In perhaps one of the most widest margins in Convention history, Bill Bolling won the Lieutenant Governor’s nomination with a margin of 84-16. The next closest wide margin win was from 1985, when Buster O’Brien defeated Matthews by a margin of 72-28 in the Attorney General’s nomination. These are the unofficial results from the convention.
According to Crystal’s sources, Bolling managed a complete shutout of Muldoon in 30 counties and Muldoon won in just 3. (In case you’re wondering, the margin of counties Muldoon took was 3.15%.) Interesting statistic and something Muldoon – and his supporters, especially you nutballs in Loudoun – should remember for the future.
Crystal did some video interviews at the convention, including one with Tag Greason, the GOP candidate for the 32nd House district. When I see that come up over there, I’ll post the link.
I’ve returned home and I’ve had some time to consider the events of the past 48 hours. As I’ve already reported, the GOP ticket in Virginia consists of Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli. I will join with my fellow Republicans in working to get them elected to office for they have much to do and many good ideas. Virginia needs them.
While there was never any doubt as to who our nominee for Governor was to be there was certainly some contention for the other 2 statewide offices. Both of those other races ended when the candidates who saw they were losing the vote stepped forward and advanced motions to nominate their opponents by acclamation. In the case of the Lt. Gov. race, I considered this to be a good thing and, frankly, long overdue. One of my 1st actions in the after-convention “to-do” list was to unsubscribe from Pat Muldoon’s e-mail newsletter. With any luck, I won’t hear from him again. Ever. This makes – what? – six or seven attempts at running a successful campaign and he’s batting 1.000 in the “most losses” category. Get the hint.
It should come as no surprise to anyone who’s read this blog for the last few weeks that I considered the vote for nominee for Attorney General to be disappointing. (To say the least, though hopefully not as bad as Loudoun Insider over at Too Conservative.) My reasons for backing John Brownlee have been well documented and I think he was our best hope to win the office in November. More of my fellow convention-attending Virginia Republicans felt differently than I, however, and voted to nominate Ken Cuccinelli, instead. As I have already done, I offer my congratulations to them for winning the nomination but I would like to take just a moment to remind them of something and to make sure no one forgets what this portends.
Ken Cuccinelli was advanced as the superior candidate because 1) actually having been a prosecutor wasn’t really that important (so we’ve been told) and 2) Cuccinelli “knows how to win” and would bring votes in to the GOP ticket. The first point flies in the face of documented, historical evidence to the contrary. But, that was Cuccinelli’s supporters’ call. That places the onus for winning against someone who has that experience squarely on the Cuccinelli campaign. The second point places a different onus on the shoulders of those people who drove to Richmond this weekend and, flags-a-wavin’, put the RPV in position to suffer the consequences of point #1 turning out not to be true. You supporters of Cuccinelli have said quite often that he knows how to win and that he’ll bring votes to the ticket. If that now does not occur, that will prove that sentiment to be as completely bogus as I’ve said it is all along. I wonder how many of those supporters who dismissed the concerns I’ve raised here will have the integrity to admit they were wrong; that the experience does matter and that the appeal of their candidate’s more strongly-announced views isn’t the clarion call to voters they’ve claimed.
No matter. I won’t be forgetting. And I’ll see to it that none of you do, either.
The issue at hand, now, is how to address the fact that our candidate for AG lacks the experience at the job our opponent has. I’ve said that being a prosecutor is pertinent experience, yes, but let’s keep something firmly in mind: it’s not the only important factor. Cuccinelli has a proven record in dealing with issues that his opponent, Steve Shannon, doesn’t even mention. Cuccinelli’s efforts to stem the rise of gangs and protect the public from gang-related violence are literally written into the law and are documented for anyone to see. His efforts to keep drugs off our streets and out of the schools, likewise. He’s also addressed the issue of human trafficking. Our Democrat opponent hasn’t spoke a word about any of that in his “Solutions for Virginia.”
On the matter of protecting Virginian’s 2nd Amendment rights, rights the Supreme Court has explicitly stated accrue on an individual basis, our Democrat opponent says nothing. Cuccinelli’s record shows he considers those rights to be of vital importance and that consideration will certainly keep the Attorney General’s office in line as regards any actions taken that might affect them.
Immigration is a large concern to many Virginians and Cuccinelli’s record shows that he knows that. Only by having the law enforcement agencies at all levels of government working together can we see illegal immigration found and corrected before it contributes to other rising crimes. Democrat Shannon doesn’t addess this at all.
John Locke, a man our Founding Fathers looked to for guidance in forming our nation, said laws should see that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” In the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in June, 1776, property rights were viewed as one of the inherent rights alongside of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ken Cuccinelli is on record as being in accord with the Founders and his actions show he’ll work diligently to protect those rights. On this topic, too, our Democratic opponent is silent.
In fact, Democrat Shannon gives just 4 topics when he speaks of his “solutions for Virginia.” (If you count his topic on the AMBER alert system as a separate one, you get 5. He included this in his “protect the children” topic, however, so it’s a repeat.) Cuccinelli recognizes no less than 10 major issues that an Attorney General should be watching for in the furtherance of his job and duties. It’s clear who has the better grasp on Virginia’s needs.
I don’t want to come across as if I’m saying experience in the job doesn’t count. It does, make no mistake. But simply having the experience without the vision is no advantage and it’s not the path to a brighter Virginia.
For those who haven’t followed either my Twitter feed or any of the fine coverage at Bearing Drift or Too Conservative, the votes have been cast and the results are in at the RPV Convention 2009.
For Governor: Bob McDonnell
For Lt. Governor: Bill Bolling
For Attorney General: Ken Cuccinelli
I offer my congratulations to all three and we’re excited about the future as we approach the November elections.
For the moment, I’m going to take a bit of a break and enjoy some time with my wife and daughter here in Richmond. We’re going to go get some dinner and just let me unwind a bit. I’ll be back on the wire this evening and offer some updates then.
The speeches are done and the voting has started. My take at this point is Bolling will win the nomination for 13:36:26. Gov., Mullins will take Chairman. As for the AG nomination…
I believe Cuccinelli shows tremendous support here. Being realistic, I honestly think he’ll take the #1 spot but I don’t believe he’ll break 50% on the 1st ballot. That’s where I hope Foster will throw his delegates’ support to Brownlee. We should know in about an hour.
As I sit here in my hotel room taking care of the little details on-line that need my attention I noticed that it’s now less than 12 hours to the start of tomorrow’s session of the RPV Convention. We have some important decisions to make. One of the more contentious will be who the RPV sends to the November general elections as their nominee for the Attorney General. I pause this evening to make a final attempt to persuade my fellow delegates that John Brownlee is the man we should choose.
Unfounded rumor and baseless accusations aside, there is no doubt that Brownlee holds core Republican values as his guiding principles. The reasons being floated that Brownlee should not be chosen, in fact, center around the notion that he’s never run for office before and that his large advantage – having actually done the job of prosecution – isn’t really that big of a deal.
Every elected official ran for office a first time, without exception. If having never run for office were that insurmountable a problem, we’d never see incumbents lose to newcomers. We have seen that on many occasions. To suggest that it’s something we should use as the criteria to make this decision only works if the newcomer has no other advantage over the other available candidates. We’ll get to that in a moment, but let’s deal with a collary to this “no previous elected office” complaint. The other item I keep hearing is that one of the other candidates, by virtue of their success in running for office in blue-trending districts, will be able to bring more votes in for the other members of the ticket, Bob McDonnell and our Lt. Governor nominee. (Yes, I do think that’s going to be Bill Bolling.) Seriously, folks, does it really make sense that someone disposed to vote for the Democrat candidate for Governor will suddenly switch over to the Republican candidate just because of the AG candidate? And even if they would, would that dynamic work for any generally-Democratic voter outside of the districts won by Foster or Cuccinelli? Would someone from, say, Lynchburg or Jonesville, VA even know these guys, let alone alter their voting habits for them?
Another point I’ve heard is that Brownlee’s having been a prosecutor is, for some reason, not that big a deal when it comes to the office of the Attorney General. I’ve head the rationalizations for that – that the AG doesn’t actually prosecute anyone, that he’s really just the chief partner of a big law firm that happens to be the prosecutorial branch of our law enforcement here in the Commonwealth. I’ve already dealt with the latter. The former, regardless of whether it’s technically true or not, isn’t perceived by the public as true. Take, for example, the office of Sheriff. Sheriff Steve Simpson in Loudoun County isn’t out there nightly busting down doors and slapping cuffs on gang-bangers. He’s running a department of deputies who do that work. That’s the absolute truth but do you honestly believe the voters would put a guy into that office who had never been a cop or a deputy himself? It’s time to set aside the rhetoric, my friends. The answer is: no, they would not. The experience of having been a cop is key so far as the voters are concerned. The exact same dynamic is at work when the voters think of the AG’s position and we have actual election results to prove it.
It’s not a matter of Dave Foster or Ken Cuccinelli being unqualified for the job, it’s that John Brownlee is more qualified and the voters will think so, too. Given a choice between a candidate with prosecutor experience, such as Democratic candidate Shannon, and one without it, such as ours will be unless Brownlee is nominated, they’ll vote for the guy they perceive to have the experience. I ask you, I urge you to vote to nominate John Brownlee for Attorney General.
Well, I’m here in Richmond at the RPV convention. First up, I am twittering here, so check the link to my tweets over there on the right.
So far the report of the rules and credentials committees have been approved. We’re listening to the various organization reports now.
More to come!
Update: As I mentioned here and on my Twitter feed, I’m doing all of this via my hand-held in the Coliseum. Between that and actually listening to the events, it’s hard to update in real time. I’ll do my best, so stay tuned. Check in with Bearing Drift for their convention coverage. There are a number of folks in Bloggers row so if I find out who else is over there, I’ll post a link.
Something I’m going to try to do here a couple of time is stream video. I’m using a service called Qik and it allows me to stream from my Blackberry. I’m embedding the live channel right below this text and we’ll have to see if this works. Could be the start of something new!
(With the convention over, I’ve moved the video player to another page so it doesn’t impact the performance of the blog. Check out the “HoodaVision” page link at the top left of the page and check out the recorded video there.)
As I mentioned in the last post a set of anti-Brownlee robo-calls have been hitting delegates to the 2009 RPV convention this weekend. It’s being reported at most of the region’s blogs including here at the Star City Harbinger where a recording is available if you haven’t gotten the call already.
There is no doubt that the use of a toddler to spew political mudslinging is unethical. What’s also unethical is the clear obsfucation of the facts in the case being implicated to say nothing of the fact that the call doesn’t actually say what the case was about. There’s no question it’s illegal. As Salem Republicans writes on the Roanoke Valley Republicans blog, it’s in clear violation of 2 Virginia laws in black-letter fashion. JR Hoeft over at Bearing Drift raises questions in this blog post titled, “Anti-Brownlee Robocall – Unethical? Illegal? Valid.” We’ve already addressed the first two.
How about the 1 conclusive descriptor he did use? “Valid.” From his post:
Not having heard the complete call, I don’t know how “scurrilous” it is. If it had a child doing the calling, that is pretty appalling. Not having the dislcaimer is certainly unlawful.
But basing the call on the candidate’s record and bringing that record to light? Pretty valid.
Only if the record being brought to light is the complete one, unfiltered by the agenda clearly on display in the scripting of the call and, I might add, in the website Hoeft chooses to link to as his source material. In suggesting the identity of the case in question that generated the call material, he links to the site of a person clearly supporting one of Brownlee’s opponents. Brian Gentry’s is the definitive anti-Brownlee collection. His role in spreading the myth of Brownlee’s purported wrongdoing in actually doing his job as a US attorney while also serving in the Reserve is well-known in the GOP and his sloppy handling of the facts in that story should make anyone cautious about accepting his word in any other. Turns out this one’s no different.
Hoeft suspects the robo-call was in reference to a case Brownlee prosecuted wherein Ronald Blair Testerman was accused of illegally selling firearms to out-of-state residents and for selling firearms without a license. While Gentry claims, and Hoeft appears to accept on face value, that Testerman was just selling a few of his personal guns at a local swap-meet point the jury in that case most clearly didn’t buy the argument. While Hoeft appears OK with just linking to Gentry’s opinion piece on the matter, I went looking for actual court documents. This link takes you to the PDF file of a court opinion served up at the web site of the Virginia Western District Courts. In it, the trial judge, Chief US District Judge James P. Jones, sets out his reasoning for the sentence he imposed on Testerman.
Now, Gentry’s site and the robo-call would have you believe that Brownlee callously went after some old man pleasantly engaged in a person-to-person sale of a couple of personally-owned firearms and that this shows Brownlee to be some kind of anti-2nd Amendment gun-control nut. The description of the case Gentry offers misses a couple of key points. First, the operation was done under the control of BATFE. Second, while the jury acquitted Testerman on the charges of selling the guns to non-residents, they convicted him on the charge of selling firearms without a license. But wait, says Gentry – you don’t need a license to sell personally-owned guns between private citizens. True. But you do need one to sell guns commercially and the jury found that Testerman’s assertion that he was only selling his personal guns to be unpersuasive.
It might have had something to do with Testerman’s admission that he “had used a friend’s federal firearms license number to purchase guns directly from wholesalers.” That, in itself, isn’t legal and, when you combine that with the ATF’s discovery of 75 guns at Testerman’s home, it makes a compelling case that he was selling guns commercially. Doing that without a license is illegal. Prosecuting illegal acts is the job of a US Attorney. It’s not a sign of him being anti-2nd Amendment at all. It’s a sign that he takes the law seriously, a quality you like to see in an Attorney General.
But you won’t find out any of this if you rely on Gentry’s one-sided telling of the story.
You also won’t find out that Brownlee’s attempt to get a 33-month sentence for Testerman wasn’t Brownlee being vindictive. Again, from the Judge’s opinion:
Based on the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), I determined that Testerman had a Total Offense Level of 18 and a Criminal History Category of I, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 27 to 33 months imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Emphasis mine. Brownlee was following the sentencing guidlines based upon the facts of the case, not on some capricious, anti-gun whim. And it’s not up to Brownlee whether that sentence gets applied or not, it’s up to the judge. Read the opinion document if you’re interested in what the judge ruled and why, but the fact is that Brownlee did exactly what we ask of our prosecutors: he followed the law and the guidelines without letting his personal likes and dislikes make his decision for him.
The use of an anonymous, ambush-style robo-call is a sign of desperation. Deliberately omitting key details out of what is alleged to be a reporting of the facts is a sign of desperation. We might not know who, specifically, is so desperate as to launch that robo-call, or for whom Gentry is really working but we know why they’re desperate. John Brownlee is the best candidate for the GOP nomination for Attorney General and most Virginia Republicans know it.
Just got an anti-Brownlee robocall on my cell phone. If you’re a convention delegate, I bet you have or will get the same. It’s a terrible call with a kid yelling “why did John Brownlee put Grandpa in jail?” It then directs you to that garbage anti-Brownlee site that popped up recently. I won’t give it any attention by linking to it.
The problem is THE CALL IS ILLEGAL. It directly attacks a candidate and does not contain any disclaimer or identifier. What it does include is the website run by Brian Gentry.
The post makes it clear that the author does not think the Cuccinelli campaign is involved as some have immediately suggested. Indeed, both the Cuccinelli campaign and the Foster campaign have sent out strongly-worded denunciations of the calls with Foster even calling for anyone with knowledge of who might have done this to contact the AG’s office with that info. But while there’s no one saying Cuccinelli is responsible there are folks suggesting that his supporters might be.
At last night’s LCRC meeting I expressed a concern it turns out several of my fellow Republicans share. While I will be happy to support whomever comes out of this convention as the nominee – my hopes are on Brownlee, of course – I am less confident that Cuccinelli’s supporters will do the same. Their high enthusiasm for Cuccinelli seems to foster an attitude of “it’s my guy or forget it” and I’m wondering if they’ll join in with us after the nominee is chosen.
Guess we’ll see in a few days.
Update: I received this statement from the Brownlee campaign in my e-mail last evening.
STATEMENT FROM TEAM BROWNLEE ON ILLEGAL ROBO CALLS
This afternoon, many delegates around the Commonwealth received a deeply disturbing phone call attacking John Brownlee.
The perpetrators of this automated call violated state law by not including a “disclaimer” to announce who paid for and authorized the call.
The call was voiced by a crying child, and included a link to a website that not only attacks John, but attacks John’s wife and his father – a decorated Vietnam veteran.
The child these individuals used to make the phone calls sounded to be under 5 years old. What kind of person uses a toddler to conduct a political smear?
To involve a small child in such a dirty political trick is appalling. To make such scurrilous charges is unethical. To conduct these calls without including a disclaimer is unlawful.
We have received reports of these calls from incensed convention delegates all over the Commonwealth. From these reports, it is almost certain that this call was delivered to the list of 2009 convention delegates (a list that has only been made available to the Republican Party of Virginia and our statewide campaigns). If this is the case, it means that either a campaign is conducting this desperate effort, or a campaign has given the delegate list to a third party to conduct the effort on its behalf. It means the individual or individuals responsible for this attack have almost certainly been in some form of contact with one of the other statewide campaigns.
Our state election laws help protect the integrity of our political process. Enforcement of these laws helps ensure our elections are conducted in an open, transparent manner.
Accordingly, we will ask the appropriate Virginia law enforcement agencies to begin a thorough investigation of this incident.
If we Republicans are to be successful in Virginia statewide elections again, we must stand up against those in our midst who would pollute our politics with cynical, illegal acts. We must declare that the days of political dirty tricks in Virginia are over.
This is up on Bob McDonnell’s web site. The question has been put to the candidates as to their stands on the “card-check” legislation that seeks to remove employees’ right to secret ballots when unions want to move into their shops. Here’s how they answered:
Only Bob McDonnell is concerned with keeping employees’ voting rights in shop “organization” efforts intact.
I noted over at Too Conservativethis link to a great endorsement of John Brownlee for AG. From Virginia Qui Tam Law:
When it comes to litigation by or against the Commonwealth, the buck stops on the desk of the Attorney General. It is the AG that makes the final call on whether to settle a case or press forward, and everyone in the office knows that. We need an AG who is used to making the tough calls in high-stakes litigation.
And that is why we need John Brownlee as our next Attorney General. Brownlee was not just any old U.S. Attorney—he was an important one, and one with a national reputation.
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter