Rep. Bill Dunn Openly Supporting Haslam

26 Responses to “Rep. Bill Dunn Openly Supporting Haslam”

1. Paul Wilson County writes
   November 6th, 2009 5:40 pm

   Dunn? The same guy that got thrown out by his own caucus? Yea that is a real good spokesman.

2. Drew writes
   November 6th, 2009 5:47 pm

   Dunn never got thrown out by the caucus. Mumpower ran against him for leader and won. Since Mumpower is such a good buddy to Ron Ramsey, you can’t really expect Dunn to support him can you?

3. Conservative? writes
   November 6th, 2009 7:40 pm

   Dunn was once a reliable conservative. Nowadays, he’s against capitol punishment, votes to expand felon voting rights and is a reliable vote for the Dems on campaign finance and the environment. And he’s a Haslam spokesperson. His bitterness over being thrown out of leadership knows no bounds.

   Dunn should be asked if those who tortured and murdered Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom should be subjected to the death penalty. It would end his political career.

4. Number9 writes
   November 6th, 2009 7:41 pm

   While it was a good speech the part that didn’t make sense was when Bill Dunn said that Bill Haslam was a long time supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Some people smiled, some looked down, some laughed, and some got mad. That was not a smart thing to say in the audience Dunn was addressing. It insulted many people and it is the main reason Haslam had such poor numbers in the straw vote.

   How in the world could anyone make that statement after Haslam was a member of the “Bloomberg Mayor’s Against Guns”, and the fiasco of the vote to prohibit self defense in Knoxville City Parks?

   I doubt Bill Dunn will be asked to stand up for anyone of merit again in their absence. It was a remarkable gaffe and it hurt Bill Haslam.

5. Davy writes
   November 6th, 2009 8:48 pm

   “and the fiasco of the vote to prohibit self defense in Knoxville City Parks?”

   The “fiasco of the vote” you speak of was supported by the citizens of the city, although not perhaps by the NRA members who came from outside the city to protest the ban.

   “I doubt Bill Dunn will be asked to stand up for anyone of merit again in their absence.”

   If the ideological puritans of the party like yourself continue to abandon conservative leaders like Dunn over every little thing…have you thought about who you’re going to have representing your values?

   Wamp, Campfield, Lambert, Pinkston, Moore, and Hutchison?

   Do you really not want to win an election ever again?

6. simon says writes
   November 6th, 2009 9:33 pm

   It’s unfortunate that Rep. Dunn supports a moderate and somewhat intellectually light candidate like Bill Haslam. Bill Haslam is a affable fellow but let’s not kid ourselves their is nothing particularly extrodinary about Bill Haslam other than his father’s money. Before anybody jumps up and down and accuses Wamp or Ramsey of being a little light at least their “boot strap” work ethic is something I doubt Haslam and his millions is familiar with.

7. Hey dummies writes
   November 6th, 2009 10:50 pm

   I was there. Bill Dunn opened his speech by saying he is neutral in the race for governor. But agreed to speak on Haslam’s behalf…

   So, this headline is incorrect as was Oatney’s summary.

8. Paul Shelby County writes
   November 7th, 2009 12:28 am

   Let me start by saying I am completly neutral in this gubernatorial primary. I have good friends working on all 4 campaigns, and I consider 3 of the 4 candidates to be personal friends. I am commenting because as usual there are those who comment on blogs who have no idea how the real world works. I have been involved in formal politics for nearly 10 years, first in Knoxville and East Tennessee, then here at home in Memphis and Shelby County. I have met a lot of people, learned many lessons, watched the behavior of elected officials (while in the spot light, while in private conversation, in dealing with their families, and when they thought no one “important” was paying attention). I can tell you from the local court clerk, to the legislature, to Congress, to the United States Senate, in 10 years I can count on one hand the number of elected officials who have walked the walk and been the person that most all of our “Republican” or “Conservative” or “Family Values” Elected Officials claim that they are.

   Bill Dunn is one of those 3 or 4 EOs that I have encountered. Bill lives the rhetoric everyone else talks. He puts God first, and his family next. He SERVES in the state legislature, and if you took it away from him tomorrow he would not mind. Bill makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and does not seek out recognition.

   There are a lot of people in politics who need to be exposed for who they are. I think I just exposed Bill Dunn for the good man that he is. If you can prove me wrong go ahead, but those of you who have an agenda (like trying to bring down the Haslam campaign, or tear down anyone who does not kow tow to your every whim) don’t attempt to sully the name of a righteous man.

9. The Rep. writes
   November 7th, 2009 5:45 am

   Bill Dunn announced up front that he was neutral and was doing the intro as a favor to Bill Haslam. The script came from the Haslam family. Dunn would probably offer the same to any of the candidates. As the last commenter said, Bill Dunn is the real deal.

10. Number9 writes
    November 7th, 2009 2:17 pm

    Davy mistakenly opined, “The “fiasco of the vote” you speak of was supported by the citizens of the city, although not perhaps by the NRA members who came from outside the city to protest the ban.”

    No Davy, that is not true. It is not correct. You are mistaken. Before the vote the room was packed with people from the City who were against having their rights taken away. The pro-rights people outnumbered the anti-rights people at least ten to one. In fact most of the anti-rights people were UT students.

    You don’t live in Knoxville so why don’t you speak to things you know about instead of spreading your misinformation?

    Try using something other than the Daily Kos for your sources.

11. Number9 writes
    November 7th, 2009 2:18 pm

    The Rep wrote, “The script came from the Haslam family. Dunn would probably offer the same to any of the candidates.”

    I didn’t mean to slam Bill Dunn but reading that script caused some confusion. Who ever wrote that misjudged.

12. TNGEO writes
    November 7th, 2009 3:59 pm

    Anti-rights? Don’t individual communities have the right to maintain a law which that community wants? This is a non-issue, being blown out of proportion by people looking for an issue. Who out there is against the rights of communities to pass their own constitutional laws?

13. The Rep. writes
    November 7th, 2009 4:10 pm

    Heller.

14. Mark Rogers writes
    November 7th, 2009 4:12 pm

    TNGEO,

    That is an excellent question. Too many self-styled Conservatives go around packing Ideas the way they pack guns, with little real understanding of how to use them.

    That has lead to embarrasing moments like the effort by some Conservatives to prohibit local governments from enacting legislation on things like impact fees or living wage proposals. These may not be compatible with Conservative principles but then neither is allowing a higher level of government to usurp local responsibility.

    Ideas are dangerous things and some people need more time on the range before they try to use them in public.

15. Number9 writes
    November 7th, 2009 4:14 pm

    Who out there is against the rights of communities to pass their own constitutional laws?

    Do you know what statutory construction is? The U.S. Constitution trumps State Constitutions, which trump local City and County Charters.

    So, you are incorrect. A City cannot trump the U.S. Constitution.

    So many people think this is Western Europe. We live in a Constitutional Federalist Republic, not a parliamentary social democracy. You are thinking of some other system.

16. Disclosure writes
    November 7th, 2009 7:25 pm

    Mark Rogers is working for Haslam this cycle so please spare us your high-minded commentary on conservatism.

17. Mark Rogers writes
    November 7th, 2009 7:46 pm

    Number 9,

    Where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the ‘right’ to bring a gun into a public park? The 2nd Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. Are you suggesting that the Right to bear arms includes walking up to the President with your gun?

    Put simply, ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ does not create a federal right to take a gun in a park of local authorities legislate otherwise. That is as absurd as suggesting that the Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting legislation that keeps passnegers from carrying guns on airplanes.

    Similarly, where does the Constitution say that Nashville cannot determine how much its workers can make?

    Disclosure,

    Rather that speculate on my preferences, deal with my arguments, you cowardly twit.

18. Disclosure writes
    November 7th, 2009 8:03 pm

    I’m not interested in your arguments because I’ve heard you say that you’re working for Haslam. I noticed you didn’t exactly deny it smart guy.

19. Number9 writes
    November 7th, 2009 10:48 pm

    Where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the ‘right’ to bring a gun into a public park? The 2nd Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms.

    Where to begin?

20. Mark Rogers writes
    November 7th, 2009 10:53 pm

    9,

    Begin. Please. I am more than happy to be educated on how the Right to keep and bear arms overrides all known other Rights and any considerations of public policy.

    To your credit, you are a real person and not some pimply intern at a campaign office typing the semi-literate ideas of the senior staff like ‘Disclosure.’

21. Number9 writes
    November 8th, 2009 9:56 am

    Begin. Please. I am more than happy to be educated on how the Right to keep and bear arms overrides all known other Rights and any considerations of public policy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

    The fact that we have Federal Judges who betray their oath and illegally diminish the U.S. Constitution does not mean that they have the authority to do so.

    The U.S. Constitution trumps activist judges. Heller is a start. More will come to take away the rulings of the activist judges who have spit on the law.

22. JohnnyC writes
    November 8th, 2009 10:34 am

    You’re right because the people who disagree with you are wrong? Come on- make an actual argument.

23. Number9 writes
    November 8th, 2009 10:57 am

    Come on- make an actual argument.

    Have no idea whom you are addressing. But if it is me,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution#Judicial_review

    If an action of Congress or the agencies is challenged, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether these actions are permissible under the Constitution.

    The courts are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Not change it from the bench.

    Is that simple enough?

24. Rick writes
    November 8th, 2009 11:31 am

    Bill Dunn is one of the finest and most intelligent members of the House in Tennessee. To even think, much less write some of the comments above shows these people to be completely out of touch. You are hatemongers that simply hate people with whom you don’t agree. I would have been honored to have represented any of our Republican Gubernatoral Candidates in the way Bill Dunn did for Haslam. I too agree that he would have done the same for any of the candidates. There are those of us in the political arena that understand we want a Republican Governor and will help them all for now. We will vote our conscience in August, but we will not shun any of them. The problem with the TNGOP now is too many people who are arrogant and hypocritical enough to simply bash everyone that doesn’t agree with them. Please start your own party of self-serving egotists as there is no room for you in real life situations.

25. Jerry Provost writes
    November 8th, 2009 2:30 pm

    Rep. Dunn is a great guy. I’ve heard from those that were there it was almost like Dunn was falling on the sword for the other Bill that wasn’t there. I hate it for him.

26. Mark Rogers writes
    November 8th, 2009 11:21 pm

    9,

    “The courts are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Not change it from the bench.”

    Back in the 1950s the Democrats in power in the Legislature refused to redistrict the House and Senate to preserve the power of the rural voters, even as this was becoming a smaller % of the people. Effectively, they were disenfranchising many voters.

    The Warren Court, in Baker vs Carr, ruled that this was a violation of the US Constitution.

    Should the Court have respected the Right of the TN Legislature to disenfranchise voters or should the SCOTUS have ruled that the states did not have the Right to protect citizens from denial of their Rights?

    Which is the more important principle, the Right to equal representation or the Right of states to disenfranchise voters? Either way you will be defying a fundamnental Principle of the Constitution.

    Some things are not so simple as you might wish.