pudge's Journal: Crazy Ad

Washington Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander is running for re-election (yes, we have elected judges here) and an ad against him ran tonight about a comment he made three-and-a-half years ago when a colleague on the Court, Bobbe Bridge, was arrested for drunk driving (with a blood-alcohol content of 0.219).

What was his comment? "I told her we were fully supportive of her. ... I think she's going to handle it in a forthright and honorable manner."

The ad says: "The very next day, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander publicly expresses supports for Bridge. Alexander backs bridge, despite her driving drunk with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit."

Then it shows former Lewis County Sherrif John McCroskey saying, "What Gerry Alexander did was wrong. Justices must live by the same laws as everyone else."

Voiceover returns: "Gerry Alexander: Justice for who?"

I am not voting for Alexander. But where in the quoted story, or anywhere else, did Alexander even remotely imply that Bridge should not held accountable for her violation of the law? That she didn't have to "live by the same laws as everyone else"? That she should somehow not receive justice?

Alexander's opponent is John Groen. I don't believe he had anything to do with the ad. It was funded by "Time for a Change," the BIAW's PAC. The BIAW is a developer lobbying group that often funds and campaigns for Republicans and other conservatives. I can't find the ad online, though they do have this pro-Groen ad, which I have no problem with. It's straightforward and not deceptive.

But the one I saw tonight about Bobbe Bridge sure looks deceptive to me, and way below the belt.

On a related matter ... local Judge David Hulbert was cited for DUI a couple of years ago (although he refused breathalizer, because he said he was on meds that could confuse the machine, and he lost his license anyway); Senate candidate Mike McGavick recently made an admission that he was arrested for DUI 13 years ago. What is it with drunk driving officials in this state?

If I ever run for office, I can say: "Vote for me! I am a teetotaller, so you know I'll never drive drunk!"

Drunk driving

[multimed]

Speaking of drunk drivers and elections, here in Wisconsin, our state attorney general (Peg Lautenschlager) just lost her bid for re-election in a primary. She was convicted of drunk driving in a state-owned vehicle (which she had been using to commute 75 miles to work & back every day which also happens to be against state regulations). This of course is in a state where drinking, most especially beer, is one of the things we hang our hats on (along with cows, cheese & the Packers (gulp)). On the one hand, I almost wish she would have won in the primary so drunk driving would have become a bigger issue yet. While the person who beat her (Kathleen Falk) in the primary said she ran specifically because of the drunk driving, there was still a bit of restraint in her campaigns maybe due to party loyalty. I can't help but think that it would have become a much larger issue in the general election such that some actual progress might have been made.

For whatever reason, focus always seems to be on first time offenders when the "tough on drunk driving" talk comes out. Lowering the BAC to .08 (of course federal funds extortion was also a factor there) and talk of criminalizing first offense (in WI, it's still a municipal offense). It just seems so obvious to me when reading the papers that the overwhelming majority of the time, it's the multiple offenders (sometimes 15 or more offenses) who are in accidents. I'm much less concerned with first timers - though a night in jail should be mandatory. But you get nailed a second or 15th time, the punishment should be insanely severe. For most people who get convicted once, the shame itself will be effective in preventing them from doing it again. But the people who do it more than once have an extremely high liklihood of doing it until something drastic or tragic happens - like they kill themselves or others. Hell I say among other things, if you get a second conviction, you submit to getting pulled over anywhere, anytime for a breath test.

Re:

[FroMan]

Following your tangent here a bit...

Just because it is the first time you are caught drunk driving does not mean it is your first time driving drunk. I don't see much reason to be lenient the first time. When I drink, I am excruciatingly careful to make sure I do not get behind the wheel. There is no excuse to drive drunk in the first place, so if you make the choice to drive while drunk, you ought to be nailed.

Re:

[multimed]

I don't disagree and it is a very good point about the first time getting caught not being the first time period. I just think that the bigger problem is repeat offenders being absolutely habitual. After real, strict measures are taken to prevent those people from drunk driving, let's see where we things stand. If there's still a substantial amount of drunk driver caused accidents, then ratchet up the first time punishment too. But I don't have a problem with stiffer first time penalties persay - I have

ugh

[robi2106]

just the recap you give makes me annoyed. I don't care who makes the add, it seems to pick and choose from the facts and present them in a way to imply non-existant facts. dirty trick indeed.

jason

political advertisements

[tf23]

We have (had) a similar situation in Ohio. In-fact, it was just a few years ago our beloved state made the national media for our "quality of political advertisements" (see samples [ohiobar.org]).

It still somewhat amazes me at all the inuendo's and insinuations people can make in the ads. Though, because of what Ohio has done, the ads have become a lot more tame (and less 'slanderous' imho).