Election 2009 actual results: Bob McDonnell 58.6 percent for a 17.4 percent margin of victory. Virtucon rankings are based upon total amount the two numbers deviate from the actual numbers.
1. Survey USA (10/30-11/1) – 58% / 18% (deviation 1.2%)
2. VCU (10/21-25) – 54% / 18% (deviation 5.2%)
3. (TIE) PPP (10/31-11/1) – 56% / 14% (deviation 6%)
3. (TIE) Roanoke College (10/21-27) – 53% / 17% (deviation 6%)
5. Suffolk Univ. (10/26-28) – 54% / 14% (deviation 8%)
6. Rasmussen (10/27) – 54% / 13% (deviation 9%)
7. Washington Post (10/22-25) – 55% / 11% (deviation 10%)
8. Times Dispatch / Mason Dixon (10/28-29) – 53% / 12% (deviation 11%)
9. Daily Kos / Research 2000 (10/26-28) – 54% / 10% (deviation 12%)
10. Virginia Pilot / CNU (10/8-13) – 45% / 14% (deviation 17%)
11. Clarus (10/18-19) – 49% / 8% (deviation 19%)
Next time you see a poll, judge it by its past performance. Here is how they rank in terms of accuracy based upon the 2008 presidential election:
MOST ACCURATE:
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
POLL REVEALED TO BE FRAUDULENT AND REPUDIATED BY DAILYKOS:
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
----------------
(If you're below DailyKos, you don't deserve to be taken seriously for another four years. Better luck in 2012.)
POLLS THAT WERE WORSE THAN A FRAUDULENT POLL:
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweak (10/22-23)
The simplest explanation probably being the most accurate….
My question Jim is Brownlee said this to Kens face, in front of a audience and press, (BTW-The Brownlee and McD are the only Vets running statewide has been stated and wrote about for months) and Ken remains silent about his Marine service?
If Ken is a Marine Veteran why is he hiding the fact? He would be the first silent Marine I’ve ever met.
Last night Brownlee stated the fact the he and McD are the only two veterans running. Cooch was silent. I believe Brownlee.
Brownlee has been saying this and using it in his emails for many weeks.
C’mon guys, I suppose you would have stood up and cheered for Ken if he had corrected Brownlee and used as an example that he graduated OCS! He is not pushing his military background for the very reason that were he to try to mention it in that environment it would be ridiculed. As was stated earlier, while he technically served, he does not personally consider it worth mentioning compared to the many who have sacrificially served.
C’mon RWE…That does not hold water. Not even one drop. Serving your country, especially as a Marine is not something you hide or stay silent on.
Semper Fidelis distinguishes the Marine Corps bond from any other. It goes beyond teamwork – it is a brotherhood and lasts for life.
Latin for “always faithful,” Semper Fidelis became the Marine Corps motto in 1883. It guides Marines to remain faithful to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to country, no matter what.
Semper Fidelis distinguishes the Marine Corps bond from any other. It goes beyond teamwork – it is a brotherhood and lasts for life.
Latin for “always faithful,” Semper Fidelis became the Marine Corps motto in 1883. It guides Marines to remain faithful to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to country, no matter what.
Becoming a Marine is a transformation that cannot be undone, and Semper Fi reminds us of that. Once made, a Marine will forever live by the ethics and values of the Corps.
There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.
Has Cuccinelli released his military records yet to settle this issue once and for all?
I don’t think Ken has ever said he is NOT a Marine. He has simply not trumpeted that fact from the roof-tops. The fact that he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve does not mean he doesn’t hold faithful to the motto.
It’s sure is nice to see that the Brownlee camp is composed of a bunch of frakin’ loons.
Loudoun Insider, where do I request a copy of the records regarding Brownlee’s service in the army? Do me a solid and get him to post them on his campaign website.
Maybe instead of the “smear” being orchestrated by the Brownlee campaign, the statements from the Brownlee campaign prompted his supporters to think about the issue. There probably is no direct connection. We should accept Loudoun Insider, a pseudonymous blogger, at his word that he is acting independently. (I mean this in all seriousness).
At the same time LI needs to take Cuccinelli at his word. T.W. here hits the nail on the head. It is absurd to force a candidate to constantly be verifying every aspect of their history with documentation. Did Cuccinelli graduate from undergrad or from law school? What grades did he get? is he really married, is he lying about his age? Take him at his word for some of this stuff . . .
It is absurd to think that Cuccinelli would be lying about his service, and expect to get away with it. The logical conclusion is that he is telling the truth.
I was at the debate Tuesday night in Roanoke when John’s point was made about being a veteran; and yes, Ken said nothing.
I will also say that on another question where Ken disagreed with another comment made on another issue, Ken very quickly jumped in to respond to that one. While being silent doesn’t mean one thing or another, I can say that Ken Cuccinelli is not a man who stays silent about anything that he believes in.
Ken is quick to defend everything in his record. There’s no way that, if he had truly been a Marine, he wouldn’t stand up and proudly tout that, as well. Let’s be serious. There’s no way that he would let that one pass. Hence it leads to say that he does not, in fact, have a true, military record, and he can clarify that easily if it’s not the case.
The fact is folks, Ken may not consider himself a Veteran based on his very limited service. Note that even in the answer to the roll call posted bio he states he was Marine Corps, 2LT. That’s all it says, a simple statement of fact. Other similar bios list the length of experience in years, whether or not it was Active Duty or Reserves, etc. Ken’s simply stated the fact as it was, nothing more.
“veteran
adjective
1. rendered competent through trial and experience; “a seasoned traveler”; “veteran steadiness”; “a veteran officer” [syn: seasoned]
noun
1. a serviceman who has seen considerable active service; “the veterans laughed at the new recruits”
2. a person who has served in the armed forces
3. an experienced person who has been through many battles; someone who has given long service ”
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
So you can see there are many definitions of “veteran”, but there is clearly a deference to length and type of service as a qualifier. Does successfully completing OCS and being commissioned and nothing more qualify Ken to call himself a Veteran? One measure would be is he eligible for VA benefits. Most of these require specific levels of service be achieved to qualify. Would Ken have been accused of splitting hairs by correcting Brownlee in the debate (likely), or perhaps does Ken rather consider his short period of service unworthy of this taking this title for himself (likely)? Again, you people amaze me with your attempts at smear!
I would wager that Brownlee would gladly compare official military records with Cuccinelli in a public forum. Let’s all work to set that up.
No, Loudoun Insider, I want a copy of Brownlee’s military records right now. He can be the “bigger man” and release them promptly on his website.
[...] around claiming that he is the only veteran that’s running for Attorney General this year (Virginia Virtucon again [different link]). If Cuccinelli was to point out that he served in the Marine Corps and completed [...]
Hey Riley, this Watson idiot is saying you proved John Brownlee to be a liar. What do you think of that?
Timmy, don’t try to man-up on someone like John Brownlee.
Let’s consult the dictionary, Insider. According to Webster, a liar is “a person who tells lies”. A lie is defined (Id.) as “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive” or “to create a false or misleading impression”. Sounds pretty correct to me.
Is that some kind of stupid threat LI?
You’re the guy calling an Army Ranger a clown.
Let the record also show that Watson here is not going to vote for Brownlee in November if Brownlee gets the nomination. All because of a question a blogger asked about his opponent. Brilliant reasoning there, Watson.
By the way, I’ve asked around and heard from several people that Brownlee has made the statement that he is the only veteran in this campaign at every joint candidate event with Cuccinelli, and Cuccinelli has never spoken up to challenge that statement.
Right on, LI!
Again, I was at this last debate Tuesday night preceding this argument, and it isn’t the first time that I’ve seen the men together. Ken Cuccinelli jumps at even the smallest missteps or misstatements that another opponent makes. If there was actually something in Brownlee’s statement about being the only veteran, do you folks honestly think that he would let that one, as important as it is, go without even a retort?
And as pointed out here repeatedly, you guys are all going nuts in this argument that was made by a blogger. Neither John nor Ken have said anything about any of this, yet you write here as though you’re on some pedestal, judging a man who hasn’t even taken part in the conversation. Seriously, this is what’s killing the party.
I find it incredible that people keep harping on Ken not responding to that during the debate. Obviously, Ken is being modest and apparently does not view his service as being comparable to those who went on to serve in active duty. And as someone already pointed out, how would it look for him to chime in and say, “Well, I completed Marine Corps OCS at Quantico, but was decommissioned because of the ‘peace dividend’.” It is laudable that Brownlee served as an Army Ranger, but why does he go beyond that and take the extra step of saying “I’m the only AG candidate with military service?” Whereas Cooch appears to be being modest, Brownlee is coming off as boastful in light of what we now know.
How can you blame Brownlee for not knowing Cuccinelli was a”veteran” if Cuccinelli never talks about it and has no information at all about his service, however short, in his campaign materials? I’m sure this controversy has come to his attention by now, but why should he change what he’s been saying all along if Cuccinelli doesn’t provide more definitive answers to this? So far all we have is Shaun Kenney posting something he says he got from the Cuccinelli campaign.
Boastful in light of what we now know? What would that be?
Why should he change what he’s been saying all along? How about because it is factually inaccurate?
And while I think it is fine for Brownlee to highlight his military service, as I stated, it does come off as boasting to say on several occasions as you have all now admitted, that he is the “only” AG candidate with military experience. In light of what we now know is that statement is factually inaccurate.
If you’re going to continue to insist that Cooch prove he was commissioned a Marine 2nd Lt. when he himself hasn’t even been making a big deal about it, then I’m going to have to insist that Brownlee prove that he is the only AG candidate with military experience as he has been making a big deal about that. Prove what you’re saying, Mr. Brownlee.
The sad thing here is that this is being tried on a blogging site, and neither Ken nor John have said the first thing here about this whole thing. If this, in fact, is an issue between the two, shouldn’t it be the two of them that make a cause here, or anywhere? This is all transpiring because someone said that they were told something by someone…Everyone here is jumping on one bandwagon or another without this even coming from either of the candidates. Ken hasn’t asked anyone to prove anything. John hasn’t asked anyone to prove anything. What is wrong with you people?
Actually, Ken’s campaign did issue an explanation when Shaun Kenney requested one. That is where the OCS information came from. We included that in our previous post:
Take a look again at Shaun’s post. It says that the Cuccinelli campaign issued that Ken went through OCS, but did not serve active duty. Again, it says the Cuccinelli campaign. Again if this is to actually be an issue, don’t you think that this would be one that Ken would like to talk to John about?
None of this is coming from Ken or John. This is a tirade that is being propelled on blogging sites, not by either of the candidates.
And for me and my family’s military experience, all the way from the Civil War to Just Cause and Saudi Arabia, sitting in a class and then not getting your commission does not make you a veteran. Ken might have volunteered to be one, but he did not serve as one.
Now, you folks really need to leave this to be a discussion between Ken and John. You’re doing them both a disservice ny creating an argument that neither of them seems to be making. Again, this did not come from either candidate.
I agree with Another anon. This is a non-issue. Brownlee said he was the only veteran in public and in Cuccinelli’s presence. Cuccinelli doesn’t dispute that at the moment. I haven’t yet been able to discern that Cuccinelli has said anything about this since. Cuccinelli would have every right to come back indignantly if he were a veteran also. Any lawyer worth his salt would fire back if he has a favorable fact. Cuccinelli’s not a shrinking violet, in any event. So, is the final word yes: for whatever it’s worth in an AG race, Brownlee is the only veteran? If Cuccinelli’s on board with that, aren’t we all? Not sure that it should control the ultimate issue of who’s the best candidate for AG, but it appears to be factually correct unless and until Cuccinelli disputes it. It all seems very simple and straightforward. This isn’t a problem for Cuccinelli unless he in the past or now is claiming that he is a veteran. but I don’t hear him doing that. I do hear others, who are in no position to know, trying to advance that idea. But it appears to me that they are embarrassing their guy, who really seems to want to keep quiet about this.
From a political standpoint, it would make Cooch appear like a whiner if he were to pipe up himself during a debate and dispute Brownlee’s statement by saying, “I graduated from Marine OCS at Quantico and was commissioned a 2nd Lt., but never had the opportunity to further serve because the military downsized me along with thousands of others.”
There is a simple solution here. Brownlee should ask Cooch man to man in private if what is being said is true, that Cooch indeed was commissioned as an officer in the Marine Corps. If Cooch responds to Brownlee that he was, then Brownlee should stop saying he is the “only” candidate with a service record. There’s nothing wrong with him continuing to tout his own service, but if it is factually incorrect that he is the “only” candidate then he should stop using that line.
I disagree, Riley (as I’m sure you would expect me to!).
You obviously continue to buy the “official” line that he didn’t continue on after OCS because they didn’t have a slot for him, either in JAG or in the mainline force. Myself and others (including Marines) don’t buy that explanation without documentation, especially after all the hoopla that’s been flung back on those who asked the question.
This is easily dismissed with a release of the relevant military documents. Absent that this issue will continue to simmer.
Marine’s don’t run around bragging about their service.
Your suggestion might have worked a few weeks or months back, Jim, but some of Cuccinelli’s supporters have really jumped off a cliff on this and called Brownlee a “liar” for saying that he and McDonnell are the only veterans in the R field this cycle.
I would agree with Shaun Kenney’s comment at the top of the thread. The most simple answer is probably the correct one. Ken Cuccinelli is not a veteran. I’ve never heard him claim to be and never thought he was. It’s a very strange sequence of events, because there’s no indication that Cuccinelli disagrees with Brownlee on this. But once the L word starts getting thrown around, Cuccinelli has to get control of his people. He hasn’t claimed he is a veteran. He’s made no statement about this whatsoever unless he authorized the language that Shaun ran. There is no evidence of that. But the fact that Cuccinelli did not dispute Brownlee’s claim at the Roanoke forum indicates very strongly that Cuccinelli and Brownlee agree that Brownlee is the only veteran in the GOP contest for AG. Once Cuccinelli’s supporters start slamming Brownlee’s personal integrity for saying something even their own guy apparently accepts, the stand-up thing for Cuccinelli to do is to tell his people that he isn’t a veteran and is not claiming to be. Unless he is a veteran. In which case, he’s not much of a campaigner to let Brownlee get away with that charge. In any event, KC can clear it up pretty quickly. It has been a mistake for him to let it hang on without that kind of clarification. If his position is that he is not a veteran, then he has some very serious explaining to do about why there are some artifacts from earlier in his political career that suggest that he is a veteran. If he is a veteran, it’s time for him to take deserved credit for his service. Only he can straighten it out.
NOVA I only saw one supporter calling Brownlee a liar, and btw there’s at least one Brownlee supporter who’s called Ken a liar over on TC on this. I’m not saying either a liars. By your logic though Brownlee “has to get control of his people”.
However Riley makes an excellent point:
“There is a simple solution here. Brownlee should ask Cooch man to man in private if what is being said is true, that Cooch indeed was commissioned as an officer in the Marine Corps. If Cooch responds to Brownlee that he was, then Brownlee should stop saying he is the “only” candidate with a service record. There’s nothing wrong with him continuing to tout his own service, but if it is factually incorrect that he is the “only” candidate then he should stop using that line.”
It’s a relevant point that if Brownlee or his campaign is aware of these blog posts and the Cuccinelli campaign’s statement then he needs to ask himself a question. “What do I consider a Veteran”. If he continues to use the current campaign phrase he’s been using, then he obviously doesn’t consider only completing OCS and being commissioned as a 2LT as qualifying for the moniker. Since Ken is not touting his military service, perhaps someone should ask John Brownlee how he defines “Veteran” when he uses that phrase?
And NOVA: “If his position is that he is not a veteran, then he has some very serious explaining to do about why there are some artifacts from earlier in his political career that suggest that he is a veteran”
NOVA you are wrong! There is an artifact on Roll Call and there is the statement from his campaign which are 100% consistent! Neither claim “Veteran” status. There’s no explaining needed. Ken has made no claims to being a “Veteran”. Clearly he doesn’t view his military service, short as it was, as being worthy of that claim. No ‘splainin necessary Luuucy!
LI: “This is easily dismissed with a release of the relevant military documents. Absent that this issue will continue to simmer.”
LI do you realize that most likely the only document Ken would have is his DD214 which will only state whether he was discharged honorably, or otherwise and when? It won’t go into details of the discussion of his application and rejection for JAG or infantry. So even if he released it, it would not qwell your conspiratorial delusions! I personally served as a Reserve Officer on Active Duty for over six years. I was RIF’d in 1992. I have a DD214 and a letter stating the result of the RIF board (I was selected for RIF) and the date I had to separate by. It never went into any detail AT ALL about why the board reached that conclusion. I (like all the other officers I know) had glowing recommendations written on my retention form, but nothing at all came back to me with any qualifying words to state why I was RIF’d, I just was. I do have my personnel records and copies of my performance reports (if no-one’s thrown them away in the box they’ve been sitting in my basement for over 15 yrs), but that’s because I had them. I doubt after serving only in OCS that Ken has much of anything at all other than the DD214, and that’s only if he kept it! The only reason you need it really is if you want to apply for benefits (which Ken probably was not eligible for because of his short stint) or to prove your service time in case Uncle Sam ever tried to draft you (or I suppose to disprove conspiratorial bloggers on a vendetta). Short of this, Ken would probably have to ask the Marine Corps to release any records they have on him, and if they do have them they might take six months to release knowing how government works. Even after that, there’s no guarantee they will show anything qualitative about their reason for denying his request. Most likely it was simply a numbers decision.
On the other hand if Mr. Brownlee does personally consider any amount of military service worthy of calling someone a veteran (one of the accepted definitions), and if he’s aware of this topic as it has been blasted over the blogs recently, then if he continues to use his “only veteran running” slogan, he might have some ‘splainin to do! It’s actually quite logical. Ken is being humble by not claiming that status, however if Brownlee knowlingly refuses to recognize Ken’s service by claiming to be the only veteran running, it makes Mr. Brownlee look petty, even if Ken continues to not lay claim to the title himself! So it’s actually in Brownlee’s best interest to take Riley’s advice. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he hasn’t heard about it so far, but if he continues to use the slogan, I might not be so forgiving. At some point it will become unrealistic to think he has not heard this.
RWE: is “Ken” being humble or is he being accurate in not claiming veteran status? If he was commissioned, served, and honorably discharged, he’s a veteran. Period. Brownlee and Foster would acknowledge that in an instant. But if Cuccinelli doesn’t consider himself to be a veteran (as you state he does not), why should Brownlee or anyone else? Not even KC has claimed veteran status as far as I have been able to follow this. The roll Call reference could have been a mistake on Roll Call’s part. Why would Brownlee have any reason to consider KC a veteran? What is the “this” that Brownlee should acknowledge? That KC supporters have all kinds of theories about the man’s military service that Mr. Cuccinelli himself has not advanced? I have not seen any statement from his campaign. I went to the campaign site yesterday and found nothing. Maybe there’s something more recent, but I really haven’t noticed that Cuccinelli or his campaign have made any official comment on this issue.
Suppose Brownlee and Cuccinelli have the private tete-a-tete on this that you and Jim think a good idea. Cuccinelli tells Brownlee “no, I’m not a veteran.” That would be consistent with his silence at the forum in Roanoke. so Brownlee continues to say that Brownlee is the only veteran in the contest. And Cuccinelli’s partisans continue to go nuts saying that Brownlee is denigrating KC’s military service. That’s not a very good outcome. It would be better for Cuccinelli just to state the facts publicly and go with that.
Go back to Shaun’s guidance: the most simple explanation is probably the most accurate. All that stuff you write about whether KC still has a DD214 etc is just speculation on your part. LI’s right in that a copy of the DD214 would establish conclusively that he was honorably discharged. I read your comment to agree with that. But, for heaven’s sake, we don’t yet have the first word from Cuccinelli that he is a veteran. He was present when Brownlee claimed to be the sole veteran in the contest and didn’t contradict Brownlee. So that might be a perfectly good and acceptable reason not to produce a DD214. I don’t assume that Cuccinelli has anything to be ashamed of for not serving. I don’t assume that military service is a prerequisite for being a good AG (although my personal preference is that candidates show that they have succeeded in some field of endeavor other than politics before they run for high office. The military is one such field) It’s just that a lot of other people appear to be claiming service that he doesn’t claim. When he says it, I’ll thank him for his service, as I thank you for yours.
“It would be better for Cuccinelli just to state the facts publicly and go with that.”
Are you saying you think Shaun is lying when he’s quoted Ken’s campaign as saying he WAS commissioned as a 2LT?
You miss the whole point. When LI asks for his DD214, if Ken were to provide it, unless it says he was somehow dishonerably discharged (highly unlikely) it will not answer any of the other questions that LI and others have asked with regard to the circumstances of his being turned down for duty as a JAG or Infantry officer. LI will then be left continuing to intentionally lead through innuendo that there’s something more sinister here. When anyone with a brain should be able to see there’s no reason to suggest anything improper. From what I can tell, unless you think Shaun is lying, Ken has confirmed that he served as a 2LT in the USMC for a very short time. This is consistent with the Roll Call post. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, they should just end this. As for Brownlee, he should clearly be aware of this by now. If he personally views Ken’s service as not being worthy of being called a Veteran, so be it. As you say, Ken himself apparently does not. However, if he does personally view it as worthy of being called a Veteran, he should stop with the slogan. That’s all…
I feel badly for you RWE. You’re trying so much harder than your candidate.
I hope Shaun would not deliberately misstate a fact, but we have no idea where that text came from – whether it was KC hisself, his campaign, someone Shaun thinks speaks for the campaign, or someone claiming to speak for the campaign who has no authority whatsoever. It’s a very strange piece of verbiage. About all we know about it is that neither Cuccinelli nor his campaign have claimed ownership. The KC4AG website has nothing about it. For all I know, SK is getting scammed on this, RWE, by someone trying to put Cuccinelli in a terrible pickle. So far, if that’s the plan, it’s working like a charm, and you’re unwittingly aiding and abetting. If Cuccinelli has something to say, he should say it. But for now, this looks to me as though Cuccinelli and Brownlee are in agreement. Cuccinelli does not dispute Brownlee’s claim that Brownlee is the only veteran in the race. Isn’t that a hard fact, man? I’ve seen absolutely nothing from “Ken” on the subject. And, if that is correct, isn’t that the end of it? It isn’t dispositive of who the nominee should be, but Brownlee’s assertions are accurate and undisputed except by Cuccinelli supporters who haven’t closed the loop with their guy yet.
I don’t think LI really has any interest in the details of SenKen’s military service other than whether he served or he didn’t. The advantage of the DD214 (recognizing that it has its limitations) is that it clearly does establish that someone was commissioned, served, and was honorably discharged (or not). That’s its value in this context.
So RWE, until your guy or his campaign pipe up on this, just let it go. You’re pushing your man into a corner he doesn’t want to be in. Cuccinelli would not have been silent at the Roanoke forum if your speculation about his service had any validity. You’re having to spin out an elaborate story about the details of his service that he hasn’t embraced.
Nothing elaborate about it NOVA. Unless Shaun is lying, Ken’s campaign has confirmed his service!
Shaun, are you lying? NOVA seems to think you’ve been duped.
Oh one more thing. I have no doubt that Shaun when he says something came from Ken’s campaign, that he’s not lying. On the other hand, if you have doubts, both you and/or LI can always contact them yourselves and ask the same question. So far LI has adamantly refused to contact them (I wonder why, perhaps because he really doesn’t want an answer?). I could do it and post the result here, but of course I don’t want you to think I’ve been duped, so please, why not contact them yourself and let us know what you find out?
Rtwng Extrmst, the people in the Brownlee camp are conspiracy theorists. No matter what evidence you — or anyone else for that matter — provide to them, it will not dissuade them from what they believe.
They are exactly the same as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the “Barack Obama is not a citizen” folks, and anyone else that has a problem following a basic logical argument.
I have no particular reason to contact the Cuccinelli campaign, RWE. I just read their stuff as they issue it. They haven’t said anything about this issue yet. Cuccinelli hasn’t disputed Brownlee. I have no reason to believe that anyone in the KC camp disagrees with anything JB has said about this. Go to their website, check it out (unless something has come out in the past 24 hours or so – I last checked on Friday morning). As I said, I have no idea what SK was putting up. You can’t tell. Shaun may have been being played by someone trying to get Cuccinelli in hot water.
But, to satisfy Mr. Watson, there is a very simple explanation: Brownlee says in public in Cuccinelli’s presence that Brownlee is the only veteran. Cuccinelli does not dispute this, despite opportunity to do so. Ergo, Cuccinelli agrees with Brownlee. Simple, elegant, holds up nicely. No conspiracy, no elaborate stories from third parties, no contrary evidence to date.
The only conspiracy that I see in this so far is the hysterical reaction of Cooch supporters going after Vincent . The solution remains very simple – Cooch releases his relevant military records and clears this up once and for all. If they confirm what the Kenney storyline states, then this whole issue is dead.
“Cuccinelli does not dispute this, despite opportunity to do so. Ergo, Cuccinelli agrees with Brownlee. Simple, elegant, holds up nicely. No conspiracy, no elaborate stories from third parties, no contrary evidence to date.”
NOVA, something we actually agree on! So, no conspiracy, no story, no nuthin…
We agree as long as neither of us thinks Cuccinelli is a veteran.
Sorry RWE , that last was a little curt. My point is that Brownlee and Cuccinelli appear to agree that Cuccinelli is not a veteran. If you and I are in agreement with the two of them, yes, you’re right, we agree. It may later come out that there is more information on this if Cuccinelli or his campaign address the issue. But until then, I think there are at least three of the four of us JB, KC, and old Scout here who agree. You’re most welcome to join us.
Tim, you’re an idiot! How dare you call Brownlee supporters conspiracy theorists? If you look at the beginning of this thread, it was Ken’s people that started the consipracy ideas that John was conspiring to smear Ken. John’s people have not implied anything about conspiracies.
As a matter of fact, neither Ken nor John have had anything to say about this.
And to Jim, why is it that John should have to ask Ken about his military service? John has made no contentions about any statement that Ken has made about military service; but then again, neither has Ken. John has made no more fuss about this than my cat. But yet, neither has Ken! You guys need to get off of this and find some real issue, but all three of these candidates are excellent, above-board men who’ve done nothing wrong by each other, nor are any of them arguing that.
Grow up! We’re all supposed to be Virginia Republicans together. And, you’d better bet that the Dems are enjoying this foolishness.
Oh, and Rtwing, just because a member of Ken’s campaign would have issued a statement that repeated something from years ago, that doesn’t mean that it came from Ken. Nor, does the answer either way call Shaun a liar. Shaun was obviously told something by the campaign. No, I don’t believe that Shaun would lie about something like this; but if you look at his original post on his own site, it states that the information came from the campaign, not Ken himself.
So please, this stuff can go around and around; but until either candidate takes direct exception to this issue, everyone else needs to leave it alone and stop firing at each other.
The statement raised so many more questions than it answered that I haven’t ruled out the idea that it was put out by someone trying to cause KC difficulties and that SK’s problem was that he uncritically accepted it. But it seems unlikely that the campaign would have put out something like that. There are no overt indicators that it came from the campaign other than what Shaun was told by whomever gave it to him. So don’t overlook the idea that both Kenney and this site were being scammed. The puzzling part is why either thought that was helpful to their man.
Does it really matter? Brownlee and Cuch were both commissioned and graduated from military schools, both graduated from JAG school.
Cuch didn’t serve in war, and evidently doesn’t count himself a veteran.
Brownlee served 3 yrs as a white house social aide in the Old Guard. Not sure what white house social aide’s do, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t war.
Brownlee graduated from Ranger & Airborne schools (kudos!) but never served in Ranger or Airborne units.
Brownlee then went to William & Mary law school on Army scholarship and became a reserve JAG officer – that means he was the attorney for his reserve unit in Roanoke. Not exactly a combat veteran there…
In 2003 Brownlee’s unit got sent to Fort Eustis, VA as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Does that make Brownlee a war veteran? He never deployed overseas. In fact, he got off of active duty after only three months, while the rest of his unit served out a full year.
The reason Brownlee did this is that he acting as US Attorney while on active duty, in apparent violation of Army regs and Federal Law. When the Roanoke Times asked the Justice Department if Brownlee was breaking the law, they got him taken off of active duty.
http://johnlbrownlee.com/controversies/senator-bill-dolan/