Reader Poll: Do You Approve of Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s Job Performance?

Kathleen-Kane-portrait1It’s been quite a year for Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The Moulton report was released, an email scandal emerged and a feud with Frank Fina threatens to engulf her tenure.

Journalists and political observers have gone from speculating about what future office she would seek to wondering if she has a political future.

Therefore, this serves as a good moment to ask our readers how they feel the Attorney General is doing.

Are you happy with her tenure so far or are you disappointed?

Do you approve or disapprove of Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s overall job performance?


  • Disapprove (62%)
  • Approve (38%)

Total Voters: 2,072

Loading ... Loading ...

November 25th, 2014 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Poll, Top Stories | 59 Comments

59 thoughts on “Reader Poll: Do You Approve of Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s Job Performance?”

  1. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Again, rather than admit you conjured the absence of information to buttress your viewpoint [behavior c/w with invoking “faith”], you are attacking Israel and any remedy that would weaken Iran; invoking history [as per Santayana] is apt [including Nazism], particularly when the anti-Semites in the Middle East coordinated with Hitler [sharing a common-goal, then and now].

    The rest of your surmisings constitute predictable “essay questions” that are resoundingly answered in a “true/false” fashion: “FALSE”!

    In the process, you evaded any effort to counter the specifics of what I typed [and that you know to be true], namely, that the ability to invoke forensics would be limited [and predictably ignored by ideologues such as BHO and yourself, regardless].

    Even BHO/Kerry cannot deny the potency of the growing Iranian-nuke threat, and they are coming to recognize that they can’t keep kicking-the-can-down-the-road for another two-plus years; events are rapidly catching-up to them, and their tired references [such as to peace-talks that the PA was recognized – even by Indyk – to have nuked] are increasingly falling on deaf ears.

  2. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    1) Israel certainly has designs on attacking Iran (so does McCain, Romney an a lot of right-wingers in the US). Israel doesn’t seem interested in conquering Iran, just hurting its military and instilling fear.

    2) The nuclear powers, including Russia and China, would slap Iran down if they actually used a nuke, to set an example.

    3) What’s your criteria for Israel to use any of its 200 nukes?

    4) Bringing up Hitler is a sure sign you’ve lost the argument.

    5) If you are really worried about the next Hitler being ignored, then you should be looking closer at Israel and Netanyahu:
    – Advanced military and nuclear program
    – Strong air force
    – Promotes racial purity
    – Occupies neighbors
    – Engages in expansion
    – Engages in oppression and ethnic cleansing
    – Compulsory military service
    – Growing fascism
    Google: (israel fascism) for a list of articles

  3. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    As predicted, you depend upon your faith rather than the “lying ears and eyes” who hear and see Iran nuking-up; indeed, you even assume Iran would stop @ making only one bomb, absent any justification from any author [while thereby admitting the intent to nuke-up, which you’d previously denied].

    Your reaction is also replete with inacccuracy, starting with the claim that the rest of the world would descend upon Iran were a bomb dropped; your forensics would not be foolproof [witnessing statements from the IAEA and USA that certain facets of what Iran is doing ALREADY are unknowable] and you can be sure that the Ruskies and Chinks [Chinese, employing a comparable shorthand term, unless you know another] would find some way to demur [e.g., how Russia blocks attacks on Syria in the UN Security Council, even when everyone else knows chemical and other anti-humanity weapons were used by Assad].

    So, your rationalizations recall the reaction of the world in the 30’s when Hitler was ignored and, candidly, because Israel has no designs on conquering Iran, Israel will not sit-back and cow-tow to BHO’s proven-to-be-flawed paradigm for BEHAVIOR in the Middle East; you have yet to show that events transpiring after the “Arab Spring” are all tethered to the Arab war against Israel … rather than to other forces [such as, just for example, Sunni-Shi’ite rivalry].

  4. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    You are really ignorant to think that Iran would give their only nuke (or any nuke) to a third party. Even dumber, you think that there would be no “smoking gun”. (Scientists can determine make-up, origin and design of a weapon from the detonation and signature radiation.)

    The only country ever to attack another with a nuke was the US, and that was about 70 years ago. India and Pakistan don’t even use nukes against each other.

    While Iran may consider a nuke to be a deterrent against an attack by threat of retaliation, they would never initiate an unprovoked nuclear attack (even N. Korea hasn’t done that).

    You chose to believe propaganda, posturing and fear-mongering over actions, history, common sense and the motivated self-interest of countries.

    You probably are even dumb enough to think that Ahmadinejad actually believed his public denials of the Holocaust (when it was obvious that he knew the Holocaust happened but was just making the statements to piss off Israel and get anti-Israeli political support).

    So, going by the statements, while ignoring the actual behavior, you constantly fall into this trap and have no clue.

    Iran would gain nothing if they launched a first strike, as the other nuclear powers would join to attack them, along with everyone else. There is absolutely no “upside” for them to use a nuke EXCEPT the threat of retaliation for an invasion.

    Iran is at the negotiating table to abandon its nuclear ambitions because it can’t really gain anything by having a weapon compared to how much the sanctions are crippling them.

    Saudi Arabia doesn’t need a nuclear weapons program, as they could likely obtain nukes directly from Pakistan.

    Still, it would be a deterrent, like the U.S. – Russian cold war. Each of us had thousands of nukes, and never fired a single one. Mutually assured destruction. Once someone launches a nuke, it becomes open-season on them for ANY kind of attack: nuke, biological, etc.

    There is much more risk of Israel launching “preemptive” strikes against all its Arab neighbors out of fear/paranoia, than Iran launching against them.

    If you were an adult in the 50’s and 60’s, you are the type of fool who would have bought a fallout shelter to protect yourself against the Ruskies, because they were godless commies.

  5. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You essentially risk ignoring the pronouncements that Iran wants to destroy Israel by nuking-up; this is unwise.

    Furthermore, Iran could use a 3rd-party to destroy Tel Aviv, and people such as yourself would decry any reaction by Israel in the absence of a smoking-gun; thus, they could kill millions [“disproportionately”], while BHO [and you-Dems] lamented.

    Your posture is inapposite to the consensus in America; Iran would also threaten [via “blackmail”] other regional powers [plus Europe/Japan]; this may not matter to you, but such leverage could provoke – in particular – Saudis to nuke-up.

    You choose not to believe what is said, an approach that recalls how BHO said [after the midterms] that he also had “heard” from those who hadn’t voted [and assumed they supported him]; such self-fulfilling prophesy is based upon faith rather than facts.

    Indeed, your shifting postures carry an identical tinge; my documentation prompts you to ignore rectifying anything, as you punch elsewhere … and you solely listen to your personal “drummer” rather than the available information.

  6. David Diano says:

    Robert-

    “publicly” they have to pretend Iran is a threat to Israel (but they are really more concerned Iran is a threat to Iraq or other countries, particularly an invasion from the US).

    “publicly” Obama and Kerry won’t acknowledge that Israel has 200 nukes.

    So much for “publicly”.

  7. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Your broad assertions – and reassurances – fly in the face of what even BHO/Kerry said publicly and … therefore, cry for references.

  8. David Diano says:

    Robert-
    Because it’s not a real threat.

    1) Iran with one nuke is not a threat to Israel with 200 nukes. Contrary to the demonization of Iran, its leaders aren’t insane and would not launch a strike against Israel and guarantee their annihilation.

    2) An Iranian nuke is more of a deterrent threat to Iraq or US invasion.

    3) The deal the US is structuring with Iran is for civilian nuclear power with international monitoring, to prevent nuclear weapons, in exchange for lifting sanctions.

    4) Any “self-defense” rational for Israel having a nuke can be applied to Iran.

    5) Why does Israel need hundreds of nukes? There are only about three dozen major cities in the mid-east with population over 1 million. How many “targets” does Israel have for its nukes? How many countries does it threaten?

    6) If Iran had a single nuke, it would be the most heavily guarded item in the country. No band of rogue rebels is going to take it. It would never be used as anything but a retaliatory weapon (or threat) against an aggressor.

    Simply put, it is not credible that Iran would use a nuke, especially against Israel, which would have no qualms about complete genocide of Iran in retaliation.

    Note: Even if YOU claim that Israel wouldn’t engage in genocide, the Iranians certainly believe they would, and have the capability with their 200 nukes. All this requires is Iran’s belief that Israel is genocidal.

    Note 2: If Iran launched a nuke strike on Israel, and YOU were in charge of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, I’m sure you would give a genocide order against Iran.

  9. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    Why are you dismissive of the Iranian-nuke threat?

Comments are closed.