Update
This really is getting crazy:
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
The police report claims rolling papers were found and says Jon admitted smoking half a joint, the statement submitted on his behalf in court says that he took a hit from a communal joint, and now he claims no toking.
Jon Golnik, who many have been saying was the strongest candidate against Niki Tsongas, has admitted an arrest for DUI.
Link here: http://www.eagletribune.com/lo…
Vetting – Public Record – Look into it MAGOP!
Discuss
21 Comments . Leave a comment below.A single DUI arrest (driving home from a concert in Boston to Arlington) is enough to completely derail his candidacy?
Really?
and as recently as 2001.
Knowing nothing about the candidate, I half expected to read that he was busted for driving after downing a sixer of 'gansett before hopping behind the wheel of his brand new 1967 Chevy Nova SS. Nope. Recent enough to have known better, and it included both booze and illegal drugs.
pool and you don't even get your ankles wet.
gene pool. Quantity isn't necessary quality.
AC/DC headlined at the Fleet Center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... http://www1.epinions.com/conte...
I have little to add about the relevence of a DUI arrest from 10 years ago, but I certainly question Mr. Golnik's taste in music.
After Bon Scott died, why even bother?
Brian Johnson was himself 53 years old in May 2001!
Smoking weed and drinking beer at a (gasp) rock and roll concert? Seriously? The horror.
Did I take a wrong turn and end up at Red Mass Group?
From the piece linked in the thread-starter (emphasis mine):
Drink all you want, smoke weed if you want. Let somebody else drive.
When a stoned and drunk Mr. Golnik sat behind the wheel of his car in 2001, he endangered me, my children, and my friends. His behavior was criminally irresponsible.
Regardless of political persuasion, drunk drivers should not hold public office.
BrooklineTom (immediately above me) makes a good point about OUI, that regardless of how you feel about the chemicals and drugs involved, it is a solid fact that Operating Under the Influence puts lives at risk.
But above and beyond that is the hypocrisy. I think it's usually fine to hold a candidate up to their own standards. If you are anti-weed, I expect you not to toke up! If you are pro-weed, then I half-expect you to toke up (but am not shocked if you don't, of course).
Of course, I write this not knowing Golnik's stances. If he was pro-marijuana before this came to light (unlikely since he's a Republican, but possible since this is Massachusetts), then I really don't care. (Except for the aforementioned "operating under the influence" part.)
From: Massachusetts Whistleblower
Those of us who have been there, exposed, and documented the Baker record continue to be frustrated by the established media and so called progressives who were there and saw him run needed taxpayer dollars for sevices and government operations to waste, inefficiency, and mismanagement when Baker was the so called GURU that solely failed when he held politically appointed purse strings of government.
The so called established media and cosmetic progressives either covered up, unreported, or doubled agent failing to stand up to the Baker fraud now think they have awakened to cover up for their candidate Patrick! Do not insult our intelligence.
All candidates for Governor should be held to the same standard during this election cycle.
Twice the legal limit...this guy wasn't driving drunk, he was driving smashed.
was 0.10, which was pretty common at the time... and thus would be less than twice the legal limit.
Don't know for sure though.
...which is the point of my comment? What point are you trying to make...that at the time he nearly twice the legal limit?
When you're right, there's no reason to undermine your point by exaggerating. You: you're right. He was smashed, and behaving in an extremely selfish, dangerous manner.
Many years ago, in a Billerica bar (that I walked to) near my first house, they had a self-serve breathalyzer by the door.
As an experiment one evening, I intentionally drank enough to blow a 0.10 (the legal limit at the time). I'm a pretty big guy (6' 6"), and my first shock was that I had to drink, as I recall, three or four martinis (in an hour) to get there.
More importantly, I could barely walk across the room — never mind drive. I can't imagine attempting to operate a can-opener or a door-knob at 0.18. There is no way somebody can get behind the wheel of a car at 0.18 and not know full-well that they are drunk.
This guy is unfit for public office.
either the sensor was off or you're particularly unusual in that regard.
Most people can blow a 0.10 and still convince others that they're sober. I'm not arguing that they're fit to drive -- the science shows that their reflexes, spacial recognition, and coordination are all weakened. Still, many people can blow a 0.10 and still touch their toes, recite the alphabet, the usual stuff. That is, most folks don't have to be walking curved lines before they're already at 0.10.
I've wondered whether that machine was mis-calibrated.
In all seriousness, I think it would be helpful if there were an easy, accurate (+/- 10%) and convenient way to check individual BAC levels, especially in bars and restaurants.
Most of us do experience the effects differently, and I think most of us might be better at making the drive/don't-drive decision if we know what the legal limit feels like.
I can tell you, without reservation, that I am totally unfit to drive after three martinis in an hour :-)
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Fri 24 May 3:20 AM