Voters Will Never Re-elect Kathleen Kane

When we choose a candidate for public office, ultimately, we don’t want to feel stupid for doing so. Kathleen Kane’s resounding victory three years ago happened because people believed her when she said she would always do the right thing - and they believed in her. 

Today those voters are less bothered by the scandals, by the lying, by the criminal charges, by the public squabbles. They are disgusted with Kane because she’s made them look stupid for choosing her.

The story of Kane’s past year in office  – which most recently includes a Montgomery County judge ordering Kane to stand trial on three criminal charges, looming state and federal charges, and a bizarre press conference – would have been unthinkable when sworn in 31 months ago.

Then-candidate Kane’s rocketing star crossed party lines and delivered her extensive national attention. But give it some thought and "bizarre" is a word that neatly packages Kane's ascent, her collapse, and her general disposition.

First, how exactly did it happen? How did Kathleen Kane, a former assistant district attorney from Scranton, who had not practiced law for more than five years prior to her election, pull it off? Not squeak out a victory, but collect more votes than any other candidate on the Pennsylvania ballot - including a senior U.S. Senator and a wildly popular incumbent President of the United States. 

Here is what’s indisputable: Kane ran a brilliant political campaign, the performance of which appealed to voters, but the substance of which was mostly disconnected from what’s required of the office.

Her campaign mantra went something like this: Kane always did the right thing as a prosecutor. Kane always did the right thing as a mom. When elected, Kane will always do the right thing as Attorney General.

Though the media was never granted much access to Kane, she was nonetheless portrayed as a tough, charismatic, experienced law enforcement savior from Scranton. A prosecutor with a heart of gold who would protect our kids, root out corruption, and right the many wrongs committed by those who went before her.

Running opposite Kane was David Freed. Freed’s candidacy and message were built upon what traditionally elects candidates to the office of Attorney General – experience and qualifications.

A thoughtful, get-things-done prosecutor, Freed’s credentials were certainly impeccable – career prosecutor, sitting two-term district attorney, respected vice-president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association – however his straight-talk election strategy projected a far less riveting tale for the media to tell and for voters to rally behind

In short, Kane was a fascinating, political force of nature whose thin credentials no one seemed all that interested to investigate. Freed was a staid prosecutor whose far more impressive résumé no one seemed all that interested to investigate.

The late Pete DeCoursey wrote a prescient line in October 2012 pointing out just how easy it can be to believe in a candidate like Kane when he or she is saying all the right things: "Kane sounds very good with the whole prosecutor Mom [message], except it does make me wonder, does she really never make mistakes in either role? She says we can trust her because she will do the right things and she knows what they are as a prosecutor, as a citizen, and as a mom."

Of course all of the promises, pledges, unsubstantiated accusations, and flat-out untruths that Kane made the central themes of her campaign – in lieu of any real substance, achievement, or success – are ridiculous. They have nothing to do with the critical, if unexciting, leadership skills and raw experience necessary to execute the massive undertaking of running the Attorney General’s office.

In the heat of election season, when theatrics easily trump substance, no one seemed to mind.

As a result, Kane’s many failures and overall inability to operate on the extraordinary level expected of the Attorney General have been striking. But is it her fault or is it ours?

It's no secret that we, as thoughtful – if self-centered – human beings, vote for our own best personal interests. Because of this fact, a liar who promises a better tomorrow will almost always defeat the honest candidate willing to deliver the harsh reality of today. We want to get behind someone who inspires us and tells us what we want to hear instead of a candidate who tells it like it is.

Theodore White, writing about the 1960 presidential election, said, "Leaders will always be chosen by other men, not out of reason, but out of instinct and trust."

Our good instincts and our trust are what all candidates desire to earn. But just because we rely so heavily on these instincts does not mean we should trust them when we vote.