Ken Cuccinelli's Agenda, Steve Shannon's Aimlessness

In Virginia the Gubernatorial races are in full swing, as are the elections for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. The latter is of special interest due to the extremely rare breed of the Republican candidate, State Senator Ken Cuccinelli (pronounced "Koo-chen-el-ee"), and the exceptional message he represents. I will likely write about him often, but quite honestly, I'm finding that most people just can't say enough about the man who is even admired by his critics for his unwavering dedication to America's founding principles and sincere devotion to serving his constituents rather than the other way around. Yes, Ken Cuccinelli is here to stay.

For now, I'd like to comment on a shockingly under-reported, and therefore largely ignored, debate that took place on June 20th in Virginia Beach between Senator Cuccinelli and his Democrat opponent, Steve Shannon. I'm not exagerrating "shockingly under-reported"... there was only one press review of the debate by "Virginia Lawyers Weekly" and no other reporters were present.

You can read the (literally) incomparable Lawyers Weekly report here: http://www.valawyersweekly.com/weeklyedition/2009/06/29/cuccinelli-shannon-face-off-in-ag-debate/

It's a shame more people didn't/don't know about this revealing dialogue.
Of special interest was the issue regarding just what, exactly, is the main objective of the Attorney General's office. According to the Lawyers Weekley report, "Cuccinelli said that the attorney general’s legislative agenda was the third-most important each year on Capitol Hill, behind that of the governor and the speaker of the House." And he would know, having served on Capitol Hill for the past 7 years.
Shannon, on the other hand, seemed be weakly to echoing the conservative "no activist judges" line, which would be commendable, were it not for the fact that he's not running for the position of Judge, but Attorney General. He stated that it is his belief that the Attorney General's job to enforce the law and nothing beyond. Again, this would sound more reasonable and relevant if he were running for Sheriff or Judge, and even then he would still have to come up with positions on the issues eventually. Apparently this is something Shannon struggles with; as one blogger reviewed the debate, "members of the Virginia State Bar and Virginia’s current Attorney General Bill Mims could witness first hand Steve Shannon’s unwillingness to state a position on any major issue... indicative of a man without any sense of direction."
How convenient to take a one-answer-fits-all approach on the tough and complex issues of the day by copping out with the "that's not my prerogative" line. How... political.

I'm not criticizing his opinion on law enforcement, I'm just wondering if he knows the position he's actually running for. A non-biased, ambitionless approach is right, if not necessary, for a judge to properly fulfill his/her role of applying the established law to any given case. The attorney's role, in contrast, demands a verdict (no pun intended). It is the attorney's sole objective to persuade the judge. Any lawyer who intendeds to continue being a lawyer must walk into the court room with an agenda which he aims to push aggressively to persuade the judge to rule in favor of his side of the case. By very definition, an attorney must choose sides. Cuccinelli understands this, and is being honest and upfront with the voters of Virginia by clearly laying out his position on the issues. In a recent interview with National Review Online, Cuccinelli frankly stated, "“The point is to accomplish the agenda,” he says. What is the agenda? “I’m running to advance a more limited-government, pro-family agenda. The founding fathers would approve.” Well at least we all know.

Judges are appointed, and not elected, because in theory they are not representing anything but the law. An attorney is different, and an elected attorney much more so. The candidates have every right - if not the responsibility - to clearly outline their ideals and agenda like good and honest politicians. And if the last statement seems like an oxymoron, it's because far too many candidates like Shannon are successful at saying nothing, standing for nothing and therefore accomplishing nothing. Why do we the voters feel cheated when we voted for a man who wasn't honest with us to begin with?

Both candidates claim to understand that the AG is a representative of the voters, so they should have no problem taking a stance on the issues and letting the people decide which viewpoint they'd rather have representing them. This is exactly what Ken Cuccinelli is doing admirably, and Shannon should stop misleading the public and get to work explaining himself to the voters.