An attack call on John Brownlee was released yesterday to delegates across the commonwealth (except to me…bummer, no audio, but someone sent me the audio, which is at the end of this post), which has a small child crying that they put “grandpa” in jail; the call also failed to include a disclaimer.
Who is grandpa and who is they?
“Grandpa” is likely 78-year-old World War II veteran Ronald Blair Testerman. “They” is former U.S. attorney John Brownlee. The crime – selling four privately-owned weapons to undercover ATF agents at a Washington County trading post without a license.
Brownlee sought an aggressive 33-month penalty in jail for Testerman, which the judge downgraded to four months of home detention and a $1000 fine.
Therefore, the basis for the calls is whether John Brownlee, the candidate for Attorney General, who has sought to proclaim his NRA credentials during the campaign, truly is a 2nd Amendment candidate.
Brownlee, understandably, questions the calls legality and ethics.
“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.”
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.
The debate over this case being brought into campaign context should be whether a U.S. attorney should use his judgment when pursuing sentencing or sentence to the maximum extent of the law…and whether that same judgment will extend to his service as attorney general.
The question is: will delegates remember the call’s message or its messenger?
[display_podcast]
More perspective:
Star City Harbinger 1 and 2
Roanoke Valley Republicans 1, 2, and 3.
