I think it might be good to get your duct tape and wrap it around your head. When you brain explodes from the frustration of it all, at least all the tiny pieces will be easier to find!
Note: This is not a discussion about Sheriff Arnold or his guilt or innocence. At the point in the investigation the above article was written, no charges had been filed.
"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts."
This gives you, dear reader, a glimpse into the way Tim Rudd might govern, if he were elected the District 34 State Representative.
- In the Durham-gate issue, Rudd not only had no comment, he blamed his lack of comment on the fact that he was:
- "Busy with work." The Durham issue blew up in 2015, almost a year ago (and had been going on for years prior0. I have challenged both Rep. Womick and my GOP opposition in District 34 multiple times just this summer.
- "And campaigning." During the week, right now sunset is about 7:00 pm and phone banking calls should end by 9:00 pm. Perhaps Rudd goes to bed immediately at 9:00 pm, gets up at the crack of dawn, never takes a break and doesn't have a smart phone because I know he's paying people to campaign on his behalf. That must be why he's unable to look up any information.
- "Would check with the Rutherford County delegation before making a comment." What advice does Rudd need? How to comment best to refute my points? What to think about the whole issue? It would follow if an individual has not personally researched an issue (even when challenged) and is too busy now to make himself familiar with what his predecessor and our current State Representative has said and done regarding the issue, then it is impossible to create a personal opinion.
- At the very beginning of the Sheriff Arnold situation, Rudd had very definite opinions apparently based on some kind of effort:
- "I haven't seen anything that says he broke the law." It is true that Sheriff Arnold and Tim Rudd have a personal relationship. Perhaps this is why Rudd was able to make a statement revealing that he has, at the very least, read newspaper articles about the situation. Certainly, he would not have based this on any personal conversations -- or would he?
- "All I see is a lot of allegations and political propaganda." That sounds amazingly similar to what Rep. Womick said about Durham-gate. Could it be that Womick has actually been taking cues from Rudd all along? Maybe this is simply the "Conservative to the Core" canned response for every situation that threatens the position of a friend or associate in the cause.
- "He calls Arnold’s situation an attack by his political enemies and a 'feeding frenzy' by the press." This is EXACTLY the response given by Rep. Womick in the Durham situation. Arnold was framed/Durham was framed. Arnold is being attacked by enemies/Durham is being attacked by enemies. Arnold is a victim of the press/Durham is a victim of the press. Arnold isn't getting due process/Durham isn't getting due process.
It is abundantly clear that both the now-indicted Sheriff Arnold and the now-expelled Jeremy Durham have received due process thus far.
- Today, the prosecution is forcefully standing by their prosecution of Sheriff Arnold (and the additional defendants). Is Rudd still just as forcefully standing by the Sheriff? Will he be able to give Arnold a character reference if needed in the future?
- Last week, the Tennessee House voted to expel Jeremy Durham. Rep. Womick and those that stood with him will insist that the Tennessee House of Representatives violated the Tennessee State Constitution. Unfortunately, Womick does not understand the definition of "legislature."
- The Tennessee State Legislature is constituted by the combination of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as are all "bicameral" legislatures (like the federal legislature).
- The action taken against Durham was procedural, not legislative. The expulsion was based on the Rules of the Tennessee House of Representatives. The idea that these rules might be poorly written has nothing to do with the "constitutionality" of the action because that action had nothing to do with the State Constitution.
- With a great deal of irony that in this "right to work" state and after our Rutherford County Republican delegation has been uniquely involved in the destruction of teachers' due process rights, a member of the delegation fighting so hard for a friend who admitted that some, possibly much, of the Attorney General's report was true is offensive.
- Some have asked why those harassed did not file charges. In at least one case (offering an underage intern alcohol and having sexual relations in Durham's office), seemed to be consensual. Without even applying the sexual harassment policy, this action is worthy of expulsion for unbecoming conduct. Remember, this is a procedural action of the House of Representatives.
- Speaker Beth Harwell does bear much responsibility in this situation, but that responsibility began in 2009 when, as a member of the House Ethics Committee, she requested a review of the sexual harassment policy. That request was approved but no review was ever undertaken. The next year, she became Speaker of the House and again, no review was ever taken.
"Traditional bicameralism is still supported for various reasons. It is believed that because both houses must separately pass a bill in order for the bill to become law, bicameral legislatures are less likely to pass hasty, ill-considered laws or to be subject to public passions."
Do not be fooled by forceful oratory, slick mailers or trained social media trolls. Read Rudd's own words and judge him by his actions -- quick to support friends and silent when real victims or people in need deserve his support and respect.