Here is a new, hard hitting ad from Attorney General Candidate, Steve Shannon, criticizing his opponent, Ken Cuccinelli, for his crony politics. Shannon reminds us that "nobody is above the law." A contrast to Cuccinelli who has stated plainly that he won't uphold laws he doesn't agree with. The question is does that extend to choosing which lawbreakers to bring to justice?
5 comments:
Ken Cuccinelli did not pass judgment on the Phil Hamilton situation because, unlike Steve Shannon, Ken understands the Attorney General's office, understands the complete duties of the AG and understands the Code of Virginia. Steve can grandstand all he likes but the fact remains that the AG may be required to officially review this situation and, if warranted, pass it on for legal resolution. Steve has compromised his impartiality and would have to recuse himself if he were the AG since he has prejudged the case. Virginia needs Ken Cuccinelli as its Attorney General.
Not really, Mr. LaCivita.
The feds are already investigating, which means that their investigation will drive the action (stiffer penalties). Ken would not know this because he's not actually worked in law enforcement. And, he's been too worried about black helicopters flying into Virginia from the U.N. to actually learn.
Funny how Ken later "prejudiced" himself in the same way that he thinks Steve somehow did. Seeing him on the losing side of the issue, Ken said that his corrupt buddy should come off the House Appropriations Panel.
I'd like my attorney general to be ready to serve, not need training wheels on his new bicycle.
Calling BS on Key...you're sadly mistaken.
First, the funds that backed the job Hamilton held were solely from the state budget...completely outside the feds jurisdiction and the reason why he's in this whole mess to begin with. No federal charges will ever come from this purported investigation that you speak of.
Second, calling for Hamilton to step down from House Approps and calling for him to resign as Delegate are two completely different things. The first is a legislative matter. His alleged abuse of power was as a member of House Approps, not necessarily as a Delegate. Ken was right to call for him to reign from the committee. As the potential next Attorney General, Ken was also right to not pass judgment on a matter (i.e. not calling for Hamilton to resign as Delegate) that his office will most definitely be dealing with in a few months.
That's why I'm voting for Ken...because he actually knows the law and how to uphold it. He's been a lawyer and a legislator for more than half of Steve's life. Steve Shannon is a imbecile with two years experience as a prosecutor straight out of law school and he's done nothing but show a complete and utter disregard of the law and a completely of knowledge regarding it. Please, keep grasping at straws.
This isn't about Phil Hamilton's questionable deal with ODU, or his opponent's questionable free ride at CNU.
Creigh Deeds is the best choice for Governor, since he will stand-up for the working Men of Virginia; McD won't.
For AG, between Ken Cuccinelli and Steve Shannon, the answer has to be, "None of the above."
Neither has been an effective advocate for the rights of the citizens. In Mr. Shannon's case he openly crows about how eager he is to put more people in jail, when, as a Democrat, we would expect him to be championing EQUAL JUSTICE for ALL. Instead, he comes off sounding like Republican lite. He is also way off base, the way he distorts the threat of "predators" (practically non-existent when compared to other crime) in order to scare the Sally Soccermoms into voting for him.
Mr. Cuccinelli, also has an abysmal record when it comes to standing-up for the citizens and our civil liberties. Like McDonnell, George Allen and most Republicans, Mr. Cuccinelli was mute during the eight years of the Bush regime, while the Bushies pissed all over our Constitution. Not once did any of the Republican leaders here in Virginia speak out against Bush's egregious abuse of government power.
For LG, who really cares?
J. Tyler....
Are you serious? You think because Steve has the desire to ensure that individuals who break laws are not dealt with according to appropriate criminal law is "Republican lite"? Seriously???? There is a key difference between being "tough on crime" and being "smart on crime." Cooch has yet to produce one solution as to how he will go after sex predators, drunk drivers and gang members or anything public safety related.
Your characterization of Steve as being "Republican lite" is very wrong and a slap in the face to every prosecutor and law enforcement officer like me who has to find the proper balance between protecting people like you from criminals and respecting constitutional rights. Why do you "expect" him to be advocating equal justice for all? So you are saying to if someone commits a crime they should be treated differently than those who don't? If someone breaks the law they should be punished, plain and simple. He's not about trying more people in jail, he's about ensuring that those people who commit crimes are punished appropriately.
Post a Comment