published Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Taking a Stand

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 ...

118
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.
shifarobe said...

Scribble away toon boy you ain't going save that big eared clown's job.

February 5, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
shifarobe said...

MEchelle can go back to chitown and work at McD's

February 5, 2012 at 12:24 a.m.
Salsa said...

Looks more like John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry o me.

February 5, 2012 at 12:28 a.m.
dgtb4urb said...

Clay, that's classic! haha!

Shifarobe...give it up!

February 5, 2012 at 12:29 a.m.
WHS1970 said...

It's going to be another 4 long years for you Shif. You may as well get used to it.

February 5, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Already dentists are opening new bank accounts for all their patients' money when the gnashing of teeth begins coz of Obama's re-election. I get creds on that 'toon Clay, o.k?

February 5, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ROMNEY'S BEEN VERY CONSISTENT SINCE HE CHANGED HIS MIND

Romney does not have a core set of political principles. John McCain once quipped during the 2008 primary campaign that it was a waste of time criticizing any Romney position today because tomorrow it'll change.

Once Romney was pro-gay rights, now he's not. Once he was pro-gun control, now he's a varmint huntin' life long member of the NRA. Once he was pro-choice, now he's pro-life. Once he created and signed into law an individually mandated government run health insurance program. Now he's against. And so much more.

But I'm fascinated now with the comment that got him into so much hot water with republicans. He said that the very poor have a safety net and if it's broke he'll fix it. Good grief, he has publicly and frequently supported Paul Ryan's budget proposal. Funny story: the Ryan budget calls for $2 trillion over the next 10 years in cuts to poverty programs like food stamps, housing assistance, and pell grants. You know, the backbone of the 'safety net.'

He was in favor of destroying the safety net before he was in favor of fixing it.

Here's another flip flop: Mitt once said that Obama took over a bad economy and made it worse. Now he's saying Obama took over a bad economy but the recovery we're experiencing - job growth in multiple employment sectors including manufacturing, Dow Jones at a 3-year high, the NASDAQ at an 11-year high - could have been better.

Give 'em heck Mitt!

February 5, 2012 at 12:51 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Most of Romney's flipflops have been improvements. Now if he'd dump the "individual mandate"--stop empowering bureaucrats and enriching insurance companies--and dump Mormonism--the book of Mormon is a fantasy collection--replacing them with freedom and Christianity respectively...

February 5, 2012 at 1:10 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Romney must be the ultimate 'fix'. That is if he's secretly working for Obama's re-election. What with the projected 'Billion dollar' cache of Obama's and the new SOCTUS ruling, even Romney would be tempted to take a fall. At least we can all hope... and the country would be better off.

February 5, 2012 at 1:19 a.m.
Momus said...

Once Romney announces Trump as his running mate, we'll see who's laughing then!

February 5, 2012 at 2:10 a.m.
EaTn said...

All the right-wing businesses have been holding their breath on hiring waiting on some insight into the next four or five years. Their wait is over--whether Obama is re-elected or Romney upsets him makes little difference in their future operations.

February 5, 2012 at 7 a.m.
joneses said...

This cartoon is stupid.

February 5, 2012 at 7:16 a.m.
rosebud said...

Okay, I hadn't paid much attention to the amateur cartoon page until about a week ago. But now I get it. Unless some local figure that Bennett doesn't like, (Example: Judge Moon)dies, he does the same cartoon over and over with a slightly different setting. No wonder he gets his jollies when a local Judge dies. It gave him something different to doodle!

February 5, 2012 at 7:42 a.m.
sage1 said...

You're exactly right rosebud. He does have his parrot corner though...."way to go Clay"...."Good one Clay"...."you are awesome Clay"....Same ones over and over. Clay is very left which is fine, but it does show there are many still that haven't opened their eyes yet to the truth that all politicians are crooked and will say anything to get elected. The truth just ain't in 'em. Don't matter which side they sit on.

February 5, 2012 at 7:54 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Gotta love Mitt Romney, the human weathervane. Back during the Iowa primary, an 8 year old boy asked Romney "Is it hard to run for President?" “That’s a darn good question and the answer is ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ It sounds like a politician, I apologize,” Romney said.

No Romney, it doesn't sound like a politician, it sounds like Mitt Romney. Someone, who is always calculating his decision and never really makes a clear stance. GO GIANT PATRIOTS!

February 5, 2012 at 8:17 a.m.
WhitesCreek said...

Whoa! I find myself agreeing with Mittens for once.

February 5, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.

Actually, it's the Anti-Clay Bennett Club who have the repetitive mantra.

Change rosebud's name to BRP or one of the others, nobody could tell the difference.

February 5, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Disenfranchised white men. What will they think of next?

February 5, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
jesse said...

hey bulbs? your head is so far up where the sun don't shine every thing you see has TEETH in the foreground!

February 5, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
miraweb said...

Romney, no doubt, has $10,000 on the Saints this year.

February 5, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.

jesse, thanks for demonstrating your membership, but have you bought the commemorative coffee mug? It's only 19.95 and all the proceeds go to funding Right-Wing astroturf operations!

February 5, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
dude_abides said...

If you call the President of your country a big eared clown, what must you think of the league of gentlemen who preceded him? I know what the rest of the world thought of them. "The people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon." What a joke he made of all of us! Whereas Obama took it to his a$$. That's what is great about our country, though. An ignorant hick can call the most powerful man in the world a clown and not fear reprisals. Keep foaming, chiffonrobe (or whatever), you've probably earned that right somehow or other, ROTC or something!

February 5, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

Momus said... Once Romney announces Trump as his running mate, we'll see who's laughing then!

All of the Democrats would be laughing then, because that would guarantee that Obama would get re-elected. All of the Republicans would be crying, because having Trump as the Vice Presidential candidate would permanently tarnish the Republican brand. That would do more damage than having Sarah Palin on the ticket accomplished in 2008.

February 5, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
jesse said...

the LAST thing anybody in this mess needs is an endorsement from donald trump! it's getting to be an (no it is) exercise in the ridiculoas! the problem is that the american folks are gonna be left hangin out to dry no matter who wins this fiasco! everybody on here is in DEEP kimchee! there is NOT one dude in this race that has the wherewithall to get this country back on the right track! THATS THE BOTTON LINE!!

February 5, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
rick1 said...

Since Clay and others on the left have seemed to forgotten the flip flops of Obama here is a link that will help refresh your memories.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100083104/the-u-turn-president-barack-obama-top-ten-flip-flops/

February 5, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ANOTHER ROMNEY FLIP FLOP

Besides promising to shred the 'safety net' before he promised to fix it, Mitt also stated that his campaign focus is on helping the middle class. Not the very poor, not the very rich, the lunch pail republicans and blue collar conservatives.

EXCEPT (drum roll) his tax plan will raise taxes on middle class families with children, PLUS cut his own taxes in half.

I guess he plans to augment the 'little bit' of extra income he makes on speaking engagements by creating campaign advertising for the Obama re-election committee.

Give 'em heck, Mitt!

February 5, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

This does not bode well for Mitt's chances in the general election, which all pundits agree will be decided by how the independents vote:

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll, released after the South Carolina primary, just over half of independents said they have an unfavorable view of Romney, a number that rose by more than 20 points since late November. Meanwhile, the share of independents who have a positive impression of Romney dropped to 23 percent, from 45 percent, over that same eight-week period.

To read the article that this quote came from, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-romney-move-to-the-middle-can-he/2012/02/02/gIQAvtdupQ_print.html

February 5, 2012 at 12:20 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a quote that expands a bit on what Blackwater48 remarked about Romney's tax plan:

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would actually raise taxes on many lower-income Americans, while sharply cutting taxes at the top end. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to people making more than $200,000 a year, almost half to those making more than $1 million a year, with the average member of the million-plus club getting a $145,000 tax break.

To read the article that contained that quote, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/krugman-romney-isnt-concerned.html

February 5, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's another statistic that should make Romney blanch:

45 percent of independents who said, in a January poll by The Post and the Pew Research Center, that Romney does not understand the problems of average Americans. Only 34 percent said they believe he does.

To read the article from whence that statement was derived, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-romney-move-to-the-middle-can-he/2012/02/02/gIQAvtdupQ_print.html

February 5, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Although it would admittedly have been hard for Mitt to turn down Trump's endorsement, that will undoubtedly redound to Obama's favor, because (1) polls show that a Trump endorsement is a turnoff to voters and (2) it will be hard for Romney to disavow any outrageous statements that Trump makes before the date of the general election.

(Idea taken from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-romney-move-to-the-middle-can-he/2012/02/02/gIQAvtdupQ_print.html)

February 5, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

shifarobe:

Based upon a statistical analysis of every Presidential election going back to 1948, noted political statistician Nate Silver wrote a column on Friday stating that as long as the economy adds 150,000 jobs per month until the election, Obama is the presumptive favorite to win the general election. If the number of jobs created in a month exceeds 150,000, that just increases the odds in favor of Obama. Given that the average number of jobs added in the past three months was 201,000, you need to accept the fact that Obama will get re-elected.

February 5, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

WOW! It’s a Mitt doll. I heard he has truckloads of them and plans to distribute them to America's poor . . . Anyone who signs the Mitt Pledge can get one for free.

February 5, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
jesse said...

201,000 in 3 mo's does NOt add up to 150,000 per month!! at least not in the math classes i took back in the 1950's! but if you got to cook the books to make the numbers come out the way you want them to ? go for it! in the end all our gooses are cooked anyhow!

February 5, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

WE KNOW WHAT HE'S AGAINST

Can anyone pinpoint WHY Mitt Romney wants to be President?

February 5, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
acerigger said...

Folks are marveling at the diversity of Romneys supporters,as in,"they come in all shades of white!" lol

February 5, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.

Jesse, before you berate others, you might want to look at the original source. I can understand seeing New Junkie's wording as a bit unclear, but if you read the Nate Silver column, you'll see that it was talking about an average of 201,000 in the three months.

Check out 538.com for it.

February 5, 2012 at 2:05 p.m.
rick1 said...

jesse, you are spot on with the fuzzy math. Scott Strzelczly breaks it down for us. The devil is in the details. From December to January, 1.2 million people just disappeared from the labor force. That has dropped the participation rate from 64% to 63.7%, a new thirty year low. Look even further and the numbers get worse. The part-time workforce increased by 699,000 jobs while full time jobs increased by 80,000. Ninety percent of all "new" jobs came from part-time work.

The most interesting aspect is the fuzzy math. The civilian population is 242.2 million people. If you apply the long-term average civilian labor force participation rate of 65.8% you get 159.4 million people in the work force. But, the BLS reports we there are only 154.5 million in the work force. A paltry 5 million person difference!

Add the five million people to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and there are 17.776 million unemployed people. Divide 17.776 by 154.5 and you get and 11.5% unemployment rate. Yet, the BLS reports an 8.3% unemployment rate. The 3.2% difference between the real unemployment rate and the BLS unemployment rate also set a thirty year high.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/january_unemployment_report_the_devil_is_in_the_details.html#ixzz1lXCp2Hv8

February 5, 2012 at 2:06 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: "Can anyone pinpoint WHY Mitt Romney wants to be President?"

No, Blackwater48, but I understand the Mitt Doll talks so maybe it can tell us.

February 5, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Is The Wart on pace for 75 more cartoons on the Republican candidate(s) before the year is over? Bennett is the definition of monotonous.

February 5, 2012 at 5:22 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "jesse, you are spot on with the fuzzy math. Scott Strzelczly breaks it down for us."

And just who the heck is he?

"The devil is in the details."

Details? How about pure conjecture?

"From December to January, 1.2 million people just disappeared from the labor force."

But of course. 1.2 million people just decided that they no longer need to eat or have shelter over their heads and no longer need employment any longer.

"That has dropped the participation rate from 64% to 63.7%, a new thirty year low."

According to the January report, that is a figure that has remained steady. It did not drop.

"Look even further and the numbers get worse."

Oh, I'm sure they do, when one is trying to dream up bad news.

"The part-time workforce increased by 699,000 jobs while full time jobs increased by 80,000. Ninety percent of all "new" jobs came from part-time work."

I'm scratching my head as to how the author came up with that conclusion. It's certainly not in the BLS report.

"The civilian population is 242.2 million people. If you apply the long-term average civilian labor force participation rate of 65.8% you get 159.4 million people in the work force."

The correct and established rate in the report is 63.7% or 154.5 million people.

(But, the BLS reports we there are only 154.5 million in the work force. A paltry 5 million person difference! Add the five million people to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and there are 17.776 million unemployed people."

So in other words, the author added 5 million imaginary people to his figures, when the established figure used should have been 12.578 million unemployed people.

"Divide 17.776 by 154.5 and you get and 11.5% unemployment rate."

Divide what exists in the report by the proper amount and you find that you are within 1 percent of the true and correct unemployed people in this nation as established by the BLS.

"Yet, the BLS reports an 8.3% unemployment rate."

Yep. They surely do, and their math makes far more sense that that of the author of this article.

"The 3.2% difference between the real unemployment rate and the BLS unemployment rate also set a thirty year high."

There is no discrepancy in the "real" unemployment rate. There is a "real" discrepancy in where the figures used in the article came from. They sure didn't come from the BLS report, as was alleged.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

February 5, 2012 at 6:06 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

WE HAVE A CONTESTANT

In answer to the question, why does Mitt want to be president, LSmart wrote, You mean beyond hope and change, LOL... i think its to try to stop us from becoming Greece, which we're well on our way to becoming.

Maybe. I don't know because he's never said. I know he's against Obama. Thinks the president made the recession worse. But I never heard the MIttster say why he was running.

Thought maybe someone had. But he wants to restore America to economic prosperity by returning to the same failed economic principles that got us in trouble in the first place.

I'm sure Mitt's on both sides of THAT issue, too.

February 5, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Me thinks me understands why many Republicans wants the President replaced. And it has NOTHING to do with JOB performance!

And everything to do with color..........

Some things never change!

February 5, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
ricardo said...

Mr. Flipflop still can't be trusted. That's why conservatards are still shopping around with Newt and Trump.

February 5, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said:"Why does Mitt want to be president."

Well,BW48, I heard the Mitt doll say:

Because he wants to raid the White House and reallocate the Nation's assets.

February 5, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.

BRP, you being the expert in monotony in these parts, what with everything you say being on the same theme.

But can you tell us it's not true? Can you show us that Mitt Romney has a conviction in his body?

Why is he running, besides so he can slander the current President, whose biggest sin so far seems to be using Mitt's own ideas?

February 5, 2012 at 7:57 p.m.
rick1 said...

Blackwater said: But he wants to restore America to economic prosperity by returning to the same failed economic principles that got us in trouble in the first place.

Let's take a look at the failed economic policies of Bush and the economic policies of Obama:

Both increased government spending.

Both used Keynesian stimulus policies.

Both bailed out politically connected companies.

Both supported the Fed’s easy-money policy.

Both created a new health care entitlement.

Both imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.

The thinking of the left always amazes me. They blame Bush's policies for getting us into this mess, yet Obama has the same polices and he is going to safe us.

February 5, 2012 at 8:11 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said But of course. 1.2 million people just decided that they no longer need to eat or have shelter over their heads and no longer need employment any longer.

BLS identifies these people as discouraged workers Al. They are people who have given up looking for work because they believe no jobs are avaiable for them.

If you read the report you would know this. Hard for you to make your point when the report clearly has it documented.

February 5, 2012 at 8:37 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "BLS identifies these people as discouraged workers Al. They are people who have given up looking for work because they believe no jobs are avaiable for them."

BLS may identify them as such, but I tend to think there is a better explanation. Many of them may have found jobs off the grid, so to speak, or they may have found employment late in the reporting period and just haven't made the employed list just yet.

"If you read the report you would know this. Hard for you to make your point when the report clearly has it documented."

That's not a documentation. It is an estimation, at best. There is no way for anyone to know the circumstances of every person included in that count.

To suggest that people who need a job, give up looking after a period of time of unemployment, is simply ludicrous, no matter who or what entity suggests it.

These 1.2 million people may all be kids just out of high school, who are off to college this month. They may be wives of men with great jobs, who have decided to stay at home with the kids for awhile. The explanations could be infinite. The least likely category, by simple logic, is that people who needed employment last month give up looking for work altogether this month.

February 5, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.

The confusion of the right astounds me. If Bush acted like Obama, why did you continually sing his praises? And still do, without have the criticism you show here. Perhaps you should have token up sooner.

But costly new regulations? Maybe if you count the deregulation as costly. They certainly cost the rest of us!

February 5, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Bush is a Caucasian and Obama is not. Nothing more need be said. It explains it all.

February 5, 2012 at 10:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rosebud said: " I hadn't paid much attention to the amateur cartoon page until about a week ago. But now I get it. Unless some local figure that Bennett doesn't like, (Example: Judge Moon)dies."

I saw that cartoon. As I recall it was a puppet characterization of a Judge [Bales] looking kind of lost because the guy in big chair [Moon] is no longer with us. The thing that fascinated me most about the posts that day was that nobody came to the defense of the puppet character [Bales], which is kind of revealing when you think about it.

February 6, 2012 at 6:41 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "you being the expert in monotony in these parts, what with everything you say being on the same theme. But can you tell us it's not true? Can you show us that Mitt Romney has a conviction in his body?"

That is funny, considering my monotony is meant to underline the monotony of The Wart.

As far as Romney goes, of course he does not have a conviction anyone could count on him standing by. He is a typical establishment politician, is he not?

The ONLY candidate on both sides that has true convictions and a voting record to prove it is Ron Paul. If The Wart was not in such a rut he could do a cartoon on something interesting, like the ongoing battle between Gingrich and Paul for second place in Nevada, or the overwhelming support of Paul at open mics during the caucuses,

February 6, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "Bush is a Caucasian and Obama is not. Nothing more need be said. It explains it all."

It explains nothing. Leftist race baiters are sickening.

February 6, 2012 at 8:32 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "Bush is a Caucasian and Obama is not. Nothing more need be said. It explains it all."

It explains nothing. Leftist race baiters are sickening.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Regardless, we cannot ignore the fact that, as a consequence of the passage of the voting rights act, our country experienced 1) a significant political realignment, 2) the election of more politicians who are committed to serving their base, with little regard for serving the best interests of the whole country, and 3) an emphasis on demonizing those who do not align with selfish political perspectives.

February 6, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Regardless, we cannot ignore the fact that, as a consequence of the passage of the voting rights act, our country experienced...an emphasis on demonizing those who do not align with selfish political perspectives."

There is so little that truly distinguishes between establishment Democrats and Republicans that demonizing and pandering to subsets of the voters are the only tools they have left to get elected.

February 6, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
timbo said...

This Bennett Cartoon is absolutely right. I am a conservative but Romney has been forced down our throats by the republican establishment. These people treat us conservatives like red-headed step children and probably hate us more that the democrats do. All they want is for us to shut up and write a check.

By the way, I am not falling for this lesser of two evils crap. Both Romney and Obama are evil. The difference is Obama just comes right out and admits he wants to raise taxes and increase government. Romney and the Republican establishment pose as conservatives and do almost the same thing as the democrats do. They are just liars i.e. Bush.

Who is more evil, Frankenstein or the Wolfman, Jeffery Dahmer or Ted Bundy, Hitler or Stalin...you get my drift.

Save your money and time and effort. Republicans should stop worrying because we don't have a chance against Obama with McCain 2.0 (Romney.) He has switched positions more than a French whore on Saturday night.

The Republican establishment has put a sharp stick in the conservative eye again. They think we are just like pets. Just so we don't bark to much and pee on the carpet they tolerate us.

What I want to know is where is the Tea Party? In exit polls 40% of them have supported Romney. This makes the Tea Party irrelevant.

As far as Bennett goes, Even a blind hog can find an acorn every once in a while.

February 6, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.
joneses said...

timbo,

The liberal elite media and the propoganda they spread is what has shoved Romney down our throats. Look what they did to Herman Cain and Newt. They destroyed them personally because they fear them the most. Eventually they will continue to show how disgusting they are by attacking Romney for being a Mormon. Watch and see. They have to use these disgusting attack tactics because Obama could not be reelected on his job performance. Do you think the dummycrats could win if they touted the 6 trillion dollar increase in the debt the last 3 years? Do you think Obama could win if the bragged about his failed energy policy? Solyndra? Unconstitutional socialist health care plan? Fast and furious? Giving GM 50 billion dollars they have not paid back? They have to get the weakest Republican candidate and they will destroy him with lies as well beause a majority in this nation are just stupid and believe this crap.

February 6, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
klugermann said...

Some of you folks really need to unplug from your internet and cable news and go find something meaningful and relaxing to do with your time. Reading most of these posts is like accidentally finding a wad of chewing gum under a table with your fingers. It's disgusting and you have to go wash your hands immediately afterward.

February 6, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
klugermann said...

"Look what they did to Herman Cain..."? Really? Really??? I take back my previous comment as it relates to 'joneses'. 'J', you really need a a broader broadband connection, a library card, possibly a translator, and a support group. The dems haven't had to lift a finger yet. The current field of repubs have whittled themselves down with their own words and in-fighting. All the while trying to kow-tow to "media elites" like Donald Trump and Roger Ailes.

February 6, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
timbo said...

klugermann.....Your post WAS like finding a piece of chewing gum under your desk. Scratching chalkboard with your fingernails also comes to mind.

February 6, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
timbo said...

jones....You are absolutely wrong..the elite media was fed this stuff by the Romney campaign and the Republican establishment. You are falling for this same song and dance we have been given for years. I will not be fooled.

Will the media enthusiastically support Obama? Of course, but Newt Gingrich has been destroyed by the Republican establishment and their sycophants, i.e. Drudge, Coulter, etc.

You might hate Obama so bad that your mind is muddled but until the Republicans lose enough times being Democrat-lite, they will never learn.

Quit worrying about it. It is over anyway. McRomney for President..

February 6, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

The liberal elite media and the propoganda they spread is what has shoved Romney down our throats. Look what they did to Herman Cain and Newt

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

whew

Until the GOP has a message beyond "defeat Obama at any cost to the USA" they will not be able to field a candidate that won't self destruct given enough time.

Thanks for the belly laugh though. I needed that.

February 6, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "Until the GOP has a message beyond "defeat Obama at any cost to the USA" they will not be able to field a candidate that won't self destruct given enough time."

I expect you are right about that. The RNC, RNCC, and half a dozen other "conservative" groups call, email or snail mail me every day looking for support to defeat Obama. Sorry guys, that in itself is not something to support. Until I know the "cure" is better than the disease they can forget the notion of getting anything out of my wallet.

February 6, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Update on Active Duty Military campaign contributions. Ron Paul still beats all of the other candidates (in Active Duty Military Campaign Contributions - for alpo, king of comprehension).

Ron Paul beats Obama.

Ron Paul beats all of the other Republican candidates combined.

Ron Paul beats all of the remaining Republican candidates AND Obama combined.

I am sure alpo can find a way to try to distort those very simple facts.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/military-donors-still-prefer-paul.html

February 6, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
chet123 said...

ROMNEY???? ha ha ha ha!Puting this parasite in charge???? Its like leaving the fox over the hen house ha ha ha

This fool os worth 100's of million dollars....but the best he can say he created was STABLE.....a min wage no benifit jobs.....try feeding your family on that ha ha ha ha

ROMNEY is a puppet for the rich and greedy and large corporations(cororation are people my friend) WHAT A JOKE!!!

February 6, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.

BRP, Your tedious repetition makes you look bad, not Clay Bennett. I know it's hard to believe, but your criticism becomes discredited the more you say it. It vindicates those who know you just don't want to hear it.

But what does the support for Ron Paul tell you? It tells me that they see him as the candidate least likely to send them to war.

February 6, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "Your tedious repetition makes you look bad, not Clay Bennett. I know it's hard to believe, but your criticism becomes discredited the more you say it. It vindicates those who know you just don't want to hear it."

Blah, blah, blah, happybulbs. You are becoming tedious yourself. Those that accept the tedium, unconstructive distraction and distortion that is Clay Bennett are more of a problem than my little opinion is. Why on earth do you find it worth your while to defend that slug of a cartoonist?

"But what does the support for Ron Paul tell you? It tells me that they see him as the candidate least likely to send them to war."

In the case of the military that is to a great extent true. The armed forces people I know have more reasons than just that. They are questioning the wisdom of maintaining our role as the world's policeman, as you should too! How did we ever get convinced to believe that it is necessary for us to project power over the entire globe?

February 6, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

In a new poll:

Among all Americans, Obama leads Romney 52 to 43 percent, whereas among registered voters, the president has a narrower edge over Romney, 51 to 45 percent

To read the entire article that this quote came from, go to: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72490.html

February 6, 2012 at 1:05 p.m.
timbo said...

ikeithlu....Yea, and I bet that Obama and his minions are saying the same thing, "Beat Romney at all costs" There is no difference between the way campaigns approach elections and you are a fool to think that there is. They will both try to win. It will set all time records on spending and negative ads from both of them.

February 6, 2012 at 1:21 p.m.
ibshame said...

Romney is like the Buffalo Bills of the 90's. Four consecutive times they made it to the Super Bowl but could never bring the ring home. This time, barring anymore major fumbles, (which is more likely than less likely to happen considering the fumbles he's already made, lol) he's about to make it to the Super Bowl again. Unfortunately for him and the rest of his team he will have to change game plans and uniforms for the Fall Campaign because the team that got him TO the Super Bowl is NOT going to be the team he can win with. He knows it as well as his coaches. If he can't get his old team to rally with the new team, it's over for him before it evens starts. Like the Bills he will always be able to say he made it to the "big game" he just couldn't win it.

February 6, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

.Yea, and I bet that Obama and his minions are saying the same thing, "Beat Romney at all costs" There is no difference between the way campaigns approach elections and you are a fool to think that there is. They will both try to win. It will set all time records on spending and negative ads from both of them.

Nah. Obama will let the GOP leave a long slimy trail of negative ads directed at one another while he attends to the business of, well, governing, and when the election coverage begins in earnest, just simply refer to their own ads.

February 6, 2012 at 2:11 p.m.

BRP, I've been trying to engage with you about it. But you don't offer anything new, just hostility and outrage that somebody just doesn't find your monotonous "I HATE THIS CLAY BENNETT" mantra very appealing. Really, you call him a slug, among other expressions of disdain, and that says more about you than him.

What do you think people see when they read that kind of response? Only the people who are already inclined to agree with you give it merit, and you really don't need to persuade them. They're already members of your club. If you really wanted to show merit to your criticisms, you'd walk away, or write the people in charge with constructive suggestions of other artists.

But no, you just choose to repeat the same thing here, in an endless cycle. Do you know what that tells the people who could make a change? That there is no reason to listen to you. You keep coming back anyway. It's told me to give even less weight to your complaints, as well as others, because you aren't constructive critics, just nattering nabobs of negativity.

Really, at a certain point, you'd realize that you're just making money for the paper with every page load, so they're not going to change a thing.

As for your other question, it was World War II that convinced the US to take such a role, that and the threat presented by the USSR. Me? I said, probably before you knew who Ron Paul was that it was a fool's game to try to pretend to be a policeman, but only acting when it was our interests that were threatened.

But Republicans love their big military spending, and attacking anybody who suggests even the slightest cut as being weak on defense.

lkeithlu, just Romney's own ads provide plenty of fodder. He can't complain about being taken out of context, since he's done that to Obama already.

February 6, 2012 at 2:12 p.m.
joneses said...

klugemann,

You are a perfect example of; "beause a majority in this nation are just stupid and believe this crap."

February 6, 2012 at 3:04 p.m.
joneses said...

On 2/2/12 this pathetic fool we have as a president said; ""For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke."

Will some one tell this moron we have as a pathetic president Jesus did not mean the wealthy should give it to the government? Jesus was saying the "requiement" comes from God, not Obama. of course there are those of you who are so sick you do not know the difference between Obama and God.

Disgusting

February 6, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
timbo said...

ikeithlu....I don't know what you are smoking. Maybe donkey droppings. What you said is absurd.

February 6, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
timbo said...

joneses...Obama and the bible...after sitting with Rev. Wright for 20 years, he wouldn't know the bible if it bit him. You made the correct point. He didn't mean give money to the government.

February 6, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

ikeithlu....I don't know what you are smoking. Maybe donkey droppings. What you said is absurd.

Raspberries to you, darling. Until you have something specific to offer your post is meaningless.

February 6, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
WHS1970 said...

jonses, are you and BRP related? Just wondering.

February 6, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
chet123 said...

HEY JONESE....LISTEN UP MR.WISE GUY!!!!! YOU'RE A BIGGER FOOL!GOVERNMENT ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND! HA HA HA

YOU REPUBLICANS ARE BUTT BACKWARDS.....OBAMA LAUGHING AT ALL OF YOU HA HA HA HA

February 6, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.
chet123 said...

TIMBO.....MAYBE OBAMA NEED TO COME TO YOUR CHURCH.....SOUTHERN BAPTIST PRO LIFE(EXCEPT IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,HEALTH CARE,CHILDREN FEEDING PROGRAM,PREEMPTIVE STRIKE ON A COUNTRY THATS NOT A THREAT TO AMERICA BUT KILLLING THOUSAND OF INNOCENT WOMEN CHILDREN,OR LYING A PIPE LINE THAT COULD KILL THOUSAND OF PEOPLE WITHOUT INDEPT STUDY)HEAVEN FORBID STAY AWAY FROM THE BEATITUDE THAT TOO IS THE TEACHING OF CHRIST....HA HA HA HA!

WHAT A JOKE!!....WHAT A SNAKE OIL SALESMAN!

February 6, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Sandyonsignal said: “No Romney, it doesn't sound like a politician, it sounds like Mitt Romney. Someone, who is always calculating his decision and never really makes a clear stance.”

But Romney does take clear stances, Sandy. It’s just that his "clear" stances change a lot. They always seem to be here today and gone tomorrow. Know what I mean?

Last week, for example, he sent an email to the NYT critizing President Obama’s recent decision to require most religiously affliated employers to offer their employees birth control coverage. But in 2005, when Romney had to make a similar decision as Governor of Massachusetts, he referred to his stance as the “sounder” view:

“BOSTON - Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans Thursday to exempt Roman Catholic and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims. . .

. . . He said the lawyers determined that the new law superseded the old law and that all hospitals should be required to offer the so-called "morning after pill."

"On that basis I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said.

"I think it's, in my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape," he added.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5550561

February 6, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
fairmon said...

ML, SOS, C123 have about convinced me, I am almost ready to join them. I am getting tired of working and making so many of my own decisions, let the government decide for all of us, tell us what the American dream is for everyone and make it come true. I am tired of working hard while those that inherited theirs, took risk and got wealthy, took advantage of educational opportunities, stayed in school and trained several years to get a masters or PhD or became a Dr. and can save lives or invented something doesn't mean they shouldn't spread it among the rest of us. I see the light, I am changing my views, a business owner or corporation should hire people regardless of whether an employee makes a contribution to their success or not. They need to quit trying to make a profit and making sure investors make a decent return but instead show they are loyal to our country. So many post here convince me the ideal would be that all individual income and business profits go to a government that keeps what they need to live like royalty then distribute an equal amount of what is left to everyone within the U.S. borders. it may work if lobbying and trying to influence government is illegal with anyone trying to have more wealth than others is charged with treason. Yes, it is time for change so individual pursuit of happiness, hope, greed, ambition are no longer necessary or beneficial.

February 6, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.
dude_abides said...

harp, don't be so hard on yourself. You are forgiven. See you on the courthouse lawn. Bring tofu and Magic Markers.

February 6, 2012 at 5:29 p.m.

Harp, such hyperbole does you little credit.

Here's another side, the wealthy often didn't inherit their forefather's spirit, didn't take risks, and even when they did, made us pay them off by a lot more to avoid them actually paying part of the cost.

Just ask Mitt Romney how many bailouts he's gotten. If you can get an honest answer, it'll be several hundred, maybe thousands or more worth of individual social welfare. And that's him. How many billions do we spend every year kowtowing to corporate interests? In defense, in the courts, on public boards and decisions? And you think it's somehow unacceptable to expect them to pay for it?

Because, oftentimes, they aren't working for individual happiness or wealth that grows, but rather taking it at the expense of others. How's that fair? Do you really think you're defending individual entrepreneurs who are engaging in a productive spirit on the fruit of their own brow? Or do you think maybe you're covering for vultures and leeches who if we're lucky leave the rest of us with crumbs.

You're falling into Class Warfare yourself, with a bunch of people who aren't looking out for your interests. Just convincing you that they're saints while others are sinners, and getting you outrage out of them.

February 6, 2012 at 5:37 p.m.
timbo said...

Ok, everybody let's all pitch in to get CHET123 typing lessons. After all this time it seems he might improve. Not the case.

February 6, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
timbo said...

ikeithlu....Okay..you are specifically absurd if you don't think Obama will go negative.

February 6, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

timbo-he won't have to

February 6, 2012 at 7:21 p.m.
timbo said...

happydimbulbs...Obama is the enemy of small business. The banking situation and availability of capital will kill any job growth. Banks are being regulated to the point of paralysis. Bailing out Goldman Sacs, GM, etc. has little effect on unemployment compared to small business. Small business is responsible for 70% of the economy. Obama doesn't get it because he has no point of reference as far as we go.. He thinks we are a money tree to be picked whenever he wants to pick winners and losers like Solyndra or finance some crazy liberal scheme.

He sucks and so does McRomney. We have no chance.

February 6, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Update on Active Duty Military campaign contributions. Ron Paul still beats all of the other candidates (in Active Duty Military Campaign Contributions - for alpo, king of comprehension)."

What update? Your quoted article is dated at the beginning of last month, quoting the same same figures. Don't make me pull up the post to prove it.

"Ron Paul beats Obama. Ron Paul beats all of the other Republican candidates combined. Ron Paul beats all of the remaining Republican candidates AND Obama combined."

Given that Ron Paul is the poster child for the anti-war Presidential contenders, and that there are certainly those serving in the military who do not want to deploy to a war zone, the percentages are understandable.

What do I care if military members waste their money? They are only throwing it down a log and winding hole.

"I am sure alpo can find a way to try to distort those very simple facts."

It's an irrelevant set of facts. A few military members, contributing less than a hundred thousand dollars are not going to propel Ron Paul into the White House.

You Ron Paulians get excited over the strangest things.

February 6, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "I see the light, I am changing my views."

Oh, dear. . . You poor guy. . . I don’t think you do see the light, Harp3339. . . Before you can see the light you need to be able to tell the difference between good and bad behavior, and I can tell by your post that you’re simply not there yet.

It’s OK to make profits, Harp3339. It’s just not OK to cheat, bamboozle, and make profits at the expense of the health, safety and well-being of other people. For example, if you own a business and your business activties are poisoning the ground water or polluting the air that others breathe, you are responsible for cleaning up the mess.

Granted, your profits may not be as great because you have to clean up your mess, but it’s the professional and socially responsible thing to do. It’s irresponsible to put others at risk so you can put a few more dollars in your pocket. Get it, Harp3339?

February 6, 2012 at 7:45 p.m.

Timbo, you'd be complaining about all the dominos of small businesses that took it on the chin if Obama had allowed GM to fail. The banks caused the current financial situation by getting free of regulation, which they used to abuse their customers, including small businesses.

But I find it strange that you complain about Obama not helping Small businesses but then complain about one example in a far larger program. Did you not know that most business ventures do fail? Do you expect otherwise? Still, what is the status of the whole program? Do you even know why Solyndra failed? It's because China subsidizes their solar industry even more.

That said, I do have one way for Obama to help all small businesses. Implement a public option. It helps the entrepreneurs in Germany, the UK and Japan, why not here?

Still you don't like that, you don't like Romney's offerings, whatever, stop with the complaints, provide us with a better plan, we don't need to keep hearing the same thing. We get it. If you spent half the time on arguing for your option as you do against others, it might serve to persuade.

February 6, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...There is so little that truly distinguishes between establishment Democrats and Republicans that demonizing and pandering to subsets of the voters are the only tools they have left to get elected.

BRP - it's not just the pols who do the demonizing. It's standard fair on talk radio. By the way, the manner in which you consistently refer to Clay Bennett is also an example of demonizing.

February 6, 2012 at 8:08 p.m.
acerigger said...

Here's an interesting article for all the Ron Paul fans if you care to read it,http://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/

(Of course,I'm sure all the "STORMFRONT" fans have heard already.)

February 6, 2012 at 11:12 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a major problem for Romney:

By better than 2 to 1, Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him

To read the entire article from which I extracted this quote, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-edge-over-romney-in-general-election-matchup-poll-finds/2012/02/05/gIQA5JX0sQ_print.html

February 6, 2012 at 11:59 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's another problem for Romney, who has made his job creation skills the centerpiece of his campaign:

But when it comes to job creation — which has been the subject of fierce debate in the GOP contest — Romney and Obama are dead even in voters’ minds.

To read the article from which the quote was derived, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-edge-over-romney-in-general-election-matchup-poll-finds/2012/02/05/gIQA5JX0sQ_print.html

February 7, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

More evidence that voters think Romney is out of touch with the average citizen:

Fifty-two percent of voters say Obama better understands the economic problems people are having, while 37 percent say Romney does.

That quote came from the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-edge-over-romney-in-general-election-matchup-poll-finds/2012/02/05/gIQA5JX0sQ_print.html

February 7, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

Romney hasn't been convincing people that he was a job creator while at Bain:

Thirty-three percent of all independents say Romney’s work in private business helped create jobs, 34 percent say it did more to eliminate jobs and 33 percent expressed no opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-edge-over-romney-in-general-election-matchup-poll-finds/2012/02/05/gIQA5JX0sQ_print.html

February 7, 2012 at 12:13 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

Romney's biggest vulnerability is the minimal amount he paid in taxes:

Romney is vulnerable on the issue of personal taxes. The former governor released his tax returns two weeks ago, showing that he paid an effective tax rate of about 14 percent. Two-thirds of all Americans say they do not think he is paying his fair share.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-edge-over-romney-in-general-election-matchup-poll-finds/2012/02/05/gIQA5JX0sQ_print.html

February 7, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

News_Junkie....

Washington Post? Do you really think it is an unbiased objective source? If you do then you may think FOX news and Limbaugh are also unbiased? That does mean your user name is well chosen or it could be Junk_News. Do you also read the Moscow paper?

The way questions are worded and ask often taints the results. These articles suggest the two of them have conned around 89% of the people into believing them. No president or congress can create sustainable jobs other than adding government employees but can and do interfere with job creation.

For an example of media bias please answer this question by selecting one of the three options and I will write an article about you based on your response. Do you still abuse your wife?

o YES o NO o I REFUSE TO ANSWER

Regardless of your answer the article will make you look bad.

February 7, 2012 at 4:45 a.m.
timbo said...

happydimbulbs... I will complain as loud and as long as I want.

You obviously don't understand economics. GM going down would have cost jobs but it is minuscule compared as the effect of small business having problems.

Since I have been in business for 19 years I just might know a little bit about small business.

Here is what needs to be done:

  1. Cut the federal budget by over 1 trillion dollars. The Obama budget eats up most of the private capital for small business expansion and consumer loans. Free up this money for growth instead of higher interest payments for us. Most loans go to large businesses like GM and Solyndra and the government. This is the very reason housing is so depressed. They have gone from one regulatory extreme to the other.

  2. Eliminate corporate or business tax on reinvested money. In other words, if you take your profit and put it back into your business for expansion and hiring there would be no tax. This would absolutely kick start the economy and hiring.

  3. Leave me alone. In other words reduce the increase in regulation that Obama put in place when he arrived. The cost of this regulation in astronomical and destroys small businesses ability to grow quickly.

  4. Health care...go ahead with Obama plan. My company would save about half of it's insurance cost. The problem is my employees would be stuck with government health care. They get much better coverage now. All I would have to do it pay a tax. With Obama, big surprise. Again with the government, one step forward, two steps back.

One last thing, the effect of two establishment elites like Obama and McRomney getting in office will result in very little difference. Ron Paul is closer than anyone about knowing what this country needs and the willingness to do it.

On last thing, your weak argument is that the reason Solyndra failed is that China subsidizes their industry more....so we should get in a green energy "arms race" with China. When does Solyndra stand on it's own two feet like I have to. So your liberal answer is to spend more money on a bad bet. You are nuts.

February 7, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said...

Oh, dear. . . You poor guy. . . I don’t think you do see the light, Harp3339. . . Before you can see the light you need to be able to tell the difference between good and bad behavior, and I can tell by your post that you’re simply not there yet.

I may understand the agenda better than you suspect. I admit I am still uneasy with zero wealth creating jobs like mfg. mining, farming, fishing. However, we can hope for more service jobs where everyone has a desk and office or drives a battery powered delivery truck to deliver our imported products. Is there a single business that meets all the safety, health and environmental criteria you think they should?

February 7, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.
rolando said...

All things said, done, and considered, I rather astonishingly find myself pleased with Bennett's cartoon. With only 10% of the delegates selected, undermining The Mitt is a good thing.

I am automatically opposed to anyone favoring and/or supporting The RINO-disguised-as-a-conservative Mitt; that includes George Soros, the Lame Stream Media and alphabet networks, and the 81 Republican Washington elite insiders. He is anything but a conservative. To paraphrase Soros, "There is little difference between Obama and Romney."

So I am on Clay's side on this one, for what that's worth...panning The Mitt is a good thing no matter how you look at it.

February 7, 2012 at 10:08 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.