Comments (12) | Add a comment
Jane Ann Morrison
As the campaign ads begin to multiply, let the voter beware
Tools
More Columns
More Blogs
Clark County firefighters who raise money for charity must now do it on their own time
Applause for Beers at GOP dinner thundering
National spotlight on Mob Museum highlights 'Sin City'
Morse Arberry Jr. reaches plea deal; charges to be knocked down to misdemeanor
Commissioner needs to choose his battles wisely
Updated: Oct. 14, 2010 | 12:09 a.m.
Today, judicial candidates engage in the time-honored and often successful campaign practice of denigrating their opponents to elevate themselves. Let the television ads begin.
William "Bill" Kephart will be the target of hard-hitting television ads from Justice Court rival Kristine Kuzemka, one of three of political consultant David Thomas' clients to go up with television ads starting today.
Kephart asked for the opinion about whether the group fundraiser for all 11 of Thomas' judicial clients violated the judicial canons of ethics. (Short version of my Saturday column: Yes, it did.)
Kuzemka's ads criticize Kephart, saying he once faced "potential sanctions" from the Nevada Supreme Court. "He even choked a witness on the stand."
What is missing is that Kephart, a veteran prosecutor with 22 years experience, was not sanctioned by the court. He did choke a witness on the stand ... as a demonstration ... and yes, the Nevada Supreme Court objected saying he shouldn't have used the defendant, he should have used someone else.
None of that is explained, of course.
In a District Court race, Susan Scann's ad will remind voters that based on this newspaper's Judging the Judges poll, "53 percent of the attorneys surveyed think (Family Court Judge Kenneth Pollock) should be removed."
The other issue is that Pollock "knowingly appointed a suspended lawyer who embezzled over $200,000." The ad doesn't mention suspended attorney Jeanne Winkler by name.
Pollock said Scann is "taking things out of context and creating a nonissue." His appointment of Winkler as a parenting coordinator and special master in a child custody case was requested by the attorneys in the case, the judge said. "As soon as somebody raised the issue, she was removed."
He said the Las Vegas Review-Journal poll is "a nonscientific survey that goes against the objective evidence." In 2009, he said, he heard the most motions of any judge in Family Court, and he was the second-highest judge in terms of trials and case management, reducing his caseload by 25 percent. "I tied for the lowest number of appeals and have never been reversed by the Supreme Court," he said.
Jerry Wiese's ads for a District Court judgeship will lambaste former prosecutor Michael Davidson for comments he made on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" where Davidson said he was so experienced he could look at someone and know if that person was a pedophile.
Davidson acknowledged his answer was "a little sloppy" and he didn't fully explain why he thought his experience as a criminal prosecutor would be valuable on the bench.
But now he'll have to live with television ads that will use his own words against him and say North Las Vegas police support Wiese because of Davidson's "questionable judgment ... Davidson can profile you in just 10 minutes."
Meanwhile, the first judicial mailer to land at my house was from Justice of the Peace candidate Jim Gubler.
He wants to "set the record straight" that his opponent, Suzan Baucum, former executive director of the Nevada Law Foundation, is trying to fool voters into thinking she has three endorsements that are his.
Naturally, I checked it out. The website where her endorsements are listed clearly stated that these three groups endorsed her when she ran in 2008. She's not claiming they endorsed her this time.
But voters won't know that from Gubler's indignant mailer.
Half-truths are the name of the game for the next month, so view every mailer, every television ad, every radio ad with skepticism. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean everything in a political ad is true, and half-truths can be more persuasive than a flat-out lie.
Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702- 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Kristine Kuzemka is a lesbian activist who wants to be a Judge. Don't believe me? Look up her website, she's proud of it.
One of her plans is to tear down the constitutional amendment that we as citizens put in place for marriage to be between man and woman.
Is this the kind of activist Judge you want on the bench?
Plus, she lied about Kephart's sanctioning. William Kephart has been an aggressive prosecutor who wants to hold violent criminals accountable in our community. Is that something we don't want him to do?
Kephart will make a fantstic Judge and will hold criminals accountable.
Kuzemka thinks she's entitled to the job because she's female and because she's gay. Show her how wrong she is.
Look up the policy position online, in fact that is the next piece of legislation Harry plans to introduce after the election the so call "energy bill" which is laced with cap and trade stuff, its also why they are implementing the "smart grid" strategy, where YOUR electricity is controlled from THEIR computers.
This is from the Wall Street Journal, JUNE 26, 2009--the democrats are on record all over the place as wanting gas prices to be "rational" as in european rational--in Britain they pay about $5.00 a gallon in taxes alone folks---
The Cap and Tax Fiction Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
"Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124588837560750781.html
We are having none of it Harry. You're done.
Fortunately, I have the antidote to TV ads!! DVR! I'll leave the ads for the oldsters to complain about and be influenced by.
So, I think that you've got to re-think this one, Jane Ann. I can't speak to the other claims in your piece, but your claims with respect to Gubler just don't pass muster. It's great that you "checked [the facts] out" by looking at Baucum's website, but fact-checking alone isn't going to get you all the way there -- you need to show the same type of rigor in your analysis. (And if ALJ is to be believed, your fact-checking might need re-visiting as well.) And the reason your analysis is utterly unconvincing is that you assume that technical, factual accuracy is sufficient to save a statement from being misleading. But this is clearly not the case, and it's not how the world works. Public companies are subject to investigation all of the time for misleading statements that are nevertheless technically and factually accurate. Why? Because a reasonable person is likely to misconstrue the statement. And this is clearly what's going on with Baucum's statements on her website about endorsements that she allegedly (and apparently erroneously, according to ALJ) obtained in prior, completely unrelated elections. I assume that we can both agree that those endorsements are completely irrelevant for this election. And if they are, then what is the value that Baucum gets by putting them on her website? The only value in putting them up derives from the possibility that voters will miss the sentence buried among a deluge of information that in fact these endorsements are from 2008! So, Gubler's absolutely correct that there's an issue here, and I'm frankly surprised that you don't see it. (And while I don't think that you're a partisan hack like some strident commenters have suggested, the breezy confidence with which you walk us through this glaringly flawed analysis does sow doubt on that score). Like I said, you really need to re-think this one. This piece is simply not up to either your's or the RJ's typically elevated standards.
I agree with Teresa...we need a better system. Hee's an idea: voters do research about the candidates and choose those candidates based on something other than name recognition or a pretty smile on a road side sign.
Nah, nevermind, that's way too much work.
More evidence that we should vote YES ON QUESTION 1. We need a better system to have qualified judges.
Your biases show through in this column, Ms. Morrison. Shame on you. Warn the public about half-truths by craftily concocting your own? Yuck.
I, too, received Jim Gubler's mailer. I, too, checked out each candidate's respective website. And while Baucum dates her old endorsements accurately, the fact remains that she is advertising 2008 endorsements for a 2010 election. Why do that other than to CONFUSE VOTERS?! People want to know which candidate in THIS ELECTION for THIS JUDICIAL SEAT is backed by Nevada Concerned Citizens and Citizens for Responsible Government. Those groups do thoughtful research and serious deliberating before extending an endorsement. And in this election, Jim Gubler is their candidate. Endorsements of days-gone-by are IRRELEVANT and CONFUSING with respect to the current election. In fact, by including them, Baucum does a disservice to NCC and CRG--she makes it look like they endorse candidates willy-nilly! I don't appreciate her including that info, and I don't trust her motives in doing so. Much like I don't trust yours, Ms. Morrison.
Why did you put out this article, are you trying to sway our opinions? If ALJ is correct, than you are a horrible at reporting any correct information. Please correct yourself if this is the case or we will all remember you for being a biased hack.
Ms. Morrison - I am a voter and I checked out Ms. Baucum's website. It is extremly misleading that she was endorsed in 2008 considering JUSTICE COURT 13 did not exist in 2008. She was endorsed by these organizations for an different race in 2008. I called the organizations she listed and they DID NOT ENDORSE HER IN THE JUSTICE COURT 13 RACE in 2008. You are very wrong on this one and irresponsible in your reporting. Mr. Gubler has every right to set the record straight and his mailer was not offesive as your article. You are trying to sway voters or confuse them as Ms. Baucum is trying to do. We don't need another "Halverson" in the court.
Dirty Sharry Angle has warned us about Sharia law taking over two towns (in her paranoid imagination, that is):
Dearborn, Mich., has a large Muslim community. But Frankford, Texas? Well it doesn't exist-- it's a former town that was annexed into Dallas around 1975. The former town was close to what is now the Bent Tree Country Club.
That's the trouble with you liberals -- always insisting on reality. Just because Frankford, Texas hasn't existed for the last 35 years, right away you want to start throwing verbal stones at this fine, Christian woman. That alone proves you are a supporter of Sharia and want all Christians stoned.
Her point was obviously that IF Frankford existed, it would probably be poised on the imaginary brink of a potentially Muslim possible takeover. I mean, are you not at all shaken by this chilling pseudo-reality?
Since Dirty Sharry's Islamic law fantasy presumably includes stoning, I hereby dedicate the following Bob Dylan song to Dirty Sharry Angle
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good
They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home
Then they’ll stone ya when you’re there all alone
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ ’long the street
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to keep your seat
They’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ on the floor
They’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ to the door
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned