Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« This Week on Drugs | "Oh My God!" »

Friday, July 11, 2008

No Clean Campaign Pledge for This Guy

posted by on July 11 at 17:30 PM

Just one judicial candidate out of 15 running for state supreme court and appeals court positions —supreme court candidate C.F. (Frank) Vulliet—has refused to sign a pledge proposed by the Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns to run a clean, fair campaign.

The pledge, which states that the signer “will not take any action
during the campaign which will harm the public faith in the integrity of the judicial system in Washington,” was prompted by a surprisingly ugly state supreme court race in 2006, when the Building Industry Alliance of Washington (the same guys who bought billboards for Dino Rossi accusing Gov. Christine Gregoire and “Seattle” of stealing the 2004 election) ran smear ads attacking judge Gerry Alexander as too old for the job, raising questions about his character, and criticizing him for speaking sympathetically of a fellow justice who was arrested for drunk driving.

In a seven-page letter replete with references to the First Amendment and studded with legalese, Vulliet lays out his reasons for refusing to sign the pledge. “While the efforts of WCEJC may be well-intentioned, the pledge conflicts with both the right and duty to inform voters of vital matters affecting the courts, and their right to have as much information as available on which to make their choice. In the longer term, the restriction on discussing negative material conflicts with its purpose: to instill and maintain public confidence in those same courts,” the letter says.

I’m not saying Vulliet’s going to run a dirty campaign—hell, I know next to nothing about the guy. But I sure hope the BIAW’s smear tactics aren’t what he’s referring to when he talks about “vital matters affecting the courts.”

RSS icon Comments

1

If we are going to elect judges they need to be able to say "hey my opponents sucks in holding corporations responsible" or "hey my opponent is too sympathetic to drunk drivers -- look he didn't condmen Bobbi Bridge when she was driving drunk" or "hey my opponent sucks -- he supported McCain!!! Who wants someone like that judging our cases."

Hard to draw this etiquette line, you know.

The solutions is appointed judges.

They all raise campaign donations from lawyers who appear before them, and you don't see anyone condemning that.

Posted by PC | July 11, 2008 5:57 PM
2

@1

Hard to draw the line at etiquette? Is that where your malfunction is? Not quite sure where that line is? Like when you spent days and days on end deciding whether or not to promote fake smears against Michelle Obama, and each day, several times a day, you decided to draw the line on the other side of spreading the lies?

How come you ignore me when I ask you about that?

Posted by elenchos | July 11, 2008 7:43 PM
3

I don't know, I hope it is the BIAW he's referring to. They're so helpful in letting us know who the real slime balls are.

Posted by Mike of Renton | July 11, 2008 7:58 PM
4

Just reelect the incumbents. The three Supremes this year up for reelection pretty much all have progressive voting records. They reflect the values of our state quite well.

Posted by progressive | July 12, 2008 8:16 AM
5

My dear elenchos:

How are you this lovely day. Thank you for writing.

Let me respond to your points in turn.

"Hard to draw the line at etiquette?"

Yes, my point is that free speech includes freedom for people who we disagree with, as well as freedom to say what we like.

In campaigns, you might consider it dirty to say "my opponent is soft on drunk driving" while someone else (not me certainly) might consdier it dirty to say "my opponent is soft on corporations."

I call the "line" "etiquette" because this kind of vague pledge to "run a fair campaign" is just so much unenforceable bullshit. It's goo goo pandering and posturing.

Meanwhile I identify the real problem is having elected judges and propose a real solution -- appointed judges. Because elections take campaigns and money and money means asking lawyers to give the candidate money then you go to court and you are up against a lawyer who gave the judge money and you doon't know it but they do and the judge does not recuse him/herself.

Sound right to you? Not to me.

Okay, on to the next one, o worthy adversary.

"Is that where your malfunction is?"

Good one, I think I heard that one in 3d grade. Let address your point: "Takes one to know one!"

"Not quite sure where that line is?"
Nope Ah sure don't. A pledge to campaign fairly is a very unclear line. does it not allow you to say "my opponent is too pro corporate polluter?" can you just talk about how smart you are? can you mention your opponent at all? who says what is "fair"?

To be meaningful, you want to have a rule that, you know, actually says something and isn't all totally vague and stuff.

Like when you say "what's your malfunction?" that's like a totally vague statement it's not really an "argument" so there is really no possible respones. Some might consdier that "fair" and some might consider that "unfair." My gosh, there are some people who think any kind of comment about your opponent, indeed, any kind of conflict or direct argument is unfair and "dirty," just like some people think any talk or hint of s ** is "dirty" and shameful.

Can you believe that?


Okay on to next one.

"Like when you"

no, this comment on judicial elections isn't anything like the other conduct you refer to, even if it were me, which it weren't....

"spent days and days on end deciding whether or not to promote fake smears against Michelle Obama, and each day, several times a day, you decided to draw the line on the other side of spreading the lies?"

1. That wasn't me as I mentioned before. Got that? There are two times someone has impersonated me here that I know of, and you are referring to one of those times. Pretty lousy conduct on your part, isn't it, to continue to smear me with something I told you I didn't say!

In general while I have made many comments about Obama I don't think I've really mentioned Michelle at all. I might have said "her comment about not being really proud of America till" etc. wouldn't help among the Dopatchers or something but that's about it. Those kinds of comments aren't about whether she's right or wrong either btw, they are about something called "electability" and as you may have noticed I am not a glass-is-always-full kind of guiy, I criticize people whether I support them OR NOT and after OBama was a shoe in criticism of him is sometimes intended to make his campaign better. I mean not really, we're all just blabbing into the slogosphere here you know, but you know what I mean. Like if you are a Sonics fan, you might sometimes criticize the team, or a player's perforamnce in a given game? You know?

Any way digressing again.

I almost wrote something the other day praising Michelle the other day because I kind of like her "standard" American fashion sense, like that dress she had on in Montana? Almost gingham-like, yet classy. Perfect! Very sumemry, too, not at all "corporate."

(Because I wanted to chide the idiots here who make a big deal about Obama wearing blue heans (omygod) and a polo shirt, which they catually did, can you believe that? And then someone posted saying somone in Fremont was in the "khaki shorts crowd" (ohmygod! khaki! how horrible!!) You may have noticed poking at inconsistency/inability to see one's own faults 'n' prejudices is something I kind of like to do? Anyway, Obama's wife being all all-American, his believing in JAYSUS and all, it's kind of funny how most Sloggers would totally hate on that if other people did it. Anywayyyyyyyy...

But these other Michelle comments you are talking about, I think I heard something about how someone says they have a tape of her with Farrakhan or something ... there's a big right wing search for that tape, right? Well I suspect that is what you are talking about. so I will tell you again:

whoever said something about that here on Slog, IF that is what you are referring to, it weren't me.

Got that? I really can't explain anymore, becuase I didn't see those ocmments either, otherwise I would probably be able to point out why they don't fit the profile or style I usually have etc. etc.

So, that's about it you know. I'm quite surprised you would keep repeating your smear after being told this before. I guess all the VALID points I have made (you know like pointing out that Obama is a human, not a God and stuff, or that he's a "pol" whioch to you is dirty or something but it's not to me) just drives you to react. Yawn. What typical psychology. It's just like the right wingers you know. Anyway sorry to digress.

"How come you ignore me when I ask you about that?"

Um I didn't think this post about some judge candidate was all that interesting, so I haven't looked at it for a few days. Also, I am kind of busy sometimes so when I post, no, I don't constantly check and see what the reaction is, if any.

Hopefully now you feel responded too. Old buddy! Oh and if you want to chat some more, why not tell what the fuck comments you are talking about about Michelle Obama?
Then I would no what the "charge" is and be able to "defend" myself more fully. This notion of "knowing what the accusation is" is part of like um fairness and due process and just common courtesy, I think. (More etiqueete, you know!) So,please make a note of it! I can dialogue with you more if I actually know what the fuck you are talking about, IOW!!!


Okay thanks. "Have a great day '!' "

PS: just want to thank you for all the unity I am feeling right now. It's really great that Obama folks are lovin' us former HRC supporters so much that you'd pick one asshole comment out and attribute it to someone else....why we are sure to get those 60 Senators we need to get stuff passed 'n' stuff, if this level of love 'n' unity keeps up.

Keep it up and ciao, ol' buddy!
Hope to hear from you soon. Oh btw? I am not going to be checking back on this post really so if you need to get me, just put something under the latest report on Obama or McCain, you know, that's where I hang out. Oh and just anothe reminded:

next time you accuse me, have the balls to say what the fuck you are talking about, m-kay? Cuz I don't really know.

Capiche?*

* "typical" "PC" indicium.

Posted by PC | July 12, 2008 1:45 PM
6

oh just to be complete -- there's some other person calling themself PC on soundpolitics, that ain't me either.

Posted by PC | July 12, 2008 1:46 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.