One of my favorite columnists is Gail Kerr of the Tennessean. I started reading her work over a decade ago, along with the work by my friend the late Tim Chavez. Although I do not always like her politics or positions, I like her style. She is usually ready with a word or two for conservatives, but somewhat reluctant with liberals. That being said, she has few sacred cows as far as I can tell. That is what probably endears her writing to me, as well as others.

In truth I am probably a lot like her - although in reverse - somewhat reluctant to hit the conservatives and usually ready to discuss the shortcomings of the liberals. But over the years, people will normally say I have stated my opinion and not hesitated to stand up to Republicans and Democrats alike. It has opened doors in some instances with some Democrats who recognize I am not merely echoing some partisan position. And it has angered some of my Republican friends who think we need to always hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The only hand I like to hold belongs to my wife, and I don’t sing.

Gail’s article today was about the fact that the election's sore losers need to quit whining. I agree with her point and, yes, there is an art to conceding graciously. And we have seen whining by losing candidates taken to extreme. Anybody remember Al Gore? Would you describe him as a gracious winner or bitter loser?

However, Ms. Kerr’s most profound point was the last sentence that “too many candidates were losers in more ways than one this time around.” That is absolutely accurate. I would add: even some of the winners might be losers before the final story is written.

Those of us in the 3rd District witnessed the campaign for the U.S. House, which provided voters ugliness that was bitter and personal. There were some high-quality candidates that offered themselves for public service. Yet, still the campaign continues and the animosity grows. I am not sure a Unity Breakfast repairs the damage.

Mr. Fleischmann is the winner with less than 30% of the vote, which begs the question should Tennessee adopt a runoff system where a winner should be required to get over 50% of the vote? I think that may be more appropriate.

I know this - no matter how kind, benevolent or gentle Chuck Fleischmann may be from this point forward he ran a campaign in 2010 that was perceived as ruthless, win at any cost political novice, self-financed with outside political endorsements and campaign staff to make him the establishment candidate. No matter how much back slapping or glad handing gets done at a gathering of former candidates at a Unity Breakfast that perception is not likely to change any time soon.

And if a man will sell civility and principles to gain an office, what will he do to keep that office once he is there in Washington, D.C.? How long before an outsider becomes an insider?

Mr. Fleischmann will win the race in 2010. And unless he self-destructs, there is no Democrat who can prevent his election to office this year. He will be the U.S. Congressman from the 3rd District. But if he really wants to win the minds and hearts of voters in this district, he needs to really apologize for his actions in the primary campaign, he needs to articulate a vision that is not merely in opposition to President Obama, and he need not march in lock step with the current Republican leadership in Washington, D.C., who still remain somewhat leaderless.

Furthermore, I am tired (and I am sure most voters are) of slick-packaged direct mail, computer-generated telephone calls and TV/radio ads. Here is a novel idea: talk to those whose vote you want. Knock on a few doors. Host a few town hall forums.

I do not want mindless unity of former political rivals. I want revolutionary leadership that places people before partisanship and will shake the corridors of the great halls of the Congress to accomplish that task. Then I want that servant leader to return and live and work under the laws they enacted. If Mr. Fleischmann wants to earn unwavering support and the respect of voters, I hope he embraces that type of revolutionary leadership. If not, I expect the 2012 Republican primary may be even more contentious.

J.C. Bowman
Cleveland, Tn.

* * *

Well said, Mr. Bowman. If a candidate will lie, twist known truth, even while saying how holy he is, what will that Congressman to to keep and achieve more power. Obviously, "Thou shalt not bear false witness.. " has been torn from the Book of Exodus in Mr. Fleishman's Bible.

He ran as a Reagan Republican. If the former President was exhumed today, he would have rolled over to be face down with tears.

Yes, a district-wide apology is needed; something on the presuppose of, "I lied, but I had to to win..."

Now we must choose from a far left attorney, John Wolf, who is honest, and someone who 'says' that he is conservative but cannot be trusted with the truth.

Carnell Storie
Carnellstorie@comcast.net

* * *

I keep reading about all the lies that Mr. Fleischmann is said to have told, but none of the lies are actually being listed. I am at a loss as to what these lies are.

If you going to publicaly accuse the man of lying, then please uses the facts to back up your accusations.

Michaele Hughes
Chattanooga

* * *

Mr. Fleischmann should be very grateful for the gift that was handed to him. Robin Smith and Sheriff Gobble split the vote and Chuck emerges as the victor.

He won with 30% of the vote which means that 70% of the voters wanted someone else.

It is hard to believe that 3rd district voters could not select a "home town" girl like Robin, or a "home town" sheriff like Mr. Gobble to represent them. Now, we have a lawyer from Illinois who wants to represent us.

He will probably win but it will be without my vote. I will vote Democrat for the first time since Marilyn Lloyd.

Mike Harvey
Signal Mountain

* * *

Folks, Chuck won (at least the primary), that's it. Lets stop bashing him. I didn't vote for him, but I will support him. I have no doubt that he will faithfully and honestly serve this district.

The comment about a "gift being handed to him?" I suppose if Robin had won, that would be a gift to her because Chuck and Tim would have split the vote. And "seventy percent of the voters wanted someone else?" Well, I guess because Robin got less votes than Chuck more people wanted someone other than her.

"Lawyer from Illinois?" I'm not from here originally either. Guess I better not run for office. Chuck has been a Chattanoogan for at least 24 years. He was a Tennessean before he was a lawyer, having graduated from law school at UT Knoxville. Can we only vote for lifelong Tennesseans?

(Newsflash-Robin isn't originally from Tennessee either.)

And I'm with Ms. Hughes, don't just accuse, show me the facts. Where did Chuck lie?

John Don Smithson

* * *

These silly comments are indicative of why I, a former Reagan Republican, returned to the GOP to vote for Chuck, they reflect a myopic view tinged with intolerance, and which Ms. Smith embodied.

My vote (and those of my Democratic family) for Chuck was a vote for him and against a mean-spirited Robin Smith. I'm so glad there was a GOP candidate that could express his views and the views of the people.

Congrats, Chuck.

Robin Ruben Flores

* * *

Why did Robin lose? This is the "year of the woman" in national politics and is happening in Republican races across the country. She was the party favorite. She has 20 years of dedicated campaigning for Republican candidates and served as Tennessee state Republican Party Chairwoman. Robin was a candidate firm in her convictions with national endorsements, PAC funding, thousands of local and state supporters and contributors and a well financed, loyal, hard working campaign staff. There were no skeletons in her closet to expose, no dirty laundry to air, a very respected Christian wife, mother, and a smart, knowledgeable candidate who did her homework. So what went wrong?

In the game of "Monday morning quarterbacking" and "shoulda, woulda, coulda" we all have our opinions. I personally did not support Robin or Chuck and underestimated his support and overestimated Robin's. Although I vote Republican, I vote for the person instead of the party since my disappointment with the Bush administration and the direction of our local Republican party.

My first volunteer in a campaign was 60 years ago. I helped load a truck with watermelons for a "watermelon cutting political rally "somewhere out in the country. I nailed posters on trees. A cold slice of watermelon would buy you a vote back then. Times have changed and so has the price.

I don't know to what degree Robin's handlers had in the decision making process, but there were serious mistakes made in her campaign strategy. Chuck, whether by design or accident, threw out the bait and she swallowed hook, line and sinker. These actions put her on the defensive and down to the mudslinging trenches where you don't want to go. I would hear the word "mean spirited" attributed to her by the opposition, and later this adjective begin to stick. There were statements I read that assimilated she (paraphrasing) "earned the right to be the elected one". This gave me immediate flashback to Hillary Clinton's campaign for President and the "presumed" office of Sen. Ted Kennedy which later proved to be the "office of the people." Another statement I recall was her stand against illegal immigration and closed borders (which I wholly support), then excitedly announcing the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which has always been a leading advocate for amnesty and jobs for illegal immigrants. Seemed wishy-washy to me. All these are small things (and they are small things) but they tend to grow and magnify in correlation with the tensions as each candidate tries to "peak" their campaign right up to hour of election time.

In response to an a writer expressing the fact that "Chuck owes and apology to Robin Smith" I don't see any reason for an apology. He won fair and square. If you think that this campaign was dirty ask me about some in California I was involved in (we timed one mailer to be sent to residents three days before election stating we had heard he had once belonged to the "Gay Nazi Party" which we made up, but we still lost that one).

All joking aside, we are fortunate to have had such a well qualified group of candidates for the 3rd District race, and I encourage everyone to continue to help us keep our freedoms and American way of life - God Bless America and still be mad in November.

Bill Watkins
Member, Chattanooga Tea Party
watkins238@aol.com

* * *

I find it amusing that the comments about Mr. Fleischman contains a letter from Mr. Flores indicating he and his family crossed over from the Democrat party and voted against Robin Smith, a Republican. I find this amusing when in previous elections I remember the Democrats howling and screaming at the moon when they believed the Republicans had done (but not proven) such a dastardly deed. Could there be a double standard here somewhere? He admits to this action, and he will probably be the one screaming the loudest if it happened to his candidate.

Mr. Fleischman won the most votes, but at a cost incalculable in human terms. He has to live with himself and know that seventy percent of the Republican voters did not support him. He will have to always be looking over his shoulder and wonder if the whispers in the room are about him. Only his political hardcore groupies will trust him, and the others will always wonder if he is telling the truth about anything.

Richard Elrod

* * *

I can't see changing our voting system, changing our constitution or
anything else about America except for adding to our Constitution that we are governed by God. Put the bibles back. The country was started with the help of God. Our leaders counted on God for all decisions. We count on politicians.

We can gripe, and we can talk about lies being told. Won't do anyone any
good. We need to unite our party if we want anything done. The main thing we can do is, every time we wake in the morning, pray for our leaders and our country like we're sincere. Do it it every morn and night. If we all do this, something will happen.

Bud Mansel
Bud9391@wmconnect.com

* * *

I volunteered a lot for Robin Smith. The call for "unity" and "character" now from the Republican Party leaders is a joke.

Along with many others, I was there when Robin told us she would only run a clean campaign. Where were the GOP leaders standing for "character" when Chuck Fleischmann's ads were making personal attacks based on lies?

We were there when Robin explained every detail of the lies from the Fleischmann campaign aimed at her character. Where were the GOP leaders when they knew the truth and allowed attacks?

Tennessee Republicans have the conservative majority today because of Robin Smith. She worked selflessly in this election with many local candidates in their successful efforts while running her campaign. Chuck Fleischmann won by lying and tearing down, helping no one but himself.

GOP "leaders," you have no credibility and no standing to ask for "unity." You all have a double standard and have allowed this mess. You've lost my vote and many others by saying one thing and doing the opposit. Shame on you, GOP.

You want unity? The local and state GOP owes apologies for condoning this hateful behavior, and Chuck Fleischmann needs to set the record straight.

Don Holland

* * *

I'm going to vote for Chuck Fleischmann because it is more important to have John Boehner replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House than anything that happens here in the Third District of Tennessee. We must weigh issues proportionately. The welfare of the country is at stake.

However, it will be wonderful if Chuck Fleischmann truly loves to campaign because he is probably going to get an opportunity to do a lot of it in the immediate future. Not only will he have challengers from the left, but more than likely he will be challenged from the right. Fleischmann got enough votes to win the district, but he lost his home county. More importantly, he lost a lot of respect because of the way he campaigned. Zack was both loved and respected, and Fleischmann is sure to find him a very difficult act to follow.

I wasn't present at the GOP Unity Rally, but I'm sure Attorney Fleischmann met with current "Party Boss" Chris Devaney. I wonder if he questioned the party boss about how the state Republican Party is funding campaigns this year. During the campaign it appeared that this was Chuck Fleischmann's single most important issue.... let's all hope that "Party Boss" Devaney has not broken the GOP piggy bank. Fleischmann is certainly going to need help from the GOP "party bosses."

Sue Thompson

* * *

During the recent 3rd Dist. Republican Congressional Primary I supported Robin Smith. Heck, let’s be frank, I worked my tail off helping her with her grass roots efforts in Hamilton County. So, it would be understatement to say I was disappointed by the results.

If Chuck had engaged in a clean campaign, addressing the issues and refraining from the campaign of smears, character assassination and innuendo that he and his campaign manager/consultant Chip Saltsman engaged in, I would know that the voters had gone with the candidate that was better able to convince them he was equipped and ready to serve. But, more than anything else, it was the way in which he conducted his campaign under the guidance of Chip Saltsman that is disturbing. I can overlook comments made in the heat of battle, but a premeditated and calculated smear of a person’s character is much more difficult.

I have been asked to “Unify” behind Chuck’s candidacy. But the request has come from the local Party Chair and the President of the Pachyderm club, not from Chuck. Now I realize I was just a campaign volunteer, but a call or an email reaching out would seem to have been advisable given the approach he took. At a minimum he should have called Robin and asked for her support. But he hasn’t really reached out to me or to Robin (unless you consider Corey Lester asking to be a Facebook friend to be “reaching out”).

I agree with the sentiments expressed by J.C. Bowman in his recent posting on Chattanoogan.com. If Chuck wants to “heal the rift” he should apologize to Robin for the content of his commercials. Now some have responded that nowhere has there been evidence of the half-truths and lies in Chuck’s commercial. So, for those who require an explanation, here it is:

In a 30-second television commercial, Chuck told you that Robin left the party $100,000 in debt.

What he didn’t tell you is that it has been the normal practice of the State Party to get campaign-related vendors to agree to payments on terms following an election. The U.S. Government does it when they issue bonds. You do it when you take out a mortgage. Businesses use debt routinely to cover expansion and growth. And, let’s face it, campaign vendors like all other businesses want the business over their competition. They know the state party will make good on its payments from contributors’ contributions after the election so they agree to post election payments routinely. And yes, on the day she left office the party still owed $100,000. But what Chuck also didn’t tell you is that she had already set up the state party’s annual fundraiser that would raise in excess of $500,000, pay off all the remaining debt (as had been promised to those vendors) and would provide more than enough money for the party’s operations as it moved into the 2010 election cycle. But that wasn’t what he wanted you to take away from that commercial. His statement was a half-truth (which my mom always told me was a ‘whole lie’) intended to convince you that the debt was an unusual and bad thing. It was a lie … especially given the fact that she led the party to a majority in the General Assembly for the first time in 140 years.

Chuck told you that Robin gave exorbitant bonuses to her staff who later came to work in her campaign.

Truth was that after the 2008 election the state party leadership offered Robin a $20,000 bonus for her historic results. She thanked them but declined and asked that the money be spread among the 11 state party staff members who had worked to make the victories happen. I submit that giving a little over $1,800 to each of 11 staff members shortly before Christmas 2008 was not exorbitant. It was her money. And in fact, only one of those staff members later came to work in Robin’s campaign. Again, this was a lie intended to deceive the public.

Chuck told you Robin refused to release the results of the “Official Audit.” And on screen while the comment was made, there was an official looking seal of Tennessee on a State Audit document.

Truth was that there was never an “audit.” There was a review. It was not done by the state. It was done by Decosimo and Company. A review is different than an audit. Robin never denied there was a review; in fact, she posted the audio transcript of the meeting where the review was presented to and accepted by the state party on her campaign website. She didn’t have a copy of the review. The state party did. And even then, it wasn’t in Robin’s power to release it; the state executive committee was the only body that could release it.

Chuck’s intent was to question her integrity by telling a lie that she refused to release it. She couldn’t and he and Chip Saltsman knew it. They called it an audit and made it look like the state did it so it should be a public document. It wasn’t an audit. And it wasn’t a public document. More lies, all intended to smear her integrity.

There is more. But this is enough to illustrate my point. That one 30-second commercial contained no less than 4 lies designed for one purpose – win by any means at any cost. The Chuck Fleischmann I knew would not have done such a thing before hooking up with Chip Saltsman.

And the sad part is that because he was a self-funded millionaire, he could afford to keep playing those lies. But Robin on a tight budget, couldn’t afford to create a new commercial and fight him toe to toe.

Now here’s the paradox - In spite of all that, I would still support a liar, if he came clean and publicly apologized to Robin for his lies. You see, I serve a God of second chances. And I am told that a truly repentant person deserves a second chance.

Somehow, I doubt that he will. I hope he proves me wrong.

We don’t need John Wolfe in Congress. But then again, as outrageous as his beliefs are, he is honest about them and displays integrity in the way he conducts himself. And you gotta respect that.

Valerie Morris

* * *

As a voter in the Third District, I am now being asked to vote for Chuck Fleischmann. The same guy who refused to attend the local fund raising dinner for my party wants to lead it. the guy who sat in the lap of Mike Huckabee, his campaign spokesman, parroting about his Christian faith while he lied about a great lady, Robin Smith, is now committed to unity. The guy who emptied his bank account to buy this seat, now wants my "contribution "to pay himself back. Chuck and his crew are now the poster children for what's wrong with our government. Don't ask. You're not getting my vote.

Pat Holcomb

* * *

Mr. Bowman's piece is generally well written, but like many other commentators today he misuses the expression "begs the question." "To beg the question" is a phrase in formal debate or logic to describe an argument that relies on the proposition that is being argued to prove the point. As a trivial example, if the issue is whether a rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise, the argument that it must be so because whenever the rooster crows, the sun rises is said to beg the question. The argument uses the very proposition at issue to prove that it is true. The expression does not mean that a statement of fact or opinion raises or suggests another question.

Mr. Bowman has a good point that Tennessee should consider requiring a majority in primary elections with multiple candidates.

Regarding the turnout and the makeup of the 30% who voted for Chuck, I believe, as Mr. Elrod suggests, that many Democrats "crossed over" to vote for Chuck. The current reality is that barring a total campaign meltdown our horrendous mistake by Chuck, he will win the general election with or without the Democratic voters who crossed over in the primary.

Yes, crossover voting was often decried by Democrats who accused Republicans of voting in Democratic primaries for the candidate they would most want to face in the general election. While I don't remember specific reportage on the truth of such accusations over the many years since I could first vote in local elections, I believe the numbers showed cross over voting was happening back when Democrats held most of the County elected positions.

Perhaps Tennessee should require partisan registration as well as a majority win in primaries. Let's see whether the predicted Republican sweep of the governorship and control of the General Assembly yields these reforms.

Gary Lander

* * *

I've voted in the Republican primary for years.

In the last few election cycles, I've had to hold my nose when I've entered the voting booth for the Republican primaries. In this cycle, in the third district, I voted for Cobble. He wasn't causing the odor though.
The Republicans in this area have been reduced to religious posturing, demonizing Democrats, homophobia,
and libeling one another. It reminds me of the out of control behavior you sometimes see among the parents at their kids ball games, embarrassing everyone within their hearing.

I can't believe that any of these folks were serious candidates for anything. Smith, Haslam, Fleischman, and Wamp are all guilty.

We need some intelligent people in our legislators who don't "play to the peanut gallery" with bogus issues.
John Wolfe and McWherter have my vote this time.

Steve Daugherty Sr.

* * *

To all of the Republicans/ Conservatives who are unhappy with the results of the election, I want you to be sure to stay home and pout with the "I'll Show Em' Attitude," and
Queen Nancy will still reign. Good grief. Get a grip and save the country.

Bob Bogart
quasi17@comcast.net