The Other Side to the Tommy Tucker Story

This is a smear campaign by the Left.  Sen. Tommy Tucker is a very humble, very kind, thoroughly decent brother in Christ.  Tommy Tucker is nothing at all like the Left is portraying him.
Don’t you realize that 95% of the Press is in the tank for the Democrats, and perfectly willing to spread any lie to smear a conservative?  My rough guestimate is that the Press is about 75% Democrats, 10% Greens/Socialists/Marxists/etc, 10% RINOs, 3% Libertarians, and 2% real Republicans. (Tanner is a RINO, and Beasley is a Democrat.)
Your mistake was to believe this nastiness about Sen. Tucker without getting the other side of the story.
What follows are seven comments I posted to the dishonest Huffington Post article: one short comment that they deleted, a four-part long comment that they did not delete, and two more short comments that they did not delete:
Sen. Tucker was obviously offended by the newspaper publisher’s behavior, and snapped at him.
Tucker shouldn’t have snapped at him, but it is understandable that Tucker was offended. Fat-cat newspaper publishers want to continue FORCING local governments to buy useless classified ads in their publications, that nobody reads. Oink, oink, oink… that pig-trough is YOUR wallet, folks. The fatcat newspaper publishers act like royalty, demanding that they be allowed to continue to milk YOU to fill their slop-buckets.
Their behavior is offensive, but the NC Democrats’ support for it is just as offensive. Their back-scratching is mutual: nearly all the big newspapers slavishly support the Democrats. Hold on to your wallet: both of them are out to fleece us.
Democrats and fatcat newspaper publishers are fighting side-by-side to make local communities to continue to waste citizens’ tax money on obsolete newspaper ads, to subsidize their media empires. It’s sickening. It’s the old Raleigh culture of corruption, with Democrat politicians and rich, left-wing newspaper publishers conspiring to lighten YOUR wallet.
It’s a wonder Sen. Tucker didn’t vomit, instead of just snapping rudely at the newspaper poohbah. He must have a strong stomach.
[This comment has been removed. Most comments are removed because of an attack or insult on another user or public figure. Please see the guidelines here if you’re not sure why this comment was removed.]
[part 1 of 4]
This article seems to be a Democratic Party hit piece, and 23% of it comes directly from a “North Carolina Democratic Party spokesman.” It is full of glaring errors:
1. The article says that Sen. Tucker told a newspaper publisher to “be quiet” during a public hearing. That’s untrue.
For one thing, it was not a public hearing! It was a committee meeting to consider the bill.
As a courtesy, Chairman Tucker allowed a representative of the NC Press Association to speak, opposing the bill, before the vote. But it wasn’t a public hearing.
Note that Tucker was under no obligation to let anyone other than Committee members speak, and there had already been another meeting at which many members of the public had spoken about the bill. But Tucker is one of the nicest people in the legislature, and he bends over backward to treat people more than fairly.
2. For another thing, the article says that the exchange between the newspaper publisher and the Senate took place “during” the meeting. It didn’t.
AFTER the vote was taken and the meeting had adjourned, Hal Tanner III, publisher of the Goldsboro News-Argus, began his argument with Chairman Tucker.
[…cont’d]
[part 2 of 4]
3. The article claims that Sen. Tucker told Tanner, “I am the senator, you are the citizen. You need to be quiet.”  But Tucker says that’s not what he said, and many other people who were in the room at the time agree that they did NOT hear him say that.
Plus, these days there’s nearly always someone running a digital audio recorder at these meetings. But apparently nobody has a recording of Tucker saying that.
4. The article says that the Charlotte Observer reported that three other people in the room confirmed Tanner’s claim, but that’s not true, either. The unsigned Charlotte Observer article claims that two (not three) others did, but doesn’t name either of them. As far as I can determine, the accusation comes only from Hal Tanner, himself. Even the NC Press Association representative is somehow unreachable for comment.
5. The article says that the “Committee…  held a meeting…  became heated when a local newspaper publisher sought a recorded vote on the bill.” (The reporter obviously left out the word “which.”) But that claim is nonsense.
The meeting didn’t become heated at all. The meeting was already adjourned when Tanner confronted Sen. Tucker.
[…cont’d]
[part 3 of 4]
6. The very notion of a spectator at a Committee meeting trying to direct the order of business is absurd! Spectators at a committee meetings are not members of the committee, and cannot make motions of any sort. Only committee members can do that. (Obviously!!)
Tanner apparently miscounted during the vote, but nobody else did, and nobody on the committee objected to the chairman’s count.
Since the committee approved the bill by a one-vote margin, you can bet that if the chairman had miscounted then one of the bill’s opponents would have objected. No one did.
Plus, everyone who knows Sen. Tommy Tucker knows that he is a Christian gentleman, and a man of complete integrity. Everyone on his Committee, Republican and Democrat, trusts him, and knows that he would never intentionally miscount a vote, as Tanner insinuated.
[…cont’d]
[part 4 of 4]
Hal Tanner’s REAL objection to the bill is that it will affect his newspaper’s bottom line. Newspaper publishers like Tanner get a nice revenue stream from “legal notice” classified ads in their newspapers, which are required by law.
But hardly anyone reads those ads anymore, because it is much more convenient to read the legal notices on-line. Cash-strapped municipalities which already post the legal notices on their municipal web sites want the law amended, so that they can stop wasting money on useless newspaper ads.
That wasted money comes from YOUR wallet, folks.
Hal Tanner III lives in a $699,500 house. How about you? I am offended that rich newspaper publishers want the State to FORCE municipalities to waste OUR money on useless, obsolete newspaper ads, that hardly anyone reads, to subsidize their newspaper businesses.
The Huffington Post has trashed the good name of one of the finest, most thoroughly decent human beings in the NC legislature. Please run a correction and an apology.
###
Bridgette123, you’ve got that backwards. Sen. Tucker is a very, very nice guy, and he is looking out for YOUR interests.
The newspapers get a nice, fat revenue stream from the taxpayers, to run “legal notice” ads that almost nobody reads, because it is far more convenient to read them on the web. It’s corporate welfare for guys like publisher Hal Tanner III, who needs it to pay for the upkeep on his $699,500 house, and it comes out of YOUR pocket.
This article is full of misinformation, much of it directly from the Democratic Party. …
…It is much easier and much cheaper for almost everyone to look for these notices on the Internet than to buy a newspaper every day and laboriously read the fine print of the “legal notices.”
Where I live, a one year subscription to the the local fishwrap (N&O) costs $243.00. That’s more than a cheap computer + free Internet from FreedomPop.
The subscription base of these newspapers is maybe 25% of the households in their coverage area, and hardly anyone ever reads the “legal notices.” Running a “legal notice” in the newspaper is a great way to legally “notify” people of something without most of them ever actually finding out about it (unless it’s also on the Internet).
Of course, people who don’t get the newspaper can, in theory, read it at the library. But even at the library it’s much easier and more efficient to read the legal notices on the Internet.
Have you ever in your life seen someone reading the “legal notices” in the newspaper in a library? I didn’t think so. Nobody does that.
For one thing, there’s no google search or google alerts for searching printed paper.
The bottom line is that where an on-line alternative exists, newspaper “legal notices” are obsolete, and tremendously wasteful. They waste huge amounts of ink, paper & trees, and squander a great deal of YOUR money. Almost nobody reads them, and nobody needs them.
Feel free to call me.
 
Dave Burton
M: 919-244-3316
      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.