Comments on: Rant on Atkins News Coverage

By: zimzam

zimzam — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:42:57 +0000

I’m MAD at myself because I cannot figure out what a state representative’s ID card is used for. If I were a state rep, I would have one. But what are they for? Where does the Representative use them?

Do you use the card at Food Lion, when you forget your MVP card? Is it valid for EZ Pass, MAC locations, local libraries, Happy Hour prices during regular service, or any other special treatment? I am truly curious and want to know why they are issued.

By: Perry

Perry — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:26:13 +0000

I read your DE Liberal reference, Hube; we’re on the same page on this one. I think it is time to let the Ethics Committee do it’s thing, otherwise we have demonization in action, something we liberals fight against from the other side all the time.

By: Hube

Hube — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:56:52 +0000

Perry: To follow up on your last post, here is a perfect reason why I said “I agree but disagree” with Jud. I disagree with Jud because the Atkins story is a legit one — to me it’s clear that Atkins sought to use his status to get a clear break where no “regular” would not have.

On the other hand, I agree with Jud b/c, for example, now at DE Liberal, they’re reporting that WDEL’s Gerry Fulcher is now playing gossip columnist and has stories about how Atkins “misrepresented his marital status” in order to “get chicks.”

WHAAAT? How is this relevant to the issue at hand? It’s garbage, and this kind of crap needs to cease.

By: Perry

Perry — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:29:55 +0000

Dana, your points are well taken as well. But we all already know all these things about Atkins, so why beat him into the ground. Politically I am not a fan of his, but the man has apologized profusely, he has volunteered himself for an ethics hearing in the House, therefore doesn’t he deserve some respite from the media and the bloggers? I think so. Is there any grace left around here?

And Dan, I have to tell you that your credibility sinks/stinks when in the same breath you call Barbara Liflander a “lunatic”. I notice whenever her name comes up, you cannot resist to stoop to your demonization of her, exactly the same point you are trying to make against those who would continue to roast Atkins unmercifully; so you have a lesson to learn here too!!!

By: commonsense

commonsense — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:29:24 +0000

Way to leave out the MOST IMPORTANT event from that evening, Jud! This entire controversy should be rightly centered on the fact that John attempted to use his Representative ID card to circumvent the law. Explain that one away would ya?

By: bucksmom

bucksmom — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:27:16 +0000

I thoroughly agree with Dana’s comments. I an sure that John Atkins is a very nice person. However, it was all in the way the matter was handled with the traffic stop in Ocean City, I have friends who were stopped after having a few drinks and blew much less than John did when he was stopped. They all had to go to “drunk school”, lose their licenses until the whole program was completed and to this day, it is still on their driving record. I really do believe that the law should apply to everyone with no exceptions. What really floored me was MADD stating that the OCPD ” did good”. Those women are out for blood and I cannot say that I blame them, nobody wants to lose a loved one due to a drunk driver. Also, on the radio the morning after, Mr. Atkins vehemently denied that there was any alcohol involved in the entire matter about the domestic dispute. I had a hard time believing that also at the time.

I really do wish this would also go away for the sake of Mr. Atkins and his family, but really think the whole thing was handled quite poorly and that is very hard for the people to forget.

Jud, I am sorry you were treated that way at the other radio station. I enjoy listening to you and feel that you have a wonderful rapport with the listening audience.

Thanks for allowing me my opinion in this matter

By: Dana Garrett

Dana Garrett — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:16:52 +0000

“Frankly, it almost seems like we are going back in time to witch burning in Salem, Massachusetts…”

The witches were innocent–that’s a difference. Besides, Jud, you leave out a lot of detail that is the source of outrage in this matter:

1. His promise to get the state police to give him a ride.

2. Flashing his DE Leg card.

3. How he wasn’t charged although probable cause clearly existed. This can’t simply be explained away by saying it was in the officer’s discretion since it seems quite clear that his discretion was used to exempt a Delaware bigwig driving at nearly twice the legal limit of blood/alcohol in MD.

4. How he never told the voters in his district of any of this in Ocean City before the election.

This situation is the opposite of the Salem witch trials because in Atkins’ case the devil really is in the details.

By: Perry

Perry — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:32:50 +0000

I concur with Judson’s comments. This behavior is an outcome of the politics of polarization which we have seen all to frequently at the national political level. We the people must put a stop to it by chastising those of our leaders who practice it. Let us instead debate the issues and act, as we do our best to face up to the very significant challenges of our time, like the Iraq War and global warming on the national level, and open/honorable government and land use on our local level.

By: downwithabsolutes

downwithabsolutes — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:31:48 +0000

Poor John Atkins. Poor…poor John Atkins.

By: Hube

Hube — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:29 +0000

Jud: I agree but disagree. Yes, there has been ridiculous speculation and hyperbole about Atkins; however, the anger amongst the laymen results in knowing that if this was THEM, they’d have been arrested, lost their license, and would now have a record.

You know it and I know it.