Phill Kline (the extra l is for "lying") has been claiming that his challenger in the race for Kansas Attorney General created a crime wave through a sentencing reform law he helped draft. Morrison has been defending himself vigorously, and now he gets support from a surprising corner. A foundation established by two Kline supporters, one a former employee, takes him to task:
This irresponsible claim and attempt to instill fear in Kansas Voters is the worst example of demagoguery.
To insinuate that massive murders, rapes, and general criminal rampage resulted by this bill is not only irresponsible, it is insulting and demeaning to all Kansans. This appeal to the fearful emotions of all Kansans ignores logic, reason, and the genuine intent of outstanding former leaders and defies and debases their efforts for a safer Kansas.
The foundation was established in memory of a murdered teen, and works to prevent similar crimes.
- Log in to post comments
I posted this down a ways, but it seems appropriate here, though a bit off topic.
Hi Josh; long time, no see. I'm what used to be "me."
Anyway: I've worked for Paul Morrison in Johnson County, and I prosecute in a Kansas county attorney's office (though not as big as JoCo). So I think I bring a relevant point of view here.
One does not need to be a trial attorney to be AG; if Morrison thinks he'll be regularly trying cases as AG, he's fooling himself. On the other hand, if he actually does, it is an incredible misuse of his time. An AG makes policy and administers; he doesn't try cases (unless he's grandstanding). That's what staff attorneys are for. Only in the exceptional case (such as an appearance before the USSC) would an AG generally make an appearance. And frankly, Kline's experience in complex civil litigation is much more what the most of the work of the AG is about, not criminal prosecution. The vast majority of criminal prosecution is handled at the county level by county or district attorneys; i.e., folks like me.
And before you even go there, yes, any competent attorney appearing before the SC would get tutoring and specialized preparation; you're a fool if you don't, and Kline is not a fool. Morrison would have done the same had he been facing orals before the SC.
(BTW - I've had two defendants petition for cert to the USSC; the first time I got a packet from the SC, I about fainted. Once I thought about it, and realized that the chance they would accept cert was practically nil - and they didn't - it was back to usual. But for a moment there; I had visions of going to DC, and the thought scared the #%$@ out of me. Oh well, maybe someday . . . )
I like Paul, I always thought he'd make a good AG. But much of his criticism of Kline is unfair. You may disagree with much of what Kline has done as AG, and much of that criticism is valid. You may have policy differences. But Kline has certainly been competent in the job. Morrison would be as well.
Bottom line: there are valid reasons to vote for either one. But needing an "experienced criminal trial prosecutor" is not a particularly important one. Personally, I've got issues with Morrison's opportunistic jump across the aisle.
Fair enough, but Morrison is more than just an experienced prosecutor. He's been an effective crime-fighter, victims' advocate and legislative lobbyist at the county level. Kline has been a political agent, his law license has lapsed, and he has used the AG's office to advance his narrow political goals, rather than the interests of the citizens of Kansas.