Bucher’s Drunk Driving Stance Should Cost Primary Votes
Written by Daniel on August 22, 2006 – 5:34 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
In a story in this morning’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Paul Bucher, Waukesha Co. DA and Republican primary contender for Attorney General, reiterated his support for sobriety check-points as part of his strategy for combatting drunk driving.
In a Capital Times story, Bucher’s Republican primary opponent, JB Van Hollen, explained why he opposes sobriety check-points: “I believe they take away the presumption of innocence, clearly reflect a big-government philosophy, and are not a wise use of scarce law enforcement resources.”
The question of sobriety check-points is one where small-government conservatives and civil libertarians can make common ground. When Bucher proposed sobriety checkpoints, the Exec. Dir. of the Wisconsin ACLU told WTMJ 620: “Certainly, if we started having roadside sobriety checkpoints in Wisconsin, you’re going to diminish the quality of life in Wisconsin, the rights of citizens in Wisconsin.”
At the time Bucher first made the recommendation, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board had this to say,
[T]he use of security checkpoints is troubling. While they could be an effective tool to stop some drunken drivers, they represent a sledgehammer approach.
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, dissenting on the case that allowed check-points, called it straight:
That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving… is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion… The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures.
Bucher did not mention in the story his policy as Waukesha County District Attorney that he (quoting from a CATO analysis) “authorized deputies to enter private residences without warrants, ‘by force if necessary,’ if they suspected minors might be drinking inside.”
The same CATO analyst characterized this as a “particularly militant approach…†in a Washington Post op-ed. Reason Magazine, a libertarian stalwart, characterized the policy as “forgetting such legal niceties†as a warrant. Charles Pena, also of CATO and formerly executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving of N. Vir. said of the policy: “Anti-alcohol fever evidently trumps the Fourth Amendment.†Local attorneys criticized the move as well.
Back when Jessica McBride, Mr. Bucher’s wife, and other conservative pundits were railing against the ethanol mandate as big government, I wrote that Mr. Bucher’s support for sobriety check-points and warrantless house invasions were “as much about freedom, liberty, limited government as the ethanol mandate ever was.”
At the time, no one outside the blogosphere was paying attention to the AG’s race. Still, Dad29 and Random10 both went after Mr. Bucher pretty hard after I pointed out his anti-liberty record on this matter. Hopefully now that the election is closer and more people are paying attention, bloggers, talk radio, and debate hosts will be tough on Mr. Bucher, asking him how he reconciles the Republican beliefs in small government and individual rights with his stance on drunk driving. If Ms. Bucher reads this blog and cares to leave a comment explaining if she supports her husband’s stance on this question and if so how she reconclies that with her opposition to the ethanol mandate, that would be very welcome as well. Because I don’t see it.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Steve Kagen's "Sleaze" Peddler - July 21st, 2008
- J. T. Dugan for ED-WI - July 16th, 2008
- Unfortunateness in the 8th - July 10th, 2008
- Good signs from new GB Bishop - July 9th, 2008
- DC Tourism Tips 1 and 2 - July 6th, 2008
Posted in Ministry of Strategery |
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Just as an innoculation, I know there are those of you who in the comments will point out that Republicans and President Bush support the PATRIOT Act and other invasive measures as part of the War on Terror, etc. I would refer you back to the three elements laid out by Mr. Van Hollen above. Wire-taps under the PATRIOT Act still require warrants, the PATRIOT Act does not reflect a big governmetn philosophy, but rather goes to the core of what a national government ought to do, namely protect its citizens, and fighting the War on Terror is not an unwise use of government resources.
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Reading the Wheeler Report just before logging off, Democrat State Rep. and former Milw. Co. Circuit Court judge put out a release today arguing against criminalizing the first offense:
Read the whole thing.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
One other thought: Bucher put out a follow-up press release today saying “Frankly, I’m amazed that Peg Lautenschlager is standing silent on this matter in light of her pledge to be a catalyst for positive change on drunk driving. And it’s disappointing that Mr. Van Hollen is taking the Peg Lautenschlager position on drunk driving” (namely, opposition to criminalizing the first offense).
For starters, that’s not accurate, because Lautenschlager wouldn’t say where she stands on criminalizing the first offense, whereas Van Hollen said flat-out he opposes it.
Secondly, Democrat and Dane Co. Exec. Kathleen Falk sided with Bucher by calling for criminalization of the first offense. Doesn’t that mean Bucher is taking the Kathleen Falk position?
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 am
You are STILL correct about the “stop-em-all” call by Bucher.
OTOH, the kiddie-drinking situation calls for more discussion. Maybe another day…
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I’m personally in favor of using a taser on underage drinkers that barricade themselves in. Libertarians, too.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
And while we’ve got ‘em stopped at the roadblocks we can check their picture ID cards.
Let, “Papers, please,” be their rallying cry.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
mr. bucher clearly doesnt have the edge on this topic. he says hes taking the lead but, as on many of the topics he takes the lead on, he simply doesnt get it and i believe he is not prepared to take on the democrats this fall and i also believe he is certainly not prepared to take on an office of this size and importance.
whereas mr van hollen knows where he wants to take this state and the grassroots support he is getting is phanominal from republicans to independants to even democrats.
mr van hollen has had an office that has spanned over a very large portion of the state (being the us attorneys office)
van hollens endorsements are outnumbering, and trumping in class and importants, buchers endorsements, which he is shoving down our throats repetedly.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:48 pm
What is this site run by Gateway Ventures? What does JB stand for anyway? Why any republican would support a JB when Gateway Ventures is playing both sides of the isle, Ed Apprahamien Prange’s partner is giving to Doyle and Prange and Hurtgen are having secret, at least according to Spivak and Bice, meetings with Doyle is an absolute oddity.
You can’t have it every which way and you can’t be a little pregnant. Too bad JB never learned that lesson in law School instead is taking a page from Hurtgen and Prange trying to play the grey area.
Maybe Prange want’s to get JB elected to save his borther in law from any Wisconsin indictments? Maybe he’s running the campaing for free?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
good posting in defense of freedom.
JB has my vote.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
all i can say is… JB*FOR*AG!
September 12th, 2006 at 11:03 am
[...] On the AG’s race, I’m voting for J.B. Van Hollen. While the two are basically the same on policy positions, I think everyone agrees J.B. is marginally more conservative on individual privacy rights (drunk driving) and concealed carry. More importantly, I think JB has the temperment and experience to serve as the state’s law enforcement leader. His service as U.S. Attorney has prepared him well for dealing with a range of cases (criminal, civil) and co-workers (sheriffs, DAs, FBI, etc). As to temperment - Paul Bucher’s pitch is that he is a “pit bull.” That’s what I want in a courtroom prosecutor. That is not the kind of person who will work most effectively as our state’s law enforcement leader I think. J.B. is the man for the job. [...]
December 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Too bad this discussion ended in August 2006 with Mr. Rolf Lindgren arguing that an AG candidate should lose votes for supporting “sobriety check point” because Mr. Lindgren made an interesting headline on Nov. 2, 2006 when he attempted to plead “mental disease” to cover his own DWI. Despite the big government pressure to support the “alcoholism is a brain disease” (so we should give money to MRI research and big Pharma; rather than support the social programs that actually lessen the harm from alcohol and lessen its use), here a libertarian is using the “disease model” as a cop out on a DWI.
As a professional psychologist I don’t buy the “its a disease” argument and I can provide lots of research support for alternative theories and treatments not based on that premise. If Mr. Lindgrin really thinks he has a problem with drinking, I hope he will contact me at Alternative Recovery Options at Capitol Associates, http://www.alt-rec-op@sbcglobal.net and set up an appointment. We could get a better assessment started and see if he’d like to drop the “mentally ill” label and get past what we agree may be a serious problem that needs some treatment intervention.