59 thoughts on “Van Auken video clip released”

1. Awww…..I’m underwhelmed with the video. I was expecting (hoping?) for a more juicy segment.

2. Me too.

3. P.S. I got the same email also.

4. That was lame.

5. Yep, pretty lame. It didn’t give you any idea of anything that was said or done, other than, in my opinion, it’s pretty clear that BVA was drunk, as they’ve said.

6. I wonder if this lawyer has ever read the Canon of Ethics for Lawyers relative to pending cases they are handling? Sounding more like the firm of Findem, Chasem @Signumup!

7. You do get a little hint of the BVA style via “What are YOUUUU doing?” comment.

8. it’s pretty clear that BVA was drunk, as they’ve said.

   …and that was their point. A picture is worth a thousand words. I wonder if there is more to come? Did he say, CJ?

9. lol… that’s it? 9 seconds? No editing there… **rolls eyes**

10. I heard it’s the first 9 seconds of the video.

11. I see beer cups and open cans of beer in that second picture below the video.

12. Everyone was 21 or over. Police checked.

13. mahkno-

    so?

14. Mahkno she could be passed out in her vomit and you’d say she was napping. And what is so wrong about beer cups and open cans of beer on private property?

15. “she could be passed out in her vomit and you’d say she was napping.”

    no no no… it would be something more like ‘pining for the fjords’.

16. This was submitted by an attorney? An attorney at LAW? Or does he just play one on TV?

    Everyone in Sigma NU is over 21? You know this because the police checked. OMG. The same police that allowed the party, that allowed Van Auken to allegedly be intoxicated in public and file a false complaint? Was this Peoria or Bradley police?

    She does look pretty combative and threatening, however. Was that really the best (or worst for BVA) nine seconds of the video to release?

    It appears to me that the person operating the camera was the drunkest one involved in this moment.

    Crickets… wow. Do they let just anyone practice law in our state?

17. Aaron T. Wickenhauser: (Member) admitted to bar, 2004, Illinois. Education: University of Notre Dame (B.S., cum laude, 1997); DePaul University College of Law (J.D., 2004). Dean’s Scholar. Recipient, First Place, Center for the Study of Race and Bioethics Writing Competition, 2003. Former: Associate, Meyers Alexander & Kosner, Chicago, Illinois. Assistant Stat’s Attorney, Tazewell County, Traffic, Misdemeanor and Felony Division.

    Practice Areas: Criminal Law; DUI/DWI; Drivers License Suspension; Drug Crimes; Domestic Violence; Felonies; Homicide; Juvenile Law; Misdemeanors; Parole and Probation; Police Misconduct; Sex Crimes; Traffic Violations; White Collar Crime; Business Law; Trusts and Estates; Intellectual Property.

    I wonder what will be the area of interest in this case? Not criminal, not driving related, not drugs, not domestic violence… maybe felonies? Homicide? Juvenile law? We’ll come back to misdemeanors… not parole or probation, police misconduct… I hope not! Sex crimes? Not Traffic violations, not white collar crime, not business law related, not a trust or estate issue, or intellectual property… so it has to be a misdemeanor suit. But what is she being charged with? Nothing. So it simply a civil suit of which this guy has no expertise… actually none of the partners seem to have any particular expertise…they have a total of 14 years experience between the three of them why then? Why? I can’t think of any reason. Can you?
    Nicholas Owens, Wickenhauser’s partner is a Bradley grad… I wonder if he was Sigma Nu?

    This is a very young law firm… do you think this is GOOD advertising for them or bad?

    Here is one of their website specialties:
    http://www.howlawfirm.com/protectyourself2.html
    Detained at a Drinking Party And You Are Under 21

18. KCDad – Why? Obviously because they don’t like Barb VanAuken and are doing whatever they can to keep her from being re-elected. Smear campaign plain and simple.

19. Of course you can hear the crickets – at the time it got to that level, the music was stopped, etc. because the underage kids high-tailed it back to their own dorm rooms to avoid being caught and ticketed.

20. I have to agree with PI. Call me cynical, but the release of information in this case appears to be timed for maximum political advantage. Ironically, I don’t see it hurting Van Auken’s campaign, mainly because Bradley fraternity members are not sympathetic figures to second district residents, as is evidenced by many of the comments on this site.

    I’ve been outspoken in my criticism of BVA, both in her stances on certain council issues and in response to the Sigma Nu episode. But the release of the video in this case less than a week before the election can hardly be explained by anything other than dirty politics.

21. The real info is in the police reports. Over and over they say flat out that she was extremely intoxicated and abusive to the police.

    She was at a party and Andrew Rand’s, they all got drunk and the capped off their party by showing off throwing their weight around.

    Disgusting behavior for a public official.

    People who will vote for her regardless have EXACTLY the same head in the sand mentality of people who voted in 2006 to re-elect Rod Blagojevich. He had been under FEDERAL INVESTIGATION for 3 years at that point. EVERYONE knew he was corrupt. But morons voted for him anyway. Now some are ready to vote for another character challenged public official who abuses power to satisfy her ego, all in the guise of sticking up the neighborhood. What a farce.

    EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO ABUSES POWER NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE.

    No more laws or regulations on corruption. JUST vote the ones who have demonstrated abusive behavior out of office.

    BVA is an abusive, abrasive, lying, frequently drunken sad excuse for a councilwoman.

22. In other news, PJStar endorses Curphy Smith for 2nd District council person!

23. I have to agree. This is smear politics. Please vote for BVA just to show them this won’t be tolerated.

    besides, I don’t trust any body who doesn’t drink

24. Here is a copy of what Gary Sandberg just wrote in the PJS blog. Heavy on facts and solid reasoning. You might agree or disagree but every 2nd District voter ought to read it and consider his points. So here is Councilman Sandberg’s post:

    Gary Sandberg

    Oh my gosh, something else to agree upon. What’s going on out there at 1 News Plaza? What I wish the newspaper would point out in this race is specifically the incumbents voting record. Yes, her defenders say she represents them and use the late night/early morning intoxication incident with a fraternity as the perfect example of that support. I think it unfortunate that everyone forgets the more critical action that the incumbent made almost three years earlier when Bradley University petitioned to amend their Institutional Plan to allow a new Fraternity/Sorority on Fredonia four doors down from the fraternity which the intoxicated incident revolved. At that time, the District Council representative could have required a ‘break from the past development practices’ that the City knew as well It gets warm in the Springdid NOT provide adequate protection for surrounding residential homes. She could have required that Bradley move the activity areas that had developed historically and before we knew better from the rear of the fraternity/ sorority properties to the front away from the adjoining residential properties. Yes the patios, the parking, and the garbage areas that conflict with quiet, quality, residential living could have and should have been moved to the north side of each fraternity along the ragged edge of Bradleys Plan. This would have been accomplished by vacating Fredonia Street to Bradley, allowing Bradley to reconstruct perpendicular parking on Fredonia instead of off alley and putting the patios between the existing and new fraternity structures. Those items were suggested by me to her, both prior to the meeting as well as at the meeting. She chose NOT to require any of those possibilities into the Amended Plan. Bradley got exactly what they wanted and yet another fraternity/ sorority were allowed to be constructed with all the problems that go along with it by a 10-1 vote.
    A year after that Bradley vote, another zoning issue came before the City Council, a request for a replacement billboard located west of Knoxville approximately 58 feet from residential property on Linn Street. Now a little lead up information…….. Since 1989 large Billboards have been required to be separated from residential areas by a 500 foot (almost two city blocks) radius. The billboard that was being sought for replacement for one had been on property owned by Dr. Floyd Rashid behind the old Peoria Ford property and was constructed without permits many years before the requirement of 500 feet and prior to Dr. Rashids ownership of the underlying real estate. Across Knoxville is/was the old Hardees adjacent to OSF owned properties. With the purchase of Dr. Rashids property for the new Interstate/ Knoxville interchange, there was fear that Dr. Rashid would purchase the Hardees parcel and a large billboard would/could them be established on that side of Knoxville over 500 feet away from residential, but in front of OSF. Several Council members wanted OSF to purchase the old Hardees and NOT Dr. Rashid. They also feared he could/would increase the purchase price for the Hardees parcel for OSF. A small isolated parcel was owned by the State after the reconfiguration that had inadequate access off the end of Linn Street where Linn Street dead ends for the interstate. A plan was hatched lead by Council Member Nichting, Manning, and VanAuken to acquire this parcel from the state, rezone it for Special Use for Billboard and then sell the Parcel to Illinois Outdoor Advertising, thus preventing a billboard from being placed on the property east of Knoxville well away from residential property. That passed the City Council 10-1. The Billboard Company VERBALLY AGREED to remove another existing billboard from the Sheridan Triangle area next to Loucks and close to the incumbents home if allowed this billboard that is within 58 feet of residential property. Before the first use of the Billboard, the Billboard Company was back before the Zoning Commission and the City Council requesting the Special Use to be modified to allow one face of the previously approved billboard to become an electronic Las Vegas style billboard. Despite the facts that most of the landscaping conditions, screening and access requirements from the earlier approval were never started, yet completed, this modification also passed 10-1. Another time, when the effects of bad zoning practices and the resulting changes in regulations was circumvented for expediency of the politically connected. And how many of you would want to own a home 58 feet away from a billboard, let alone one that changes its face every 10 seconds
    Then just over 7 months ago, again on Knoxville, a petition to remove the existing Taco Bell and replace it in exactly the same place and configuration came thru the Zoning Commission. Now forget that during the 60s and 70s home owners regularly testified against the addition of drive ups next to their back yards and that zoning regulations allowed these sorts of high traffic / high commotion activities and that back then these Commercial uses could be located directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties with NO SCREENING. Since 1989, landscaped Transitional Buffer yards with solid screen fencing have been the regulations. In 2006 when the City Council adopted the Land Development Code for this area, the principals of New Urbanism would require that building be situated AWAY from the residential uses along Linn Street and orientated toward the Knoxville street. Additionally, under the Land Development Code, A solid garden sound wall would be required between the commercial use and adjoining residential use. Now the Developer hired his well connected mouth piece, the same mouth piece that represented the Developer of Cub Foods and assured the City Council that 43% of the sales at Cub Foods would be new food sales to the City of Peoria just 10 years ago, and this agent said the Developer was going to spend $1,800,000 rebuilding an 2,900 square foot fast food restaurant that sells tacos for 79 cents each. That ladies and gentlemen equates to over $620 per square foot (the new museum is estimated to cost $200 per square foot), the incumbent buys into it hook, line, and sinker. Not a description of an intelligent, critical thinker from my perspective. Now you ask where the surrounding neighbors to voice opposition were. They left in the late 70s or early 80s after the noise and commotion from the disparate uses took their toll and the property became rental, and lets face it, the landlord lives somewhere else and the tenant doesnt really care. 10 -1 Again the Developer got exactly what they wanted and the protections learned from past poor zoning practices were abandoned for the expediency of the present. Instead of turning this into an opportunity for quality change, the incumbent led the way for another 40 or 50 years of no protection of surrounding residential quality of life, just as she did at Bradley and up the street. How many of you want to live with your back yard 16 feet away from the drive up lane of an all night fast food restaurant?
    Listen, Learn, Lead was the incumbents slogan four years ago. In this Second District voters opinion, if she is listening, she is listening to only the few and NOT the many, if she has learned anything, it is to trade votes and punish those who disagree and she, by her voting record, is leading Peoria to more of the same, a community where the protections for quality residential living in every District is swapped for Pay to Play decisions, Ill vote for what you want, just vote for what I want that will continue to deteriorate the inner City Districts. GO to the State Election website and see who is donating to not only the incumbent, but also all the all the candidates and dont be surprised when MORE OF THE SAME HAPPENS IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. If you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result, you are insane.
    I will be voting for Curphy Smith. I also urge everyone in the Third District to vote for Beth Akeson. I know she has a new and better vision of Peoria and especially its older neighborhoods. Older neighborhoods lost value incrementally, one little project or decision by one little project. Beth understands it is in the same process of little projects and little decisions then and only then will value return. It is NOT with the big Cub Food, Southtown, new Hotel, Ballpark, or museum. I must admit I cannot speak with the same level in confidence in Curphy in getting it, but I know the Incumbent has done little or nothing to earn my vote this time. With that I can only believe Curphy can and will get it.
    By the way, Curphy has NO IDEA I am writing this or wrote this. I fully supported the incumbent four years ago as a candidate, As Council representative for the Second District, she is NOT that candidate, nor is she the woman whose values, principles, and priorities I fell in love with in 1982 and eventually married for 13 years. She turned into more of a Sheriff in the middle of the night than the previous Councilwoman ever was and less of an advocate for those homeowners she represents on Tuesday night.
    That incremental change starts with a 10-1 vote becoming 9-2 with Beth Akeson and hopefully an 8-3 with Curphy Smith, who knows, maybe, it will be in that incremental way, only one vote at a time that thru critical thinking, standing on principles and not on trading values that eventually, a new course will evolve for an new vision of what all of Peoria can be for all and not at the expense of the home owners, residents, and property owners, silent or unconnected.

25. Oh snap!

26. How sad, the people that will vote for BVA in the 2nd. Sandberg is right, vote for these same people who pat each other on the back at their little party’s and make deals behind closed doors, then what do people expect? The same old stuff. My only regret is that I don’t live in the 2nd so I can vote against her.

    Oh, please don’t forget the promises BVA made to various neighborhoods about getting rid of the Garbage Fee, making Sheridan Rd 2 lanes, RenPark (all but abandoned).

    Like Vonster said; “Oh snap!” Gary, I’m buying you a drink tonight, I know where you’ll be.

27. An ironic video clip finally emerges-

    http://www.barbaravanauken.com/

28. CJ,

    I’m kind of disappointed you even posted this junk.

    I find it very disingenuous, whether one is a VanAuken supporter or not, that any sort of edited video is played when it is edited and supplied by those with a vested interest in it being seen.

    I would even hope you would delete it from your fine site because crawling down into this sort of gutter politics/scandal and the like, cheapens the fine research you are known to do.

29. Scott– Were you also disappointed that I posted the anti-Curphy flyer in a previous post? And do you think I should also delete that?

30. This has to be one of the more interesting races in years. I’ll give it to Councilman Sandberg for stating what’s on his mind – even when it’s not popular or may have future ramifications to him. However, he’s as articulate as ever ….. and I have to say, I agree with his conclusion 100% in this case. She’s not the future of Peoria – at least not the Peoria we deserve.

31. CJ,

    I didn’t see that flyer, so I can’t make an honest comment about it.

    But back to this clip – someone released an incomplete piece of data for a vested interest. Not only that, it appears VanAuken is replying to a statement not shown in the short video clip, so we really can’t make a complete judgment at all.

    The person should release the whole tape rather than a snippet and a snippet obviously released to portray a particular point of view.

32. sctobrien-
    the segment is the first 9 seconds of the video. it was released to prove the video existed as many doubted such. the entire video was not released because embarrassment of those filmed was not the intention.

33. “the entire video was not released because embarrassment of those filmed was not the intention.”

    Correct. The intention was to embarrass Barb Van Auken, which is why that specific 9 seconds was the only thing released. If the only reason it was released was to show that it existed, any number of segments of the video could have been released, and it could have been released months ago.

34. First, no matter what segment was released, the accusation that the particular segment released was chosen for a ‘reason’ would be made (as if any action is ever undertaken with no reason). the segment is from the start and is simply enough to see and hear who is present. choosing a segment from the middle or end would invariably meet with the same criticism that it was cherry-picked. no segment would satisfy some and even the entirety of the video does not capture the whole incident, thus some would cry, ‘what about what isn’t on video.’

    Second, the lawsuit was not filed until recently. Releasing the video prior to suit would be inappropriate. I imagine much deliberation was made on whether to release the video, and if so, how much. Many doubted its existence or speculated as to its content. The release was meant to dispel doubt as to its existence. Its full content can still be debated.

    Lastly, the timing is decried as ‘political smear.’ I would argue that the release of a video showing actual events is nothing of the kind. If a reporter had video of Obama somking a joint on the Capitol steps and released it prior to the last presidential election, would that be ‘reporting’ or ‘political smear?’ I imagine it depends on whether or not the commenter was an Obama supporter or not.
    Regardless, the interests of the fraternity are that VanAuken not be re-elected. Zealous representation of client interests, inside and outside of a courtroom and wherever those interests are at stake, is hardly a shameful thing for attorneys. In fact, it is their ethical duty.

35. [Portion of comment removed by blog owner.]

    It’s a shame that we have few leaders running for these positions and a lot of people Like Curphy Smith who run for our two most important local positions, council and school board with the preparation, attitude and approach more suited for student council than city council or school board.

    Curphy Smith won’t be anymore effective than Barbara VanAuken. He definitely won’t have the same amount of time to put in to this very diverse and complicated district. His major drawback so far is that he can’t tell a consistent story amont neighborhood forums. How will he be able to do so when they all want something different. Barbara may not tell Gary or anyone else what they always want to hear but she won’t tell everyone what they do want to hear because she’s not strong enough to be honest. She’s been pretty effective. She’s delivered and she’s done a pretty admirable job under the circumstances. Barbara VanAuken or any other potential 2nd district council person won’t be as effective as they could be if the 4th and 5th districts continue to dominate the budget, policy and focus of the council, staff and city as a whole.

36. anon — Please review the Terms of Use, especially item 2.

37. Dr. Thompson,

    Your analogy is meaningless and ridiculous.

    From watching this ignorant clip it appears the person VanAuken is addressing first accused her of “slurring” or “sleering” her words and she is asking what “slurring” or “sleering” means.

    Obviously, the person who sent this clip out is trying to portray VanAuken as drunk and doing so by showing a short clip. From the clip, that is not known.

    I think the people who released this tape are making a statement of their lack of integrity by not showing the entire thing. That being prudent is ridiculous.

    Lastly, your Obama example is as foolish as the scandal rag that pointed out France’s first lady would not kiss Obama, while not mentioning Obama has been battling a cold the last week.

    This is infantile politics and as I first stated, a disappointment to see that CJ would bother to broadcast such a clip.

38. Hey CJ-I understand your sitting on Mr. Smith’s latest political mailing. It has a copy of the ‘flyer’ in it-why not scan it in for everyone to see. This piece sent me over the edge. You seem to be pro-Smith so show your candidate’s true colors.

39. Open Mind,
    I completely agree. This is what was stated on this blog just earlier this week,”When asked for his response to the flyer, Smith stated via e-mail, “While Councilwoman Van Auken’s decision to run a negative campaign is unfortunate, by no means was it unexpected. I fully expected these types of tactics and expect she will continue them. I have committed to an issue-based campaign against Barbara VanAuken as a city council representative. Instead of distracting the residents the 2nd district with negative attacks and muddying the waters with lies, I would like to discuss how we can make the 2nd district and the city of Peoria a better place for all of us.”
    So Curphy earlier in the week states that he has committed to an issue-based campaign and it is unfortunate that Councilwoman Van Auken has decided to run a negative campaign but then it’s okay for him to produce the type of mailer that was sent to me today.
    I worked with Curphy on the Uplands board and saw how well he took “Action for All”. He doesn’t. He doesn’t like when people disagree with him and in fact kicked someone off one of our committees because he didn’t like her.
    I, personally, don’t want my council rep being buddy buddy with the frat and sorority members.
    Barbara Van Auken has been very supportive of me and my family.
    When there was a terrible party down the street, my husband asked why we couldn’t fine these party hosts $1000. She took his idea and there is now an ordinance for the hosts of these parties to be fined $1000.
    I walk the alley that runs parallel to Cooper (between BU and Cooper). There was a large amount of garbage and after placing a phone call to Barbara, the trash was picked up the very next day.
    When Bradley Epworth Methodist Church wanted to buy homes in the Uplands, Barbara stated that she would support what the neighborhood wanted. The neighborhood voted to not want the church owning homes. She supported this. Curphy did not. Curphy wanted the church to own these properties.
    When Bradley included the Pi Phi Sorority House on Institute and Main Street, again, Curphy wanted Bradley to own this property. The neighborhood voted against Bradley owning it. Barbara supported this vote and Bradley does not own this property.

40. I am SOOO glad I don’t live in such an uppity place as Uplander, barring a church from buy a house? Seriously, what is wrong with you people in certain parts of Peoria. You think because you’ve lived here a few years you own the whole darn town. May your neighborhoods continue to decline and crumble as a result of your own uppity holier-than-though attitudes…

41. Open Mind says, “I understand your sitting on Mr. Smith’s latest political mailing.”

    I just got the mailing this afternoon when the mail came, and I have every intention of scanning it and putting it on the blog. Don’t worry.

    Uplander — You may recall that I openly opposed Curphy at an Uplands meeting regarding a proposal to restrict left turns into and out of the neighborhood from Main Street. Curphy has never retaliated against me because of that, and in fact, stood up for me when I was criticized for including an article in the Uplander that was critical of the proposed church expansion. (Incidentally, the issue with the church was not over ownership of the property, but rather a special use request for the property.) Curphy also said he would support what the neighborhood wanted. He didn’t take it personally that his traffic suggestion was defeated.

    Hey, didn’t another Uplander take the same position as Curphy on the Pi Phi and church expansion issues? And isn’t he the campaign chair for Van Auken?

42. 11Bravo — We didn’t bar a church from owning a house. In fact, they still own the house. What they wanted was a special use to be able to use the house for offices and classrooms and to add a parking lot behind several of the other houses they own that face University. The neighborhood was not supportive of that expansion. The majority felt it would set a bad precedent (how long before Avanti’s starts expanding from the other end of Elmwood?) and ultimately destabilize the neighborhood. That church has already expanded significantly on that corner, and we felt it had encroached into the neighborhood far enough. We had just witnessed Bradley tear down two blocks of single family homes on Maplewood to make way for a five-story parking deck (which BVA supported, by the way), and so you’ll forgive us for being wary of encroachments on our side of Main.

43. 11Bravo: I agree with your assessment of the Uplands. I had to laugh at the “No Left Turn” signs posted along Main and Western into the Arbors also. They clearly state that No Left Turn from 6am to 9am Mon – Fri on Western and from 4 pm to 6pm on Main into the Uplands. I see every single day cars making these turns when prohibited. Never seen a car get a ticket. The other day I watched a car turn right onto Ayres at 8:am and then turn into a driveway. I was wondering if these laws only apply to “us” and not to the people in those neighborhoods and if the law applies equally, then why aren’t the police enforcing these signs?

    As for sneaky and distractive politics, how about BVAs announcement that Columbia Terr from University to Sheridan getting new sidewalks and ornamental lighting? Talk about showing the dog a bone.

44. “Never seen a car get a ticket.” They do give out tickets…. occasionally.

    Believe it or not, most of those getting the tickets are those who live in the neighborhood. Most of the violators are probably residents. That goes against the broad perception that its all cut through traffic. The same dynamic exists for those speeding and running stop signs.

    As to the level of enforcement… I think generally the neighborhood is less than satisfied with the level of enforcement. That dissatisfaction extends beyond the neighborhood too. Peoria’s level of traffic enforcement is pretty low overall.

    Forgive Emtronics crankiness… he still has difficulty finding parking spaces. ; )

45. Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute….. a guy walks into the bar and says, I hear there’s a place where for 50 cents you can have lunch, have a drink and get laid….

    Is this all a joke? Sandberg, who I normally respect, is posting a divorced spouse critique of his ex wife and saying it is about politics?

    Isn’t it at least a little strange that BVA who is being accused of being anti-fraternity boys, is now being show as having supported their converting local homes into fraternity homes? So BVA doesn’t hate fraternities… maybe she just hates noise.

    And Gary… this isn’t one of those Lebanese things is it?

    SNS, YOU WROTE: “The real info is in the police reports. Over and over they say flat out that she was extremely intoxicated and abusive to the police.
    She was at a party and Andrew Rand’s, they all got drunk and the capped off their party by showing off throwing their weight around.”

    Anything in that statement true and factual?
    Over and over
    flat out
    extremely intoxicated
    abusive
    they all got drunk
    capped off their party
    throwing their weight around

    Any of those true and factual?

46. CJ – You are right. Curphy did support what the neighborhood wanted. But he really didn’ t have an option. He couldn’t have went to City Hall and said that this is what the Uplands wanted without our vote. On the other hand, Barbara could have supported what the church wanted with or without our vote. She supported our neighborhood and our vote. Yes, Curphy did stand up for you but apparently you were lucky enough to not draw the short straw. I have seen what he has done to others. Again, it is not “Action for All”.
    Yes, the person who is her campaign chair did support those two important Uplands issues. But he isn’t running for an elected office.

47. I have a hard time understanding why Barbara supporters aren’t willing to put their name to their advocacy of her, and why Curhpy supporters aren’t willing to put their name to their support of him.

    It’s not like we live in Communist Russia here, and quite frankly, readers should put little stock in these anonymous comments. For all we know, it can be the candidates themselves or multiple ID’s of the same person. C’mon people, we live in a Democracy. If you believe in your candidate, say so!

48. You should take a political science course, Diane, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.

49. Or is it we fear being sued by people like Jack Teplitz or Jeff Hall?

50. kcdad,

    about those political sciences courses…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.