John Atkins Partisan Dorothy “Dixie” Boucher “Moderates” Debate
I guess Dot’s trailer park ethics don’t include the concept of “conflict of interest.”
Irritation began inside the Fire Hall near the end of the forum. Dixie Boucher, who moderated the debate, closed out the question-and-answer session. Boucher said she received questions referring to Atkins’ past behavior, but refused to read them because she wanted to concentrate instead on issues facing candidates. Rieley called out, “That’s censorship.”
What a fraud.
I noticed a quote in your online editorial section wherein John Atkins says, “Past Sussex County Republican Chairman Dave Burris called me, my wife and family a disgrace and a piece of human garbage!”
After all we’ve heard about John being a “changed man,” it is disturbing that he would fall back into his old habit of lying through his teeth to suit his purposes. Fact is, I never once referred to John Atkins’ wife or family in any negative light, mostly because that is not my opinion of them. As a family member of a former elected official, I am very sensitive to candidates’ families and would never make such a statement.
Also, in the above quote John makes it seem like that particular comment drove him into the arms of the Democrats.
Dave Burris
http://www.capegazette.com/pages/editletters.html
jason330: I will take a moment to respond to your personal attack on me. I am not a fraud . I refused to let a forum/debate be turned into a “set-up” for a 3-rind media circus that was most likely set up by the Republican Party in Sussex County. What reason would a mother who says her child is on anti-depressants because of that night 2 years ago, what reason would she bring the child to a forum where the person she claims is responsible for it, is appearing? Would this help her child? And when the debate was not allowed to to be turned into a “circus” inside, the ones involved made sure that they caused a ruckus outside in the parking lot in front of the media. This helps her child? I am sure that the Republicans behind this set-up were very disappointed that they did not get to cause a circus while the debate was broadcast live on the air. I guess I spoiled their fun, so now attack me. I did not have to say anything about the questions I did not ask. I chose to mention them with my reasons for not chosing to present them, because I believe that the real, legislative concerns we care about are more important than playing into the hands of people who try to set up staged events and dwell on personal attacks instead of legislative issues that are facing us. One last thought, the father of the family involved in this is the Vice-Chairman of the Sussex County Republican Party, according to Kevin Spence in the Gazette. Is that a coincidence or what? I stand by my decision to keep the debate focused on issues as much as possible. And remember, Mr. Hastings was allowed to ask and say what he chose to.
Dorothy, you do the residents of the 41st no favors by preferring to debate the assertion that Atkins is “changed” with regard to mobile homes, rather than challenge Atkins claim that he is a reformed drinker, liar, distorter and reputed abuser.
You are a joke and a fraud.
Sorry, I keep forgetting how many”perfect” people blog on this site. My bad. I repeat, I am not a fraud and I say what I believe. Everyone can judge for themselves if they choose to. I am imperfect and I have made my share of mistakes, but I do not believe that the “dirty” politicking that passes for “politics” in the The First State is okay. Delaware should try to get away from that. One more thought, “if” John Atkins is given another chance by the voters of the 41st. district and gets elected and he does not do the job he says he will, I will fight to get someone else to replace him at the next election. The issues are what matter to me and I am simply not sure Rep. Hastings is supportive of mine. But he has been given the chance to prove what he stands for because of debates and forums. I guess on this site clarity and sincerity are unacceptable to you. So sad, I keep hoping for a good, politically-motivated discussion from somebody on this site, not constant personal vendettas.
“I believe that the real, legislative concerns we care about are more important than playing into the hands of people who try to set up staged events and dwell on personal attacks instead of legislative issues that are facing us.’
I agree w/ you DORTHY. Please contact me at my address above.
“Dorothy, you do the residents of the 41st no favors by preferring to debate the assertion that Atkins is “changed” with regard to mobile homes….”‘
LG, you clearly are not fully aware how difficult people in these communities have had it in DE. OF COURSE they are more interested in the positions of the candidates than in the escapade last Halloween.
Everyone should be able to judge for themselves, and that is what open debates are supposed to be for. They are not for the moderators to make decisions about the suitability of subject matter or circus status to the young people present. The young person in question evidently came with her parent, so pretending to protect that young person is a disingenuous strategy for trying to shut down uncomfortable questions.
People get to make their own judgments of character as well as their own positions on the issues. Moderators should not be in the business of helping candidates avoid tough questions — especially tough questions that they brought on themselves.
Dana Garrett is now against asking John Atkins tough questions about his behavior and character?
Wow. Bizzaro World.
Let me also say that I believe the phrase “trailer park ethics” is a disgusting slur.
“Dana Garrett is now against asking John Atkins tough questions about his behavior and character?
Wow. Bizzaro World.”
Perhaps you can toss me in w/ the Republicans you want to be mass murdered. (That you are tutoring anyone–Wow. Bizzaro World.)
Small point but folks in Manufactured Housing have some pretty big concerns-the economics of their housing. Other concerns may mean a lot to some but they get trumped by the need to pay for a place to live.
The ‘character’ issue is on the menu but not at the top of the menu. Being a changed person might be important but changing laws is what most interest groups care about.
FYI- Moderators always pick and choose what the questions are base on the needs of the group.
“The ‘character’ issue is on the menu but not at the top of the menu.” – Mike Protack
Your keyboard should have burst into flames as you typed that. So you’re saying that the 41st should have a character who wants to be a Representative, not a Representative with character?
Cassandra, I can respect that observation, but some factors need also be considered. First, as someone who is not a professional “moderator” I may not follow what rules others feel are involved. By that I mean that there is a distinct difference between having a “professional” forum/debate and allowing a meeting held for the purpose of informing and educating people on issues they are facing in an election. We did this over tha last 3 debates/forums we have had to try to get through the rubbish and get to the legislative issues we in Sussex are facing. The facts of that night in question(Atkins) have been rehashed over and over and I believe it is a deliberate attempt to mud sling by a party who does not want the legislative issues to be focused on. I do not and will not allow a forum I am involved in to become a media circus as was the intention that night. For your information, I was not aware until after the debate that the people involved were who they were. I was not even aware of what happened outside in the parking lot until I heard about it a couple of days later. I accepted the position of moderator with the understanding that I would not allow either side to use the forums as a chance to throw mud or personaly-motivated attacks at anyone. As I stated when I mentioned the two questions I decided not to present at the end, I believe in adult discussion of the legislative issues and topics. People are free to read the trash and make their decisions with regards to their relevance in the issues, but both men were allowed to present their cases, in a respectful manner on the issues. It was a respectful and informative and productive debate/forum and I am proud of that. And if anyone bothered to listen to the whole debate, some morals, some ethics were lightly touched on, and they were not silenced. Also, please read my statements more carefully. I never said I stopped the questions to protect the child. I questioned why she was even brought to the debate if she has problems as a result of the night in question and what was the purpose of that. Perhaps someone should ask the family? And also check out their political involvement in the Republican Party.
And maybe you can have a drink and a threesome with Atkins, Dana.
Yeah, Dana knows about smears and slurs. He is takes it to an art. Just go back and read the personal smears he wrote about Spivak two years ago.
“Just go back and read the personal smears he wrote about Spivak two years ago.”
LOL. Yes, you do it. Find a personal smear and link to it here. Can you.
It’s amazing how criticizing any writer on DE Lib brings out these attacks. You’d think that to criticize their posts is to commit sacrilege.
Dorthy, there is no need to take a defensive tone. Casssandra’s position is indefensible. OF COURSE moderator’s don’t allow just any question to be asked. Some can be crude, deranged, irrelevant, slanderous and bigoted.
Besides, your community’s interest in having a debate on issues centered on your needs is your right. Your debate was for the MH community, not a bunch of writers on this blog. Some people just can’t let others be the center, not even for the course of one evening.
Dana, not defensive, just honest and explanatory, if that is a word. I don’t really know what “moderators” are supposed to do, according to the sites I visited before the debates began. The rules are varied from what I read. I was explaining what my intentions were to Cassandra. And she did misread my comments by saying I stopped the questions to protect the child, I did not and and I did not say that and I wanted to clarify. That is all.
“Find a personal smear and link to it here. Can you.”
Sure, Dana. Here is a quote from your blog you wrote trying to start and spread a rumor about Spivack:
“He has another trait which also deserves to become the subject of rumor: arrogance. I have witnessed few people more condescending to others than Dennis Spivack.”
And this was one of a number of entries where you tried to smear him as “angry” and “arrogant”, and “condescending”.
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/democrats-need-recount-of-primary-votes.html
As I said, you’re a smear artist. Now that we have shown you’re liar too (well, I guess that is redundant), you can slink away.
Just because you’d rather ensure that a conversation about candidates character and positions is highly controlled doesn’t make anything about my position indefensible. People who want to ask about Atkins’ known misdeeds should be allowed to ask about that. Especially since he is claiming some kind of rehabilitation. This is part of the job interview and is fair game. Like asking Tom Gordon for assurances that his judgment has gotten better since he left office or assurances that Sherry Freeberry would not be part of a Gordon Administration. It would NOT be fair game if Atkins was being asked to answer to made up charges and rumors.
People are asking about the known facts here and there is no reason why Atkins should be sheltered from those questions.
I have been on the receiving end of Dana Garrett’s lies. Horrible accusations of bigotry ad nauseum. He recently deleted a comment I made on the subject of the scary financial holes in BlueWater Wind’s initial offering. It is a point that Tom Noyes readily cedes yet to Garrett it was some kind of, indeed, sacrilege.
“It’s amazing how criticizing any writer on DE Lib brings out these attacks. You’d think that to criticize their posts is to commit sacrilege.”
Dana,
Those in glass houses, etc…
I will have to go read the link to get a perspective on whether or not Boucher was out of line in denying questions about Atkins’ moral forebearance. The girl in question took the brunt of his malicious personality that night and she should probably sue him for the medical expenses.
~~
Having read the link, I’d say that Atkins moral fibres should have been questioned.
Dana — Do you not think that having a debate moderated by someone who has professed opposition to one of the participants is good for democracy?
anonone,
You don’t understand the difference between a smear and a personal impression, one that was shared by many people.
& didn’t she profess opposition after the debate, not before or during?
“I have been on the receiving end of Dana Garrett’s lies. Horrible accusations of bigotry ad nauseum. He recently deleted a comment I made on the subject of the scary financial holes in BlueWater Wind’s initial offering. It is a point that Tom Noyes readily cedes yet to Garrett it was some kind of, indeed, sacrilege.”
That’s a lie.
“I will have to go read the link to get a perspective on whether or not Boucher was out of line in denying questions about Atkins’ moral forebearance. The girl in question took the brunt of his malicious personality that night and she should probably sue him for the medical expenses.”
LOL. You know nothing about it. But that never stopped you.
“Do you not think that having a debate moderated by someone who has professed opposition to one of the participants is good for democracy?”
Opposition or preference? There is a big difference.
The parents of Megan Rieley can’t have it both ways. Don’t say you’re devastated and then bring the girl to the debate where the man who “allegedly” threatened your daughter (which, by the way, turned up NOTHING according to the Attorney General) is debating. If she’s going to attend the debate, then she should be mentally prepared and her family shouldn’t start some damn ruckus out in the parking lot.
Dana:
Anybody who writes that something “deserves to become the subject of rumor” is a smear artist. Your “rumors” about Spivack were lies, no matter how much you tried to cast them as objective observations.
Rumor spreading is a primary tool of smear artists like you. Trying to justify it using straw men ( “shared by many people”) is another technique used by those skilled in the art of smearing.
You’re crap is right out of Rove 101.
“Opposition or preference? There is a big difference.”
She called Greg Hastings and the GOP a disgrace. That to me shows opposition. Even so, if she is declared to be on one side or the other, she doesn’t have the objectivity to moderate a debate.
“& didn’t she profess opposition after the debate, not before or during?”
Does it matter? It was there whether she said it or not, and it clearly affected her performance.
My rant aside, this Dorothy Boucher chick, as moderator of a political forum, should have never professed her preference for either of the candidates. It’s bad form.
“which, by the way, turned up NOTHING according to the Attorney General”
Actually, it turned up nothing that was determined to be a crime. Not the same as nothing, IMO.
“The parents of Megan Rieley can’t have it both ways. Don’t say you’re devastated and then bring the girl to the debate where the man who “allegedly” threatened your daughter (which, by the way, turned up NOTHING according to the Attorney General)”
Game set match.
“Anybody who writes that something “deserves to become the subject of rumor” is a smear artist. ”
That’s BS. Look up the word smear.
Spivack was by rumor an angry person and I found him to be so. I also found him to be arrogant. My point was he deserved that reputation too AS YOU KNOW. So don’t twist the clear implication of my statement.
Again, you don’t know the difference between a smear (a false factual claim or truth maliciously used) and a personal impression about someone’s character.
Maybe you have trouble w/ abstract concepts. Something is amiss. That’s for sure.
“She called Greg Hastings and the GOP a disgrace.”
I agree. That’s a disqualifier.
“Something is amiss. That’s for sure.”
Yep, and it is you. Your own words reveal you for what you are.
You can go back to your Lee Atwater books, now.
I’d guess that Ms. Rieley is quite grown up by now and well within her rights to wish to publicly face her tormentor, especially after having been sideswept by the AG. The Atkins’ broke a basic trust and left her to suffer with the moral ends. In the end, her conscience spoke.
It is mere desparation to couch the Make The Babysitter Lie To The Police incident with a perjorative like ‘political operative’, when it was clearly the one singularly abominable move that made the House Ethics leadership force John out.
And puhlease, who among us has not been sideswept by the AG at one time or another in this politically-minded incumbent-ruled state?
That’s a lie.
*
no it isn’t, asswipe.
You admit in the comments for the post below that you did delete the comment. And I sure as hell never said the original BWW deal would “ruin us” as you claim.
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/finally-charlie-copeland-and-harriss.html
Poor Nancy. There is no indication of a deleted comment. But what is interesting is how you reveal that you post comments under other names than your own.
Everyone look at the page and see if you see Nancy identify herself as Nancy.
How devious of you, Nancy. But thanks for outing yourself. Thanks for also exposing how you were an enemy of the BWW deal at the beginning.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! LOL!!!
This thread is a keeper.
Actually, I suspect that Nancy was posting under a different name because of a whacked out spam detection issue, not with malicious intent.
A big to do about nothing.
From a comment placed above, I deem that Dorothy was chosen to be the moderator, by someone…..?
She therefore has every right to make her decisions in how she chooses to run the debate.. She has just as much right as does either Stephanopoulos or McLehrer, to run the debates the way she sees fit…
Some may not like her methods and may criticize her for it… That is their right as well… But she as moderator, has the right to do within the framework set by the two candidates, what she thinks best…
She is not morally obligated to defend her choices, any more then any of the others would be, if they drove down to Millsboro to moderate their versions of the debate…. and got pinged for their partisanship by the opposing parties….
Did she disclose the conflict of interest to whoever picked her? Did she disclose it to the audience? Would Stephanopoulos or Lehrer be asked to moderate a debate if they were strident supporters of one of the participants?
In all this time Kavips, I have never regarded any of your comments as stupid until now.
Poor Nancy. There is no indication of a deleted comment. But what is interesting is how you reveal that you post comments under other names than your own.
*
sure dimwit-tahy, when you delete my comments I take offense and my deep-seated personalities separate off. 🙂
LG is closer to the truth, if I am having problems with comments I simply change the information rather than sit and sulk.
http://www.delawaretalkradio.com/talkblog/its-comforting-to-know-youll-be-able-to-fly-old-glory-as-you-move-into-your-car-with-your-family/
jason330: A last comment and I think this “debate” has been done to death……….Are you telling me that every moderator of every debate that you have seen or heard has not had a personal opinion of the people that are participating in their debates? Do you believe they were still able to handle their duties fairly? Important questions were asked of both men relating to “our” issues. And they were allowed to question each other, respectfully and that was my purpose and intention and my only purpose. The debates we had are over, so why do I not have a right to my opinion? And for the record, and I have the e-mail to prove it, When the event of two years ago happened, I sent an e-mail to then Rep. Atkins and asked him to accept responsibility for his behaviour and resign. Today is a new day and it is up to the people of the 41st. district to make their decision. I hope they do it on the basis of what will affect their future in Sussex County and the issues that will determine that future.
Dot,
His issues are about to become (y)our issues. Enjoy.
It always amazes me that people who wish to make comments because they think they have important things to say, don’t use their names. Why is that? I am not at all sure what”H” meant, but I don’t intend to respond to it any more. Thanks all who listened with open minds and learned, I did for sure. Bye