The Washington Primaries

August 25, 2008

I’ll write more later but first a couple of quick comments on the primary results. Sam Reed, the Secretary of State was the pronounced favorite, which I thought was encouraging. Mr. Reed is the traditional sort of Republican, the Dan Evans sort of politician who subordinates party interest to public interest.

He is competent, ethical and trustworthy. He does not bow to the extremists who have taken over the state Republican party, people who seem to profess winning at any cost.

Our local Republican Party of course suffers from a disregard of the Constitution in its zeal to win, advocating the disregard of the 14th Amendment in its just adopted platform. It has been lock step with the Bush Administration in its position on FISA and the Administration’s disregard of the the 4th Amendment. The party sanctions the hate-politics of its attack dog the B.I.A.W. Sam Reed is cut out of better cloth.

The Attorney General’s race between the incumbent and John Ladenburg could not present more divergent styles. Our current Attorney General campaigns on tort reform using misleading statistics, then argues against this in politically popular cases such a Exxon Valdez, when political pressure mounted for a distressed property law here, he proposed legislation, then argued to the real estate special interests that the legislature was to blame for being overly protective.

Our Attorney General seems to be trying to appeal to everyone, while maintaining his corporate base and receiving substantial corporate donations.

His deficiencies as Attorney General are compensated for by adroit political maneuvering. He has launched, as of a few months ago, an email campaign, publicizing the “successes” of his office. This seems to me to be a highly questionable use of public funds.

John Ladenburg on the other hand is an adept administrator with a commendable track record as Executive of Pierce County. His rather low key style has served to resolve problems and issues that the incumbent uses to factionalize the electorate and drive people apart.


Rob McKenna Thinks We Are Idiots.

March 22, 2008

Washington State’s Attorney General Rob McKenna really should be in the Bush administration. He demonstrates a presidential grasp of what he is doing. His opinions are not rational, at least that is the conclusion you must reach if his arguments are in fact the basis of his opinions.

Generally speaking tort law has two purposes: to compensate victims and to enforce rules of conduct that are accepted as societal standards. Its purpose is in part to help mold society into behavior patterns that are predictable and reasonable. A debate about tort reform should address the realization of those goals, then perhaps weigh the cost to society against the benefit of particular laws. You would expect a reasoned argument to discuss alternatives to the law in question and their relative merit.

Unfortunately it is never done that way. Often proponents of tort reform merely attempt to excite the general prejudice against trial lawyers. This is politically expedient but does nothing to advance our interest in living in a rational society. The other common argument is to throw out a figure and say that is how much money has been awarded for something. The argument proceeds by saying this figure is way too high and concludes with: ergo we should abolish that law. This is exactly how insurance companies look at things but this approach seems to have traction with the general public. In truth this is not an argument at all and again is little more than an appeal to prejudice or sometimes sympathy for the perpetrators of tortious conduct.

Mr. McKenna believes that sovereign immunity should be re-instituted in Washington after having been abandoned in the 1960’s. His argument goes like this: The State of Washington has paid over $500 million in the last 25 years. If the State could not be sued, it would not have to pay anything and there would be no problem. End of argument. He spices this up a little by adding that the trial lawyers are always expanding the State’s liability. With that he has pretty much covered everything.

Why didn’t we think of this with drunken driving?  That costs a lot too.  This would be a good approach to cutting down crime.  Make homicides legal.  Washington has already pursued this approach with construction defects and disasters.  Why not expand the approach.  It’s working isn’t it?