Friday, September 12, 2008

Interview with Circuit Clerk Candidate Jim Lee posted on the Web

Local blogger Jack, over at Fat Jack's Erratic Rants, did an interview with Jim Lee, local Democrat candidate for Circuit Clerk.

It looks to me that Republican incumbent Steve Helms will have his work cut out for him, that is, if voters learn about Jim Lee, especially in light of so many complaints about our court system in recent weeks (see the Brian Brown series in CFP, "Justice Delayed," July 2, July 16, and July 30 issues) Certainly, the Clerk's office plays a vital role in how efficiently and smoothly things run in our court system. I was really impressed with the answers Lee provided to Jack's questions.

Jack observed:

"We have all heard stories about the backed-up court system and if the stories are true that the current office of the Circuit Clerk's is not working properly, then that will only serve to exacerbate the problem....

"In typical Lee fashion, his down-to-Earth perspective and attitude is exemplified in his quote: "I work hard, I work honest, and I don’t try to kid anyone."


If you want to know more about the candidate running against Helms in the Circuit Clerk race, I'd recommend Jack's blog. Great questions, great answers.

It should probably be noted that Helms was not voted into his position. He was appointed by Governor Matt Blunt when the previous Clerk, Mike Carr, took an early retirement.

"With 97 percent of precincts reporting, Helms took more than 43 percent of votes cast in the Republican primary." - Springfield News-Leader.

20 comments:

tom said...

It should also be pointed out that Mr. Carr endorsed someone other then Steve Helms in this race on the republican side.

Jim's problem will be the (D) after his name on the ballot, just like Mike Ramon running for sheriff is going to have the same problem.

In most instances the (D) means you want socialistic policies in which aren't very popular except to those that feed off the government trough.

Sorry Jim but the national party sets the agenda and I see nothing about democrats that would have me voting for them.

I will be casting a ballot for Mike Ramon in the sheriffs race as I believe he has the most experience to run the department and has "original" ideas to help reallocate services within the system.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

The public trough? Please, are you going to talk about welfare queens next? So 1980's of you Tom. Who is feeding off the 10 billion a month trough going into Iraq....where even Patraeus says we can't use the W word in describing the "war" there.....come to think of it, I am sick of the letter W anyway. Pig Sooeee

tom said...

Quoting myself

"In most instances the (D) means you want socialistic policies in which aren't very popular except to those that feed off the government trough".

what part of that statement did you not understand ??

Not that I agree with the Iraqi invasion, but defending this nation is a REQUIREMENT of the fed via the Constitution. A document you might want to read while referring to welfare queens.

It makes no difference which political party you belong to since I have on numerous occasions slammed both the mainstream two for creating a dependent class.

Since I was referring to a local race and how the locals see it Jim will have a hard time with a (D) after his name just like Mike Ramon will. Like it or not this is a heavily Republican voting area

Jackie Melton said...

Tom, the Circuit Clerk position is not a legislative position.

The national party doesn't set the "agenda" for the Circuit Clerk's office. It is a service job, not a legislative position.

I thought readers would find Jack's interview very informative. I still think readers will find it informative, if they choose to read it.

I'd say there will be people who will refuse to vote for Helms because of the (R) after his name, too, so I'm not sure the distinction about a democrat will have more bearing than the distinction of being a republican will have?

tom said...

That isn't what I meant when I mentioned the national party sets the agenda.

I have met quite a few democrats here on the local level that can not stand the direction of the party as a whole as it makes them look like a bunch of socialist. When they clearly are not.
Generally when someone says they are a democrat most people are reminded of Hillary Clinton and nationalized health care or the LBJ great wealth redistribution schemes of the 60's.

Not many remember that JFK was a smaller government, less taxation democrat.

Jackie Melton said...

Good point, Tom. Thanks.

Jack said...

Thanks for the props Jacke.

I understand party issue and the natural leanings of people. But in the case of many of our local offices, neither the R nor the D have anything to do with the office. This is especially true with Circuit Clerk and I think it is quite applicable to the sheriff too.

These two positions carry out duties and do not set much in the way of policy. They make no difference in the big issues (war, health care, education, abortion, etc.) I think people will do well to remember that.

It's easy to vote against "your own party" in these positions.

tom said...

I believe many of these local offices should not have any political party affiliation in the political process.

In terms of the sheriff, if you were hired under a republican regime your job can be terminated by a new incoming sheriff which happens to be a democrat.
The scare tactics that can be employed in these types of issues goes far beyond the office itself.

Jackie Melton said...

No props, Jack, it was a great interview, why wouldn't I link it?

If someone should post an interview with Helms at some point and I become aware of it, I'll be happy to provide a link to it, as well.

Of course, you have no obligation to interview Helms, unless you want to. So far, the "Fairness Doctrine" does not exist as a practiced law, either on the radio or the Web. I do hope it stays that way!

:)

Tom, I think you raise a good point that, perhaps, it would be better if such positions were not affilitated with political parties. For the time being they are and we have to live with the reality of that.

Anonymous said...

Tom,
Did you think the GI Bill was socialist in nature? Do you think public schools are socialist? You mention LBJ, what about FDR? I assume he was a socialist as well. What term do you use for Reagan, the W....great leaders because they profess to be for small government. I would ask you to check the deficit after Clinton's eight years with that of the Republican Administrations of Reagan and the Dubya.....If that fact smacks of socialism I guess I am proud to be a socialist and I did even know I was one.

BTW...Jim Lee is an honest, hardworking man, and I think he would rather run with honor and win or lose with the (D) by his name because he believes in what the party stands for. Go, Jim, Go.

Jackie Melton said...

Anon 8:47 PM, I'd be interested in your view of what the Democrat Party stands for.

Tom wrote earlier:

"Not many remember that JFK was a smaller government, less taxation democrat."

Who, to you, are the greatest examples of the democrat party and what does the party stand for, in your view?

Jackie Melton said...

Anon, I would also like you to elaborate on why you think the examples you choose are the greatest examples of the democrat party?

Thanks in advance.

tom said...

Anon,

I'll be nice since it appears you haven't read any of my blog entries where I equally slam both mainstream parties for there socialistic ideologies. This stems even to Reagan, who used the force of government and the taxpayers money to bail out failing corporations (corporate welfare) "W" , along the same lines of Reagan but unlike Reagan had a republican controlled congress and still didn't shrink the size of government, Bush the elder, I shouldn't even have to explain this one. Every President in my lifetime has broken their oath in regards to article VIII.

As for the school system being socialistic, what else do you call a system run and controlled by the federal government ?? Have you ever read the Constitution ?? Do you realize that one of the test to become a citizen of this nation addresses that issue and the answer is that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the school system.

As for the GI Bill I don't believe we do enough for our members in the military and I'm not saying that just because I am a former member of our armed services. As per the Constitution Art IV Sec IV protection of this nation is a requirement of the federal government.

As for our national debt a little research is required on this issue as every president has left a budget deficit and now it is close to 10 trillion dollars much of this debt is interest on money loaned from the federal reserve, and a greater portion of the money allotted goes toward entitlement programs.

http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/debtdeficit.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm

Please read this second link quite carefully as it will inform you that Clinton inherited an upswing economy and changing very little in terms of policy allowed the upswing to continue.

In reality the President has very little or nothing to do with the economy since he/she only sign legislation.

Quote anon
"BTW...Jim Lee is an honest, hardworking man, and I think he would rather run with honor and win or lose with the (D) by his name because he believes in what the party stands for".

I can appreciate much of this, but exactly what does the democrat party stand for and are these stances Constitutional ??

Anonymous said...

Tom,
Yes, I have read the Constitution, but do you know anything about the reality of what goes on concerning school systems. No Child Left Behind, President Bush's Texas style school reform, places absurd standards on schools and labels them as failures when a the so-called "subgroups" fail to meet test standards. By the way, this includes students with severe learning disabilities and students of color that often come from the poorest of households. Yes, school districts do not have to participate in NCLB, but then they lose all the Federal funding that is needed to address critical issues related to the very impoverished students they are working with. Unless you would like your local taxes to go up twofold to do this?

I note you sidestepped my question on the GI Bill being a social program. Was that a yes or no? These soldiers were paid to fight WWII, but yet we still initiated one, if not the greatest, "big government" programs in our history helping spark a post-war growth pattern that made this country the economic power it is today (for the time being).

I also note that you did not concede the point that Clinton left this country with a budget surplus, but yet trot out the same tired argument that he benefitted from the Bush policies that just came a little too late to save his presidency. Besides revealing your politically leanings, you expose yourself to a fact that if Democrats are free-spending liberals you say they are, why did Clinton not find some "big government" program to sink this surplus into.

By the way, sincerely, thank you for your service to our country in whatever capacity that was. The fact you chose to serve speaks volumes of your true commitment to this country and gives your well reasoned discussions even more validity.

I enjoy the discussion, and Jackehammer, thanks for the forum!!

tom said...

By the Constitution we shouldn't even have "No Child Left Behind".

I did not side step your question on the GI Bill and I'll quote myself,
"As for the GI Bill I don't believe we do enough for our members in the military and I'm not saying that just because I am a former member of our armed services. As per the Constitution Art IV Sec IV protection of this nation is a requirement of the federal government".

Anything spelled out in the Constitution can't be a socialistic idea or shades of socialism. I thought you said you have read the document in question?

Apparently you didn't go to the links I provided since even the Clinton Administration link clearly shows he didn't leave with a budget surplus. I can only do so much research for people who refuse to do there own.

How can one sink a surplus into anything if there is NO surplus ??

Anonymous said...

I will take that as a yes....trying to stretch the constitution to justify this very worthy program is just that a stretch. I checked your links at and found ample evidence on the web to the contrary as well...bottom line....have you seen the news in the last few days...long live the Republican Free Market huh! It has been nice chatting with you. over and out

tom said...

I've said many time I'm an equal opportunity offender. I don't like the republican political party just as much as the democrat political party for the very same reason. Both of them speak of doing what is best for the people then they turn around and steal from the people to give to there special interest groups such as is with these bailouts.
Don't kid yourself though because the democrats are in on this knee deep just like the republicans are. Congress is where most decisions are made and the last two years has been a democrat controlled congress. The president is nothing more then a paperwork pusher.

A little research will show we haven't had a free market since the great depression, but why bother to reason with an individual who is close minded except to the greatness of the democrat political party, even though they have yet to answer the following question posed to them?

"Anon, I would also like you to elaborate on why you think the examples you choose are the greatest examples of the democrat party? or this simple question

"Who, to you, are the greatest examples of the democrat party and what does the party stand for, in your view?

At least I answered you and if you can't accept the FACT that protecting the nation is a Constitutional duty and therefore the GI Bill is not a socialist program I don't know what to tell you.

I really enjoy how these anon people answer questions that they want to answer then run off an leave when the questioning gets beyond there comprehension.

tom said...

Something else I find odd about anon, one of the links I posted was from the Clinton Administration giving credit to the economy that they inherited for being able to successfully "balance the books". I guess anon finds it offensive if the party (s)he gives credit to the other party for starting something that the Clinton administration gets credit for.
I would like to point out that during Clinton's first two years there was no "balancing of the books", that didn't occur until after 1994.

Congress declares how much money is being spent, the president can either veto the bill or sign it they don't write it.

Anonymous said...

I thought the conversation was over when you couldn't admit that when it is a program you like it isn't "big government", but if it is one you don't care for it is socialistic. Troops were paid a wage during their time of service...the GI Bill was a social program for veterans and their families...at least have the guts to admit to yourself.

As far as great Dems...FDR, Harry Truman, great leaders during tough times, Bill Clinton, brilliant, but flawed man, that managed the country a lot better than he did his own personal life. But at this point, how I wish we had Bill back....my favorite bumper sticker...No one died will Bill lied...not often does a sticker say it all.

I think Truman and FDR, and Clinton to a certain extent, understood government's role in the bigger picture. These free marketers are all righteous until they need the "big government" to bail them out.

By the way...I am not running out on the discussion, but you failed to ever truly answer a standing question about the GI Bill, still have not and apparently can't. That is okay though Tom, keep logging on and lying to yourself about how you are a true patriot...but, please, send your social security check and/or veteran benefits back.....Hey I might even become a conservative like you and refuse to pay for all these social programs!

tom said...

and women serve in the military they do so at a significantly lower salary then they could earn not being in the military. You also have the availability of loosing ones life or limbs. For this our military members were making pennies on the dollar and still are.
I said it a couple hundred times it is a Constitutional (that document you seem not to understand but have said you read) duty for the fed to protect this nation and in doing so making promises to those people is NOT a socialist program NO matter how you want to try to define it.
This nation owes those who serve at the behest of others in order to maintain freedom(what we now call freedom)

I applaud your picks for great people who carried the moniker of being a democrat except Bill, after all Somalia and the country I can't spell were under his regime.

As for social security when the government takes from those who have and gives to those who haven't put in that is called socialistic, as for my social security check I want every bloody cent that I paid into the system just as I would expect to get ALL my money out of a bank account belonging to me.

Ever watch the movie Blackhawk Down. The bumper sticker you cite is quite incorrect as we did lose troops overs seas under the Clinton presidency. Hell we even lost high ranking members of the cabinet under the Clinton presidency something which hasn't happened under any other president in my lifetime.

You define the GI Bill however you decide and if it makes you feel better to call it a socialist program then you go right ahead, as for me any thing that can be done to help those that serve should be looked at as a system by which this nation is giving back to those that have sacrificed the most.

I like a program called education as well, however when the federal government starts being the funding source of this program then it becomes socialistic as there are defined ways that the feds can spend money and education isn't one of them.

Perhaps reading the rest of this section will help you

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;