HoodaThunk?

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.