http://roanokevalleyrepublicans.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-thoughts-from-attorney-general.html

Foster had his moments too but there’s no real debating that the two worst answers of the night were his. I’ll put up my thoughts on our blog when I have a chance but I thought Holsworth’s article was almost dead on and I wanted to drop a quick comment here.

If the debate had simply ended here, I would declared Brownlee the winner on points.

Yet at a crucial moment, the debate turned in an unexpected way in which Brownlee provided an opening for Cuccinelli and Foster (and perhaps for the Democrats in the fall if he receives the GOP nod).

…

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.

Both Cuccinelli and Foster understood right away that Brownlee had potentially dug himself a hole and declined to follow his lead. I think that Cuccinelli intutively knew that Brownlee’s position was akin to one that conservatives have consistently criticized liberal judges for holding: substituting their own moral judgment for a strict reading of the constitution.

Cuccinelli reiterated that the Attorney General has to be guided by the Constitution. If the General Assembly passed or considered legislation that was personally discomforting but constitutional, Cuccinelli maintained that he would work with his political allies to develop legislative countermeasures.

Foster’s criticism was even more direct, saying that he did not believe it was the Attorney General’s role to overturn the will of the popularly elected representatives of the people when they acted constitutionally and that he uncomfortable with the prospect of an Attorney General using his own moral filter to respond to legislation.

It seems to me that Cuccinelli’s and Foster’s positions are not only far more traditional, but are far less less likely to cause problems in the November election.

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 felt that Brownlee had a clear advantage in this part of the debate. He recognized that a statewide campaign needs an overarching theme that often goes beyond the particular set of issues with which your candidacy might be associated. And he did an especially good job in weaving his own background as a military officer and a prosecutor into a broader political appeal. Moreover, he has developed through his courtroom experience an enviable capacity for succint arguments and effective sound bites.

Brownlee derided Cuccinelli as only a regional candidate. And while this, I think, is clearly wrong inasmuch as Cuccinelli has a statewide base, it touches on a matter to which he should pay some attention. The AG campaign won’t simply be the Fairfax contests writ large. In downticket statewide races, voters often get to know only one or two key themes of a candidate. And Cuccinelli would do well to take a page out of Brownlee’s book and think about how his set of issues can be woven together into a compelling theme that can frame a statewide candidacy.

JB4AG