As it turns out, the resolution -- which would suggest that Atkins would be cast into a primary against an opponent backed by the party -- was endorsed at a meeting that was convened improperly. Under party bylaws, only committee Chairman Donald L. Ward or Vice Chairman Robert G. Draine may call a special meeting.
Committee Secretary Vanessa S. Deloach of Millsboro took credit for playing a role in the gathering.
"I convened the meeting," said Deloach, 45, "but, according to our bylaws, I cannot convene a meeting."
Draine said, though, that Deloach only presided over the meeting. He said the meeting actually was called by former Rep. Charles P. West, 86, a committee member whose retirement from the House cleared the way for Atkins' election in 2002.
According to information provided by Deloach, the resolution was submitted by West and his wife, Eleanor, also a committee member.
West, who reportedly is considering a run for the 41st District seat, did not return a call seeking comment.
"Charlie West called the meeting," said Draine, who said a scheduling conflict precluded his own attendance. "It was at his house, and he made the calls to notify committee members. He called me to advise me that he was having a meeting."
Both Draine and Thomas J. Chapman, chairman of the Sussex County Democratic Executive Committee, said that if committee members want to properly adopt the resolution, they need only to submit it for a vote at a properly convened meeting.
"The only reasonable thing that can happen is that a meeting should be rescheduled -- with all the members participating, or, at least, being invited to participate -- and then the members should vote on the resolution to establish their position," Draine said.
Asked where he stood on the resolution, Draine declined to say.
"I have no opinion," he said.
"I think the members should make that decision, and I think it would be premature for the vice chairman to make a statement that might influence committee members."
Alright, so the Committee will have to hold another meeting so that they can properly adopt the resolution.
But it appears that we do need to find another candidate to take on Atkins. I knew Charlie West was retired and old, but 86? He can't run again.
News Journal Columnist Ron Williams has some interesting news in his column over the weekend:
Republican Speaker of the House -- the longest serving in the country -- Terry Spence is now considering a run for New Castle County executive against the Democratic nominee -- either incumbent Chris Coons or former executive Tom Gordon.
There's still no word on whether Bill Lee will make another run for governor. The last word I received was the state Republican party was doing a poll on name recognition and that Lee fared well. However, some members of his family are against him running, and Lee himself said he'd need money from the state party to do it.
The only two statewide candidates that the Republicans have for sure at this point are U.S. Rep. Mike Castle and John F. Brady, the Sussex County recorder of deeds who's running for insurance commissioner.
Time is running short for the hapless Delaware GOP.
So Terry Spence now seems to be backing away from running for Governor as the Republican nominee. For all the talk from Republican bloggers like Dave Burris and Hube about how beatable both Markell and Carney could be in a general election, given the mixed record of the Minner Administration and the recent DPC scandal, Republican officials don't seem to share that optimism. Al Levin, Charlie Copeland and now Terry Spence can't run fast enough away from the Republican gubernatorial nomination.
If the state GOP is so fearful of a race against Markell and Carney, perhaps they should just allow Protack the nomination. Perhaps giving a minor perennial candidate a chance, and have that minor perennial candidate lose spectacularly to the Democrats, will finally result in having that minor perennial candidate go away. I say the DE GOP should just bite the bullet and nominate Protack.
In other news, Al Mascitti is on air right now on WDEL wondering what is wrong with Delaware politicians that makes them think that they can suffer any number of crimes and any number of humiliating embarrassments and still run for office. Is there any scandal that can end a Delaware politican's political career? The ever corrupt former New Castle County executive Tom Gordon, according to Ron Williams in the above column, is certain now to run against Chris Coons. And John Atkins, who abused his office to get out of a drunk driving charge, and then try to intimidate his babysitter into lying about it, is 99% sure that he will run again for his old office.
...could I be working out at the YMCA this morning, and look over at the person next to me on another piece of equipment, have that person be Senator Tom Carper.
On Thursday, the 41st District Democratic Committee firmly rejected John Atkin's plans to become a Democrat and run for reelection in their district as a Democrat.
Instead, they only quote Peter Schott, the vice Chairman of the Sussex County Democratic Committee:
"He has a good record on constituent services, regardless what his personal issues are[.]"
I realize Mr. Schott is not endorsing Mr. Atkins. But he needs to be more careful in praising the man, for his words will be used in news articles, and in his capacity as a leader in Democratic circles downstate, it does sound like an endorsement of his change to the Democratic party and his potential candidacy.
On Thursday, the House voted 223-32 to appove the filing of criminal contempt-of-Congress citations in federal court against Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel and failed Supreme Court appointee, over their refusal to comply with House subpoenas concerning the alleged systematic infusion of partisan politics into hiring, firing and prosecutorial decisions at several U.S. attorney offices.
Of course, most of the Republicans threw a hissy fit and left the House chamber without even voting on the measure. Mike Castle joined the Republicans and refused to vote on the citations.
Wayne Gilchrest did not. He voted to approve the contempt citations.
Yet another example of how Mike Castle is no longer our best.
That can be the only rationale for his vote on Wednesday:
SPY ACT EXTENSION: Voting 191 for and 229 against, the House on Feb. 13 defeated a 21-day renewal (H.R. 5349) of a version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted last August. That temporary measure then expired as House leaders refused to accept a Senate bill (S. 2248, below) to extend FISA for six years. There was general agreement that the government's electronic spying on terrorists would continue as before under other laws and also under long-term FISA warrants still in effect.
Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said: "We should not be stampeded into action when there is no need. This administration has the ability to monitor terrorists, and extending current law for 21 days will not remove that ability."
Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said it was time "to force the Democrat leadership of this House to do their job and bring the [Senate] FISA modernization bill before this body so that the intelligence community can have every tool at its disposal to protect the United States."
Now, the president asserts that the expiration of the protect America act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security Council advisor on terrorism says that's not true. Former assistant attorney general says that's not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that's not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the protect America act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. So I tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear. Unfounded fear. 435 members of this house and every one of us, every one of us wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us -- not one of us wants to subject America or Americans to danger. The president's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically. The president's assertion is wrong.
House Intelligence Chair Sylvestre Reyes said this:
The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago....
I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.
We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.
The Rocky Mountain News (a rather conservative paper) said this:
Earlier this week, President Bush actually suggested that al-Qaida operatives are watching the calendar, poised to plot new attacks freely with Congress absent - and U.S. intelligence officials will be largely powerless to stop them.
Don't insult the American public, Mr. President. You'll still have the ability to wiretap suspected terrorists - and the warrantless surveillance powers in the bill are valid until August....
If immunity is in the final legislation - and Bush has said he'd veto any bill that doesn't include it - it would kill the 40-plus lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms in federal court. The litigation challenges the legality of the program and the actions of telecoms that cooperated with the government.
If the lawsuits don't move forward, we may never learn if some telecoms compromised the privacy of innocent Americans. A grant of immunity could also set a dangerous precedent for other businesses when federal agents or local cops who don't have a court order demand private or confidential information about their customers....
Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush said Wednesday, punish companies that want to "help America." Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution - and so should the government.
Mike Castle voted no on the extension, an extension that would have allowed debate on the telecom immunity and exclusivity provisions. Make no mistake, the terrorist surveillance provisions under the FISA modernization bill passed last August remain in affect for one year, meaning that they expire in August 2008, not now. And make no mistake, the old FISA law is also still in affect, meaning that the intelligence can take action first and get a warrant later should a threat emerge. So America remains protected. The tools are available for the Administration, any administration, to fight terrorism. So any argument to the contrary is just the politics of fear and the politicization of our national security.
And Mike Castle, the supposed intelligent centrist, has embraced the politics of fear and the politicization of our national security like John McCain embraces George Bush.
Mike Castle voted no. He did not want further debate. He wanted telecom immunity to pass immediately. He values Bush's priorities more than actual debate on the issues. He values liability for corporations more than our constitutional rights.
Yet another example of how Mike Castle is no where near our best.
During Ill. Sen. Barack Obama's historical presidential campaign visit to Wilmington earlier this month, a curious face was spied among the throng behind the candidate.
Most of the folks in the backdrop were supportive Democrats, eager to be linked to the primary phenom and eventual victor in Delaware's Feb. 5 voting.
But one seemingly familiar face was spotted by News Journal Photo Director Ron Solimon reaching through the crowd to latch onto an Obama campaign poster advocating change.
The fellow looked an awful lot like a former Delaware U.S. Senate candidate, Temple University professor and occasional cable news commentator by the name of Jan Ting.
A Republican, last we noticed.
Calls to Ting last week seeking to confirm -- and discuss -- the sighting were not returned.
You don't need to call Mr. Ting to confirm his presence at the rally. What, do you not believe your own eyes? Your own photographs?
I saw him. I stood right next to him for a moment as he was talking to another wayward Republican in the crowd. He was wearing an Obama sticker. What more do you want?
This was the email WGMD News received today, regarding John Atkins, the possible Democrat.
41st District Democratic Committee
February 15, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that the 41st District Democratic Committee held a special meeting on Wednesday evening, Feb. 13, at the Gumboro home of former State Representative and Mrs. Charles P. West. The meeting was held for the purpose of considering a resolution, submitted by Rep. and Mrs. West, both of whom are committee members, concerning the proposed Democratic candidacy for the office of 41st District Representative of former State Representative John C. Atkins, a long-term Republican who resigned his office last March rather than face an expulsion vote in the House of Representatives.
A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by 41st District Committee Secretary Vanessa S. Deloach, who served as acting chair in the absence of the committee chair and vice-chair. Following a discussion of the matter, the resolution was duly approved. The resolution text follows:
_____________________
41st District Democratic Committee
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE CANDIDACY OF FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOHN C. ATKINS FOR THE OFFICE OF 41ST DISTRICT STATE REPRESENTATIVE.
WHEREAS, former 41st District State Representative John Atkins was the subject of a news article in a recent issue of a local weekly newspaper, The Sussex Countian, entitled "Atkins to run again...as a Democrat?"; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Atkins, as noted in the article, resigned his seat in the House of Representatives in March, 2007, after a House Ethics Committee report found that he had brought that body "into disrepute" because of his behavior during and after an Ocean City, Maryland, traffic stop and a subsequent domestic disturbance in late October, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Atkins's decision to resign from the House of Representatives was due, at least in part, to the clear knowledge that, had he not done so, many of his fellow Republicans and a substantial number of House Democrats, having been fully apprised of the details of his case, were prepared to vote to expel him from that body; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Atkins has now let it be known that he is seriously considering leaving the Republican Party and running in the 2008 general election as a Democratic candidate for the seat he formerly occupied; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Atkins was quoted in the newspaper article as saying "I've been asked by a lot of Republicans and Democrats to consider running"; and
WHEREAS, he was further quoted as saying that "Obviously Republican party officials have discouraged me from running...[but] I've been courted by some Democratic officials";
NOW, THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the 41st District Democratic Committee that they do hereby state and aver, clearly and unequivocally, that the Committee does not encourage or support the candidacy of former Representative John Atkins, running as a Democrat, for the office of 41st District State Representative.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the members of the 41st District Democratic Committee that, while the United States of America remains a free country and as a citizen thereof, Mr. Atkins has every right to register as a member of any political party he so chooses, and to run for any office for which he meets the legal requirements, if he decides to run as a Democrat for the 41st District Representative seat, he will do so without the official endorsement of the 41st District Democratic Committee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 41st District Democratic Committee does not feel that it would be helpful to the cause of good government, to which we have always been committed, for any other outside "Democratic officials" to inject themselves into the internal affairs of the 41st District by urging Mr. Atkins to pursue a Democratic candidacy that the 41st District Democratic Committee declines to support.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon its adoption, suitable copies of this Resolution be made available to Mr. John Atkins, to the local and state news media and to other interested parties.
APPROVED ON THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008
Cheers to the Democrats downstate. Mr. Atkins (and I use the salutation loosely), find your own fucking party.
I want to be absolutely clear: John Atkins is no Democrat. He is a selfish vain drunk who changed parties to suit his own personal ambitions.
Former Delaware State Rep. John Atkins, who resigned from office last March amid threats that his colleagues would censure and possibly expel him for allegedly bringing the state House into disrepute, says he is "99 percent sure" he will try to recapture his old seat in this year's elections.
Atkins expects to switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat within the next few weeks, then begin campaigning to regain the position now held by Rep. Greg Hastings, R-Millsboro, he said in a telephone interview.
Atkins' departure from the state legislature followed revelations of a night of drinking and violence in October 2006.
He avoided a DUI citation in Ocean City after flashing his legislative ID, got a ride across the state line, then returned to the wheel and drove from Fenwick Island to his Millsboro home. There, he got into a fight with his wife and -- after allegedly trying to talk his way out of arrest -- was charged with a misdemeanor, for which he was placed on probation.
He also was accused of telling a babysitter to lie about the domestic disturbance, but he denied doing so. The Delaware Department of Justice investigated that allegation but reported no cause for arrest.
"I know I made bad decisions," Atkins said, but many old supporters have remained loyal. "I've had hundreds of people stop me in supermarkets, at high school football games, at Little League parks, asking me to run again."
...
Before appearing on the ballot in November, Atkins might have to survive a Democratic primary. His predecessor, former Rep. Charlie West, D-Gumboro, is rumored as a potential candidate. West, however, declined to comment on a possible run.
Mr. Atkins, in the last eleven months, please tell me about the epiphany you had had to made you become a Democrat. Please tell me that you know reject all Republican ideas and conservative ideology, and that you now believe in liberal, progressive or hell, even moderate goals.
You can't do that Mr. Atkins. You haven't done it yet. All this article reviews is that you are changing your party affiliation to suit your personal needs, not anyone else's.
Wilmington Mayor James Baker (D) announced another surplus for the city for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. The surplus was realized from an increase in revenues from real-estate transfer taxes and an aggressive campaign to collect delinquent fines and wage taxes. The surplus is estimated to be $6.5 million. The surplus for fiscal year 2007 was a record $22.4 million.
[...] Mayor James M. Baker said it shows the financial outlook for the city is "stable, strong and promising."
"What we're just saying is that the city has been very fortunate in terms of being able to manage itself and keep things on keel and still make great strides in terms of housing, in terms of commercial development," Baker said.
The increase in transfer tax revenue shows that "the city of Wilmington is still fairly active" despite a rocky real estate market and uncertain economic picture both in Delaware and nationally, Finance Director Ron Morris said.
Looks like House Speaker Terry Spence, the probable Republican candidate for Governor (since you know the GOP is not going to allow Graham or Protack to be their only candidates), has outflanked both Carney and Markell on this issue (or at least, he beat them both to it).
House Speaker Terry Spence said Thursday he will introduce legislation to require health insurers to cover a common form of anesthesia used in colorectal screenings.
Spence's announcement comes in response to a decision by health insurer Aetna Inc. to restrict coverage of propofol, a doctor-preferred anesthetic used during colonoscopies.
...
"I understand the inflationary nature of health care and the need to constantly look for ways to cut costs," Spence said. "However, it's a poor bargain to save $700 on anesthetic only to incur thousands of dollars treating a cancer patient. I believe that encouraging tests that result in prevention or early treatment is ultimately more cost-effective and offers a higher quality of care to Delawareans."
...
[Democratic] State Insurance Commissioner Matt Denn, who is running for lieutenant governor, said last week that he might appeal to the General Assembly to consider a new rule for companies that work with Aetna and aren't self-insured.
"I agree with Commissioner Denn, and I think we need to act even if Aetna reverses its decision," Spence said. "I think state lawmakers should send a message to insurers by sending this bill to the governor that we believe prevention makes more sense than treatment."
Now, Spence's plan falls way short, in my opinion. His bill only covers those who buy health insurance directly from an insurer, which in realty, is very few Delawareans. His bill does not affect companies that are self insured, and most larger companies in Delaware that offer health insurance are self-insured, hiring an insurance company to handle claims and paperwork but paying claims from company assets. However, it seems that neither Markell and Carney could address that deficiency in their plans, for self-insured plans are regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which exempts self-funded plans from state regulation. Thus, this needs a federal solution (i.e. universal healthcare).
Governor Minner has already announced that state employees covered by Aetna will not have to pay extra for propofol during colonoscopies for the state will pick up the tab.
Now I am probably being unfair to both Carney and Markell, for perhaps they are still revising their own healthcare plans to address this latest wrinkle by Aetna. Indeed, Mr. Markell said as much last Saturday in response to a question from Dana Garrett at Chris Bullock's congressional campaign announcement, that he had to think about the issue further before he could respond as to how he would address Aetna's actions. And I have not seen anything from Carney yet.
They cannot allow Spence to take the lead on this issue, but it seems like they have.
The husband of prominent state Rep. Nancy Wagner will remain in a state prisons job courtesy of controversial budget "epilogue" language, legislators who created the post five years ago said Wednesday.
Bud Wagner, who works on video education and medical projects for the Department of Correction, will still have his $68,100 salary paid by Delaware Public Defender Larry Sullivan's office.
Sullivan has proposed having corrections pay Bud Wagner, so he could hire someone else to help with the state's videophone system, which links attorneys, police, court officials and prisoners through nearly 100 sites statewide.
But Sen. Nancy Cook, co-chair of the legislative Joint Finance Committee that moved Bud Wagner to prisons in 2003, said that won't happen.
"Not in this budget climate, where every job is precious," Cook, a Dover Democrat, said after the fiscal 2009 budget hearing for corrections. "Even if we moved him into the prisons budget, Larry Sullivan wouldn't get a new position" in the public defender's office.
The General Assembly's use of budget epilogue to guarantee Bud Wagner a job year after year without identifying him was detailed in a News Journal article Sunday about Rep. Wagner's intervention on behalf of her husband in a succession of state jobs since the Dover Republican's election in 1992. She worked with fellow GOP Rep. Joe Di Pinto, then-JFC co-chair, and other panel members in 2003 to move her husband to the prison system.
Delaware's official misconduct law forbids public officials, including legislators, from obtaining a personal benefit through unauthorized actions outside official duties. The Legislature's separate conflict-of-interest law stipulates that "any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office" violates the public trust.
Delaware Democrats, if Buddy Wagner's name appears in any 2009 budget appropriation, of if you allow Nancy Wagner to once again abuse her office and cheat the citizens of this state by inserting yet another earmark providing her husband work, there will be hell to pay.
This is Buddy Wagner's last year on the state's dime.
Mike Castle is upset that Wayne Gilchrest was defeated for reelection in the Republican primary.
"Representative Wayne Gilchrest was defeated last night in the Maryland Republican primary. Wayne is a long-time friend and colleague with whom I have worked on many national and regional issues. His service to this country, in both the military and the Unites States Congress, reflects immeasurable sacrifice, and dedication to his fellow Americans. His integrity and spirit cannot be replaced and his voice will be missed in Congress. I have no doubt his contribution to Maryland and the nation will continue to be great in his life after Congress."
When I lived in Maryland many years ago, Wayne Gilchrest was my representative. Living in the horribly conservative Cecil County, your choices were slim. You could vote for the conservative corrupt Democrat named Roy Dyson, or you could vote for a moderate Republican. I never voted for Wayne Gilchrest, although I was never that upset at his victories, for he at least was a true moderate. He was anti-war. He was pro-environment. He was pro-education. He bucked his own party on more occassions than I can remember.
That's a true moderate. Sure, I still disagreed with Gilchrest on a host of other issues, but at lest you could respect him.
Castle, meanwhile, is no moderate. He is no Wayne Gilchrest. He is a true conservative Republican lackey through and through. His support for the Bush war and the Bush tax cuts is pure. Indeed, if you want proof that Castle is no moderate, no RINO, look no further than the fact that he has not been subject to a primary challenge by more conservative elements of his party, unlike Gilchrest.
For more coverage of Maryland politics, including Wayne Gilchrest's defeat, go to Free State Politics
(The real costs of this horrible war will be felt for decades to come. - promoted by Delaware Dem)
What happens when you deploy troops who have seen high intensity combat time and time again with inadequate dwell time between tours? You see skyrocketing mental health issues.
After months of investigative work, talking to our troops and veterans, we released a report on the situation at Fort Drum in Watertown, New York. Since 9/11, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team has been deployed for more than forty months, more than any other brigade in the Army, and we are seeing what is nothing short of a cry for help from the men and women on the base; a cry we will answer for troops in Delaware as well.
A cry for help that is also coming from the leadership on the base. In a New York Times article today about our report, Major General Michael Oates, commander of the 10th Mountain Division, says: "We recognize that there is stress on our force and their families from this conflict, but until recently, we have not fully appreciated the extent of some of the mental stresses and injuries or how to best identify them." Please read the rest of the article here.
What is happening at Fort Drum -- with Soldiers still on active duty suffering from PTSD, with Soldiers and their families in need of counseling, with Soldiers literally dying while still on duty -- is going to happen all around America unless we begin to address some of the basic issues of this war. As our report explains, DoD itself has stated that the likelihood of troops having mental health problems increases by 60% with every tour of duty. So, in short, through ourdeployment policies, we are consciously compounding the wounds of war.
This is unacceptable to us. Veterans for America's Wounded Warrior Outreach Program will continue to address these problems from the bottom up.
We are going to go to as many bases as we can afford to go to, see what is happening on those bases and see how we can help. If you can help us, we would greatly appreciate it.
We are going to continue our Wounded Warrior Registry Outreach -- if you or someone you know needs help getting help with PTSD or TBI, please click here.
And above all, we are going to continue to serve and help those that serve and have served us with the same level of dedication and courage they have shown. Click here to learn more about what we are doing.
Phillip Martin of 
First recorded version of Ginsberg's HOWL was in Berkley, right? Nope--a new discovery puts it at 
Clinton, Obama 
desmoinesdem discusses