Given their early editorial and repeated calls for Attorney General Kathleen Kane to resign, LNP was wise to post the Associate Press news account of Kane’s defense before the state wide media yesterday rather than its own.
A second article, “Rep. Mike Sturla supports fight” also was ‘fair an balanced’, with Sturla suggesting Kane should stay on while County District Attorney denounced her “incompetence” and “vindictiveness.”
Repugnance for former attorney general and then governor Tom Corbett and a sense of rampant corruption on the part of both political parties created the circumstances for an obscure, assistant district attorney from the Scranton area ,with the benefit of substantial family financial backing and the endorsement of former president Bill Clinton, to be overwhelmingly elected as state attorney general in 2012.
Kane certainly lacked management experience and had not to our knowledge demonstrated exceptional skills.
Sitting and former governors as well as other politicians have good reason to fear an independent attorney general. However, we expected that her ‘persecution’, if that is what it has been, would be about more than over pornography. Of course she mustn’t speak about ongoing investigations. So time will tell, if she is allowed to stay in office!
While watching her talk yesterday, we were reminded of Richard Nixon’s famous “Checkers Speech” (including the dog and his wife’s cloth coat) when he successfully fought to retain his vice-presidential nomination in 1952 and his “I am no crook speech” a few months before his resignation in the face of certain impeachment and likely conviction. This is an observation of her unimpressive presentation rather than a suggestion of any guilt.
If the public made a mistake in electing Kane (and given her Republican opponent, we do not think they had much of a choice), then the electorate can express their displeasure at the polls in 2016.
There is a classic joke that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
We are open minded to the possibility that Kane at worse is guilty of an indiscretion, the type of mistake that never would be raised to this level.
In the ever accelerating mean spiritedness and dissembling of especially modern Republican politics, the zeroing in on minor matters and treating them as scandals and even as indictable offenses has come become a political tool. Examples used against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton have been Benghazi and now her e-mails. It was this type of approach to politics that we ascribe to the beginning of the downfall of the Roman Republic.
The strategy today is to look for a possible minor infraction, call it a scandal or a crime, and paint the person as having done something terribly wrong.
We painfully recall how former Lancaster County District Attorney Donald Totaro (now Judge Totaro) and LNP used that tactic to drive former conscientious county commissioners from office.
Since there has been no hard evidence shown that the AG office is not operating appropriately, we see no reason for Kane being made to step down. Forcing Kane out of office goes against the will of the electorate.
Provided there is an appropriate judge and not a political hand maiden – Kane was prosecuted by a Republican, indicted by a Republican, and before a Republican judge – the testimony that comes out of a trial might well be an endangerment to both Republicans and Democrat officials over the past couple of decades and a political primer for the Pennsylvania public.
As the saying goes, and please excuse the patina of sexism, “Hell knows no fury like a woman scorned.”
Old Boy Network look out!
