Regarding Kathleen Brown’s proposal to keep the upcoming barrage of gubernatorial campaigning “attack-free” and issue focused (Feb. 15):
Though the proposal is a lofty one, and quite possibly impossible with the track record of the past few elections, I do applaud Brown and her advisers with a savvy marketing jump on Pete Wilson and John Garamendi. Being in the position of front-runner when neither the issues or personal track records are getting serious public debate is the advantage here. When the campaign starts to hit those inevitable times when “it is a question of character and judgment” rationales that pour out of each candidate’s respective camps when explaining why the issues are not at the forefront, Brown can say two things that the voters will acknowledge: I never wanted it this way and I didn’t start it.
Rancho Palos Verdes
The Times carried the announcement of Kathleen Brown’s candidacy for governor. In that article she affirmed that she would enforce the laws of California, including the death penalty, even though she personally opposes it. Later she said that her only test for appointing judges would be that they are “qualified, and that they be willing and able and committed to enforcing the law.” Under these broad and ambiguous qualifications, the question occurs whether a Rose Bird-type would be her first or second choice for the bench?
The most convenient way for a governor to avoid making death penalty decisions is to appoint judges of a liberal bent, thereby preempting the need for such a decision.