Atkins Rumor Mill is churning
This morning about 11:45 a caller by the name of Tom that said he was from Sussex County said on the air that he has been hearing “I’m no Drunk” John Atkins is considering joining the Democratic Party and Running for his old seat as a Dem.
I don’t listen to the 1150 enough to know who the host was, but the same guy it usually is was saying that he has heard the “whispers that he was going to switch parties too” Then he went on to call Atkins, arrognant, dumb, and disgrace.
If the Dems in that district let that happen – they are much dumber hayseeds than I ever imagined.
Not sure they can stop it from happening. The party’s anointed choice did poorly in the special election, and it’s not like a real heavyweight is stepping up to take on Rep. Hastings as of yet.
In a special election, the party chooses the candidate. In a primary, the voters do.
That’s what I meant. They should vote for a box of crayons befor they vote for Atkins in a Democratic primary.
Jason: The problem is that, if Atkins decides to run, what passes for the Democratic Party in Sussex County would have to pursuade someone with enough legitimacy to run the gauntlet against Atkins and, if he/she is fortunate enough to survive that (which is doubtful), then run against Hastings, who seems to be doing a pretty good job.
That’s a pretty tall order for any prospective Democratic candidate in a District that has not been particularly hospitable to Democrats lately.
The only way to stop this is through moral suasion and since Atkins doesn’t seem to have any, morals that is, that won’t work. The Dems in Sussex that I’ve talked to have no stomach for this, but there isn’t much they can do if Atkins switches parties. Steve seems to be right on about this. It might help if Rep. Gilligan stopped taking his phone calls.
Not only is he running as a Democrat, but he’s planning to switch back and (attempt to) caucus with the R’s after he wins. He’s got it all figured out.
FSP,
Huh? Caucus with the GOP? I’d throw away that theory written off as fact real quick.
So Atkins is finally joining the party of Teddy Kennedy? Well, at least he can keep his car on the road with a full bag on.
G Rex – at least Kennedy didn’t try to fuck 16 year-old boys, ahem.
Now if they were 18 or 20, then it would fall into the “not that there’s anything wrong with that” Seinfeldian category…. 😉
Well, Matthews, you would know, since Atkins is one of your main sources.
It won’t matter. He won’t be caucusing with anybody.
Atkins is a uniter!
Funny, I don’t recall seeing any 16 year old boys at Seacrets, (home of the biggest glass of wine at the beach) just girls in bikinis.
“Huh? Caucus with the GOP? I’d throw away that theory written off as fact real quick.”
Your right, Mike. That’s FSP trying to blow a little smoke up the ass of the Sussex Dems. Atkins’ revenge would be to give the majority in the house to the Dems. He wouldn’t switch.
I think it’s fascinating that my Dem friends can get all righteous and make sounds like we ought to step up to the plate and do something about Atkins becoming a Dem, but they won’t lift a finger to rid our party and legislature from Delaware’s greatest menace: THURMAN ADAMS
Perhaps if we could get Thurmy to drive home drunk some night and flash his Legislature ID card to a cop, then we might get enough concern from Democrats to stop his incessant undemocratic, tyrannical control over the peoples legislative process, which apparently isn’t nearly as bad as having one bad & crazy night in your life.
“…having one bad & crazy night in your life.”
You’re right, Dana, it isn’t as bad, because even though Adams’ actions are antithetical to good government, they’re well within the law.
I’m sure you realize what a silly game you’re playing here — it’s completely possible to dislike both. But as long as you’re playing it, you should acknowledge that most of the public would agree with “your Dem friends.”
Dana –
Let’s all agree that Thurman Adams is horrible and needs to go. Done!
What next? What’s our strategy? What reasonable goals can we establish?
While we continue to carp about how bad he is, let’s also set our sites on some kind of action.
Since Bridgeville doesn’t seem to be home to many progressives of either party affiliation, the best bet is probably to pressure Democratic Senators to name a new President Pro Tem after November’s elections. The question then becomes whether Patty Blevins, the last person to challenge him for the job, would represent any sort of improvement.
Good point. Even if Father Time takes him out what’s next in line?
patty blevins has a hot daughter…she’s got my support!
“What next? What’s our strategy? What reasonable goals can we establish?”
Let’s organize a phone effort to call all the registered voters in his district and let them know that he opposes them enjoying open government in Delaware and urge them to call him saying that he should support Karen Peterson’s bill.
We could frame the message in objective & non-inflammatory language.
Adams says he never hears from his constituents about open government. So lets fix that.
We could get volunteers to call 3-5 people in his district each day until they are all called.
After someone makes the calls to, say, the 15 numbers we gave them, we give them 15 more phone numbers.
dana has a great idea.
Sounds like a longshot to me. But if you want to do that, Dana, I would suggest you concentrate on the new residents of the district. REmember, Bridgeville has been rapidly developed the past few years; new residents, unlike the old ones, have no particular loyalty to Adams.
“You’re right, Dana, it isn’t as bad, because even though Adams’ actions are antithetical to good government, they’re well within the law.”
Adams actions are worse because they are unjust and they deny something fundamental to good government, soemething every resident in DE deserves.. Whereas Atkins was convicted of a misdemeanor offense that doesn’t preclude him from running for office again.
Beyond that I have some serious questions about the sources for much of the Atkins “story” beyond what’s on the public record:
1. The babysitter he allegedly threatened was the daughter of a GOP official. Does this GOP official take his accusation to the police? Apparently not. He takes it to Dick Cathcart to build the case against Atkins to oust him. Cathcart then refers it to the police. Does that sequence sound like a father aggrieved by someone’s mistreatment? No. It sounds like someone joining a political effort. Besides, the AG’s office said there was nothing to it.
2. One of the principal sources for much of the “story” beyond what’s part of the public record is someone who was bankrupt, lying about it, had axes to grind and is probably on his way to the pokey for driving drunk himself while leading cops in a high speed chase.
3. Another source who latched onto the event and added much of the putative “spice” and “background” surrounding the event (all from confidential sources, of course) even as, unbeknown to anyone but those he victimized, he attempted to parlay his ability to “expose” those in power into opportunities for personal gain.
I’m not as confident as others about how much we really know about the Atkins affair beyond what is indisputable. I think it’s possible that the Atkins affair, while initially grounded in misdemeanor illegal behavior, underwent a classic bandwagon effect fueled by a mixture of truth and by claims that came from dubious sources.
I wish I knew all of it or even most of it. But I don’t believe anyone does.
“Sounds like a longshot to me. But if you want to do that, Dana, I would suggest you concentrate on the new residents….”
How in the hell can you be on the radio and put comments on this blog?
God, I hate multi-taskers. 🙂
Geez, Dana, do you expect me to listen to the commercials, too?
I’ve never much bought into the ancillary stuff in the Atkins affair. For me the most serious part is the part that’s well-known — seeking special treatment after an arrest.