Loudoun Insider has made his disapproval for Ken Cuccinelli well known. I disagree with him on several matters, but rehashing them just takes us around the same circle again. Still, there are two points I’d like to make about the ongoing argument of electability:
First, people really need to stop making claims as if there is anyone to prove them. It’s hard enough to predict how the political environment in November will be, who will be at the top of the Democratic ticket, and what kind of campaign the Republican will run against Steve Shannon. Trying to say now who will be the best in any definitive fashion is just absurd. Of course, people never run out of opinions on the matter.
To make matters worse, John Brownlee has never run for elected office before. This isn’t a fault, it’s just a fact. I happen to think that Brownlee is a very good candidate, and would make a great nominee. But that’s taking a leap of faith based on what I’ve read and the times I’ve seen Brownlee in action. He has a great resume, but many candidates who are great on paper fall flat on their face. I don’t think Brownlee is in that category, but there’s really no way to know for sure.
Which is why it particularly bugs me when Brownlee supporters use the argument of electability against Cuccinelli. Beyond the fact that the political environment is unknown, and that Brownlee’s own electability is unknown, Ken Cuccinelli actually has an electoral track record. Some, like me, look at the fact that 2007 was a terrible year, that Jay O’Brien and Jeannemarie Davis both lost in neighboring districts, and Cuccinelli is more conservative than the two of them, and say that it means Cuccinelli knows how to win. Others look at the fact that Janet Oleszek is a walking trainwreck, and Cuccinelli only won by 100 votes, and it means that Cuccinelli almost blew it, and can’t be trusted.
It’s an argument without an answer, because one side isn’t going to convince the other side. But even if you believe Cuccinelli should have won by a larger margin, it doesn’t prove 1) that Cuccinelli can’t win statewide, or 2) that John Brownlee could do any better.
John Brownlee: More Electable or More Conservative?
Let’s say a Brownlee supporter (say, Loudoun Insider) is swayed by my pearls of wisdom, and concedes that we can’t truly know if John Brownlee is more electable than Ken Cuccinelli. Okay, he’d say, but Ken Cuccinelli is too extreme on conservative issues. He might even say “John Brownlee … bring[s] the requisite balance and gravitas to the ticket.”
Which brings me to my second point: If Ken Cuccinelli is so unelectable because he’s too far to the right, and John Brownlee is campaigning on being as or more conservative than Ken Cuccinelli, doesn’t that defeat the argument?
Last summer, the first salvo of the AG race was fired and sent the Virginia blogosphere into a tizzy, leading to the first clear-cut divisions of who was supporting who. That salvo was on the issue of abortion, due to Shaun Kenney’s comments in a Bearing Drift podcast that Brownlee wasn’t as strong on the pro-life issue as Cuccinelli. Brownlee responded that, indeed, he was as strong as Cuccinelli was.
Most recently, our inboxes have been aflame with newsletters from Brownlee and Cuccinelli debating the triggerman rule. I won’t bother to pull excerpts from the individual appeals, but the Times-Dispatch covers the exchange pretty well in this op-ed piece. The short of it is, John Brownlee is claiming he’s a more ardent supporter of the death penalty than Ken Cuccinelli.
So according to the Brownlee campaign and their supporters, Ken Cuccinelli is too conservative to get elected, and John Brownlee is as conservative on life issues and more conservative on the death penalty, but is still electable? If the mainstream media will “have a field day” with Cuccinelli, isn’t Brownlee setting himself up for the same treatment?
This post isn’t going to convince Brownlee supporters to get behind Cuccinelli, nor was it intended to. But as we go forward, when we talk about things like electability, I think those two points should be kept in mind. At the end of the day, electability is such an unprovable quality that all sides will use it in support of their candidate because no one can say that they’re wrong. So instead of subjecting ourselves to the same repetitive madness for the next three months, let’s look beyond that, shall we?
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Feb 13th by VA Blogger
You hit the nail on the head. The basic theme of the Brownlee campaign is “Ken is unelectable because he is conservative, but we are more conservative than he is.”
Great post.
It looks like I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. That’s politics, and we’ll see what happens. I contend that Cuccinelli is not electable statewide. You claim otherwise. We can both pontificate ad nauseum about it, but neither one of us will know the answer until election day.
LI, that’s exactly my point: neither of us will know, which is why I didn’t claim that Cuccinelli either is or is not. In fact, I’m asking people not to make any such claims, about any of the candidates one way or another.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it!
VA Blogger is wise.
KC4AG
Interesting analysis.
Pretty interesting. I bet all those doubters and nay sayers about Obama on the liberal blogs in 2006/7 proably do not want to play this game. Remember when it was all Clinton? Instead of “electability” maybe we ought to be talking about nominability? Just asking.
VA Blogger,
Back to the ranting; discounting statistics, trends and a proper analysis of the current political condition would lead any rational person to see that the climate now and in the forseeable future does not include an ultra right winger. . . it’s not happening.
Perhaps what Brownlee has in his favor is the fact that he is a newcomer. . . with credentials . . . . to politics. The electorate will define Brownlee’s form of conservatives as acceptable. . . . just as the trending shows the electorate is moving towards his brand. The electorate will continue to label Cooch as the ultra right element of conservatives.
I’m not making this stuff up. . . it’s just the facts man.
Finally, this is entertainment. What makes you think that it is anything other than. I partake for the sole purpose of adding to the entertainment value and doing something to release the endomorphins in my bloodstream in an otherwise uneventful day.
VB, you’re going to have to come up with something other than the agreeing to disagree option.
Electability in any format will be determined by the candidate most likely to be able to identify and turn out likely voters. The candidate that understands the caucus system best and can identify and turn out the most supporters will likely win. That person will have proven their higher likelihood of electability in the general election simply by winning the caucus.
The goal in politics is to get at least 50% of the voters plus one vote to vote for your candidate. The nominee that has significant experience (either personally or through seasoned staff) getting elected will likely be able to utilize the 50% plus one theory to their advantage.
Electoral experience matters. It matters even more if that experience comes from tightly contested races.
Cuccinelli is more electable if only because he understands better the efforts and actions necessary to garner 0% plus one of the vote.
Excellent job, VA Blogger. LI contradicts himself even here–he’s entitled to his opinion, but he should remember that’s all it is–not a fact.
My limited impression of the Brownlee campaign is that its been relentlessly negative–just one big attack on Cuccinelli. That’s almost certainly NOT true, but that’s my impression because that’s all I ever see or here.
That’s a problem for Brownlee. His message seems to be “I have the same views as Ken Cuccinelli but I’m not Ken Cuccinelli, so you should elect me.”
That might appeal to the relatively small number of people who care enough to have it in for Cuccinelli, of which there are a disproportionate amount of people on this particular blog, but I guarantee you that will not work in a statewide election–even a convention.
“John Brownlee has never run for elected office before. ”
I find that refreshing. Bet you tons of other voters will, too. Especially with his resume in front of them. He’s a heavy hitter (His dad is a former Secretary of the Army) without actually being an insider.
When voters get tired of “politicians” and want capable leadership from actual performers, Brownlee comes into his own.
I haven’t taken a position between the three AG candidates (apparently the only game in town this cycle) for several reasons: 1. I really haven’t had time to size them up; 2. I assume that a convention is the usual RPV way of rigging the contest to ensure that someone who has little chance of being elected gets the nomination; and 3. I haven’t been in the mood to devote time to 2009 statewide races, having been somewhat dismayed at how low our fortunes have sunk in the past few cycles without anyone in a a position to help really doing much about it.
Generally speaking, however, I associate Ken Cuccinelli with many of the weaknesses of recent Republicans in Virginia and can’t see myself supporting him in anything other than a complete dedication to a return to private life. My view of him has a lot to do with the company he has kept and the approach to the Party he has exhibited over the last few years. I haven’t much factored in yet whether he would be a good AG. I think he’s probably capable of doing the job as well as most who have held the position in recent years. Nor do I have any basis to select Brownlee over Foster. I just don’t know enough about those guys.
However, I see that the talking points have been distributed and that one theme that is being tried out by the SenKens is that their guy has extensive electoral experience. I can understand why they would emphasize that, because it is indeed a factual distinction between him and Mr. Brownlee. However, while relevant, KC’s electoral experience would drive me away from him. For a lot of us, it’s precisely Cuccinelli’s electoral experience that is a major demerit, particularly his last race. I am convinced that he is running because the jig is up, electorally speaking, for him in his own district. Janet Olezek (I apologize that I have never learned to spell that woman’s last name) was really, really a hapless candidate. Cuccinelli, with all the advantages of incumbency and running against an ideally weak candidate, won by less than 100 votes. KC supporters try to paper over this ugly mess by saying it shows he can win in blue-trending areas. Nonsense. It shows that the voters have figured him out up here. While they are capable of anything and one shouldn’t overestimate them, the other side is not going to run a Janet O or a Leslie Byrne against our AG candidate. Don’t count on that. Steve Shannon is a neighbor and a decent, intelligent fellow. If he’s the choice on the other side, he can’t be beaten with shoddy goods.
So, although I haven’t really settled down on this race, I know with some certainty that the remaining two candidates will run better in NoVA than Cuccinelli. I also know that Cuccinelli has uttered a ton of foolishness over the past few years that the Opposition Researchers will have great fun with. I know that Cuccinelli has served as an R in the GA, a place where Rs have generally brought embarrassment and opprobrium down on the GOP in recent years and a place where we repeatedly and inexplicably go to find candidates who either lose or squeak by in General elections. I know he has cozied up to a very destructive element within the Virginia GOP, an element that is, thankfully, disappearing like sidewalk chalk drawings in a downpour. 2009 will, I hope, wring those folks out of the system and let us rebuild a party of competent governance, light on ideology and strong on know-how and fiscal discipline.
Finally, as some have alluded to already, while I can understand that positive electoral experience can be an asset that has to be factored into a decision on a candidate, there is no particular reason why having electoral experience is an asset for doing the job of being AG, which, ultimately, is what the race is all about.
You actually don’t know with any certainty. That’s the entire point.
Fair enough, VB. We’ll never really know because we can’t run each candidate separately in the general and compare the performances of each. We just have to use our best judgment based on the information we have and the experience we’ve gained over the years. There’s certainly room for differing conclusions. But, as I said some time ago, a strongly possible irony of this lineup is that Cuccinelli might be stronger in RoVA and Brownlee in NoVA, despite their geographic bases.
Happy Valentine’s Day everyone!
Reston lib, my point is exactly that the convention process will NOT help the RPV AG candidate. Each candidate will be appealling to the base fanatics that have the spare time to drive to Richmond for a full day of political gamesmanship. My contention is that that process will quite possibly produce a fringe candidate incapable of getting the mythical 50% + 1 needed for victory in the general election. That’s just about exactly what Cooch got last election against the truly awful Janet Oleszek. I contend that he will not be able to repeat that statewide against a viable opposition candidate.
NovaCon, the Brownlee campaign is absolutely much more than “just one big attack on Cuccinelli”. As for what you see here, this is a place for MY OPINION and that of others. I am not an official mouthpiece for the Brownlee campaign. Go to Brownlee’s website and attend one of his public appearances if you want to see what he’s all about.
NoVA Scout, you are always much more eloquent than I, and you more concisely state my opinion of the flaws of Cuccinelli. I am much more seat of the pants, tell it as I feel it kind of writer here. I think Cooch will be a disaster – the oppo research will indeed have a field day with his past utterances, and the quality of the opposition team and candidate this time will blow away anything he’s faced before. He will indeed look like a cartoon character by the time they’re done with him. Brownlee and Foster are much more substantive and respectable – there simply will not be the opportunity for lampooning.
O-l-e-s-z-e-k
O-l-e-s-z-e-k
O-l-e-s-z-e-k
I think I’m beginning to get it, just when it really doesn’t matter any more.
I am actually beginning to think we have very subpar candidates compared to the dems chosen candidate.
1. We will never know who is more electable because we choose our candidates in a small closed setting were most Republicans will never have a chance to voice their vote. Just look what happened last year…enough said.
2. Both candidates have flaws. Cuccinelli is in a much more conservative part of Fairfax than Jeanmarie or O’Brien, just look at the recent results to prove that. He could not put away a terrible candate. Cuccinelli also has the donor issues. The dems will pount him on this. This could hurt him with nominal Republicans who also went with Mark Warner last year. Not sure how much Cuccinelli can bring in new voters outside his relatively small base that will easily bring home a convention win.
2. Brownlee, lets face it has not run a good campaign so far. Cuccinelli has run circles around him. These conventiongoers are Cuccinelli’s type people. Brownlee has not proven himself capable of running a statewide campaign yet.
I am starting to get the idea this is probably going to be a democratic pickup seat regardless of who wins.
there is no particular reason why having electoral experience is an asset for doing the job of being AG, which, ultimately, is what the race is all about.
- NoVA Scout
With all due respect. You actually have be get elected first, before they give you your keys and parking pass.
Only one of the three candidates for AG has won multiple elections. Multiple elections in a district where the naysayers tell us he can’t win now or was simply lucky in the past. This of course flys in the face of the facts. You either win an election or you don’t. All of this pontificatiing from Ken C’s opposition is a whole lot of chatter and noise.
Ken C. has won, can win and will win.
KC4AG
Outstanding post, VA Blogger!
Very good post, VA Blogger. I am begaining to think we should all just rally to Foster and be done with it!
I have less confidence in the system working and the right “electable” candidate rising to the top in large part because I have come to mistrust the insidership of the State GOP. The Gilmore nomination was a direct result, if people are paid attention, of such stewardship by insiders and not the general electorate. Lesson? Conventions are poor models of determining electablity. They are held so close to the vest by insiders that its almost a entrenched popularity contest within the power apparatus. This may be whats some here are pointing to in Cooch in terms of he knows how the game is played. From within the ranks both with once again attempt to prove who is the more conservative…..win the more vocal part of the base…..and then campaign as more moderate throughout the State to win a statewide election. If one believes that the statewide election will be determined by the middle (independents/moderate conservatives) what we may witness again is the base holding up a candidate that may not reach those voters let alone carry them at the polls.
Lauren:
Shh! You might blow the lid on my sequel post.
Actually the argument is that Ken Cucinelli is unelectable because he is divisive and most people in Northern Virginia, well, hate him.
Ken Cuccinelli is yet another example of the reactionary philosophy that has come to dominate the republican party. As I’ve stated many times before, the republicans stand no chance getting back to power if they spend all their time talking about what they’re against (”anti-taxation,” anti-abortion,” etc.) and not what they support. This is the crux of the problem – a party that does not believe in government is not fit to govern, reference the recently-departed Bush administration. Even the Speaker of the House of Delegates recognizes this – why do you think he caved on a smoking ban? Ideologues in general make lousy managers.
Steveo-
I could easily counter your statement by saying,
“Most people in Northern Virginia love him. In fact, 80% of all people named ‘Kenneth’ in Fairfax are named after Cuccinelli.”
The entire point of the post was for people not to make silly statements that they couldn’t back up. Thank you for more clearly demonstrating that need.
VA Blogger, what’s your thought on the fact that of the 3 candidates, only Bownlee is an actual prosecutor? Something I heard said at the LCRC meeting last week and I wonder what your thoughts on that matter are?
G Stone: KC’s last electoral experience was less than confidence-inspiring. I’m sure that the talking points memo really hammers that, but it works against your guy.
Ric,
As I said in my post and previous posts, Brownlee is a very good candidate that has a good resume. The fact that he’s never held electoral office before isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does create doubt when asking what kind of candidate he’ll be.
While I respect that Brownlee is a prosecutor (as is Shannon), and I understand that prosecutors tend to do better than non-prosecutors, it’s important to understand that the Attorney General doesn’t share the same responsibilities that a prosecutor does. The Attorney General provides legal counsel for the state, but it doesn’t prosecute. So Brownlee’s position is a noteworthy bit when taking into account recent AG elections, but it doesn’t make him far and away a better choice than the other candidates.
Has anybody ran the numbers of Obama v McCain in Cuccinelli’s district? Seriously–I want to know. Either way, they will be interesting.
For now, I’m sticking with my belief that any win over any opponent in 2007 for a Republican in NoVa was impressive. The 27th district is significantly more conservative than Cuccinelli’s, and though Karen Schultz ran a good campaign, she wasn’t a particularly good candidate, and Senator Vogel won by 1 point. Obviously, Jay O’Brien didn’t win at all. And so on. It was a HORRIBLE year to be running.
Trying to use a victory in that environment against a guy–particularly when you guy has never won anything–is really obnoxious to me. REALLY obnoxious.
I hear today that Mike Huckabee is endorsing Ken C. for AG. Did TC have anything to do with that???
As much as everyone is enjoying this, keep in mind that these sorts of arguments on all sides don’t really matter much in a convention. I am assuming that a convention indicates that the 20 to 30 people who control the decision about primary v. convention have decided to put this thing in an environment most favorable to Mr. Cuccinelli and that he will be our nominee. Keep in mind that GOP candidate selection has at least as much to do with whom the Marcus/Allen firm wants, not the rest of you (see, e.g., Jim Gilmore) (Since I haven’t really followed the AG contest, I don’t know whom Marcus et al are representing, so I use them only as exemplary of how small the real decisional circle can get). In any event, the discussion about the comparative merits of the candidates is a total abstraction, albeit interesting.
NC: The Cuccinelli race against Oleszek is an embarrassment to him and to us. He knows it. It’s a statistical dead heat by an incumbent against a cipher. There isn’t a discernible base of folks who are fanatical supporters of Janet O. A very significant portion of her vote was purely hostile votes against the Cooch. He has been around just long enough and said enough that he lost the advantage of obscurity in Northern Virginia. People know him now and will vote against him. If he faces a good candidate, this effect will be exaggerated. I know he realizes this and is trying to re-invent himself, but he doesn’t have enough time to do it on his legislative record, and the other side won’t let him get away with it.
RWE, Governor Huckabee’s endorsements of local pols outside Arkansas have been very hard to follow. I have no idea why he or his organization feels compelled to opine among Republicans in a pre-election selection process in a state he cannot know much about in any detail. I doubt he knows Ken Cuccinelli from the Man in the Moon, and I’m fairly sure that he has no understanding of how damaging to the GOP in Virginia the Cuccinelli/Frederick/Black/etc/etc types have been. Huckabee made a clear point of challenging this old, fizzled strain of Republicanism in his campaign and Cuccinelli (at least before he has started changing his stripes after the Oleszek near-death experience) would have been at odds with Huckabee on a number of issues. I have a feeling that Mike Huckabee doesn’t make these decisions, but rather some aide assigned him at Fox News. Too bad that such a fine man allows his name to get dragged into intra party selection at the local or state level, but it doesn’t tell us very much, I’m afraid.
I wonder if TC has any thoughts on why the governor is allowing this sort of thing to happen.
Uh, Nova Scout, you seem to be forgetting PARTY IDENTIFICATION as the major reason Cuccinelli almost lost, not some massive uprising of anti-SenKen forces.
You’re arguments immediately become irrelevent if you’re going to just skip over important factors like that.
NovaCon:
Cuccinelli’s is a Bush/Kaine/Webb district. Obama won it 55.4% to 43.8%
Cuccinelli is a good case study of everything that is wrong in Virginia and the past several election cycles.
Look, Cuccinelli came up from the grassroots. His Cuccinelli compass is read by people all over the state. He is the standard bearer for Right Wing Republicans and he gets financial support and rabid volunteers because of this. He is part of the Karl Rove strategy of 50% plus 1.
Here is the problem. THIS WONT WORK IN VIRGINIA ANYMORE. Its all because of party ID and voter ideology. There are simply more people willing to vote for Democrats than Republicans in this state due to population changes. All is not lost however. This is not a blue state it is a state still controlled by moderates. However you can’t run a blood red person and hope to win anymore. Especially when Shannon is smart enough to run as a purple moderate.
GO FOSTER
One more thing
Cuccinelli has seen the writing on the wall. He is desperately tacking to the center in public and still rallying the base in private. The MSM and liberal blogs will not let him get away with it. He will be exposed and he will go down in flames. Another lost relic of a time when Southern Conservatives ruled Virginia which is no longer the case.
Well said, NMM, but you and I will never convince the true believers of this. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
And as far as Huckabee goes, I think the clear connection is the evangelical bent of Huck and Cooch. I don’t think that will deliver a majority of voters in a general election either.
VB: I’m not “forgetting” that party identification was the reason KC almost lost, I simply don’t believe it. I am convinced Republicans can win in Northern Virginia. It’s not as easy as it was ten years ago, but it’s easier than some of our candidates make it. Davis would have won had he run again. Tom Rust probably can win for as long as he wants. Frank Wolf does just find. Cuccinelli almost lost because he’s Cuccinelli, and because he’s a certain kind of marginalized R who can’t appeal outside a narrow sector of the electorate. Ironically, he doesn’t have as big a problem with this statewide, where he is not as well known, as he does in the areas in and around his district. But it’s still a problem for him. But an R who offers a solid, balanced resume, and instills confidence that he is something more than an ideological windbag can run well in NoVA, and, indeed, will have to run well in NoVA to win statewide.
“find” should read “fine” in last comment. sorry/
Nova Scout calling Ken a “windbag”? Methinks a little bit of the pot and kettle here…
NS:
Rust barely won, and Davis only got 56% against a weak candidate in 2006. The times, they are a changing. If you don’t believe that party identification hurts Republican candidates in a county Obama won with 60% of the vote… maybe you should entertain yourself with flash games instead of discuss politics.
Hey VB, there has been enough gross incompetence from Rs at all levels that I don’t doubt it’s not a favored brand right now, not just in FFX but elsewhere. My point, however, is that competent Republicans can run well (they may be carrying a 20-pound sack on their backs, but the strong ones can win. Davis is a clear example). But in Cuccinelli’s case, he was not a strong Republican candidate. Add to his 20 pound GOP-sack a few others that he loaded on himself and that were peculiar to him. But, if you’re correct that all his problems were due to party affiliation, those problems aren’t going to go away by November. He’s still going to run as a Republican. This suggests that candidates have to be of a quality level that can run the race and win despite the initial handicap that you refer to.
AS to you second suggestion, I always have sort of figured that discussing politics is anyone’s game, and doesn’t require special expertise. Virtually anything I say is just my opinion and is worth nothing more than its tendency to make others think I may be right. And I am well aware that there is a lot of disagreement on this subject. But my guess is that the convention format strongly favors Cuccinelli and that he will be the nominee. That I or others aren’t very impressed by Cuccinelli is irrelevant.
While arguing over 5 and 6 % of the electorate it seems the fact that maybe, just maybe a chunk of those were pissed at R’s for acting like D’s.
How many folks voted for Obama because they were pissed at R’s were spending money like the other party and simply decided to change brands or vote for those who are professional spenders.
The whole discussion surrounding that 10-15% of voters that meander back and forth between the parties is almost always static ignoring the dynamic nature of politics.
I would argue 6 percent of the electorate is important.
Rs didn’t act like Ds, Rs acted like ideologues, religious zealots, or just plain idiots. You can say the idiot category is the domain of both parties, but add up the other elements and you get a scarier set of idiots.
There are some that voted against Rs because they are not conservative anymore (NoVA Scout’s brand of conservative… Burke, Hayek, Kirk, etc).
As long as the perception exists that pragmatism is out and ideology is in, the Rs will be in the wilderness…
until the Ds blow it. Which they likely will.
This article is a great argument on why the GOP needs to get rid of the outdated convention idea and put candidates in front of primary voters first. Why we would insist that an insular, incestuous minority of Republicans should choose our candidates is beyond me. The Gilmore 2008 debacle should be a cautionary tale. Tom Davis should have had his fair chance in a primary (and I say this as a conservative who would not have voted for him.) But Gilmore’s people insisted on a convention because they were afraid to face the voters in June, and look what that got us. 37% or something like that. Embarassing.
When people say that Cuccinelli isn’t electable, what I think they mean is that he has a severe case of “McCain-itis” or “foot in mouth” syndrome–that is, he tends to put his mouth in gear before he thinks, and is then too proud to admit it later, so he adopts a phony tough-guy approach and sticks with his guns.
Supporters of this approach usually call it being a “maverick” or something like that. But being a maverick will only get you so far if you are a maverick just for the sake of being a maverick–which IMHO was the problem with McCain and is the problem with Cuccinelli.
That is why McDonnell doesn’t want Cuccinelli on the state wide ticket, and that is why Brownlee or Foster are more electable than Cuccinelli.
Those of us who voted against McCain again and again in primaries did so because we didn’t think McCain was electable–and we were right. We didn’t buy into the hype around the “straight talk express” or whatever, and we don’t buy into the hype around Cuccinelli. We saw McCain all along for what he was–a unintelligent, unelectible blowhard who loved controversy just for the sake of controversy–and we see the same thing in Cuccinelli.
And that, boys and girls, is what we mean when we say that “Cuccinelli is not electable.”
BTW, for my money, whoever comments as “NovaScout” obviously knows thier stuff, and is probably a person with a real life–unlike most Cuccinelli supporters, who for the most part still live with thier moms.
And finally, NovaScout, don’t be so dire about the convention–true, the convention was designed to help Cuccinelli. None of his supporters have jobs or families or real lives outside of thier special-interest-group stuff.
That is why McDonnell tried to change the convention, to a primary.
Brownlee is going to win at the convention, however, for numerous reasons that heretofore no one has taken account of.
Here is why Brownlee will win–at the convention, which will be a closed door affair not for the general public, Bolling and McDonnell’s support for Brownlee will become more clear. Bolling’s delegates will all vote for Brownlee. Moreover, McDonnell is going to do everything in his power to politic at the convention for Brownlee–and to get as many of his people vote for Brownlee as possible.
I don’t think Kenny-boy is going to have such an easy time at the convention as he thinks.
Put ‘judah p. benjamin’ in the intelligent, logical and rational column.
“unlike most Cuccinelli supporters, who for the most part still live with thier moms.”
lol wut?
[...] Conservative has some great posts on the GOP AG battle. Part I discusses electability and Part II decries mass meeting / convention nominating. I don’t agree, but they are [...]
[...] part one of the look, pseudonymous VA Blogger destroys the idea Cuccinelli is “too conservative” for the job, namely with Brownlee’s own rhetoric: So according to the Brownlee campaign and their [...]