Custom Search

Friday, January 04, 2008

Obama and Huckabee win Iowa caucuses

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

31 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Once front-runners, Clinton, Romney face growing need to win in New Hampshire
BY ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
Article Last Updated: 01/04/2008 12:39:22 AM CST


DES MOINES - Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois, a first-term Democratic senator trying to become the nation's first black president, rolled to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night, lifted by a record turnout of voters who rejected the criticism that he did not have enough experience.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who was barely a blip on the national scene two months ago, defeated Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivering a serious setback to Romney's high-spending campaign and putting pressure on Romney to win in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Huckabee won with 34 percent of the vote. Romney had 25 percent. Former Sen. Fred Thompson, of Tennessee, and Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, each had 13 percent.

Obama's victory amounted to a significant setback for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York, who a few months ago appeared to be the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, but who has watched her position erode during the past several months. The result also left uncertain the prospects for John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, who had staked his second bid for the White House on winning Iowa.

On the Democratic side, Obama had 38 percent; Edwards, 30 percent; and Clinton, 29 percent. Gov. Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, was fourth, at 2 percent. Officials said Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd, of Connecticut, and Joseph Biden, of Delaware, were leaving the race after failing to generate appreciable support in Iowa.
A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus, producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to sign in. Obama's victory in an overwhelmingly white state stood as a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. At the same time, the apparent surge of independent voters to his side, as suggested by polls of voters entering the caucuses, suggested his potential appeal in a general election.

The result sent waves of apprehension across Clinton's camp, and she turned her attention to New Hampshire. Aides said former President Bill Clinton would go there immediately and spend the next five days campaigning in a state where he always has been popular.

On the Republican side, Romney had blanketed Iowa with television advertisements and, with a nod to the way campaigns are normally won in the state, built an extensive get-out-the-vote operation that carted Romney's supporters to the caucuses. As polls showed Huckabee rising, Romney responded with a monthlong barrage of ads attacking him on immigration and taxes.

"Congratulations on the first round to Mike," Romney said on Fox News.

Huckabee's populist appeal - powered by support from evangelicals - out-muscled a political operation Romney spent more than a year building. Polls of Republicans entering the caucus sites found that nearly 60 percent described themselves as evangelicals, and by overwhelming numbers they said they intended to vote for Huckabee.

A survey of Democrats entering the caucus sites found that more than half said they were attending their first caucus - and they divided, with about 40 percent for Obama and about 30 percent for Clinton.

Among Democrats, nearly half of respondents said their top factor in choosing a candidate was looking for someone who could bring about change; Obama won the support of about half that group. Twenty percent said the right experience, Clinton's key argument, was the main factor; among that group, nearly half chose Clinton.

For all the talk about electability, barely one in 10 respondents said it was the main factor in their decision. Clinton and Edwards had an edge over Obama in this area.

Among Republicans, Huckabee was supported by more than half of the Republican caucus-goers who said it mattered a great deal that a candidate share their religious beliefs.

The personal quality Republican voters said mattered most in a candidate was shared values. What mattered second-most was that a candidate said what he believed. Huckabee outpolled Romney in both of those groups.

This report includes information from the Associated Press.

7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has been interesting to watch all of the Republican talking heads swooning over Obama for the last 3 months. When polls have shown Clinton ahead by 3 points they say its a statistical dead heat when polls show Obama up by one they cheer about how he has taken the lead.

Folks like Chris Matthews screemed into the camara that Obama needed to take off the gloves when he was behid Clinton and then talked about desperate low blows that the Clinton's take when Hillary mentioned that Obama had voted "present" (not yes or no) on evry abortion vote in the Illinios legislature.

Today Joe Scarborrow (former GOP Congressman from Florida) was beeming about how inperational Obama was last night while giving a stump speech about hope.

Once the Republican pundants have successfully anointed a Senator with two years in Washington and no significant legislative history as the Democratic nominee they will proceed to slice him to pieces.

Remember Obama pledged to meet with the leader of Iran and did not vote one way or another on the issue of calling the revelutionary guard a terrorist organization. How much fun will Scarborrow and O'Riley have slicing him up as a appeazer of our enamies once they have killed of the Democrat they have been most afraid of?

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:11 AM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...

Chuck Your back Great
the power to tax involves the power to destroy; ...the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...."

Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruSqkSAdWUw&feature=related
Interview of David Rockefeller.
www.am1500.com " Politics belong to those that show up" quote Bob Davis Ron Paul's people show up with ISSUE

REPORTER: What about the Candidate Ron Paul who's talking about bringing the powers of the Federal Reserve back to the U. S. Government...
New Hampshire is a White State?
Sharon is a Ron Paul Supporter?
Pawlenty is McCain, Mayor Coleman
Hillary DOES NOT SAY MUCH FOR THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION??????
ARE YOU GUYS AWARE SHARON ANDERSON RAN FOR PRESIDENT TO CHALLENGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE V. CAUCUS'S
GIVE EM HELL ITS OVER THE HILL IN OCTOBER FOR NOVEMBER ELECTIONS

11:16 AM  
Blogger Nancy Lazaryan said...

I believe Ron Paul got 10%, and is looking for an even stronger showing in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I know of that understands the foundations of this country and that has proven by his actions that he supports the constitution.

Nancy Lazaryan

8:34 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Hi All,

Now that Obama has shown he is a contender he will be under more scrutiny.

Over the next week or so we will hear about cocaine allegations and his black separatist views from his opposition.

What I found interesting in the IOWA caucuses was Obama was able to double the number of registered voters. He was able to get a younger audience to come out and vote.

I sense he will be our next president. Citizens are tired of business as usual in this country. He has made it clear he is against the status quo and is willing to do something about it. Personally I don't think he will tackle any of the REAL concerns that are oppressing the citizens of this nation. Like the drug war!

8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
www.judicialwatch.org

Democrats Broken Promises on Congressional Ethics Reform

In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s campaign season again and, per usual, the candidates are doling out the campaign promises. But what about all of those promises made during the last election? Specifically, what happened to the major ethics reform House Speaker Pelosi vowed to provide in the first days of her reign on the Hill?
Well, just before Christmas, we finally got our answer. That’s when Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Michael Capuano released a report by the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, which he chaired, outlining a strategy to address congressional corruption.

As you may recall, I was a participant in these ethics reform discussions, testifying before Capuano’s task force last year. From the beginning, I was concerned that by the time ethics reform proposals made it through the congressional vetting process they would be so watered down as to be useless. As it turns out, I was right to be worried. Initially, my understanding was the Cong. Capuano had proposed some significant reforms. Evidently, it looks to me that the good reforms were not much liked by his party’s leadership and have been watered down.

The good news is that the task force does recommend the creation of a quasi-independent panel (called the Office of Congressional Ethics) to consider ethics complaints. Members of the office are to be appointed by congressional leadership and are to conduct a “preliminary review” of any ethics issue within 30 business days (or five legislative days, whichever is longer), and then decide whether or not to refer the complaint to the House Ethics Committee for review and potential action. But that’s where the good news ends.

First, after the panel completes its “preliminary review” and decides not to act, it is under no obligation to inform the public or the media of the results of its investigation. In other words, appointees of Congress can simply sweep the matter under the rug and no one will be the wiser. How can there be accountability with this glaring lack of transparency?

Second, the task force recommends that the new ethics panel include former members of Congress, many of whom helped create the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill in the first place! You can bet ex-congressmen would have little incentive to hold their fellow congressional club members accountable for their transgressions.

Most importantly, the new task force recommendations deny citizens and outside groups the opportunity to file ethics complaints. (The task force did consider allowing complaints by outside groups, but only if these groups disclosed the names of all their donors, which is, of course, a non-starter.)

The willingness to allow outside complaints has always been, in my view, the true test of how committed the Democrats were to meaningful ethics reform. If members (and political appointees) of Congress are still in complete control of the ethics enforcement process, with no outside participation, how is this different than the deficient system we now have in place? (To be fair to the Democrats, Republicans continue to have zero interest in serious ethics enforcement.)

Democrats have had more than a year to make good on their promise of significant ethics reform. What they have given us instead are some minor reforms that will do little to restore voters’ confidence in Congress. What we need is serious reform. (See, for instance, JW’s list of the “Ten Most Wanted” Corrupt Politicians from last week…)

It is not too late to fix the mess, as any changes would have to be voted on by the House. If you’re concerned about ethics in the House of Representatives, contact your congressman and let him know what you think about these latest developments.











Tough Questions for Iowa’s Winners (and Losers)








Mike Huckabee came from nowhere to win the Iowa caucuses. Congratulations to him. But now things could get tough for the new front-runner. Candidates languishing at the bottom of the polls, as Huckabee did throughout most of the campaign, tend to avoid the tough questions. Will Americans now take a more thorough look at Huckabee’s record on ethics? The reporting to date raises a host of issues:

Politico.com and others have reported that Mike Huckabee has had 14 ethics complaints filed against him, yielding 5 admonitions and $1,000 in fines from the Arkansas Ethics Commission. Instead of cooperating with the Arkansas Ethics Commission, Huckabee twice filed lawsuits to shut it down.
On a number of occasions, Huckabee failed to report cash payments he made to himself. For example, according to The Associated Press, Huckabee received, but failed to report, “$43,150 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign for use of his personal airplane, $14,000 Janet Huckabee received from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign, and $23,500 from a tax-exempt organization he incorporated with others in 1994, but whose funding source isn't known…”
According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Huckabee “depleted the governor's office emergency fund in the final weeks of his administration in part to pay for the destruction of computer hard drives in his office.”
According to a recent article in National Review, Huckabee had a penchant for accepting gifts while serving in public office. “A $200 stadium blanket, $250 in dental care, a $600 chainsaw, and a $3,700 pair of cowboy boots were among 300 gratuities Huckabee accepted totaling $130,000. Like the Clintons loading their moving van with White House antiques, Huckabee tried to claim for himself some $70,000 in furniture donated to the governor’s mansion.”
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama secured a victory over John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. I’ve written quite a bit about Obama’s ethical lapses in previous issues of the Weekly Update, including his suspicious land deal with indicted political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, and his alleged influence peddling involving campaign contributors. One would hope, now that Obama has become more viable as a national candidate, that more attention is paid to these stories.

With respect to Hillary, she is far from being knocked out of this race. She’s still at the top of the national polls, and has a tremendous campaign war chest from which to draw. Hillary is in this for the long haul.

And, of course, no one has done more to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her criminal and ethically bankrupt record than Judicial Watch. Click here to check out our publication, “Ten (plus) Unanswered Questions for Hillary Clinton.” She deserves scrutiny whether or not she’s running for the Oval Office.

Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates. We are interested, however, in making sure that politicians, no matter their party or ideology, are held to account for any ethical or legal transgressions – especially those seeking the highest office in the land.

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't Judicial Watch discredited back in the 90's.

Thanks Bob for doing the scumsuckers job.

Obama wrote openly about his experiment with coke as a teenager. He then went on to Harvard, graduated at the top of his class, got into the law school and graduated at the top of his class.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that he has any ties to any separatist group.

This is the kind of treatment I expect to see on your blog when it comes to blacks. As far as you're concerned, he's just another renter for your property.

8:09 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

8:09, I assume this is the statement that upset you-

I said, Over the next week or so we will hear about cocaine allegations and his black separatist views from his opposition.

My response to you- The key words here is "his opposition". Where did I say in my comment I was opposed to Obama?

I merely stated a "fact". The conservative talking heads are already saying these things.

8:09 said- This is the kind of treatment I expect to see on your blog when it comes to blacks. As far as you're concerned, he's just another renter for your property

My response- you are one of those people who continually attempt to discredit this forum because you FEAR the truths that are spoken here.

I challenge you to send me your grievances about this forum and I will open a topic for public discussion about the pros and cons of this forum.

I will delete your off topic post on this issue. YOU won't direct the dialog here with BULLSHIT.

9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll try this again. Please don't delete it Bob. Take it to the backyard if you don't like it. This fool is gonna get a piece of my mind.

8:09, the only bigots that ever posted here are people who support the city's code enforcement program.

They are racist people who complain about their black neighbors to the city. The city uses their complaints and code inspectors to gentrify our neighborhoods of low income blacks.

Bob did the right thing not deleting those bigots like George and Froggy's post. These two are examples of the types of citizens this city uses to chase black people out of neighborhoods.

Bob deleted post in the past that had the N word in them. He posted a history lesson on the N word several times. Go to the front page and look on the right of the page of the links. The "African American Black Registry is linked there. I remeber educating post on racism against Blacks, American Indians, Jewish people and Vietnamese people. So 8:09 why are you less than honest with the people at this forum and trying to suggest this is a bigoted forum when in reality this forum exposes bigotry?

Your falsities seek to discredit all the good that has come of our discussions on racism here. And who loses? Low income blacks have lost housing across this city like they did in RONDO, SELBY/DALE, FROGTOWN and the EAST SIDE.

Whenever low income blacks move into a neighborhood in this city in numbers history has proven this city acts with gentrification.

So 8:09, who are YOU defending?

Black and PROUD!

Ali

Bob's cuz.........

10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth on Obama before its get out there. We know how the Republicans like to win by putting the fear of the Muslims into people.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob's "cuz", (already an indication of where this is going).

The hundreds of blacks who lived in those apartments who had to endure conditions barely above that in the county jail- and worst in some places.

When given the option to move into better conditions or to newer digs in the burbs, many jumped for that chance. Its exactly why there are ZERO involved in the lawsuit. Its exactly why they are not the focus. The focus is slumlords being forced to clean up their act.

If you sat back and let your people get pimped by these slumlords looking for that sure monthly government check, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself. These slumlords are not fighting for equality of people of color or fair treatment, they are fighting for the system to be bent in their favor because, unlike other businesses, they cannot compete in todays free market without government help.

Is that clear enough cuz?

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:56, or should I say Eric? Eric you the only black man who would say this stuff. You danced around what Ali said.

Whoever you are, I wouldn't use your identity either. Shameful you would side with bigots in city government against your own race!

Like Ali, I am "black and proud" and a friend of Bob's family.

Micheal Smith
Highland

8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Micheal,

I sign every post I write. Every single one for over a year. I wouldn't have attacked the posters use of coloquialisms like 'cuz'.

'My people' are not the issue here. You say blacks are being persecuted by the faceless and nameless city yet we got a black police chief, human right director, human rights commission chair, several assistant county attorneys, several civil rights attorneys, several ranking department employees, council member, several civil rights activists, ministers, teachers, fire fighters, cops, doctors, business owners, corporate employees and many everyday people in St Paul who work and volunteer on behalf of the disenfranchised (including me). And none of these black people are seeing this? I'm one of them, and you're telling me that I'm not concerned?

Seems to me the only black people I see in favor are related to Bob (Buddy and Cinn) and you, a friend of Bob. Where are all of the black people who were wronged? Surely if the landlords can insist on emails from years back, we can ask for real-life examples of blacks being ran out off the city systematically. Three families from three different landlords would be enough.

Now ask me if I can find 3 families, or 30 families or 300 families with complaints against the landlords. I can do it faster than you can say "Hey Steve, give me the list of tenant complaints from the plantiffs over the last 18 months."

Tell you what Michael. I've had the toughest time put faces to the claim blacks are being targeted. You believe in this RICO suit. Tell me who I can talk to that looks like us that has been directly affected by this. One person.

Until then, the only people who are feeling as though they were wronged are the landlords. They may be my countrymen but, they are certainly not my people.

Eric <---------(see it?)

1:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, they were carefully choosen tokens! Like the non-profits who claim to help blacks, they are merely puppets of the institutionally dicrimnating white establishment here.

7:01 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric, News Flash!

ALL those people of color who were wronged... Will be filling a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT later this year.

Mike is my son's pal, and a friend of the family.

I have been encouraging these young men to post here. "We are on a truth seeking mission".

7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there is a group of black filing a class action suit, I will eat a bowl of cole slaw (if you know me, you'd know that puking will be induced), drink a liter of Southern Comfort (see above), write an apology on this blog and, get out and bring publicity, beyond this inner circle here, to other who can actually help in the efforts of the class action suit.

There you are. I will stand with bruised ego and body and get to work with bringing justice for these people.

Of course these have to be names of actual living people.

Chuck----------
You're wrong on this Obama thing. He's is the next nominee for President from our party.

What you are over-looking is that a couple of years in Washington may be all anyone can take before getting sucked into the same ol' game. You say the Republicans want Obama but, its Hillary that they give money to and throw fundraisers for. Obama only got some of their votes in Iowa.
Obama did spend ten years in the Illinois senate where he accomplished quite a bit and even in the minority was able to build coalitions to get things done for the poor of disenfranchised. Who better than he to understand how these federal regulations and mandates affect us at the local level? He spent ten years dealing with it.

He beat Hillary in turning out young people and getting their vote but, he also had more women vote for him, more independents and more Republicans. You and I know the owner of certain ID Firm and they just finished a 37,000 person ID in New Hampshire among Dems, Independents and Moderate Republicans and Obama is ahead of Hillary by 8 percentage points. That's not a poll with a sample of 800. That's a raw 37000 who are most likely to vote. Who do you think the new voters who were not polled are going to go for?

I was a Hillary supporter until a month ago when her consultant started that gutterball BS against Obama. The same tactics she complained about in the 90's. I'm tired of it and so are the voters.

You're right about the RICO suits.

Eric<----------Just for you Michael

10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I love the way that when Hillary says something like you should actually check Obbama's records that is called "gutter ball tactics" but when Edwards and Obbama attack her for the same votes they took, that is "refreshing and new!"

I have no doubt that Obbama is going to be the nominee of our party and I also have no doubt that he will carry Washington DC in the genteral election. I just can't figure out any states he will carry.

Let's just imagine the commercials.. "this Obams guy is more liberal than Hillary, he supports socialized medicine." or "My name is Jane Doe and I voted for Mr Obama when he ran for the Senate in Illinios. I am so discusted that he served for only six months before he started running for President. I think it is terrible for him to use the citizens of Illinios as a stepping stone for his political future." or how about, "Barrack Obamma, do you know where he stands?" "Six times the abortion issue came up in the Illinios legislature and six times Obama voted "present." "Why won't Obama tell you where he stands?"

You get the picture? They are going to eat him alive. Six months of pounding it over and over again. No experience, no siginificant legislation, promises to meet with the president of Iran who finances the terorists... Once again we have figured how to lose...

In the last 40 years the Democrats have won the White House 3 times. Once when Nixon was impeached and twice by Bill Clinton. You want to know why the GOP hates the Clinton's?

Because they beat them!

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,
No one drank from the Clinton Kool-Aid more than me. True, they are ass-kickers and have beat the Republicans every step of the way. Bill has.

Hillary fumbled health care and would not take the compromised which could have covered millions. Her friends in the White House set off the travel gate stuff, the Lincoln Bedroom issues, the embarassing judicial appointments that were withdarwn after prelim investigations.

She's smart, saavy, bi-partisan in her legislation but, the tactics done in her name are gutterball and a mirror of the VRWC she exposed in the 90's. Mark Penn dropping BS about Obama being ambitious since kindergarten (which doesn't make sense since he went to be an organizer with the poor after earning the number one law degree in the country- world if you will), Penn also tapping into racial fears by bringing up coke.

The vote present is an issue. How about the very public stand against the Iraq War? When Hillary with all of her knowledge and inside information voted Yes. What about her vote for the Patriot Act which was so bad to civil rights, they had to re-write it.

I had dinner last month in Iowa with a guy who was a Bill Clinton appointee, he was supporting Obama and wanted to persuade me over. When I gave him the line about Hillary know how to win, he informed me that he was there in the 1990's. Hillary fumbled a lot. Its not going to be the 1990's or 1960's anymore. Its time to look forward and bring folks together. Hillary Clinton does not bring them together (outside of policy).

All that you brought up on Obama is damaging but, not a death nail. Especially when you take in account that the public is not getting it in gear for the Republicans and the Republican nominees have more baggage than MSP.

John McCain would be their best shot but, he is not considered pure enough to their party loyal.

Ronald Reagan was governor of California and raised their taxes to record levels, left office with a deficit and still was able to sweep in the Presidency in 1980. He campaign speeches gave people hope in a America. Sound familiar?

Obama for President.
Joe Biden for VP.
John Edwards for Attorney General
John McCain for SecDefense
Bill Richardson for SecState

Hillary for Chair of Health and Human Service Committee in the Senate.

Ron Paul for Federal Trade Commission.

That's the ticket Chuck.



Eric<-------(for Micheal's inquiry)

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am starting my, I will give $100 to your favorite charity if Obama wins in November campaign.

I will make the offer to any real human that will give $100 to their own favorite charity if he loses.

I think I have the safe bet.

I am sorry to all of the wishers and dreamers but they are going to slice him to pieces. You can't make it to the white house just on speaches. Reagan was a two term governor of California that had run for the presidency once before. He was known nationally for standing up to the hippies in California and was seen by the right as someone they could count on. He had a record.

Obama has a new speech writer since November...

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

12:28 PM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...

FAVORITE CHARITY is www.salarmy.org, in Thune's area:
The exclusion of www.ronpaul2008.com has backfired for Hillary?
40% undecided? Barack "Hussein" Obama name is a problem?
Keith Rupert Murdoch 3rd wife who ownes myspace.com http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html
Liberals decry his Fox News Channel as anything but "fair and balanced," but the new Friend of Hillary keeps on rolling.
http://tacky-journalism.blogspot.com
http://sharon4council.blogspot.com
Chuck We are a SANCTUARY CITY, WELFARE STATE:
Chuck your political expertise is relevant Luv the challenge from Checkers to Chess: NONE OF THE ABOVE?

12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and your comment on him meeting with Iran or someone who finances the terrorists. So?

I was young at the time but didn't Nixon and Reagan meeting with the country that had nuclear weapons aimed at us? The country that kept us up as an evil nation and indoctrinated their children with anti-American cartoons? You remember the Sovietr Union don't you?

Those talks with them led to agreements to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs. Talking is not a bad thing.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest financers of terrorism. We seem to be deep in bed with them, hell their leader came to Bush's ranch and spent last year's vacation with him. We continue to purchase oil from them instead of increasing our buy elsewhere- and we know they fund terrorists. Bin Laden? A millionaire through Saudi oil (and construction).

The bet is on Chuck.

Eric<--------

1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take you on that Chuck, if McCain is not the nominee.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See, I agree with, so?

The problem isn't with me, its with the great masses who will go crazy once they actually start to hear that stuff.

The drum beat of that over and over again with the seens of the dead after 9/11.

We're toast.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well please don't jump off the ledge yet.

The GOP could nominate Rudy for us or Flipper Mitt.

Eric<-------

2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is our next president. Opra put him over the top.

Eric why don't Tyrone or Harrington do somethin bout those cops harrasses us young black men for nothin but walkin the street?RICO's speak the truth.

Jeno Blakey

2:38 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric said-

If there is a group of black filing a class action suit, I will eat a bowl of cole slaw (if you know me, you'd know that puking will be induced), drink a liter of Southern Comfort (see above), write an apology on this blog and, get out and bring publicity, beyond this inner circle here, to other who can actually help in the efforts of the class action suit.

There you are. I will stand with bruised ego and body and get to work with bringing justice for these people.

Of course these have to be names of actual living people.

My response- Eric, you haven't read the RICO suits have you? I suggest you go to the front page and under the Scales of Justice there is links to the RICO suits.

You will find INNOCENT people of color condemned to the streets. More than 3 families. And wait Eric, this isn't all of them.. There is more who aren't even invovled with the RICO suits. We are diligently working to find ALL of them.

They will ALL be part of the lawsuits to come.

Sorry for the off topic post. This is the subject that catepulted me into this high public profile. By nature I am a reclusive man.

It is my passion to see folks civil rights are respect by those charged with protecting us.

4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeno,
How old are you?

Eric<-----

4:47 PM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...

Affiant is proud to have a black niece age (4) however check http://sharon4council.blogspot.com for update Look at the Backers ie: Keith Rupert Murdoch on his 3rd marriage to the owner of myspace,
THE backlash Sharon predicts will be www.ronpaul2008.com Strict Constitutionality Senator from Texas may "take" votes from Obama
Murdoch was foolish to manulipate the elections for censorship

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ummm Sharon, he's a member of the House not the Senate.

He's not going anywhere but home. He said he's going to stick with the party and they are not given him more than 10%. He will not run independent from the party and we know Republicans will not nominate him. So, we'll never know if he can 'take votes from Obama'.

Eric<----------(still signing them Mike)

1:54 PM  
Blogger Sharon Anderson said...

Eric: Thanks for correction Ron Paul has been around along time: Libertarian etc.
After 5Feb08 any candidate can "Bolt" run Inependant: etc. Guilliani, Thompson should drop OUT,
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/01/11/antiwar-republican-congressman-ron-paul-is-running-for-president/
YOU GO GIRL: Its the delegates/electoral college that counts: Pauls message is Monetary to End the War
www.am1500.com Mishke is campaigning for Ron Paul and Marijuana? tune in.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

12:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home