The three candidates took part in a debate last night. I did not attend, so my thoughts are entirely based off accounts published by others. Bird’s Eye View has a good “live-blog” that covers each candidates response to each question, while Virginia Tomorrow offers a more subjective, but extended recap that’s entirely worth the read. Roanoke Times and WSLS
also covered the event.
The first email I got in my inbox was from the Dave Foster campaign claiming victory. Every account I’ve read of the debate reaffirms my own thoughts on Foster: that he came across as intelligent, well-spoken, and impressive. Second in my inbox was John Brownlee, whose email wins the award for the most ironic (absolutely no editing done):
There was no doubt to those in the room that John’s performance was by far the strongest of the evening. Of course, you would expect all three campaigns to claim victory at any debate.
Despite Brownlee’s claims, I’m sure there are many in the room who would argue against that Brownlee “by far” gave the strongest performance, least of all the opposing candidates themselves.
Brownlee’s statement is only slightly less ironic as he attempts to back up his claim by saying media accounts also point to him as the winner; indeed, the subject of the email is “Media, Attendees Give Win to Brownlee”. The three sources are the above-linked Virginia Tomorrow blog post and the Roanoke Times and WSLS stories.
The Times and WSLS give an objective account with no editorializing whatsoever, so Brownlee’s claim that the “media” has dubbed him the winner is really just the Virginia Tomorrow post by Bob Holsworth.
Now Holsworth, as Brownlee was I’m sure referencing, did have the most kind things to say about Brownlee, but also had flattering things to say about the other two candidates. Ken Cuccinelli “came across as measured and pragmatic”, while Foster “came across as a thoughtful, witty and intelligent candidate”. But the money shot came at the end:
If the debate had simply ended here, I would [have] declared Brownlee the winner on points.
So John Brownlee sends out an email saying the media called him a winner, and this quote is the only thing he has to point to? This is the victory he’s claiming?
(For the record, this isn’t the first time Brownlee has played fast and loose with blogs. At the RPV Advance in December, his campaign passed out fliers that featured favorable quotes from blogs. A passage written by Loudoun Insider was one of the quotes, but was incorrectly attributed to the site as a whole and not the individual blogger. The incident wasn’t enough to warrant me posting about it at the time, but it feels topical given the events of this week.)
The hang-up Holsworth had was that Brownlee stated he would apply a “moral filter” when it comes to enforcing legislation that was legitimately passed by the popularly-elected General Assembly and was constitutional, but that he disagreed with personally. That runs in direct conflict with the responsibility of the Attorney General’s office, which is not to supersede the actions of the legislature on a whim. Cuccinelli and Foster sharply disagreed with Brownlee, as they should, and I have a feeling Brownlee will distance himself from the statements.
Holsworth noted that this slip-up was followed by the moderator noting that, for all of Brownlee’s credentials, he was deemed as a poor choice for a federal judgeship by the Virginia Bar. Brownlee wrote this off as liberal bias, but that answer only appeases those who already support Brownlee. Undecided Republican voters will probably need a better answer than that, and voters in the general election will most certainly need one too.
The debate is well covered by Bird’s Eye View and Virginia Tomorrow, so I implore you to check them out to get a feel for the debate as a whole. However, looking at the reactions to the debate by the campaign (as of this writing, I’ve yet to receive an email from Cuccinelli), John Brownlee needs to do a better job of generating buzz than by posting media links and hoping no one actually reads them.
Part 1 covered the inanity of electability arguments. Part 2 covered why conventions are terrible and why each candidate would benefit from a primary. Part 3 was supposed to cover the path to victory in a convention for each candidate; that has been pushed to Part 4. Stay tuned.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Feb 19th by VA Blogger
I agree the moral filter standard seems to be troubling, but I would like to see the debate unfiltered before I make any decision. It is something I would expect to see more from Cuccinelli than Brownlee. The Brownlee campaign needs to better articulate this standard.
VAB, I think you’re slapping this up there just to calm dwon the other issue! Maybe this will calm down the Cooch fanatics about this site being so biased. Free speech is a great ideal, isn’t it?
That moral filter answer really bothers me. I hope that he clarifies what he meant by that, because that is enough, at least for me, to consider backing Foster at the convention.
As Holsworth said, Cuccinelli disagreed with Brownlee. Cuccinelli was also the first person to answer the question, and he stated that it was the duty of the AG to defend the constitution, even if he personally disagrees with legislation passed.
He had a chance at the forefront to tack to the hard right (as Brownlee did with his moral filter), and didn’t. I know that Cuccinelli has a reputation, but he does come off convincingly as pragmatic, which is part of the reason I’m such a fan of his—when I first met him, I was unaware of his reputation, and I was able to form an opinion seeing him in action without outside influence.
I’ve since spoken with several lawyers about this, and they have no problem with it and see it as an extension of the confromance with the Constituion argument. I’d love to see Brownlee clarify this, so far we just have one observors take on it. I also see a parallel here between a military officer’s duty to not obey orders in contravention of moral and constitutional standards.
The Attorney General applying a “moral filter” is similar to Bush using “signing statements”.
If a bill is constitutional, it’s not the role of the executive branch to choose not to enforce it. That usurps the power of the legislature, which is the direct representative of the people. It’s also not the role of the executive to supersede the legislative branch. That responsibility falls upon the Supreme Court.
Frankly, I’m happy with the job Bob McDonnell and previous AGs, of both parties, have done. I don’t want someone to redefine the position.
I have no problems with signing statements – frankly, I wish we saw more of them. A signing statement is simply the Executive arguing why it doesn’t believe the bill is constitutional. The founders intended all three branches of the government to interpret the constitution and live within its boundaries. The Court took upon itself the role of primary arbiter of what the constitution means after Marbury, but all three branches are obligated to not pass or give effect to unconstitutional laws. There’s nothing wrong with what Bush did. If the legislature was usurping his authority as granted by the constitution, I’d argue he’s obligated to say so and not allow them to do it.
That’s entirely different than saying that you, as AG, wouldn’t execute laws that you morally disagree with. I have a problem with one man imposing his morality on the rest of us, regardless of whether or not he was elected. The legislature, acting on behalf of the entire citizenry, is the only competent body to do that.
Here are my thoughts from the Debate.
http://roanokevalleyrepublicans.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-thoughts-from-attorney-general.html
VA Blogger – FWIW, there was little debate (no pun intended) after the Debate. The consensus of unafiliated voters and media folks there was that Brownlee “won.” However, I have no idea if that swayed any voters or not. I think it’s fair to say Cuccinelli was also a “winner” based on his performance but I’d be surprised if he swayed any uncommitted folks. I hate to say it but I was disappointed with Foster’s performance (as I told him the day after) and he needs to tighten some things up quickly if he’s going to remain viable.
As for the moral filter, I think Brownlee was talking about things like the Japanese internment during WWII that was ruled constitutional in the Korematsu case. The point being that in extremely rare cases a law, regulation or government action may be technically constitutional but so abhorrent that the AG may choose not to enforce.
Interestingly, that question was directed at Ken in response to his answer at the Advance that he would not enforce price gouging laws and to offer him the opportunity to clarify. I’m curious to see the reconciliation between his identifying a constitutional law he wouldn’t enforce (price gouging) with his answer here that the only question is constitutionality.
Great points and an excellent write up, Salem Republican. It’s nice to get feedback from someone who was actually there.
On a sarcastic note – I can’t believe Too Conservative would allow such a smear piece to be written about John Brownlee! Where is the proof? You guys are so biased here! You’re a despicable human being VAB for writing such nonsense! How dare you take sides in a three-way nomination race!
I hate to monopolize the thread but there was one other thing that happened that TC and SK readers may find especially interesting.
Standing next to Ken, John gave his standard “I’m the only veteran running for AG” line. Based on the 2 days worth of back and forth on TC and SK I was fascinated to hear how Ken responded. Sadly, he didn’t flinch, never commented on it and the issue never came up in the debate.
Nonetheless, I think it adds a small piece to this week’s discussion when Brownlee, right in front of Ken, made his comment and Ken let it pass. Just something that probably went unnoticed by most but which I found interesting.
SR: As LI said, it’s great to have the perspective of someone who was there. Feel free to post away!
While I had some questions about the “moral filter”, the other basis of this post was my reaction to Brownlee’s reaction of the debate. Even if you’re right that most of the room felt that Brownlee won, anyone not there wouldn’t know that, and Brownlee’s “proof” was very lacking.
VAB – I don’t disagree. In fact, I think those post-debates spin releases from campaign are ridiculous. I really like Dave Foster but I laughed out loud when I got his. Anyone sitting in the room would have assumed he was talking about a different event.
I’ll be honest with you, the moral filter concept makes me a little nervous and it was the answer I expected from Cuccinelli, not Brownlee after the Advance debate. That said, I called Brownlee afterwards and asked him to explain and I absolutely agree with his explanation. Truth is our history of full of times where constitutional jurisprudence lagged behind “the way it ought to be” (although more often it leads). In those very unique circumstances I not only have no problem with, but would hope that, our AG would actively do what’s right. Hopefully future moderators will pick up on the exchange and flesh it out further.
It’s a pretty dangerous precedent to set, however. There’s no guarantee that the moral determination of the Attorney General will be the “proper” course borne out by history. I also find it hard to believe that such extreme legislation would make it through the General Assembly, the Governor, and the Supreme Court.
VAB – While I essentially agree with you, it isn’t that hard to conceive of a situation where a law OR regulation could be passed that has an unfair, disparate or immoral impact on an unprotected class making it constitutional but wrong. Remember, the AG enforces a lot more than just legislation so sometimes all those steps you list don’t come into play. But don’t forget, Korematsu went all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Supremes found it constitutional.
I guess maybe the question could be framed this way. If the Governor ordered some class of people rounded up and interred. As long as that class was not a protected class it would arguably be constitutional. Whatever the reason, I would hope the AG would fight.
Obviously those are extreme examples but Brownlee recognized that and acknowledged it in his answer. The good news is the debate was filmed and should be posted and people can make up their own minds about the candidates’ relative answers and there are additional debates for it to be dealt with.
“Although many issues were discussed during the exchanges, the spine of the debate seemed to be which hopeful was the most conservative. ”
Ugh its pretty dangerous IMHO when all three candidates are still basing their argument on who is the most conservative. Thats what happens when you have a convention and have to appeal to the hardcore of the hardcore I guess.
NMM: See Part 2.
NMM – Honestly, I have no idea why that guy said that. There was very little “running to the right” going on in this debate. Other than the abortion question, I can’t remember a single question that even remotely fit that description (and the abortion question was pretty benign). None of the 3 based their arguments on who is more conservative.
Arguments were as follows:
Foster – most electable, will help McDonnell/Bolling, relevant legal experience, create jobs
Brownlee – prosecutor, ran a law office just like AG’s office, can win statewide;
Cuccinelli – wins in NOVA while sticking to core beliefs and has a solid legislative and legal history.
No one was competing to be the most conservative. I talked to the reporter 3 minutes before his deadline and I think he was so rushed that he didn’t really think about that line well.
I find it odd Cooch was again silent on the Veteran issue since he had no problem doing this: From RVR
10. Cuccinelli had 2 awkward moments. One was when Brownlee challenged his education funding legislature and Cuccinelli snapped at Brownlee to learn to read Code. Brownlee responded by pointing to Cuccinelli’s own press release on the legislation and clearly won the issue.
11. The second awkward moment for Cuccinelli (and strangest of the Debate) was when a question was directed to someone else and Cuccinelli interupted Jay Warren and said “I’m sorry to act like a lawyer Jay but it’s my turn.” Couple problems. First, who cares whose turn it is? Second, Cuccinelli, was wrong, it was not his turn. There were 7 exact copies of the script, each campaign had one and Cuccinelli was misreading his. More importantly though it just made Cuccinelli look small and was incredibly awkward. Other than Foster’s abortion answer, it was the moment that I’ve heard discussed most and was universally viewed very poorly for Cuccinelli. I still can’t imagine what he was thinking.
I believe what is written at RVR because I heard the same thing from friends that attended. If fact, I think Salem Republican is being kind in his write up. Heck…even the Roanoke Times headlined it “”Debate for Top Prosecutor.”
I think point #11 is known as “arrogance”.
Too bad the AG isn’t a prosecutor… It’s hard enough for a campaign to educate and persuade at the same time. I imagine its even harder to miseducate and persuade.
VAblogger, too bad the AG certainly isn’t a patent attorney…
AG isn’t a potato peeler, either. I’m not sure what that changes, though.
Was it a dog show, a pony show or just another a dog and pony show?
If the question is whose legal experience is most in line with what the AG does I’d say it goes 1) Foster, 2) Brownlee, and 3) Cuccinelli. Of course that is A factor not THE factor. I think the issue Brownlee’s pushing (right or wrong) is NOT that the AG’s job is a prosecutor’s job. It is that when the public has the opportunity to elect a prosecutor they do so.
As a lawyer, I call that the narrative. It doesn’t matter what the facts are it matters what the narrative about the facts is. What Brownlee is saying is that the public’s narrative about the AG job is that it’s a prosecutor and he’s the only one to fit the bill. Don’t know if he’s right but it’s clearly his best straight line argument to the nomination.
Sure, I don’t mean to dismiss Brownlee’s credentials by saying that the AG job isn’t that of a prosecutor. Certainly, Brownlee’s experience and comfort level with the law makes him an excellent candidates for AG. So does Cuccinelli’s and Fosters.
I’m not sure if I’ve heard Brownlee refer to the duty of the AG as being a prosecutor; if he has, he should certainly stop. But he has pushed that narrative very well, and it is a convincing one. Just don’t expect me to hop aboard the bandwagon
While the AG technically may not be a prosecutor, he is advocate. And sense most every Commonwealth’s Attorney and Sheriff in the state has endorsed Brownlee it is clear they believe he is the best qualified. History shows Virginia likes a AG that was a prosecutor.
Most of the Republican Caucus in the General Assembly has endorsed Ken Cuccinelli, so clearly he is the most qualified, right?
Part of the reason why this blog so good (in my opinion) is because we go beyond just posting excerpts from press releases (unlike, say, Blue Commonwealth).
LI are you saying Brownlee was arrogant?
Foster’s answer on abortion was unnacceptable. His position on refusing to outlaw abortion is indistinquishable from Jimmy Carter’s.
Foster disqualified himself from serious consideration by equivocating on this most important of all issues.
t is angry that Foster thinks he can run in a convention and not be a committed pro-lifer.
t will advise all my colleagues to vote against Foster.
Mr. Foster, you seem to be lost.
The Democratic convention for AG is down the street.
I will continue to point out that Cuccinelli is better qualified by the standards used here to be Attorney General than Bob McDonnell was, at least by virtue of having a similar role but in the Senate, rather than the House.
McDonnell has done a fine job as AG, proving quite well that being a US Attorney is hardly a prequisite for the job. Move on to other issues.
The moral fiber thing is straight out of the Dick Black playbook. If anyone else had said it, LI would have had a fit. What a double standard.
I expressed my dismay, NovaCon, then it was explained to me further by attorneys who know better than me, including Salem Republican. I said I expect Brownlee to further clarify that. If he doesn’t and wants to take a Dick Black style approach, I’ll roast him.
RE, I said Cuccinelli is arrogant, and that’s pretty well known. How about that hissy fit about whose turn it was?
Like qualifications seem to matter in this day in age in reality anyway….come on…you have about half the voting population that is solely concerned with the letter that come after the name on the ballot in the general anyway….by the way if we took a polling what percentage of the voting population could tell you who the current AG and LT. Gov are anyway….until that kind of apathy of the process changes you will always have a small percentage, especially if its convention, holding the power to nominate and dictate to others who is “more qualified” whether in reality that is the case or not.
Another strong case made for John Brownlee as the frontrunner after the debate:
http://vaquitamlaw.com/2009/02/18/news-and-views-from-the-attorney-general-race.aspx
First, I will repeat what I have been saying over and over–that the OAG has responsibility for enforcing a narrow–but very important–category of criminal laws. The OAG also has authority to prosecute civil claims on behalf of the Commonwealth. Guess what? Civil prosecutions are prosecutions also, and they are important. Furthermore, civil and criminal prosecution often go hand in hand.
Furthermore, when someone ripps off the Commonwealth for millions of dollars (by selling faulty goods, or not performing services paid for, etc.), whose job is it to go after them, Va Blogger? The OAG, of course.
VA Blogger, you need to get a clue buddy. Civil and criminal prosecutions by the OAG amount to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Just because your hero Cuccinelli doesn’t know that doesn’t mean you can’t do better.
On the “moral filter” we all need to remember that we are reviewing third-party recitations of what was said. Here is what we have:
__________________________
Question: If the General Assembly passes a bill you don’t agree with…how will you handle that, especially enforcing those laws?
KC: Decisions have to be run through a constitutional filter. When an Attorney General knows that a statute that was passed is unconstitutional he should not defend it. If the law is constitutional he has to defend it, whether he likes it or not. My clients are the people of Virginia. If I don’t like a law that was passed I can go to the legislators and try to get that changed, but until then I have to defend it.
JB: Another layer or test is, “Is it moral?” Also say I concur that it is our duty to defend the laws of the Commonwealth.
DF: I don’t apply that additional personal filter. If it is a constitutional law that is passed, it’s the Attorney General’s responsibility to defend it.
___________________
So from that it seems to me that VB is trying to make hay out of nothing. It is much worse that he misunderstands that the OAG conducts civil prosecutions.
But I still think you are a swell person anyway for supporting John Cook…
In my opinion Cuccinelli would be the most political AG the state’s seen in years. He’s too much of an activist to control himself.
For those who don’t know, Zach is an accomplished lawyer. I think he has a better handle on this stuff than some of the Cuccinelli fanatics.