Virginia’s Polarizing Attorney General

“…a defender of the Constitution eager to rewrite parts of it.”

Um, news flash: Republican = radical extremist. Get used to it (and where have you been?).

The beltway loves to give attention to right wing reactionaries beyond their real importance.
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/12/can_haley_recover.php?ref=fpblg
.

In the wake of Haley Barbour’s Jim Crow face plant last week various commentators are weighing in to take stock of whether it’s a bump in the road or the end of his hopes of running for president in 2012.

Back on Planet Earth, though, a different story can be told.

Let’s state it flat out. You have to be deeply, securely, and no doubt permanently encased in the DC cocoon ever to have thought that Haley Barbour was a serious presidential candidate. Really, people. Any number of things would have to change to make Barbour a remotely credible presidential candidate — starting with erasing the image of Boss Hogg from the cultural memory of every American over the age of 30. And that would probably be one of the easier tasks on the list.

Boss Hog!
.
LOL!
.

.
I have an excuse for watching that show when it was on the air starting when I was eight years old. By the time I was eleven it was a little too immature for me.

Thank you Alex for trying to provide us with another discussion topic, but it only adds to this interesting bit of information. Comparison of number of articles about conservative v. liberal politicians.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/23/opinion-conservative-media-bias-exposed/

Thanks Ivy. The megaphone is surely on the right.
.
Patrick, Josh Marshall usually doesn’t get snarky. I must say I loved the Boss Hogg comment.

apr. +1

you continue to provide good commentary and entertainment. fyi. my keyboard is now covered with ginger ale thanks to you.

Wow, this article is so incredibly moronic, it is mind-boggling! First of all, the author is trying to redefine the word “activist.” If you want an “activist” attorney general, look at Connecticut’s attorney general Blumenthal, not Ken Cuccinelli. And how is he an “unabashed partisan” if he goes against the Republican party at times? That does not even make any sense. It is also funny how the author uses weasel-words like “critics” and “opponents” instead of describing who they really are–liberal democrat activists. The tone of this article is that of a hit-piece and the point-of-view of the author is that of a cry-baby liberal weenie. Therefore, one can conclude that the author fears Mr. Cuccinelli for fighting the establishment, and that is a good reason to support him.

My bad, really. It’s the complacency of the Village scribes in the face of “conservative” extremism that’s really the problem. They can never be shocked enough.

What I actually find disturbing about this is the trend for people in positions like Attorney General to be advocates for a political point of view rather than impartial advocates for the law on behalf of all the people.

Thanks for your holiday wishes, Alex Altman, I sincerely hope that you are enjoying the season so far.

A state attorney general guarding the rights of th e citizens that elected him is polarizing but a US Attorney General who files briefs against the citizens and military wishes of his country and sides with terrorists and criminals is what? A swell guy and scholar?
.
I see the MSM leftists are warming up to pitch for the liberal home team in the 2012 elections a bit early.

Kudos to Alex for throwing something up & regrets that you’re not among your vacationing colleagues. That said, this topic = pffft

We are going to pay for our beleifs w/ our democracy. One side doesn’t care as long as it wins.

http://underprotest.bandvista.com/

“…tweaked the state seal to cover the bare breast of the Roman goddess Virtus…”

He’s opposed to breasts?

I love breasts!

What if half of all Americans love breasts and the other half have breasts?

Who’s his constituency, flat chested anorexic women?

“What if half of all Americans love breasts and the other half have breasts?”
.
That’s probably ideal. If the half who loved them also had them, you’d never get us to leave the house.

“If the half who loved them also had them, you’d never get us to leave the house.”
.
I disagree. We’d go out once in a while to buy them pretty things. Maybe a card too. “Thanks for the mammaries.”

“I disagree. We’d go out once in a while to buy them pretty things.”
.
Perhaps. Even money we’d starve to death before we got that bored. No lactating.

Ivy and Apr: I agree that there are a bunch of pols who get way more ink than they should. (I wouldn’t count Cuccinelli among them, fwiw.) I disagree that it’s b/c “the megaphone is surely on the right,” even though a bunch of those pols are conservative. Part of it is assignment editors responding to demand, part of it is the natural impulse to rubberneck human train wrecks, part of it is genuine curiosity about what makes people tick or what the new guy on the block is up to. No doubt we often disagree about who and what is newsworthy. But it’s usually not b/c “the Beltway” or “Village scribes” are conspiring to inflate one side’s impact. Those generalizations are no more useful or accurate than those about bloggers and commenters writing from in their parents’ basements.
.
Not that it’s on you to oblige me, or that this point is directed at you specifically, but I’d rather hear why my story sucks (or doesn’t!) than why “the Village” sucks or what I should’ve been covering instead. Even if you think I’m a statist shill or a “cry baby liberal weenie.” (Hat tip to the gentleman or lady below.) There’s a ton to learn from the collective knowledge and intelligence kicking around this blog, but there’s not a lot we can do with generalized harangues about the state of the media. (And believe me, I share some of those frustrations.)
.
Anyway, thanks as always for reading.

I’d rather hear why my story sucks
.
Okay, first off, you write about the political side of Cuccinelli’s actions, essentially saying “he’s not really a politician but he’s acting like one.”
.
But his suits and subpoenas against climate scientists and the EPA could have serious consequences. I think you need to go into the ramifications of what he’s attempting.
Why is he launching these attacks? Do his reasons have any substance to them? We already know that “some people” disagree with what he’s doing, but is there an objective basis for their disagreement?
.
Two: Did you think to challenge this at all?
.

His 14 seasons as a youth-basketball referee, he says, were a perfect preparation for the controversies he’s weathered

.
Because that sounds really really dumb to me. You just slip it in with no remark, but how am I to believe that 14 seasons of refereeing has prepared him for anything?
.
Three: Did you think to challenge this at all?
.

a defender of the Constitution eager to rewrite parts of it

.
There’s a whole context there that you’re not mentioning: so many conservatives who ran last fall claimed to be defenders of the Constitution, but they wanted to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments, among other changes:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025024.php
.
Four: Why do I care what Mark Rozell has to say about him? He’s basically just giving Cuccinelli a big high five – there’s no discussion of what it means for him to be a true believer. How would Cuccinelli’s vision change America?
.
Five: You quote Rozell, you quote Viguerie, you quote one of Cuccinelli’s friends, but you only get one quote from a critic, Francesca Grifo.
That’s probably why Ivy_B is highlighting a perceived emphasis on conservative messages.
.
.
.
Also, your piece doesn’t have any examples of this, but far too often I see unattributed quotes.
“Aides said” or “sources in the Pentagon say” or “a retired general says”; and never with any reason given.
.
I know you guys prize access but really, when you put out a piece that has no names in it, that piece is worthless to me.

Alex: Thank you for responding. There have been numerous articles on Cuccinelli. Considering his status he is an example of the media echo chamber.
.
Whose demand is the assignment editor listening to? POLITICO, Halperin, Drudge? Was their a big demand from outside the traditional media to have another article on Cuccinelli and his issues?
.
Many of us criticize because we see the same unnamed sources,pundits, politicians, and “experts” trotted out for comment in both print and broadcast. We are looking to hear from real “experts” about real issues, not the latest tweet by Sarah or the latest political game.
.
Let me put it this way, many of us are looking for knowledge beyond the trivial and obvious. Alex, we appreciate your profession and recognize when important information has been put forward. We selfishlessly look for and expect journalism that educates and enlightens.

You would rather be told you suck? Hmmmmm………….
Why should that matter to me, your reader?

“…it’s usually not b/c “the Beltway” or “Village scribes” are conspiring to inflate one side’s impact.”
.
Alex (I’ll do you the courtesy of addressing you directly), it’s not a conspiracy, at least not in the conspiratorial sense. And your article didn’t suck, at least within established corporate media conventions: value and context-free, matter-of-fact and falsely equivalent. You see, it is indeed a “generalized harangue…about the state of the media” that is called for because you, as an individual, aren’t responsible for the abysmal level of political engagement and understanding by the general public, your entire industry is. For example, within your valueless, post-modern journalistic conventions, the concerted effort – some might call it a conspiracy – to roll back 70 or 150 years of American progress can be described thusly:

That civil-libertarian streak is often obscured by his small-government bent and staunch federalism. Cuccinelli believes government has sprawled beyond its constitutional territory, and his fights to roll it back has made him a standard bearer for a virulent brand of conservatism that has found favor in recent months.

But thank you for engaging with commentary and particularly for discussing your perspective on the workings and motives you experience within your industry. I’m bottomlessly curious about how they came to be, as they seem to serve movement conservatisms’ efforts to indoctrinate the public mind with idiotic “conservative” dogma quite effectively. That may sound a tad conspiratorial but I’m quite sure that it all takes place well above your pay grade so don’t you worry about it one bit. I’m sure everything will work out OK regardless of your personal motives.

Well said Shepherd.

This is a long post Alex but it is an example of what some liberals mean.
.
Who will the traditional media listen to, Greider or the talking heads McMahon and Harris, political hacks that have nothing but talking points? Who among you is seriously questioning the Catfood Commission? Brokaw was on MTP and Scarborough the last 2 days stating that Obama must listen to business people. He has ignored them. Huh? Has he ever noticed who makes up the Obama economic advisor contingent?
.
The meme now is the middle class and poor must sacrifice. When will the rich feel the pain? We have spent our treasure rescuing them from the felonious actions, yet they are free, enjoying huge salaries and bonuses. The olicharchy wins.
.
Our skepticism might derive from media failures regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Enron, Great Recession, etc.
.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html
.

Trudy Lieberman interviewed William Grieder about Social Security that’s worth reading in its entirety. But this point about media coverage is especially worth contemplating:

TL: Are reporters disconnected from the public?

WG: Reporters are so embedded in the established way of understanding things. They are distanced from people at large and don’t spend much time trying to see why ordinary people see things differently from the people in power—and why people are often right about things.

TL: Is this different than in the past?

WG: Yes. In the last twenty years, as media ownership became highly concentrated, the gulf between the governing elites, both in and out of government, and the broad range of ordinary citizens has gotten much worse. The press chose to side with the governing elites and look down on the citizenry as ignorant or irrational, greedy, or even nutty.

TL: Why is this so?

WG: The press is dangerously over-educated itself, in that reporters have developed different kinds of expertise themselves. And that brings them closer to their sources, more motivated to write for their approval. All this technocratic expertise encourages them to take a condescending view of the people they are writing for, especially in finance and economics. If all the elite experts assume Social Security is a problem, a reporter would lose respect if he or she seriously examined the counter arguments. Frankly, most political reporters don’t have a clue about the real facts. They write about Social Security as if it were just another welfare program. They do not seem to understand the surpluses are actually the savings of American workers—the money set aside for future retirement. This is virtuous behavior—the opposite of greed or the recklessness of financial elites.

[…}
TL: Who is representing the public in this debate?

WG: The same people who rallied the public against Social Security privatization in the Bush administration. They have organized again. Some are the same players. Labor is on the barricades. Some righteous members of Congress. But in general the mass media don’t go to those dissenting voices. Instead, they are reporting factual errors as correct opinion.

TL: What do you want the press to do?

WG: I am daring reporters to go and find out the truth about this and report it. I’m not asking them to draw big conclusions or to assert their opinions. Just be honest reporters. It’s so frustrating to see the coverage. I’m not asking reporters to change any minds. I’m just asking them to do some real reporting. I mean, go to the facts—the actuarial records—and talk to a variety of experts. Reporters ring up the same sources and ask them how to think about Social Security.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

But right now, you can’t feel very confident about any of that happening. This is from today’s Hardball:

Chris Matthews: Let me talk down the road the big stuff because we all know, gentlemen that the country has a 13 trillion dollar debt and we can talk about economic growth and we can all talk about economic growth the economy, we all know that sometimes it just doesn’t grow, some years it just doesn’t grow. There’s always going to be a business cycle, there’s always going to be downturns. So my question to you is, Todd, here’s the question. We saw what came out of that bipartisan commission just a few weeks ago. We saw the immediate knee jerk reaction of Nancy Pelosi, we saw the immediate reaction of some of the Republican members of the House. The president did get 14 of the 18 members, of that commission.

Is there a potential that he could cut deals with Coburn who is much respected on issues like fiscal policy and bringing in other leading Democrats as well, recognizing that that the appropriators won’t like it, that Pelosi won’t like it, that the unions won’t like it, that he has to get past those people or he will get nothing done on the fiscal area? If the president waits for the unions, if he waits for the usual interest groups to say yes, it will never get done. He has to form a coalition around them.

Todd Harris (GOP strategist): You’re absolutely right and I think the best way to do that will be to include some significant entitlement reform as part of that package

Matthews: Yeah

Todd Harris: .. because there’s no way to talk about deficit reduction without doing it. Until people in Washington are ready to have an adult conversation about entitlement all this talk about spending and the deficit is all a bunch of noise, because as we all know that’s where the money’s going.

Steve McMahon (Democratic strategist): I think you’re absolutely right. And for the president this year, coming out and basically saying that we’ve had some major accomplishments in the past two years and now we have to concentrate on the deficit and getting spending under control and working with Republicans just like he worked with them on the measures he just passed, he’ll benefit politically and the country will benefit over the long term. Because we can’t afford to continue on the path we’re on and it does seem to be that serious people on the left and the right are recognizing the importance of compromise. And the deficit commission had plenty in there for everybody to not like. But there’s also a path to fiscal sanity and I think we’ve got people ready to move that forward.

We’ve got Senator Corker and Senator Mark Warner in a bipartisan fashion to try to do something in the Senate working on that and I think we’re going to see some people like that who come from the business world into politics and who understand finance and understand the implications of what we’re doing.

Jesus, I sure hope Steve McMahon has just been spending too much time drinking the eggnog at Village holiday parties and isn’t speaking for the entire establishment. If he is, then my more cynical fears are correct and I’ve never wanted more to be wrong about anything more. (He did seem a little slurry, so maybe the nog was heavily spiked …)

If any of the reporters want to hear another view, here’s an excellent piece about the ramifications of that vaunted compromise payroll tax holiday by former congressman Robert Weiner.

“The meme now is the middle class and poor must sacrifice. When will the rich feel the pain? We have spent our treasure rescuing them from the felonious actions, yet they are free, enjoying huge salaries and bonuses. The olicharchy wins.”
.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
.
It’s as simple as this for me:
.
Who feels the pain economically more from either a $2,000 (to pick a random number) tax increase for somebody making, say, $150,000 per year or a $500 cut in social security benefits out of $10,000 per year.
.
How much will spending decrease for each of the two?
.
The decrease in spending will be far less for the person making $150k per year than the SSI recipient earning only $10,000 per year.
.
The modern right wing is Robin Hood turned backwards, take from the poor and give to the rich.

Yes, a good example of Village convention. Perhaps Alex can explain why the Village convention is to always referred to our deficit solution as “entitlement reform,” when, from a deficit perspective, the only thing that matters is slowing the growth of heath care costs. Why don’t Beltway journalists and pundits ever talk about health care costs when opining about the deficit, when that’s the only thing that really matters? I’m sure that no one is conspiring to do harm but how did that completely idiotic “conservative” frame come to be the common deficit convention within all of Belyway journalism?

Thanks for reading Cliff. To some of your points:
.
I think I say what the potential ramifications of the UVA civil investigative demand are — a chilling effect for scientists, an inability to attract talent, etc. As for the legitimacy of Cuccinelli’s case, as I note multiple panels (scientific and academic) have assessed and rejected the idea that Michael Mann committed fraud, as well as a judge. One thing I’d do differently if I had another whack is pick a different quote from Grifo — it should have been on how this is settled science, not on his political motivations.
.
I included the referee quote partly because it echoes the umpire theory of jurisprudence John Roberts put forth in his confirmation hearings. We know how that turned out. My next sentence — it tends to be the same people on the wrong side of his whistle — is meant to indicate I’m not accepting it uncritically.
.
Re: “a defender of the Constitution eager to rewrite parts of it” — that’s my phrase, and I think it speaks for itself. I realize he’s not alone in this apparent contradiction–I’ve written about it before–and while the context is relevant, I’m not sure it warrants inclusion in an individual profile at the expense of space and narrative flow. (We do get word counts online.)
.
As is literally always the case, there are a number of other spots I’d rework now with the clarity of hindsight, but our pub schedule usually doesn’t afford that opportunity, which is one reason why I like to bat this stuff around.

Rewrite the constitution? What does that charge mean in specfics?
He did challenge the scope of the Commerce clause and challenged the assumed unchecked power to tax a resident for noncommercial activity. I have no problem with that challenge to Health Care mandate 2010 anymore than do the 21 states that joined VA.
.
The federal courts have been dominated by liberals and now a conservative takes action; I see resentment.

But the legal merit of challenging scope of Commerce clause for taxing noncommercial activity is valid.
Cel

vgvg1,
.
Excellent Post and analysis.
.
This is a Conservative Bashing site with primarily Extreme Liberal/Progressive commenters. If you visit this site on a regular bases you will notice that there are lots of posts but only about 10 L/P doing the posting. Small site for small L/P minds.

celador2,
.
“He did challenge the scope of the Commerce clause and challenged the assumed unchecked power to tax a resident for noncommercial activity. I have no problem with that challenge to Health Care mandate 2010 anymore than do the 21 states that joined VA.”
.
But he is not an Obama or L/P supporter and therefore must be demonized and destroyed. It’s the Liberal mind set. If you don’t believe as they do you are evil.
.
It doesn’t matter that 21 other AGs support the law suit he has championed. He won in the courts so far and must be singled out and called a radical and destroyed. Liberals don’t really believe in Democracy. If the views of the majority of our citizens don’t fit their views than they are extremist. L/Ps are a brain dead lot.

Congratulations to Ken for standing up to this tyrannical regime and attempting to protect the Constitution and our rights guaranteed therein.
How ironic is it that the left wing Democrats and media try to label those that stand up for America, the Consitution and American laws and values as “polarizing”?

You anti-American libs/progressives. neocommies may want to look into the addition of “death panels” to the so-called health care reform act after the fact. The rule of law and the will of the American people mean nothing to these leftists in their quest permanently take over America.

Small site for small L/P minds.

More “mature commentary” from you, eh gramps?
..
Do as I say, not as I do seems to be your modus operandi. Some things never change.

It’s reassuring to see that you remain stupid as ever ricardo. There are no “death panels” despite what morons like you profess. Ignorance such as yours seems to persist in the face of all facts. Unbelievable.

” …sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its plan to regulate greenhouse gases.. advised that the state’s public colleges lack authority to bar discrimination against gays and lesbians…and subpoenaed the University of Virginia to probe for evidence that a former professor manipulated climate-science research.”
.
So, he does not believe in air.
.
If he believes in air, then he knows that greenhouse gases move over state lines and, therefore, impact interstate commerce.
.
He does not believe in the same clause that defends black students from discrimination. 3Bobfire3, you often mention that your grandchildren are half African American. Yet you agree with a man who would let universities discriminate against them. Obviously you can not pick out and say that gays can not be protected while blacks and Latinos can be. Either the federal government can prevent universities from discriminating or they can’t.
.
Then he subpoenas researchers and accuses them of fraud with no evidence.
.
Next is he going subpoena the economics department when they say that tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy the way that public works projects do?
.
Is he going to subpoena the math department for saying that it is impossible to pay off deficits by cutting taxes?
.
He is defending the constitution by wishing to ignore or change the 14th Amendment?
.
This is not what any reasonable conservative would wish to have representing them.
.
Also, of course, if you still had some testosterone left in your frail body, you’d miss the breasts, too.

“Re: “a defender of the Constitution eager to rewrite parts of it” — that’s my phrase, and I think it speaks for itself. I realize he’s not alone in this apparent contradiction–I’ve written about it before–and while the context is relevant, I’m not sure it warrants inclusion in an individual profile at the expense of space and narrative flow. (We do get word counts online.)”
.
“Lying hypocrite” is only two words.

diecash1,
.
“Small site for small L/P minds.”
.
Can’t handle the truth?

You are correct. Liberals will do anything to win. They really don’t believe in Democracy.

I guess that most liberal progressive neocommies choose to keep their head buried in the sand least they see or hear some inkling of truth. The story is readily available. Even some so-called “mainstream” media outlets are writing about it.