Comments on: Ham Takes Off

By: Riley, Not O'Reilly

Riley, Not O'Reilly — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:27:31 +0000

Sam, there is no reason for Ham to go negative against Ebert at this point in time. Ham’s superior qualifications are obviously garnering him support.

Oh, and Ham has never botched a case by letting statutes of limitation lapse. Ebert’s office can’t make the same claim.

By: citizen sam

citizen sam — Mon, 21 May 2007 02:51:09 +0000

I can’t wait. I am always willing to listen and admit when I am wrong. I hope that I haven’t been duped for so many years.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Mon, 21 May 2007 00:01:35 +0000

As Greg suggests, Sam, there is much more to this than there appears to be. Ever wondered WHY Ebert has had only one opponent since he was first elected 40 years ago? It’s not as if he was a much-loved and respected local legend like Harry Parrish who, despite that, did have occasional opponents. Chuck Colgan has also always been a very popular figure in PWC, and the Republicans take him on almost every election. Now why do you think that not a single attorney in PWC (Republican, Independent or Democrat) has been willing to step up take him on for decades (until Hamilton Sandwich, that is)? Think about it.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Sun, 20 May 2007 23:49:42 +0000

I understand. Just stay tuned — all your questions will be answered.

By: citizen sam

citizen sam — Sun, 20 May 2007 23:29:18 +0000

It just makes me wonder what I am missing. Here we have one of the most respected CA in VA and you are trying to run a sandwich against him. No defenseness, I just feel very confused on this one.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Sun, 20 May 2007 18:12:50 +0000

Citizen Sam, I must wonder from whense your defensiveness stems. If nothing else, look upon this as the “feel good” campaign of a season that has few campaigns to feel good about.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:21:50 +0000

Sam,

I think in a while you may end up changing your mind on this. Stay tuned, as there will be some coverage on why folks might not want Ebert re-elected, which should also help to clarify why Ham is the only announced opponent.

By: citizen sam

citizen sam — Sun, 20 May 2007 12:22:38 +0000

Grg,
You ae wrong about this being a slam dunk. You never know when a liberal judge is going to decide to write law rather than be the judge he is suppossed to be. Ebert has been the MOST successful at putting criminals away and unless you can show a real candidate for Commonwealths Attorney, then Ebert should be supported for his work. All I am saying, is give me a legitimate candidate, and I will listen. All this silly stuff about a ham sandwich is making your blog look like a comical web site rather than the political information site is really is. And I do mean this is a great plac for information, so why not keep it that way. What do you think first time visitors think when they read about you supporting a ham sandwich for CA.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Sun, 20 May 2007 04:11:58 +0000

Powell escaped the death penalty in his first trial, and was only given the death sentence after he was re-tried subsequent to Powell shooting his mouth off to his cellmate. Powell raped and murdered one girl, and raped and nearly murdered her sister who survived to testify against him. How would a case like this not be a slam-dunk?

See http://www.vadp.org/cases/powell.htm for a summary.

Sam, at least pick out a case where it might have involved some degree of effort on the part of the prosecutor. In the Powell case, Ebert actually screwed up in the first trial, and managed to get lucky and get a second crack at this case.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:45:42 +0000

Citizen Sam, I said “for one thing”……

By: citizen sam

citizen sam — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:17:00 +0000

I am usually on the same side of every issue on this site including the unlawful harrassment of the MP business, but could someone please explain how Paul Ebert has exploited this business? I have only seen one of the most successful Commonwealth Attorneys ever in VA. Hell, he was even able to return a death sentence on Paul Powell twice! While I agree he should look into the what I see as a clear crime, maybe there is more in the background that we just haven’t seen. And if not, I am not sure I can support a ham sandwich over a CA who puts more murderers on death row than any other CA’s in VA.

By: AWCheney

AWCheney — Sat, 19 May 2007 21:40:49 +0000

Well, for one thing park’d, he’s very supportive of the systematic destruction of an innocent business owner in Manassas Park.

By: park'd

park'd — Sat, 19 May 2007 21:27:13 +0000

What did this guy do to deserve such ire? Does he let rapists and murderers go or something? I keep seeing these ham sandwich threads and find myself wondering why this whole campaign was started??

By: Greg L

Greg L — Sat, 19 May 2007 17:11:18 +0000

I missed the portion of the show where they mentioned Ham. Did anyone else catch it? I know it ran as I got an email from someone in Florida about it.

By: Riley, Not O'Reilly

Riley, Not O'Reilly — Sat, 19 May 2007 17:04:29 +0000

Heck, if the Geico cavemen can get their own TV series based upon their commercials, just think of the possibilities Ham has after being elected!!!