President Obama attacks Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill that they needed to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. (link to New York Post story)

I am sure this made Rush Limbaugh’s day. Rush will have a field day with this attack. It enhances his prestige and will energize his audience. Rush couldn't have paid for better advertising. I would think President Obama would be better off to simply ignore Limbaugh and relegate him to the fringe. Was this a harmless off-the-cuff remark or is there a strategy behind making Limbaugh the image of his opposition? I just got through saying I was a Will-Brooks conservative, not a Hannity-Limbaugh conservative, and now Obama is driving me back into the Limbaugh camp.

Years ago I used to make a point to listen to Rush if I was free to do so at the time he was on. I was a Rush fan. Over time, I grew tired of Rush and stopped listening. At times I found myself annoyed by him. Some his more outrageous episodes such as the attack on Michael J. Fox and his hypocritical drug use and his often-faulty logic and his mean-spirited humor caused me to loose any respect for him I may have had. I lost all desire to listen. Now, I am anxious to see how Rush responds to this attack so I will try to tune-in.

In addition to finding this attack on Rush interesting, I seem to recall something about Obama going to be the post-partisan President. Dismissing those who have legitimate questions about the proposed trillion-dollar stimulus package as followers of Rush Limbaugh does not sound like a guy who is trying to build bridges and change the way things are done in Washington. I think I am beginning to understand what Obama meant when he spoke about ending partisanship in Washington. I think he meant that if you didn’t agree with some of his policies you were to keep your mouth shut and roll over and play dead. Obama has only been President for two days and the warm and fuzzy is starting to fade.

Top Stories

Engish-only Fails!

Yesterday the voters of Nashville rejected the English-only charter amendment. The opponents of the proposed charter amendment won a lopsided victory by defeating the measure with almost a 10,000 vote margin. 41,752 people voted against the measure and 32,144 voted for it. That and one other proposed charter amendment were the only things on the ballot. Turn-out was considered high for an election where no candidates were running for office.

The opponents of the measure included many Nashville public figures and institutions included the Governor, the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, prominent business leaders, nine College Presidents, religious leaders, The Tennessean and various others. The only prominent people publicly identified with the proponents of the Amendment was the sponsor, Councilman Eric Crafton and local conservative radio talk show host Phil Valentine. Despite the lopsided public opposition their was a fear that the silent majority would defeat the establishment and the measure would pass. Many proponents of the bill viewed this measure as a way to make a statement about the problem of illegal immigration. Had the measure passed, Nashville would have been the largest city to ever pass such measure.

I am relieved that Nashville defeated this proposed amendment. It was unnecessary and was bad public policy. Had the measure passed, no one knew for certain what the impact would have been. It would have saved the city of Nashville almost no money since most translation services provided to residents of the city are paid for by Federal funds and are required or are provided by bi-lingual employees who are already on the payroll. The city has recruited bi-lingual policemen. Many feared the measure would prohibit a policemen who speaks Spanish from talking to another person in Spanish. Signs at the airport in other languages may have been illegal. School official may not have been permitted to send messages home with children in the language of the parents of the child. No doubt their would have been numerous expensive legal challenges to the measure. The Chamber feared it would hinder tourism and business recruitment. I think if it had prevailed it would have presented Nashville in a very bad light. I am glad that decency and common sense prevailed and this divisive measure was defeated.

Top Stories

Today I am voting "No" on English-only

To learn more about the issue, contribute, or get a yard sign visit Nashville for All of Us.

Top Stories

Nashville's English-Only Charter Amendment ...

is unnecessary, legally irresponsible, and bad public policy.

By Nathan Moore

The “English only” charter amendment is bad, not because the Metropolitan government doesn't need to be speaking in English (it already is), but because it is completely unnecessary. The primary advocates, many of whom I have known for years, are pursuing bad government policy with reckless abandon and it is shameful. The call for a special election, which would cost the taxpayers somewhere in the ballpark of $350,000 for an unnecessary, legally irresponsible amendment, is absurd. The money Metro would be spending could just as well go to more accessible English as a second language classes, which would go further toward solving the perceived linguistic problems of our city than this silly amendment.

As Davidson County Republican Party chairman Tom Lawless noted in The Tennessean today, “What is the great immediacy of this?”. He is certainly right - there is no immediacy, especially not in the case of this poorly contrived law.

I tend to look for the best in people, and will give most the benefit of many doubts, but I truly cannot figure out what positive is being accomplished with this amendment. The state of the law will not change. The only outcome will be that costs to Metro will go up in the form of litigation from certain constitutional challenges.

There is no language crisis in our city. Immigrants are not “holding out” on us, refusing to speak in anything but their native tongues. No one comes to America (and more specifically, Nashville), not wanting to learn English. There is not some underground society on Nolensville Road that has pledged to speak Spanish or die.

But what does need to die is the English-Only charter amendment. It is giving conservatives in Metro an awful reputation, one that many of us do not deserve and strenuously resent. I strongly oppose the English-Only charter amendment and urge its backers to rethink their reasons for supporting it. Surely we can focus on something that would actually make Metro better, leaving the coarsely developed aura of this irrational xenophobia in the gutter where it truly belongs.

Comment
Nathan Moore is a Nashville attorney, conservative activist, former Davidson County Young Republican Chairman and blogs at MoreThoughs. I had the pleasure of hearing him debate the proposed Nashville English-only charter amendment that is on the ballot to be decided January 22. Nathan debated Councilman Eric Crafton, the author of the bill, at today’s First Tuesday Group, a monthly Republican gathering. I concur with the arguments made by Nathan and the opponents of the bill.

Top Stories

The Inauguration

The Obama inauguration speech just concluded. It was inspirational and motivational. He set the perfect tone. I did not think the speech itself was a great speech, but a good speech. He did not sugar coat the problems we face but offered hope. He recalled our past challenges and our greatness and told us that we can overcome the current problems and that there are more great days ahead. He applauded the American sprit and our achievements. Any criticism of the Bush administration was very subtle. He appeared as a practical, reassuring, strong figure who loves this nation.

I was pleased that he extended a hand of peace to our enemies but vowed that we would defeat those who practice terrorism. His comment, “We will defeat you” was worthy of a cheer. His saying that we will not apologize for our way of life was another great line. I was pleased that he said we would defend our country without compromising our values.

One of the most poignant parts of his speech was when he said that in 60 years we went from a time when his father could not be seated in a restaurant to today when a person of color is being sworn in as President. That is a reason to take pride in our nation. We have changed for the better. His election is symbolic that we have lived up to the ideas our nation has long professsed.

I thought the whole events of the day and the ceremony and the music and the prayer and the speech were reassuring and up-lifting. To see the Bushs receive the Obamas for a short receptions somehow stuck me as an ordinary event yet an important symbol of the American civility of politics. We may disagree with our political advisories but we can interact and be polite and pleasant. To witness the amiable, peaceful transfer of power is something we take for granted, but we should realize that is not the way things are done in much of the world and for much of world history. We are truly blessed to live in America.

I will have differences with the party in power and hope the Obama administration fails to achieve some of their objectives. However, Obama is my President. Today, I feel nothing but goodwill toward the new administration and I have pride in my nation. God Bless Obama and the United States of America.

Top Stories

I am starting to feel warm and fuzzy.

I am watching Hardball and it was reported that tonight Barack Obama will be hosting a dinner honoring John McCain. What? Not only that, apparently when interviewing potential top tier foreign policy advisors he asked them to fill out a questionnaire and then asked John McCain to help judge the answers. Last week Obama attended a dinner at George Will’s house where David Brooks and other conservative commentators were in attendance. This is unreal. I was amassed that he selected Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. And then, Rick Warren was selected to say the official prayer asking God’s blessing on the new administration. His economic advisors include people with whom Wall Street are comfortable. He has equivocated and backtracked on some of his campaign promises. People I respect and admire say they think Obama is pragmatic and reasonable. Maybe he really meant it when he talked about bringing a new climate of nonpartisanship to Washington. Maybe he is the right man at the right time for our nation. I am starting to feel all warm and fuzzy.

Top Stories

Obama's Costly Inauguration!

People are being evicted from their homes, unemployment is up, the stock market is down, we have homeless on the streets and the inauguration of President Barack Obama is going to cost $150 million!

And, I really don't care. Spend it! Party hard! Celebrate!

This money could be used to feed the homeless or fight aids and help people make their house payment. Yea, but we also need to party. Anyway most of the money is from private donors. If they were not spending it on this big party they probably wouldn't be spending it. We have no claim to the money of rich Democrats who are spending their own money.

That portion of the money that is spend by the city of D.C or the State of Virginia is an investment in tourism. Any government of a tourist destination spends public funds on safety. It is a public investment. That money spend by the Federal government I don't begrudge. We need to spend funds for ceremonial operations of government. Why do we have all of those military bands? This is their chance to play.

Anyway, this spending is an economic stimulus with a multiplier effect probably greater than the multiplier effect of the public funds that Congress will soon appropriate. Florist, hairdressers, hotels, restaurants, cab drivers, waiters, chefs, souvenir vendors, designers of ball gowns and many, many more will earn income from the event. So a big party is good economic activity.

I just want to point out that the inauguration is by far the most costly in history costing $150 million in the worst of economic times since the great depression. The Bush inauguration in 2005, by comparison, cost about $70 million which was then the most costly to date. Many Democrats were critical of the cost of the Bush inauguration. When Reagan was inaugurated, Mrs. Reagan was severely criticized for wearing a $10,000 gown to one of the balls. I promise not to criticize the cost of Michelle's gown.

If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if you would be complaining about this expensive party if the shoe was on the other foot. In today's economic hard times, if John McCain had been elected and it was the Republican team spending this kind of money on a party, what would you be saying? I know it is hard to believe, but their will be another Republican inauguration someday. So, if you are not bitching about the cost of this party, don't bitch when it is our turn.

I know it is a hopeless quest to try to get sanctimonious hypocritical liberals to see their contradictions, but I like to try.

Top Stories

Obama can change America

As we to prepare to witness the historical inauguration of Barack Obama as the first Black person to become President of the United States, I feel good about it. I wish him well. I do not wish him well because I agree with his policies; I hope he is not successful in implementing some of the changes he wishes for our county. On some issues, I think we should be changing in the opposite direction of the direction Obama wants to take us. On other issues, I agree with Obama and hope he follows through on his campaign promises. In general, it is not his policies that have given me high hopes for Obama. I am not hoping he can change government policy but rather I am hopeful that he can change society.

America is still a society where most White people have it pretty good and most Black people do not. You do not have to tell me that there are successful African Americans and poor White people; of course there are. But, on average the typical Black person has it much worse in this country than the average White person.

Some will point out that any remnant of discrimination has been eliminated and opportunity, even preferential treatment, has been provided to Black Americans. For the most part I agree, and yet the divide between the races is undeniable.

If you are born white, you can have reasonable expectations of growing up to be successful. Even if you are born to parents of modest means, you probably know someone who has achieved success or someone in your family may have achieved success. If you are white it is reasonable to have high expectations. The chances are pretty good that the typical White child will grow up to be productive, and middle class and prestige and wealth are within grasp for those with exceptional abilities and those who apply themselves.

What can the black child realistically look forward to? Many find a reality in this: If you are a black girl you will be pregnant by the time you are sixteen and raise a child alone as a single mother, financially struggling your entire life. If you are a black boy it is worse. You will start getting into trouble with the law by the time you are a young teenager. You will drop out of school and you will end up spending part of your life in prison. You may be killed before you reach thirty. No one has to tell me it doesn’t have to be this way; I know it doesn’t, but the picture I have painted is the likely reality. If life turns out better, then you have beaten the odds.

Why is it like this? I suspect that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the Great Society are all responsible for the state of the Black community. We have witnessed the destruction of the family in the Black community; the family unit is the building block of society. And poverty can be a simple math equation. For example, a mother earning $20,000 a year with one child is living in poverty. However, a family with a father earning $30,000 and a mother earning $20,000 and raising one child are doing OK. Poverty is much more than a math equation though. The absence of the father in the home is more than the absence of that income. Young men need a role model and a strong disciplinarian to keep them from running wild. Young women need a stable male figure, representing strength and fortitude and demonstrating love.

Poverty is hopelessness. Poverty is a different set of values. Poverty is a state of mind. If poverty is not to be devastating, people need the support system of the family structure. Poverty and despair and immediate gratification and low expectations and self-destructive behavior have become part of the fabric of Black society.

I think that whatever success Obama may have as President, his greatest success may be that he can change Black society. I can only imagine the pride that many Blacks must be feeling as they see a Black man achieve the ultimate success in becoming the most influential and powerful person in the world. Certainly we have had other Black role models recently. The Bush administration featured Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, yet I suspect that having a Black man at the very top of the ladder can have an impact that other Blacks in lesser positions cannot have.

Due to the historical structure of society, politics and even the entertainment industry, Blacks have had few admirable role models in the publicized realm. In modern times, the Black adults that many Black kids look up to are rappers and athletes. Many of the athletes have the persona of thugs and pimps and the rappers revel in that image. I watched the movie Ray Charles the other night. I love the music of Ray Charles and really enjoyed the movie, yet Ray Charles was not an admirable person. He was a drug addict who was openly unfaithful to his wife. If you are a Black parent, is this the kind of role model you want for your kid? I know one could also say that there are plenty of Whites who would make poor role models, but it seems poor role models are abundant in the black community and people to admire are few and far between.

It seem like even the successful blacks are often crooks and thugs or tainted by scandal or associations. Here in Tennessee we had an attractive Black candidate run for Senate a few years ago named Harold Ford, Jr. There was never any serious allegation about defects in his character, yet he comes from a powerful political Black family out of Memphis that is deeply tainted by scandal and corruption. His uncle, John Ford, was a sharp-dressing, handsome, arrogant, slick politician who had numerous run-ins with the law and who had a wife but also openly had a mistress. He openly maintained two households. He was a state senator for many years and is now in prison for corruption. From Adam Clayton Powell down through the present, it seems that there is almost an expectation that Blacks who achieve political success are corrupt.

Also, many of the civil rights leaders and religious leaders such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson seem more like demigods and shakedown artist rather than principled leaders. Certainly there are many, many good people pastoring Black churches across America and other Black leaders of stature, but the high profile Black leaders look like con artist.

My hope for America is that Blacks will aspire to look and act like Barack Obama and not the pimp on the corner, or the drug dealer, or the rapper, or the thug athlete. I hope that the image of the Obama household where a family consisting of two successful parents and two little girls living in a normal, loving, and supportive environment sinks into the psyche of every Black kid across America. I hope that Blacks see that they can achieve anything they put their mind to. I hope they learn to value education. I hope that speaking normal English and being responsible and working hard and studying and having aspirations is no longer considered “acting white.”

I hope there is never a hint of scandal on Obama. I was concerned about some of his Chicago relationships but I hope they were casual and that nothing more comes out to tie Obama to the corruptions of some of his past associates. If Obama has a girl friend on the side, I hope we never learn about it. I hope Obama is never caught taking money under the table. I hope he never shakes down contributors or is caught helping a corrupt crony get a contract or having a cheap affair with an intern.

I hope that Obama does not try to help the Black community by extending the dependency of the welfare state. That is the last thing the Black community needs. They do not need more dependency; they need self-sufficiency. Welfare reform was a step in the right direction and then it was abandoned and we backslid. For the last few years, for the most part, the problems of the Black community have been ignored. There are ways to expand opportunity without fostering dependency. The best thing Obama can do for the Black community is be a role model and use the bully pulpit to inspire Blacks to have greater aspirations and change the way they think. If Black kids want to grow up and be like Obama, that may be Obama’s most lasting legacy.

Top Stories

Evaporated cane juice?

Nashville has finally arrived! We have a Trader Joe's. I went to Trader Joe's recently and bought some good stuff at good prices. One of the things I purchased was Sunflower Seed Butter. The ingredients in Sunflower Seed Butter are sunflower seeds, evaporated cane juice, and salt. Evaporated cane juice? Isn't that sugar?

Top Stories

Dear Mike, I don't wish George W. Bush ill, I just wish him goodbye and good riddance

Dear Rod,

For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.

As President and Mrs. Bush prepare to leave Washington in a few weeks to return to Texas, I know I speak for Republicans and grassroots leaders across America when I say we are all grateful for their tremendous service to our country. To show our appreciation for our Commander-in-Chief, the RNC is asking every Republican to sign an electronic card that will be presented to President Bush before he leaves office. It is the least each of us can do to show our gratitude to the leader of our country and our Party.

And if you can, Rod, I hope you will also consider giving a gift to keep our Party strong and moving forward. Your secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 will go a long way toward helping the RNC provide the support our Republican leaders need to fight the Democrats' liberal agenda and prepare for the vital 2009-2010 elections.

I hope you will add your name to the RNC's Thank You card to President Bush and Laura Bush today. And thank you for your continued support of our Party and our cause.

Best Wishes,

Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee

P.S. Rod, in order for your name to be included on the RNC's Thank you e-card to President and Mrs. Bush, you must reply to this e-mail by January 15th. Please click here to sign the President's Thank You card and to make a secure online gift to help strengthen our Party for the battles ahead. Thank you.


Dear Mike,

Thank you for your kind letter but I must decline the opportunity to send a donation to the RNC at this time, and I am not going to sign the e-card thanking President Bush for his service. Although I made several contributions to the McCain campaign and the RNC during the election, I am withholding future donations until I see who is elected the new chairman of the RNC. Frankly, Mike, since you represent the old guard of Bush loyalist, I will be less likely to contribute to the RNC if you are re-elected chairman.

I don’t personally know you, and you may be a good guy, but I want a clean break from the Bush years and a new beginning for the party. You see, I have been a disgruntled Republican these last few years and instead of wanting to show my appreciation to President Bush, I am sighing relief that we survived his presidency. I am certainly not celebrating that Obama is being inaugurated President, but I almost feel like celebrating that Bush is leaving office. I want to forget that Bush ever happened.

I must disagree with several things you say in your letter. First of all, you say that Bush has restored honor and integrity to the White House. I don’t quite see it that way. Sure, Bill Clinton was shady and there were allocations about questionable land deals and shake-down of contributors and association with shady characters; but, Republicans have had Jack Abramoff and other scandals, so on balance, I don’t know that Bush has a claim to any greater integrity than Clinton.

If you are referring to Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office, then I always thought that was a bit overblown. I know Clinton lied about it and committed perjury and that was an embarrassment, but it didn’t put the country at risk. At most, that was a personal failing. He betrayed Hillary, not the country. Bush may have a greater claim to personal moral purity than Clinton but I would not say that Bush restored honor and integrity to the office of President. In some ways, Bush brought more dishonor to the Office. Justifying and condoning torture dishonored our nation.

Bill Clinton embarrassed us by the blow job incident; Bush embarrassed us by just being George W. Bush. I am relieved that I will not have to see anymore “Great moments in Presidential Speeches.” One of the most embarrassing times I remember about GWB is when he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. She clearly was an unqualified person. I would have been embarrassed if our Metro Council had tried to put her on the bench as a General Sessions judge, and yet Bush wanted to put her on the Supreme Court. Bush always seemed to value loyalty over competence and if there is one word to describe his presidency it is “incompetence.”

You say that Bush has led us with “firm determination and a steady hand.” Is that just another way of saying he was bull headed and would not listen to reason? That is the way I see him.

You say that you know you speak for Republicans and grassroots leaders across America when you say we are all grateful for President Bush’s service to our country. You don’t speak for me. I am not grateful for Bush’s service. I think we would be better off if Bush had never been our president.

Don't get me wrong. I don’t hate Bush. I don’t wish him ill. Unlike many on the left, I don’t even think Bush is an evil person. But, he made some serious mistakes and shamed our nation. Maybe history will judge him more kindly than I now judge him. Two presidents who are now highly regarded, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, committed offenses to our constitution and committed grave violation of our civil liberties and yet history treats them well, so history may treat Bush well. Who knows? We will have to wait and see.

I don’t think everything Bush did was wrong. There is much about his administration with which I agree and admire. He has some accomplishments which I think deserve praise. We can be proud of the assistance we have given Africa to fight AIDS. Bush appointed two supremely qualified solid conservatives to the Supreme Court. I generally agree with “no child left behind.” I agreed with Bush’s tax policy. There are other things that Bush tried to accomplish that were the right thing to do but he simply failed to pull them off. He tried to avert the housing crisis and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Democrats in Congress defeated his proposed reforms. Comprehensive immigration reform, social security reform, and health care reform were the correct policies to pursue, and I was with him. On comprehensive immigration reform, I think Bush was right but he was defeated because he could not get the support of his own party.

I fault Bush for expanding entitlements with the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I fault him for run-away spending and failure to use the veto. I think he failed to show leadership and must accept part of the blame for the Katrina response. Most of all, I fault him for leading us into an unnecessary war based on faulty and manipulated intelligence. I am ashamed of illegal wire-tapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, and Abu Ghraib.

I don’t want Bush to be indicted. I don’t want investigations. I want to look forward and not backward. However, I don’t want to honor George W. Bush. I want my country’s honor restored and I hope the Grand Ole Party can find its soul. I don’t wish George W. Bush ill; I just wish him good-bye and good riddance.

Sincerely,

Rod Williams

Top Stories

Hey Barney Frank, Thanks for the Housing Crisis.

No doubt there were various factors at work that caused the mortgage crisis. Democrats and their friends in the media like to blame the Reagan-era deregulation and many conservative commentators wish to blame the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act, while others point to other causes.

One undeniable factor, if not the primary factor, was the irresponsible practices of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Fannie and Freddie do not make loans of course but purchase the paper of the mortgage companies that do make the loans.

In the 1990’s, encouraged by the Clinton administration as a means of advancing homeownership, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying sub prime loans. Previously there was a much smaller market for sub prime mortgages, but with Fannie and Freddie buying the paper the availability of sub prime loans skyrocketed. With time-tested lending practices out the window, these two institutions ended up controlling 90% of the secondary market for mortgages. Those within the organizations who raised objections to the irresponsible lending being encouraged by Fannie and Freddie were overruled and eased out.

Fannie and Freddy began hiring Democratic operatives as CEO’s and upper management.
At the same time, Fannie and Freddie began making huge contributors to Congress, spending millions to influence votes. While some Republicans also received financial contributions from the two institutions, most of the money went to Democrats. Top recipients of those campaign contributions were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Chairmen of the Committees that should have been providing over site of the two financial giants. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were also among the top receipts of Fannie and Freddy campaign contributions.

Wall Street investors liked the new arrangement and the easy money. Democrats liked the votes they could garner by being the party that advanced homeownership and they liked the dependable source of campaign contributions. This was the “crony capitalism” that led to the crisis.

By the early part of this decade it became clear that Fannie and Freddie were advancing a market in risky loans. If these practices continued an economic meltdown was inevitable. In 2004 Fannie Mae was caught in an accounting scandal overstating their earning and their financial stability. Congress conducted dozens of hearing and Democrats defended Fannie Mae and denied that a problem existed. (See above video.)

Principled Republicans, let by John McCain, called for the reform of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and President Bush proposed a bill to tighten regulation of the institutions. (For a record of the Bush administrations efforts to rein in Fannie Mae see Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs)

The bill to tighten regulation over the Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie and Freddie) was introduced in Congress in January 2005 but Democrats blocked it. If one single person gets credit for blocking reform that could have averted the mortgage crisis it has to be Barney Frank. (See, Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint)

While there are other factors at play that led to the economic meltdown, the bulk of the blame must be laid at the feet of Congressional Democrats who turned a blind eye to what was going on, benefited from it, and blocked reform that could have averted it.

Top Stories

Latest Polling on Engish-only

In a recent poll, thirty-seven percent of Nashvillians say they support the proposed English only charter amendment and fourty-two percent say they oppose it. The other 21 percent said, "No hablo ingles."

Top Stories