.4 trillion dollars to $12. trillion dollars during the Bush W. eight years did not cause the 2007 deep recession. Would the global economy and it's effects of an increasing trade deficit of $600 Billion dollars per year with the Global corporations help cause the conditions of high unemployment and the loss of the US middle class tax base? Do you believe that the opponents of Obama really want the recovery from the 2007 recession?

November 29, 2011 at 8:13 p.m.
fairmon said...

carlB ask....harp3339, Since when have we had a President of the USA who was an expert Economist or had a degree in accounting?

Accountants are the most useless service industry in existence and certainly not needed in decision making positions. Economics and business management are a totally different discipline than a bean counter. Obviously we have had neither. Some were smart enough to surround themselves with people that did understand economics although congress is loaded with too many manipulative lawyers they had to wrestle with. The debt has been creeping up for years and recently exploded up. Nothing has been nor is being done to enable the key to middle class success being able to compete on a global basis. Manufacturing and production are the key ingredients but our leaders cater to banks and brokers and service industries.

November 29, 2011 at 8:29 p.m.
Oz said...

It's funny how Buddy Roemer has been kept out of the debates. The guy will not accept more than $100 in contributions from a source. No PAC money, no big donors, etc. He supports OWS. He has been a Congressman and a Governor. CEO of a bank that took no bail out money. Harvard MBA. He has been a Democrat and a Republican. What else could you ask for on a resume. http://www.buddyroemer.com/meet-buddy

Gary Johnson was only allowed in one debate. A republican in favor of making marijuana legal. Oh wait, we can't have that.

November 29, 2011 at 10:47 p.m.
carlB said...

harp3339 said...Accountants are the most useless service industry in existence and certainly not needed in decision making positions. Economics and business management are a totally different discipline than a bean counter.

Reply: Back to the important questions;

What policies could be instantly placed in service by Obama which would instantly solve the causes of the 2007 deep recession and the effects the recession caused? The total National Debt increaSE from $5.4 trillion dollars to $12. trillion dollars during the Bush W. eight years did not cause the 2007 deep recession. Would the global economy and it's effects of an increasing trade deficit of $600 Billion dollars per year with the Global corporations help cause the conditions of high unemployment and the loss of the US middle class tax base? Do you believe that the opponents of Obama really want the recovery from the 2007 recession?

November 29, 2011 at 11:05 p.m.
alprova said...

MyMy wrote: "The liberal media never aired Obama's baggage and there was plenty!"

That's because there the baggage that Fox News continuously aired through its mouthpieces was based on lies, racism, and personal opinion. Fact-checking what was spewed on that network became an obsession of mine and it continues to this day.

I do not trust Fox News and many other conservative slanted outlets to present facts or truth any longer.

"They continue to cover their behinds by not reporting the truth of what we are now dealing with today and Obama's part in it."

You give the media way too much credit. What we as a nation are dealing with started and ended with Republican sponsored legislation to overturn protections and regulations of our financial institutions that were put into place and that existed for decades, following events that led to the Great Depression.

"The Republicans will know the candidates well and support whoever ends up with the nomination along with many independent."

We shall see, but I am confident that out of the current pool of candidates, not one of them will be able to win a thing among Republican voters, much less the support of Independents.

"Probably a hand full of Democrats also who realize what a mistake they made."

A handful is correct. The vast majority of those who voted for our President in 2008 still support him and believe he is doing what he can to move this nation forward, given all those working against him.

November 29, 2011 at 11:34 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Ron Paul has my money."

Well you know what they say. A fool and his money are soon parted.

November 29, 2011 at 11:38 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "It may not be accurate but I have read where 33% of American voters are democrats."

Actually, party affiliation among the 27 states that require one to register in recognition of a political party, the breakdown is as follows;

Democrat - 43% Republican - 33% Other - 24%

But then, those affiliations can be misleading. I am firmly entrenched and generally support the Democrat Party at the moment, but I am still registered as a Republican. I personally know three people that do likewise.

I'm sure that there are many registered as Democrats that currently support Republicans.

"Don't you think that 33% will vote for Obama instead of only the 78% that approve."

I think the President can count on overwhelming support by the same people that voted for him in 2008. He may lose the support of some, but certainly not many.

"In my opinion Hilary would have been a better choice."

The people made their choice. Hillary had her chance and lost. She is not a factor in 2012, so why people keep saying this really makes no sense.

"I have no doubt Obama will win for reasons previously posted. I know you think he is the best thing since the invention of ice cream but to me he is like a robot or someone that plays like he is the president or king of the country but is an economics idiot."

You are certainly entitled to that string of opinions. But when it comes down to it, that's all they are. Opinions.

The fact of the matter is that our President is sincere, smart as a whip, and he cares about this nation. His intentions are pure, realistic, and if it were not for half of this nation working to oust him from office all the time, he could and would prove it.

Has he made mistakes? Sure, but then what President hasn't? After all, when it comes down to it, he's just a man, the same as you and I.

November 29, 2011 at 11:59 p.m.
alprova said...

CarlB wrote: " The total National Debt increaSE from $5.4 trillion dollars to $12. trillion dollars during the Bush W. eight years did not cause the 2007 deep recession."

To be fair and factual, the national debt stood at just shy of $10 trillion at the end of Bush's presidency. However, $1.8 trillion spent after Obama assumed office was instituted and appropriated to be spent by both Houses before Bush left office.

November 30, 2011 at 12:11 a.m.
carlB said...

alprova said... CarlB wrote: " The total National Debt increaSE from $5.4 trillion dollars to $12. trillion dollars during the Bush W. eight years did not cause the 2007 deep recession." To be fair and factual, the national debt stood at just shy of $10 trillion at the end of Bush's presidency. However, $1.8 trillion spent after Obama assumed office was instituted and appropriated to be spent by both Houses before Bush left office.


Reply: alprova, Thanks, You are correct but let us not overlook that Bush's FY budget ran until the last day if September 2009. Bush's spending deficit was also over a Trillion dollars over budget. Also what about all of the unfunded/non-budgeted Bush W.'s spending? President Obama included the two unfunded wars and other unfunded Bush W. spending in his budget which caused his total budget to increase. Causing the total National Debt to increase. Therefore, the most important solution is for Private sector manufacturing jobs to be created here before the necessary government spending, preventing another great depression, is reduced.

November 30, 2011 at 10:46 a.m.
shoe_chucker said...

lol too much truthiness in the last couple of posts really shut the wing nuts down

November 30, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
chet123 said...

The right wing republican will run when they cant defend their position....but they will get together and caucus...then return another day to fight ha ha ha ha ha....and when they get smoked by the democrats they will run like scared rabbits...they will hide like cowards....they will caucus to find some type of lies to tell and if they have no defense they can always go to their secret weapons.....OBAMA DID IT! OBAMA DID IT! OBAMA DID IT!...HES THE BOOGIEMAN!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! CLINTON DID IT! CLINTON DID IT! CLINTON DID IT! CLINTON THE BOOGIEMAN! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

REPUBLICANS...WHAT FOOLS! HA HA HA HA

November 30, 2011 at 7:48 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Too Funny!

Republicans are comic relief.

December 4, 2011 at 1:38 p.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.