It’s one of the oldest political tricks in the book. When you don’t want to run against a candidate, run against a caricature of the candidate instead. And there isn’t a single political figure in Virginia who can lay a better claim to the title of “most caricatured” than Ken Cuccinelli. In the last six months of the gubernatorial campaign season, the Democratic message against the Attorney General has been relatively simple:
1.) He’s too extreme.
2.) He’s crazy, kookie and a crackpot.
3.) Did we mention he’s too extreme?
That’s it. There’s no substantive message there, no praise for their own candidate, or even an explanation as to why a national political operative with zero legislative experience, tenuous ties to Virginia and more political baggage than Mark Sanford would make a better choice for Governor of our commonwealth. The Democrats are taking a lesson out of the playbook Mitt Romney used unsuccessfully against Barack Obama – they are essentially asking “how can you possibly vote for this guy” and expecting folks to agree with them. Well, it didn’t work against Obama and it’s not likely to work against Cuccinelli.
Why? Because guys like me in the middle aren’t going to buy that nonsense.
I’ve never been persuaded by the “he/she’s too extreme” argument, even when it’s being made against people I don’t like. The primary reason why I don’t like it is that I view it as a cynical attempt to scare people into voting a certain way. Motivation by fear rarely works, especially with the American people because (contrary to popular belief and the claims of some on the right, especially the liberty movement) Americans don’t scare easily. As Edward R. Murrow once said “We will not walk in fear, one of another . . . if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men…” It takes more than one elected official advocating stances on issues that I disagree with to scare me or my fellow Virginians. Fear doesn’t work because our founding fathers developed a system that puts the brakes on extremes and makes it inherently difficult to get anything done that doesn’t have a high level of support from both parties. And deep down, most people know that.
VPAP – I honestly don’t know what Virginia would do without it – has a great infographic that illustrates this point perfectly. Last session of the General Assembly, of the 2,574 bills that were introduced, 1,526 of them passed. Of those that passed, only 40 were truly contested substantive pieces of legislation, like the budget, where the bill had less than 60% of the legislature voting in favor. Truly extreme pieces of legislation die or are significantly altered in the legislative process, because nobody can sell something that is truly extreme to the wider electorate. Just look at the transvaginal ultrasound issue – that bill is a perfect example of where an “extreme” piece of legislation was altered to become relatively innocuous thanks to significant opposition, despite the fact that Republicans had the votes to jam it through. That’s how the legislative process is supposed to work, and it makes it hard for any one man or woman, even a governor, to enact an “extreme” agenda. Our system of government was designed specifically to bar those kinds of extreme positions from being enacted into law, and that system still works today. If you truly believe in the constitution, you have to recognize that fact.
Now, don’t let my use of the word “extreme” fool you into thinking that I buy the left’s characterization that Ken Cuccinelli is extreme. I don’t. The Democrats would love for Ken to be the next Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O’Donnell – they fully him to expect him to implode like those candidates did. That’s because they’ve fallen in love with their own argument against Ken, and have been blinded to reality. And that reality is exactly what they don’t want to hear: the AG is a smart, savvy and consistent elected official, someone who is too disciplined to fall into the traps that snared Akin, Mourdock and many other Republicans, most of whom don’t have the experience Ken has. Akin, Mourdock and others made the mistake of giving voice to ridiculous statements that were clearly outside the mainstream, not only in the broader electorate, but also in their party.
Ken hasn’t done that and he won’t do that. His views on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues are well within the mainstream of the Republican party and the conservative movement.
Fundamentally, there are two questions the left can’t answer about Ken Cuccinelli and their claim of his extremism. 1) Where’s the beef? If Ken is truly as extreme and hell bent on enacting his extreme agenda, there has to have been some impact, given his tenure in the Senate and statewide. Where is it? 2) Why does he keep winning elections? If he’s so unelectable because of his stances on issues, why has he won every single race since his first election?
Ken Cuccinelli is not the caricature he’s made out to be. Just looking at his background, where he came from and the issues he’s championed over the years makes that clear. There aren’t exactly a lot of Republicans out there championing the social justice movement, opposing expansion of the death penalty, and pushing for greater resources for solving mental health issues. But Ken has. That’s one of the things that so confounds the left and their caricatures – every time they think they’ve got him boxed in, he blows up their caricature by doing something they can’t explain.
Simply repeating that someone is extreme over and over doesn’t make it so. And that’s really all the left has been doing, because that’s really all they’ve got. If you look at Ken and Terry together side by side, this is race is a no-brainer. McAuliffe has absolutely no credible experience to prepare him for a role as the chief executive in one of the largest states of the union. Ken has ample experience and has proven he can handle statewide responsibilities.
Don’t let the left’s fearmongering fool you. Ken is the better candidate.
