Yes, I know. I’m doing 2 Brownlee posts in 1 day. At the risk of sounding like I’m being paid or something by a particular campaign – and I’m not, in case anyone’s wondering – I feel it critical to address something that landed in my mailbox this afternoon. This was a 4-page slick from the Foster for AG campaign titled, “Voter Guide.” Inside, it has, in a columnar format, the 3 candidate’s stances on 6 major topics. Now, it’s not bad that something like this is put out by a campaign and it can be extremely usefull for comparison purposes but you should never forget that it’s been published at the order of one of the candidates. You need to take anything asserted there with a grain of salt and do your homework to be sure what you’re reading is accurate and fair.
Case in point, the section titled, “Taxes.” Foster touts his own record, of course, but under Brownlee’s column he just puts, “John Brownlee has no record on taxes.” That’s it, leaving the average reader to think Brownlee’s slacking off or hiding something. The reason Brownlee has “no record” on taxes is because he’s not been a legislator in his career like Foster and Cuccinelli have. Ditto the “John Brownlee has no business experience” comment in the “Jobs” section. Brownlee’s career has been one of public service both in the US Attorneys office and in the military. Again I have to point out that experience in the job for which one is applying (as Brownlee is doing by running for the office) is a good thing, not a problem.
The part that raised my immediate interest, however, was under the section marked, “Interpreting the Constitution.” For this section, Foster writes of Brownlee:
‘John Brownlee accepts the liberal argument that we should impose our own “moral filter” to interpret the constitution. http://virginiatomorrow.com/2009/02/18/the-gop-attorney-general-debate/ ‘
(I’ve linked the article for you so you can go see yourself.) The vast majority of people who read this political ad will never once go to look at the source material and, I fear, the Foster campaign knows that all too well. The link provides some kind of credibility to the assessment Foster makes, here, even if people don’t know anything about the web site in question. Well, I’m not in that majority, I do go check out source material, and I read the whole thing. That’s how I know the person who wrote the article, Bob Holsworth, thinks the debate Foster has pulled this attribution from was won by John Brownlee.
In my opinion, Brownlee did a superb job explaining how he would frame a general election choice against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee, Steve Shannon, and why his background as a U.S. Attorney was especially relevant. He argued that the public has come to expect (even if some argue that it is not the essential part of the job) that the Attorney General will serve as Virginia’s top prosecutor and as overall advocate for the public against bad guys and illegal practices. In terms of the more conventional administrative part of the position, he maintained that the varied responsibilities of the U.S. Attorney and his work with a range of federal, state and local agencies was excellent preparation for the AG’s leadership of the people’s law firm. It is, he said, essentially the same job.
I encourage you to read the whole article because there’s good stuff in there about all 3 candidates. I will concede that I don’t know the author nor do I have access to transcripts of the debate to positively confirm that he’s reporting what was really said. Holsworth does, indeed, mention the “moral filter” issue Foster references and I have no real reason to distrust his reporting. Holsworth describes a question asked by moderator Jay Warren that queried the 3 candidates on what they’d do if they personally disagreed with a legitimately passed law. Cuccinelli, he reports, said he would be guided by the Constitution. As for Brownlee:
Brownlee articulated a position that was, in part, perfectly consistent with Cuccinelli’s about the responsibility of the AG to uphold the Constitution. But then he took it a step further. He asserted that as Attoney General he would also have to utilize a “moral filter” and that he should not enforce legislation that was clearly immoral.
This is most certainly not the “liberal argument” we conservatives have received on the matter of judicial activism. The liberal argument is “constitution be damned, if it gets in the way of the ’socially progressive’ agenda.” Brownlee accepts the guidance of the Constitution but with a key difference: he understands that the Nuremberg approach of “I was only following orders” didn’t stand as a defense against enforcing morally questionable policies in 1946 and it shouldn’t stand with people of character today. Yes, the term “clearly immoral” depends on the individual’s perception but I take that to mean Brownlee’s reserving that label for laws so clearly immoral that the average Virginian can see that without a law degree. Remember, adherance to the Constitution is an action informed and regulated by your “moral filter” to do what’s right in the context of our society, Commonwealth, and Nation, too.
Holsworth concludes his article, calling the “moral filter” comment a “misstep,” by acknowledging the Brownlee’s experience and political skills make him a strong candidate. I think Brownlee’s opponents are thinking the same thing. Which is why, in my opinion, they’re taking to using vague, out-of-context references to ascribe views to Brownlee that Brownlee doesn’t hold. Again, read the whole article for Holsworth’s whole story.
May 23rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics, Virginia Politics |
2 comments
I’ve mentioned here before that I’m extremely grateful and proud that the GOP is having to choose between 3 extremely qualified candidates this year for the nomination for Virginia Attorney General. I am on the record, and will say so again right here, that I will gladly support whichever of the 3 candidates wins the nomination next weekend.
It’s no secret that I support John Brownlee for AG. I’ve already stated my reasons and the big one remains that, of the 3 candidates, only Brownlee has actually been a prosecutor. Of the 3, only he has actually done the work he will be responsible for managing and directing in the Attorney General’s office. This is not a situation where either Dave Foster or Ken Cuccinelli are unqualified to do the job. It’s a situation where John Brownlee is more qualified.
I understand the impulse to play up the qualities of the candidate you support and to dismiss the qualifications of that candidate’s opponents but it still makes me raise my eyebrows in surprise to see someone suggest that the prime requisite in being an Attorney General for Virginia – the state’s top prosecutor and the person responsible for directing the actions of all of the state’s prosecutors – is not being a prosector. I refer to a post written over at Too Conservative by VA Blogger. (I’ll refer to VA Blogger as VAB as many do in the comment threads. I do so out of expediency and not as a sign of any disrespect.) I respect VAB’s opinions and writing greatly. He’s got clear thinking and a talent for expressing his views without being callous or insulting of others’.
However… (You knew there was a “however” coming, didn’t ya?) In this particular post he makes a premise out of his view on what the natures of the Attorney General’s office and job are and then concludes what qualities are most important on that basis. I would contend that his premise is flawed. From the post, where VAB is responding to comments made by a Cuccinelli supporter as part of his own support for Foster:
After all, Ken Cuccinelli is a legislator, and therefore is equipped to handle the duties of the Attorney General’s office. Well, maybe. I certainly don’t think Cuccinelli isn’t qualified, but let’s look at what the Attorney General really is (and no, you John Brownlee fans, it’s not a prosecutor). The Attorney General runs the largest law firm in the state. Dave Foster is a long-term partner at Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Count that as another line of reasoning Chris believes in that actually supports Dave Foster!
Emphasis mine. It’s a subtle shot across the bow of the U.S.S. Brownlee for AG but it’s a shot nonetheless. I’ve heard it said on many occasions, and I don’t know who said it first, that the AG’s office is like the largest law firm in the state. Let us not forget, however, that it is most certainly no such thing. It’s not a law firm, it’s a law enforcement agency of the state and the Attorney General isn’t a business manager, he’s the top law enforcement officer of Virginia. I would ask how many criminal prosecutions Foster’s law firm has undertaken. (Or Cuccinelli’s, for that matter?) I would then contend the answer is: zero. There’s a reason for that. Criminal prosecutions are the domain of the state, not private practice. There’s a difference between representing a plaintiff in a contract dispute and representing the People in a rape trial or a murder. Brownlee knows the difference well because he’s been there, done that. There’s no learning curve, here, and Brownlee’s assessments of what his office’s priorities would be wouldn’t be viewed through the prism of a private law firm’s contract and tax dispute cases.
We can take a lesson from other states where a race for Attorney General saw 2 opponents where 1 was a prosecutor and other was not. Most recently such a race was run in Missouri, a state that voted Republican in the 2008 Presidential race. Solidly red, they voted solidly for Democrat Chris Koster over Republican Mike Gibbons. Have a look at Koster’s campaign ad to see what he was focused on. It was this point and this alone: I’ve actually been a prosecutor and my opponent hasn’t. It was that simple and it worked. It’ll work here, too, because the Democrat candidate, Steve Shannon, was an Assistant Commonwealth Attorney in Fairfax. He’ll make the same argument as Koster did in Missouri and it’ll pay off with the citizens of Virginia as it did with those in Missouri. Need I remind anyone that Virginia voted with the Democrats in this last election?
The prime requisite for the top law enforcement office in the Commonwealth is very much experience in the job of law enforcement. It’s not enough to have just been a lawyer or even a partner in a private firm. As much as I like Dave Foster and I respect Ken Cuccinelli they don’t have the experience and our Democrat opponent does. We cannot afford to simply hand that advantage over to the Democrats this year and, as Virginians, we shouldn’t accept someone with no experience at the job when a candidate with that experience is available. John Brownlee is the best candidate for this nomination and I urge my fellow Republicans, my fellow delegates to the RPV Convention in Richmond, to support John Brownlee for Attorney General.
May 23rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics, Virginia Politics |
one comment
A report I mentioned a few days ago raised the possibility of the Global Positioning System (GPS) starting to fail as early as 2010. Yesterday, the Air Force put out information clarifying the situation and it’s not as dire as we were led to believe. Gizmodo gets to the crux of the story:
Dropping below 24 satellites was the central concern of the initial report, and the subject of all its various probability calculations: when reporters talk about the 90% chance of GPS degradation by 2017, they were actually referring to the chances of the satellite constellation dipping below 24.
The Air Force is reporting they have 30 satellites in orbit right now with another scheduled to go up later this year and another in 2010. In short, they believe they have more than enough overlap to cover any satellite that fails.
Navigate in confidence, fellow citizens!
May 23rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Military, Science, Technology, The Media |
no comments
…unless you check out news from the UK, of course.
The spectacle of two duelling speeches with a mile of each other in downtown Washington was extraordinary. I was at the Cheney event and watched Obama’s address on a big screen beside the empty lectern that the former veep stepped behind barely two minutes after his adversary had finished.
So who won the fight? (it’s hard to use anything other than a martial or pugilistic metaphor). Well, most people are on either one side or the other of this issue and I doubt today will have prompted many to switch sides.
But the very fact that Obama chose to schedule his speech (Cheney’s was announced first) at exactly the same time as the former veep was a sign of some weakness.
Yep, sure was. Read the rest of the article for the author’s take on, “The 10 punches Dick Cheney landed on Barak Obama’s jaw.”
May 23rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
GWOT, Politics |
no comments
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter