Shannon ties Cuccinelli to bullet box comments in web video
Democratic Attorney General candidate Steve Shannon is not giving up on his efforts to connect his Republican opponent Ken Cuccinelli to controversial comments made by a candidate for Delegate in the Northern Neck.
Catherine Crabill has garnered national attention for a fiery speech that she delivered at a Tea Party event, where she told the crowd that they “have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box, before we have to resort to the bullet box.” The YouTube clip has become a democratic sensation, posted on blogs across the country as evidence of extremism on the Republican side of the aisle.
While many democrats have found ways to denounce Crabill’s comments, only Shannon has used the incident as a cornerstone of his campaign strategy. The Northern Virginia Delegate has repeatedly called on Cuccinelli to condemn the remarks and seems to find a way to remind voters that Crabill and Cuccinelli are both Republicans, running for office in 2009, as much as possible.
Shannon’s effort to draw this connection has moved up a notch when he chose to base his first video advertisement for his campaign on the Crabill comments. The ad at this point is only running on the internet, and campaign officials have not said if they plan to put it on television.
For the most part, Cuccinelli has ignored the repeated attacks by the Shannon campaign, and instead renewed his call for face to face debates.
It is difficult to judge just how big of an impact this viral internet video could have on the campaign in general. Privately, Republican leaders wish that Crabill had been a little more careful with her words, but are reluctant to criticize because of her connection with the Tea Party movement, which at this point is one of the few motivated grass roots political efforts in an off election year.
The situation is even more complicated, because even though Crabill is the nominated candidate, she was by no means anointed by the Republican establishment. She is running in a far flung district against an entrenched democratic opponent and truthfully, the GOP had no one else willing to run.
Is Shannon attempting to create a strong knot with a loose grouping a frayed connections? Is Cuccinelli secretly a supporter of violent government resistance? How much is this debate connecting with the average voter?
Does it have anything to do with being Attorney General?
See the Shannon ad and the latest call for debates by Cuccinelli after the jump..
Cuccinelli AGAIN pushing for debates.
FAIRFAX — Earlier this morning, State Senator Ken Cuccinelli approached Steve Shannon on an overall debate schedule that would enable all regions of the Commonwealth to have an opportunity to see first hand those who seek to represent them as the next Attorney General.
To see a copy of the email sent to Steve Shannon this morning, click here:
As usual, the request has been met with silence.
“Im very disappointed, that again, Steve Shannon refuses to take seriously efforts to debate our respective records” said Ken Cuccinelli. “It’s apparent that following his Gubernatorial nominee’s poor performance at the Homestead Resort debate this past weekend, the last thing Steve Shannon wants to do is debate.”
“Steve Shannon is avoiding any debate so he can duck questions regarding his past support for tax increases that he had explicitly opposed while campaigning, his support for card check (like Creigh Deeds) and his support for the regressive ‘Cap and Trade’ legislation which will cripple Virginia Industry (again like Creigh Deeds).”
“The people of Virginia have a right to know the records and goals of those who seek to represent them in the Attorney General’s office” continued Cuccinelli. “I just don’t think Steve wants to defend his three mistakes on the law he has made in the last month.”
The three examples mentioned by Senator Cuccinelli include Shannon’s error on the death penalty during their one and only debate; Shannon’s misguided statement that the Melendez-Diaz situation facing prosecutors in Virginia could be fixed through what he called an ‘administrative solution’ instead of a legislative solution; and Shannon’s error regarding his own bill (HB 3086 in 2007) which he incorrectly declared would have addressed the Melendez situation in drunk driving cases.
“I am hopeful that sometime in the near future Steve Shannon will agree to debate me. I stand ready to debate any time – and any place. The only question is will Steve Shannon join me?”