MJ Election Results

Elam wins re-election as Mayor.

Floyd defeats Justice for D1 Commissioner.

from the Tennessean:

Mt. Juliet mayor

Candidate Votes Percentage
Linda Elam (i) 3,077 32.2%
Wendell Marlowe 2,689 28.1%
Kevin Mack 2,320 24.3%
Jim Bradshaw 1,479 15.5%
12 of 12 precincts reporting 9,565

Mt. Juliet commission, district 1

Candidate Votes Percentage
Winston Floyd 830 39%
Ray Justice (i) 779 36.6%
Jonathan Brydalski 517 24.3%
6 of 6 precincts reporting 2,126


Filed under Uncategorized

43 responses to “MJ Election Results

  1. Amazing. Don’t people do any research before going to the polls? With everything that Linda Elam has and hasn’t done in her first term, I didn’t think she would get 100 votes. Incredible!

  2. Glen Linthicum

    I agree MD. You’ve got to be kidding right! These can’t be the numbers. Has Mt Juliet lost its mind? Are people really that uninformed. Across the board on the national and local level it is a sad day for this great country.

  3. Betty Boop

    It’s math, 3 candidates pulled votes from each other allowing Elam to win.

  4. Jacob

    Yeah, but WSMV, The Tennessean and News Channel 5 all have different numbers, but they all have Elam as the winner. Who knows.

  5. Joe Fleenor

    “it is a sad day for this great country”??? Do you really believe it’s a sad day because John McCain did not win? Don’t be ignorant.

  6. Jacob

    Ok. I figured it out. WKRN has Mack as 3320. All the other sites have him as 2320. And the other numbers match for all other candidates. I’m thinking WKRN just messed up the first digit.

  7. James mayo

    Elam again…. guess Mt. Juliet will not get a fire department after all. That was the major reason I voted against her at all. Yes she guided Providence, but failed to push the construction of the roads until after it was completed, creating hectic rush hours turning them to 3 hours long…unheard of in this city. anyone know where to find out the other city elections come out?

  8. Butch Huber


    It is a sad day for this country when the best the republicans have to put forward is John McCain and the best the democrats have to put forward is Obama.

    McCain is a war hero, and for that I respect and honor him, but he does not represent the conservative right.

    Obama is not fit to be President of the United States. He offers people a false sense of hope and they rush to him. As for his “spreading the wealth”, let’s start with his! Let’s limit his income to the average person’s income in America and his wealth to the average 47 year old’s wealth and then disburse the remaining balance to the masses. Everyone in America should now be saying “you first, Barry, you first!”

    I am not giving up hope that we will see Mack get in there by morning. Complacency is at the root of this whole debacle. This should have been a shut out across the board. Elam shouldn’t have had a chance of getting back in office (if she did). Justice should never get back in office (if he is truly out). McCain should have mopped the floor with Barry, but he didn’t. The congress, with a rating so low you need a microscope to read it, increase its democratic seat count rather than losing seats?!!??!! #($*#)))_%(*@@!!!!!

    Now, if it turns out that Linda slithered back into office, we need to turn out sights toward homerule. We need to see if there is a way to rid ourselves of this commission once and for all in some sort of sweeping reform that gives us the opportunity to start fresh in two years.

    It appears that Randy Robertson has finally snapped and set up a blog of his own. His condescending attitude shines through in just the first few lines. Randy, like Linda, is above us all don’t you know. Randy Robertson as a private citizen has a right to speak just as he pleases, but in his blog he is speaking as “city manager”, which makes his comments inappropriate and unacceptable. He could accomplish the same end result simply by not saying anything while limiting what people are allowed to post. I can’t wait until we are rid of Randy Robertson, Jason Holleman, and Linda Elam. That will be a great day to be alive and well in Mt. Juliet.

  9. Betty Boop

    If just one would have conceded Elam would not be Mayor. Sometimes you have to lose to win.
    6,488 against 3,077 for Elam. Not very smart.

  10. Joe Fleenor

    Butch, I respectfully disagree with you. I’ll just leave it at that.

    Can’t wait for January 20, 2009!

  11. Butch Huber


    I don’t think I have ever heard you using attacking language against anyone, especially someone who hasn’t done anything to you. Calling this person “ignorant” because they are saddened with the results of the election doesn’t seem to be your style. They have a right to their opinion, just like you have a right to yours.

    It is a sad day for those of use who believe in capitalism. Obama wants to “spread the wealth around”. This runs counter to what we stand for as a country, or at least stood for as a country. As for me, if society is all for spreading the wealth around, let’s do it. I suggest that we start with Barry Obama and work our way down the list. Joe B. should be next. Then Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Here is what I suggest. Let’s figure out what the average person in America’s wealth and income is and let’s limit Barry’s wealth and income to that level. The rest of his wealth, property, income, etc. we will take away and give it to those who don’t measure up to “average”. He won’t mind because he is the “Great Spreader of Wealth”. Then we will do the same with Joe B. He won’t mind because he supported Obama, so he must feel that spreading the wealth is a good thing, not a bad thing. Then we can go down the list and do the same with every person who supported Obama from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid all the way down to the voters who voted for him. Let’s go ahead and spread the wealth. However, the rest of us who don’t believe in his “spread the wealth” agenda should be allowed to accept our portion of the wealth that is spread without having to spread our own until we have had a chance to think about it for say….FOUR YEARS! However, even if you were to level the playing field completely, meaning average out everyone’s wealth (Which means that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would have a lot of house guests I guess), as long as Capitalism is restored I will be just fine, in fact, I would be better off because I would be in a capitalist country with a level playing field to start with…what a great day that would be for Butch Huber.

    Barry says he is going to “Change America”. For liberals, that sounds great. However, he is already demonstrating how he will change America. Any news organization that says anything about him that he doesn’t like he attacks and shuts out of the stream of communications. This is step one toward socialism and communism…control the media.

    His heart really came out when he said that people “Cling to their guns and their religion”. Step two and three of the communist agenda is to strip people of their religion and their guns. If we don’t have the ability to protect ourselves and to keep government from entering our homes uninvited or without legal authority we have lost our freedom. Barry wants to build a domestic army the size and scale of our military. Hello! What the hell do we need that for if we are not going to have such radical changes in Washington that we end up with a revolution on our hands? And who the hell is going to pay another $500,000,000,000 to $600,000,000,000 per year to fund such an army? Oh, I get it, we are going to take money that we are currently spending on national defense to protect us from foreign aggression and we are going to spend it to build a domestic defense force! Make no mistake, the domestic defense force he is speaking off is a “national oppression force” complete with storm troopers and shock troops. Never mind that such a thing is against the constitution. Oh, they will cleverly disguise it as a “Police Force”, but the reality of it is that we will have marshal law throughout America.

    Then there are the borders. Remember those walls? Walls serve a dual containment purpose…they can keep people out, or they can keep people in. While so many people have been saying that we should be building a wall to keep people from entering our country illegally, I have been saying the greater danger lies in the fact that walls can be used to contain and control those who live within them. Building walls is not a good idea, Joe.

    Take away a people’s religion and you soon take away their moral center. When we replace God as our source with government as source, depending on Government for our supply, we begin a journey into despotism. The person in charge of such a government now controls the masses. Reinforce that control by spreading the wealth around, which will sound and seem wonderful to the masses for awhile, but will ultimately end in economic disaster; and with walls that make it hard, if not impossible to escape; take away our guns, which will make it hard to defend ourselves against an oppressive government; control the minds of our youth through “forced public education”, so you can indoctrinate our children with the new way of thinking; and you have it….communism in a bottle. Barry was named the most liberal Senator in Washington D.C.. He was named even more liberal than a socialist Senator. When you go left of socialist you are heading toward communism, Joe. Didn’t we already learn that lesson with the Soviet Union?

    Joe, you may not see this the way I do, in fact, you probably don’t. You don’t believe that Barry is going to lead us toward communism, do you? You think that the liberal democratic agenda is right for America. I simply don’t get it. I don’t understand how a person could think that way. That may mean I am ignorant, because I don’t understand you or the way that you think, but to call someone like me, a person who is saddened by the direction of the country, “ignorant”, is a little harsh in my opinion, and from what I can gather from our previous interaction, it is beneath you, Joe. Now, I know that you didn’t call me “ignorant”, you called someone else “ignorant”, and if that statement would have come from one of a few other people who post on here I may have just passed it by or I might have blasted them back, but when someone like yourself resorts to personal attacks it disturbs me. You see, you are one of the few liberals who have ever posted on here that seemed respectful and who had dignity and grace. Your last post makes me feel like you are no different than those who make personal attacks against Conservatives who don’t share their views. I have made no secret over the time that I have been posting on here that I don’t like liberalism. I can’t stand it or anything about it. I think liberalism is the bane of our society and I believe it is the thing that will finally bring this great nation down. I have tried to understand liberals and their agenda, I truly have, I just don’t get it, I don’t understand. Liberalism makes no sense to me what-so-ever. Liberalism doesn’t lead to more freedom, it leads to bondage. Liberalism becomes dependent on government, which can bring some very interesting and enjoyable things, like the parks you love so much, and the warm fuzzies you get when you know that the homeless are no longer homeless, and the satisfaction you feel knowing that no child will go to bed hungry or that no family will have to worry about healthcare…because big brother is there to do everything for you. But just as religion has used its power and wealth to control the hearts and minds of the masses throughout history, government will do the same if we give it that chance. We simply can’t do everything for everyone, Joe, at some point we have to have personal responsibility and we have to accept the fate that befalls us when things don’t go our way.

    Perhaps I and those who think and feel like I do are ignorant, Joe, perhaps it is us who are ignorant, but if it is possible that we are ignorant because we can’t see that your way is the right way, could it be possible that it is you and those who feel and think the way you do who are really the ignorant ones? Could it be that the conservatives are right? Remember, this is still a divided nation. Barry didn’t win this election by a landslide in the popular vote (about 10% or so), just as has been the case for some time now. There is no mandate, no definitive movement or shift in thinking here, there is just right and left and the left won this time. Last time the right won. Perhaps, just perhaps, what’s right for America today lies somewhere in the middle.

    I want families to have healthcare without restriction, I just don’t know how to get there through government without bankrupting the country.

    I want to be able to bring people off of the streets and give them a home, I just don’t know how to get there through government without bankrupting the country or taking away individual freedoms.

    I want nice parks and recreation, I just don’t believe it is the role of government to provide those things.

    I want a lot of the things the liberals in this country want, I just don’t believe government is the appropriate vehicle to use to arrive at that place.

    I want gays and lesbians to have the same rights as I have when it comes to issues like hospital visits, shared property, etc., however, I don’t believe that they should have Gay rights, I believe that they should have “people rights”. I don’t believe that government should legislate or enforce any special rights to any group based on religious beliefs, skin color, gender, national origin, or sexual preference, but rather on the basis that I am a human being and you are a human being and if we live in America we should have the “same rights” on that basis and on that basis alone. I do believe that we should make moral and decent laws and then enforce those laws equally and equitably throughout America. But I don’t think that any law should target any one group, for their benefit or to harm them, on the basis that they don’t look, think or act like me. Gay marriage? No, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. All rights and privileges associated with being married? Yes, why should a person not be able to enter into a contract with another? However, schools should not be allowed to try to teach our nation’s youth that homosexuality is acceptable. If they can’t avoid condoning or advocating homosexuality then they shouldn’t be able to teach sexual education at all. Morality isn’t decided by government, it should be taught by parents who have to work and interact in society.

    I believe a person should be in control of their own body and what happens to it, but I believe that life begins at conception, so that little thing that is growing in that girl’s body is a “person” and it has rights, too. I believe that when one engages in sexual intercourse they are making a decision regarding their body to take a risk that the outcome of their behavior may end up with a change to their body. Much like drinking poison will likely end up killing you, if you drink it, you are taking the risk that you will die. You may be making an irreversible decision regarding the future of your body when you engage in sexual activity. When a girl makes the decision to have sexual intercourse she is making the decision to risk a change in her life and a change to her body. She had control of her body and she gave it away with her decision. The best way to avoid having a child is to not engage in sexual intercourse. (I know, I know, what about in the case of rape? Its still murder to kill an innocent person. A person who is hit by a bus and has their life permanently altered doesn’t have a right to go out and kill someone else because of it. Murdering an unborn child doesn’t end the tragedy, it adds to it. The girl may want to keep the baby, but to kill it simply adds to her problems…this is especially true when you add God to the equation. Liberals don’t seem to believe in the sanctity of life inside the womb.)

    Joe, to me, ignorance is a body of people who believe that government is the answer to their problems (right wing or left wing). We have laws that keep everyone in play, and laws properly written are a good thing, but government will never be our answer for societal issues. Government being the answer to all of the people’s problems didn’t work in Russia, it isn’t working in China, it isn’t working in any country around the world, and it won’t work here.

    What works, is people like you and I, locking arms together, you supporting me, me supporting you, sharing our burdens and rejoicing together in our blessings and sharing what we have with one another on our own. If we love one another, we have no need for laws or government control over us. Only when we start trying to force our agendas upon one another, rather than working things out together, do we need government to legislate and enforce our agenda against the other guy. In today’s society, if I win, you lose, if you win, I lose. There simply isn’t a win-win in this country, only a zero-sum.

    Joe, I see you as an intelligent young man, you and I don’t share the same beliefs, that much is obvious, but the only ignorance that lies between us is our inability to understand the other person’s point of view. I have willingly engaged in debate after debate here on radiofree, never attacking the other guy on a personal level first, but in every interaction with liberals I ended up being attacked on a personal level, except perhaps with you as the exception (I don’t remember you ever attacking me on a personal level). Please tell me why, when conservative and liberal engage in debate, it always seems to end up with the liberal attacking me on a personal level rather than attacking my position? Don’t you see, if two people such as ourselves can’t engage in debate over the issues without it going personal, we will never solve our problems in this country.

  12. Butch Huber

    I didn’t think my last post went out last night, so when you read the post that came out this morning please don’t think I am suffering from split personality. I meant to think about my post before sending it out, I simply don’t know how it went out without me knowing it.

    On another note…there is a bright spot to last night’s election. It appears that Ray Justice has gotten his marching orders. Perhaps now we can end this YMCA crap and move on to things that will move this city forward.

  13. Joe Fleenor

    I did not mean to sound like I was “attacking” anyone when I said “Don’t be ignorant.” I just don’t see how people can proclaim the election of Obama as a sad day for our nation. You can be upset that your candidate did not win, but to me, it seems ignorant for people to believe that our country is in a state of crisis now that Obama is President-elect. It is unfounded. Everyone has their right to have their own opinions and I respect that immensely, but to “throw in the towel” and proclaim that our country is, in no certain terms, “screwed” now that Obama has been elected is an ignorant thing to say. I honestly feel as though Obama will Unite the country and provide inspiration to so many millions of people.

    I do apologize if I sounded like I was on the attack. I hope this message clears up the meaning behind my comment.

  14. Glen Linthicum

    I was not happy with either choice. It is sad that this great nation could only offer us those two men. But you are right Joe we will unite. Unfortunatly we will see the following before we do:
    The end of the secret ballot in union elections
    A return of the Fairness Doctrine
    A tax code punishing the wealthy, businesses, entrepreneurs, achievers
    More federal government in government schools
    Universal healthcare
    Cap-and-trade policies on coal (no nuclear power, no drilling)
    Supreme Court justices who favor a vaporous idea of “fairness” over the Constitution

    In all fairness Joe I knew what you meant and I am not offended because there is hope in Psalm 109 8

  15. Bobby Franklin


    I lived through Jimmy Carter and will get through this – actually purchased my first home when interest rates were 18%. It was rough.

    My biggest concern is Obama’s wealth redistribution promise. When Carter tried it the rich just went on vacation and quit producing.

    Unemployment went to 12%, inflation to 20%.

    “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  16. Butch Huber


    Thank you for responding.

    You say that you feel that Obama will unite this country. Please explain how. He is seen as the most liberal Senator in the country, how will someone who is so liberal unite the country? How will he persuade those on the right to swing left? How will he control the liberal congress and force them to be more neutral?

    Don’t be fooled, Joe, listen to his agenda. He wants to “fundamentally change America”. That doesn’t mean “return to our roots”, that doesn’t mean that he wants to “change course”, it means that he wants to change how we operate from a foundational level. He wants to have constitutional provisions that will dictate what government must do for the people. This will take things from the philosophical position of what is the right role of government to one of a legal definition that is mandated under the constitution. In order to do that he will have to appoint some of the most liberal judges this country has ever seen. Because without the benefit of the supreme court ensuring that laws are legally passed and enforced, and with such a liberal congress, he will be able to do practically anything he wants. Luckily, he has a long way to go before he can change the constitution, because an amendment to the constitution has to be ratified by the states. That isn’t likely going to happen anytime soon, but then again, who would have thought that such a liberal, unpatriotic person such as Obama would ever make it to President of the United States.

    You have to admit, this election is a shake up of mammoth proportions in a lot of ways. Take for instance the fundraising. I believe hundreds of millions of his campaign dollars came from foreign influence. In time, I believe we will find that radical islamic factions around the world funneled money into his campaign. They were allowing people, from what I have seen reported anyway, to donate money from pre-paid credit cards, the kind you can buy at the grocery store. There is no tracking on those type of donations. Further, who knows how many $199 donations were made from foreign interests. Here is another thing that came to my mind this year as well. What is to stop someone, say someone who is running for a small town in a small county somewhere in Tennessee from accepting personal gifts of up to $9,000 or maybe $5,000, then turning around and loaning herself that same amount for her campaign? That bypasses the limitations and avoids having to claim who made the donations. If it can be done in a small town in a small county in a state like Tennessee (not saying that it has or anything), what would stop it from happening across the nation. All it would take is for foreign countries to funnel money through the boarders and give it to foreign nationals living here. They can receive up to $10,000 without having to report it on their taxes, right? They have no risk. Then, all they have to do is go out and get a bunch of these prepaid credit cards and make a bunch of $199 donations under fictitious names and the next thing you know you have hundreds of millions of dollars going into a campaign without any control or oversight and without raising any flags immediately. We don’t even know for sure if Obama is legally qualified for this position!

    This whole election to me, from start to finish, Democrat and Republican, is a catastrophe and the fact that we couldn’t find a republican to whip obama is a tragedy.

    Even today the Russians are setting the stage to challenge him. The world will see him as weak and they will stage a challenge to see what he is made of, a challenge that will cost American lives…just as Job B. said.

  17. Joe Fleenor

    Bobby, explain what you think Obama’s “wealth redistribution promise” means.

  18. Bobby Franklin

    This is how Obama justifies increasing taxes on small business owners:

    “It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama explained. “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    I think this means he plans to use the tax system to take more money from people who earn it to give to people who don’t.

    Again, I have lived through one attempt to do this under Jimmy Carter. I voted for Carter and lived to regret it. It all sounds good rolling off a good speaker’s lips, but the reality is that this does not work.

    Carter raised the top tax rate to over 70% and the rich stopped investing in anything. They stopped employing people.

    The rich do not have to produce wealth. They will just invest abroad, go on vacation, or both.

  19. Joe Fleenor


    What Obama was saying is that giving tax breaks that have disproportionately benefited upper-income taxpayers (Bush/McCain plan) leaves those further down the scale “pinched,” with the result that “business is bad for everybody.”

    What Obama’s plan would do is provide even more tax benefits at the middle and low end of the scale, while increasing taxes at the top. This way of “spreading the wealth around” is hardly a new concept. The United States already has a progressive tax system by which high earners are taxed at higher rates than those who make less. Obama would make it somewhat more progressive, basically putting it back to the same method as Clinton did while he was in office.

  20. Bobby Franklin

    This is from the Dec, 2007 Wall Street Journal:

    In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share!

    If Democrats really want to soak the rich, they’ll keep tax rates where they are, or, better, lower them some more.

    Joe, the rich pay more taxes when rates are low. Its a proven fact. The notion that you will get more money into the treasury by raising tax rates on the rich is just not true. So why do it? Because is makes people feel better? It never raises more money.

    When Carter tried this he had to replace the lost tax revenue by printing more money. That caused the worst inflation in my lifetime.

    Granted, Clinton’s tax rates were not as high as Jimmy Carter’s. But Clinton governed as a moderate democrat while Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He is to the left of Ted Kennedy!

    Clinton also inherited an economy that was on the upswing, Obama is getting one going the other way. Isn’t money tight enough right now?

    Raising taxes on the rich will only take more money out of the economy.

  21. Joe Fleenor

    The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income, or business losses, in 2009 will fall into the top two income brackets, including 457,000 who are projected to fall into the top bracket. That’s 1.3 percent of all tax filers who are expected to report business income or losses, including lawyers and other professionals who get partnership distributions, those who are passive investors in deals such as real estate, farmers and others with freelance or outside consulting income. Those who could legitimately be called “small-business owners” would be even less than that.

    How much would Obama raise taxes for the top earners? He says he’ll increase their marginal tax rate of 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which would mean they’d pay 4.6 percent more on net income above $372,950 in 2009. They’d also pay 3 percent more on income from $200,000 (or $250,000 if filing as a married couple) up to $372,950, since the second-highest tax rate would also be raised for such earners.

    Obama has specifically said that he is going to model his tax policy after that of Clinton, a plan that obviously worked. Why should I take him against his word? Because you think he’s too liberal to trust?

    Lowering taxes on the middle class will put more money into the economy.

  22. The “Bush” tax cuts will expire in 2010. This is because the democrats in congress would not allow them to be made permanent.

    When they do, the tax brackets will revert to the “Clinton” rates.

    The tax brackets are currently 10, 25, 28, 33 and 35.

    The old “Clinton” rates are: 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6

    Oh, and the per-child tax credit will be cut in half, thus penalizing families with children much more severely than singles and childless couples.

    When the lowest bracket goes from 10 back to 15, that will be a 50% increase in the taxes paid by the poorest families.

    All of this will happen automatically, for two reasons. The original Bush tax cuts were made “temporary” by the Democrats. The Democrats have refused to make them permanent on numerous subsequent votes – as late as last spring.

    But you thought Bush only cut taxes for the wealthy, didn’t you?

  23. Glen Linthicum

    Wait a minute! Obama said he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans! If you make more than 250k you would get a tax break….uh wait a minute he meant 150k….no wait he actually meant 120k. My question is if the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes paid, that means some people are not going to get a tax cut they are going to get a tax credit, which means they will get back more money than they put in to the system. So if they did not earn this money themselves someone else must have earned it and it is being distributed by the government to them, because the government does not create money. Well they do print it but that is an economic discussion for another day. 🙂

  24. Butch Huber

    Wow, I don’t think I ever thought about how much of a tax break Bush gave to the poorest people in this country. A 33% tax break is significant. I wonder when the last time, before the Bush tax cuts, any group experienced a 33% tax cut. But in reality, it was more than a 33% tax cut when you take into consideration the per child tax credit. In fact, I can see where it could have been a 60%+ tax cut for many, many families.

    While we know that Presidents can’t really do much on their own, it appears that Obama is set to inflict incredible harm on the very people who put him in office, if even by default. Masses of people are about to experience a fifty percent to perhaps a 70% increase in the taxes they pay while the richest people will likely experience perhaps a 5% to 10% increase in what they pay. (In reality, it will likely be much less).

    However, in order for the rich not to have to pay much more in taxes they will have to “rethink” how they invest. Just as the luxury tax killed many industries, attacking the wealth of the wealthy will result in a retracting market in America. It is basic human nature to hold on to what is being ripped out of your hands, but when the decision is yours, you are apt to share…this is a basic concept that is lost on the liberal left.

  25. Lex Luther


    I think you and Franklin are arguing two different subjects. He contends that raising the tax rate on the top 1% reduces money to the treasury.

    He contends simply raising the top tax rate will reduce wealth not redistribute it. If that is true would you still be in favor of doing it?

  26. Butch Huber


    That is the big dilemma of today’s society, that they feel that it is “okay” for government to take money from the rich and give it to someone else.

    Redistribution of wealth is an important aspect of society, it needs to happen, otherwise, over time, just like in monopoly, one person would end up with all of the wealth of the country, if not the world. However, I don’t see it as government’s role to redistribute wealth. I do see it as government’s role to ensure that we have an even playing field in society. Laws that favor one group naturally disenfranchise another by default. When government gets itself into the business of steering the economy or steering industry we all lose. I am more of a laissez faire type than anything when it comes to the economy and social issues. We need to develop an education system that empowers our nation, not just k-12, but lifelong learning. However, that education system needs to be privately operated to restrict government influences.

    If we started doing the right things today it would take 20 to 30 years to see the full fruit of fundamental change in America, but if we don’t get started now it may never happen…well, it will happen, but only after a complete collapse.

    Redistribution of wealth needs to happen through charitable giving and through systems of training and empowerment, not entitlements and taxation.

  27. Just Curious

    Do you really think the last several years of this administration has represented conservatism? I sure hope not. The Republicans need to remember what being the so called conservative party is about. Instead of focusing on how dangerous and scary liberal democrats are, they need to get back to being the party about small government and low spending. These past years I could not tell the difference between the two parties. I could not believe this is what Ronald Reagan believed in. The Republicans use to be the party with the ideas. Now they just talk about how scared we should be with Liberals running the show and then they turn around and do they same thing. That is why 52 percent of this country voted for a new direction. The past years wasnt run by a true conservative. Just because Bush is Republican, doesnt mean he was a conservative. Hopefully with this defeat, they Republicans can remember what they so-called stand for.

  28. Lex Luther

    Just Curious,


  29. Joe Fleenor

    Ok, here’s what I know based on the proposals of what the two candidates were bringing to the table in terms of taxes and debt:

    It was estimated that the cost of Senator
    McCain’s plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective
    immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the
    Republican Study Committee, that the revenue loss attributable to the Senator’s plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window. Under the assumptions of the Obama tax plan, the Senator’s proposals would reduce revenues
    by $2.6 trillion over 10 years.

    If federal spending evolves as the Congressional Budget Office predicts, the proposed tax cuts would add to the federal budget’s deficits and substantially increase the national debt.
    Senator Obama’s plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the ten-year
    cumulative deficit by about $3.6 trillion to $5.9 trillion; Senator McCain’s plan would boost it by
    $5.1 trillion to nearly $7.4 trillion. Adding to their plans proposals made in stump speeches but
    not confirmed by campaign advisors would lower the cumulative deficit over the decade slightly
    to $5.4 trillion for Obama and raise it to almost $11 trillion for McCain.

    However, if the tax cuts substantially raise the
    national debt, the increase in borrowing by the federal government could crowd out private
    investment and consumers’ purchases of homes and durable goods, which could slow the

    I’m not sure if this answers Lex Luther’s question, but to me it looks like both tax plans would reduce wealth. One just reduces it much more than the other.

  30. Lex Luther

    It does not answer my question.

    If you saw evidence that raising the tax rate on the top 1% would reduce actual revenue paid to the treasury by the top 1% – would you still want to do it?

    Simple question.

  31. Joe Fleenor

    I’m not afraid to admit when I’m confused and don’t understand something. I can’t formulate an educated response because I’m missing what I’m supposed to be answering.

    What I do understand is that Obama’s plan includes raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (let’s just say that’s the 1% you’re referring to). I also know that based on independent tax policy centers, that Obama’s plan will not accumulate more wealth for the federal government. That, to me, looks like it answers the question you’re posing — raising taxes on the top 1% does not generate more wealth for the federal government.

    Am I missing something?

  32. Lex Luther

    It is a pretty simple question.

    If raising the tax rate on the top 1% reduced the amount of money that group (the top 1%) sends the treasury, would you still want to do it?

  33. Joe Fleenor

    Sorry Lex. I’m not avoiding your question. I don’t know if you’re wanting me to say one plan is better than the other or if you’re wanting me to develop my own tax plan for if I were running for President.

    On another note, if someone tells you that they don’t understand a question it’s usually not a good thing to reply with “It is a pretty simple question.” That’s just being a jerk.

  34. Glen Linthicum

    Spot on! Curious

  35. Lex Luther

    No need to get snippy Joe. You are free to answer or not answer but there is no need to call me names.

    I am at a loss how to explain the question any better for liberal comprehension.

  36. Joe Fleenor

    Here’s the best answer I can give to a question that I don’t fully understand: if something doesn’t accomplish what you’re wanting to accomplish, then you should not do it.

  37. Lex Luther

    Charlie Gibson reminded Obama that raising capital gains taxes actually decreased revenue and negatively impacts the economy. Now, this is not an opinion, it has been proven time and again and that’s why Clinton cut captial gains. Obama did not disupte this. So what did Obama say? We should do it out of fairness.

    And people wonder why the stock market is sinking?

  38. Sonny Griffin

    Please let me share the following excerpt from an article written recently by Ann Coulter with you. I think it explains a lot about the outcome of the presidential election.
    Know that I truly admire John McCain for his service to our country and also know that I voted for him.
    I would not have voted for him except for the fact that Obama is the most liberal politician in our midst. Here is Ann’s quote:

    “Republicans lost this presidential election, and I don’t blame the messenger; I blame the message. How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

    How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver’s licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

    How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

    How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the “rich,” when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush’s tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

    And why should Republican activists slave away working for McCain when he has personally, viciously attacked: John O’Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, National Right to Life director Doug Johnson, evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, various conservative talk radio hosts, the Tennessee Republican Party and on and on and on?”

    “How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that “moderate,” “independent,” “maverick” Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?”

  39. Bobby Franklin

    The recent interpretation of State law by the Mt. Juliet City Attorney should not affect the YMCA vote. Mr. Hollerman wants to postpone seating newly elected District One Commissioner Floyd until after the Election Commission certifies the election.

    Some think this is being done just so Ray Justice would then be present at the November 10th meeting to vote for the YMCA giveaway on second and final reading.

    But not seating Ted Floyd on the 10th has nothing to do with Ray Justice. TCA spells out the terms of office very specifically in 6-20-102. Date of elections:

    Members of the board of commissioners, and the popularly-elected mayor, if there is one, shall be elected for terms of four (4) years, except for the transitional term provided for in subdivision (d)(1)(B).

    6-20-102 (d) (1) (B) does not provide a transitional term so Ray Justice can vote one more time.

    Ray Justice was seated on November 8th, 2004. His term will expire on November 8th, 2008. It doesn’t matter if Ted Floyd is seated this meeting. Ray’s term will have already expired two days prior. Jason Hollerman’s TCA interpretation cannot extend Ray Justice’s term just so he can vote for the Y.

  40. Butch Huber


    This is Mt. Juliet you are talking about, remember, the land where public officials can do whatever they want because nobody will enforce the law on them? You really don’t expect them to do something a certain way just because there is a law that governs them do you? You are starting to sound like me! Next thing ya know you will be expecting them to investigate wrong doing by one of their members! I mean an actual investigation where the investigating attorney is actually looking to see if a law had been broken, not like the last one where the purpose of the investigating attorney was to find a way to protect the mayor.

    The YMCA deal, at least with the Old MJES site, is a dead deal. It was one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of and it is now over…I hope. There is an article that came to me in an e-mail from the Mt. Juliet News regarding this issue. They are finally getting it too.

    Folks, the county never-ever, never, never, never-ever, never offered the city that land for $1,050,000. It never happened! They did offer the city that property for $2,000,000, which was a steal, but never did they offer it up for $1,050,000. Three city commissioners, the city attorney, and the city manager tried hard to slip one past us, but I caught them. The only way that could have done the deal they were trying to do was to illegally use bond funds. They admitted that the offer was connected to Curd Road construction of the reverse L in the last commission meeting. The only way that could have met that obligation would be to use bond funds to affect that deal with the county, which would be bond fraud pure and simple. It appears that they are once again trying to get this same deal put through. They can’t make this deal work, but even if they could, I am certain the SEC would be very, very interested in the deal.

    I agree with Bobby, I read the TCA and it appears to me to be quite clear, Ray is out on November 8th at the latest. Goodbye Ray.

    Oh, and Linda, before you even start, 38% of the vote does not make a mandate. Remember, 62% didn’t want you. I would be on my best behavior if I were you. You are one lucky gal that there was such a split vote. Just like Ray’s last election, you squeaked in by the hair of your chinny-chin-chin. However, Linda, I will say thank you for using your ample cunning and skill to help kill the YMCA deal in the last meeting once and for all. Now, all you have to do is make sure that Ray is not seated at the next meeting, or make sure that the ordinance is put on the agenda on first reading as it legally has to be, and that it is amended to repeal the first ordinance directing the city manager to purchase that land, and the deal is done.

    Once that is accomplished you need to have an investigation into the budget to make sure that we are on safe footing financially.

    And for God’s sake, let the YMCA go out and get their own land and build their own building and forget this $2,000,000, or $20,000,000 project.

    Remember, there is a lawsuit coming that you are going to have to deal with Linda, I recommend you put your best foot forward now because there won’t be anyone there to save you from that one when it hits the courts.

  41. Leon

    68% of Mt Juliet voters voted against Mayor Elam, yet she retains office. How can we continue to use a system where 32% of the vote allows you to keep or take office? It should initate an automatic runoff if a candidate does not get 51% of the vote or we should use the instant run off process where you make your first and second choice at the ballot and if a candiate does not get 51% of the first choice votes, the 3rd and 4th place vote getters names drop out and those voters second choice is counted. The instant run off is a money saver as well because you don’t have to set up a runoff election. Who Uses IRV? In use in the United States: ( http://instantrunoff.com/ )

    Arkansas (adopted 2007; overseas voters in all federal, state and local runoffs)
    Basalt, Colorado (adopted 2002 for mayoral elections with 3 or more candidates)
    Burlington, Vermont (adopted in 2005 for mayoral elections)

    Cambridge, Massachusetts (adopted ranked voting method of proportional voting for city council and school committee in 1941)
    Cary, North Carolina (used to elect mayor and city council in 2007)

    Hendersonville, North Carolina (used to elect city council in 2007)

    Louisiana (adopted c1990s; overseas and military voters in federal/state runoffs)
    San Francisco, California (adopted in 2002 for mayor and most other city elections)

    Springfield, Illinois (adopted 2007; overseas and military voters)
    South Carolina (adopted 2006; overseas voters in state and federal runoffs)
    Takoma Park, Maryland (adopted in 2006 for city council and mayoral elections)

    Pierce County, Washington (adopted in 2006 for nearly all county elections)

    Upcoming implementations in the United States:
    Aspen, Colorado (adopted 2007 / expected implementation in May 2009)
    Berkeley, California (adopted 2004 / expected implementation in November 2010)
    Ferndale, Michigan (adopted 2004)
    Minneapolis, Minnesota (adopted 2006 / expected implementation in November 2009)
    Oakland, California (adopted 2006 / expected implementation in November 2010)
    Santa Fe, New Mexico (adopted 2008)
    Sarasota, Florida (adopted 2007)

    Approved As Advisory or Option Measure in the United States:
    Davis, California (choice voting / approved in 2006)
    San Leandro, California (approved in 2000)
    Santa Clara County, California (approved in 1998)
    Vancouver, Washington (approved in 1999)

    Instantrunoff.com is a project of FairVote Action.

  42. Nathan Clariday

    I have to admit I was wrong. I thought there was no chance for Linda Elam to win. I do believe that we should make a candidate carry a >50% vote. Can we place a referendum on the next ballot …?

    Obama and taxes… I believe if Obama says he wants to do in preelection speeches happens, it will kill business. However, candidates once elected tend to govern a little differently.

  43. Butch Huber

    Linda wants to get the commissioners together in a meeting and clear the air according to what I read in an article in one of the e-mails I get from local papers. But it didn’t seem like she was speaking of a “commission meeting”. Could it be that Linda is planning an informal, private meeting with the other four commissioners? Unless it is properly called, such a meeting, if they discuss anything that is to come before the commission, would be illegal.

    For those who are unhappy that Linda was re-elected, take heart, people rarely change. In fact, she will be emboldened now. She is likely to violate the law even more than she was before.

    Randy, you are going to find out what it is like to be friends with Linda soon enough, I hope you have a job lined up.

    Hopefully, the republicans in congress will be able to influence moderate democrats and get them to stop the socialistic agenda of Obama in its tracks. They can’t all be socialists, can they?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s