Washingtonpost.com:

The debate over debates in Virginia’s race for governor escalated Wednesday as Terry McAuliffe’s campaign pounced on Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s unwillingness to participate in one of the state’s best-known face-offs.

While Cuccinelli (R) has called for holding 15 debates all over the commonwealth, McAuliffe (D) has said he would do five — a number typical of recent statewide contests — including an event to be hosted Oct. 14 in Richmond by AARP and the League of Women Voters.  The two groups sponsored debates together in the 2009 governor’s race and 2012 U.S. Senate race, and they have sponsored other debates separately going back more than a decade.

But Cuccinelli did not accept their invitation this year, and McAuliffe spokesman Josh Schwerin said the Democrat was “disappointed” by Cuccinelli’s move.

“Despite Cuccinelli’s singular focus on complaining about debates, he is refusing to accept one that will be broadcast statewide,” Schwerin said. “Terry agreed to this debate and four others across Virginia. We hope Ken Cuccinelli reconsiders and agrees to join him.”

Bok Bok Bok.  I can’t think of any 2 groups I would rather not face than women and seniors if I were Cuccinelli.   He needs to man up and do these debates.  These two organizations are very mainstream and national in scope.  There are many women and seniors in Virginia who might want to hear what both gentlemen have to say about how they will protect the past and move us forward here in the Old Dominion.

21 Thoughts to “Cuccinelli spurns the AARP/League of Women Voters Debate”

  1. Starryflights

    Cuccinelli’s is a big chicken. The republican war on women continues.

  2. Ivan

    Apparently Kooch found out that he was going to be asked questions at this thing.

  3. Kelly_3406

    Why should he participate in a debate that is guaranteed to be biased against him? The lesson from Candy Crowley’s interference in a presidential debate in 2012 is that conservatives need to wise up and participate only in debates sponsored by neutral groups. The AARP and League of Women Voters do not meet the standard of neutrality.

    1. How do you justify that statement? AARP represents seniors. Seniors come in all flavors.

      League of women voters is non-partisan. It wants to protect and engage voters of all ethnicities and it wants to reform campaign finance. “The League is deeply committed to reforming our nation’s campaign finance system to ensure the public’s right to know, combat corruption and undue influence, enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office and allow maximum citizen participation in the political process” Good grief, are you telling me Cuccinelli is against all that?

      If those people are against Cuccinelli, then it is with good reason. If he is afraid of them, then perhaps he needs to state why.

  4. Elena

    I find it VERY interesting that republican men are so ignorant of the history of The League of Women Voters. Moon, could it be that men see women in a title and ASSume they will be anti men? Could it be that some republican men are simply chicken sh&%t when it comes time to face a perceived foe? Especially a woman foe!

  5. Kelly_3406

    Instead of changing the topic, perhaps you should consider some actual facts. Although non-partisan historically, both organizations have staked out liberal positions on several partisan issues including support for Obamacare (AARP), gun control (LWV) and of course abortion (LWV).

    Given the liberal bent of AARP and LWV, it is quite justified to be leery of their ability to put on a fair debate. If these organizations want to be viewed as non-partisan, then they should consider replacing their current leadership and returning to their non-partisan roots.

    1. How about the “conservative” issues they support? Or is it like South Africa–one drop of “liberal” issue makes you liberal to the core?

      AARP goes with whatever benefits those over 55. Are you telling me that Cuccinelli and Republicans dont support policy that benefits those 55 an older? Interesting.

      Lets see, if you piss off all the blacks, all the women, all the hispanics and now all those 55 or older, who the hell is going to vote for you?

      Angry white men 18-55? That’s a large demographic but not large enough to get you elected.

  6. Scout

    Kelly uses the term “liberal” in a way that implies that one cannot support any of the issues she mentions without being “liberal”. I assume that “neutral” means opposition to those positions in this context. If LWV is not neutral, perhaps some examples of national “neutral” organizations of the same standing and history of advancing democracy at the ballot box could be offered to further the discussion. What are some “neutral” alternatives, Kelly?

  7. Elena

    I wonder when AARP supported Bush and the creation of Medicare Part D if they were then seen as conservatives?

    This just in on the recent gun background check debate. Since when is Joe Scarborough a dreaded liberal. Furthermore, Liberal my friend, is a positive connotation, not negative and not partisan.

    I am thoroughly amused that you have taken the term liberal in a partisan manner on Independence day! Now THAT is funny 🙂

  8. Kelly_3406

    Let me try to explain one more time.

    The point is that non-partisan organizations should avoid getting involved in divisive issues that have nothing to do with their primary issue. The neutral approach would be to take no public stance on such issues. Such an approach for example would make it possible for gun control advocates and gun rights supporters to work together in the same organization to reduce barriers to voting and to encourage the free exchange of ideas by candidates of various political beliefs.

    Public stances on such issues may discourage potential members with opposing views from joining. The long-term result of this is that their membership could become less diverse in political orientation and thought. If candidates with opposing views do not believe they will get fair treatment, they are likely to decline invitations for debates. So it seems clear that taking stands on polarizing issues undermines the standing of such organizations to be viewed and treated as non-partisan advocates.

    1. Let’s discuss AARP which is a little clearer cut. You are asking AARP to not support things that benefit older Americans? When why bother to exist? Obamacare benefits millions of people including the very people bitching about it. It particularly helps older Americans because of pre-existing conditions.

      I am not sure if it helps those on medicare or not. Probably it doesn’t help or hinder.
      Furthermore, thinking people aren’t all that ideological. If Cuccinelli was firm in his convictions he should be able to address those issues which he is hiding from.

      If everyone just avoids groups that have positions seen as liberal or conservatives then candidates will have no one to debate.

  9. Perhaps Kelly can point out why LWV is pro-gun control. Do they want to round up everyone’s guns and confiscate them? What do you mean by gun control?

    Do you mean people who feel there should be some restrictions on firearms? Are those the gun control people?

  10. Kelly_3406

    @Moon-howler

    I doubt that Cuccinelli is quaking in his boots over the prospects of engaging with LWV or the AARP. In fact, I bet he would welcome the opportunity to make his case before them.

    The issue though is how a televised debate would be conducted. There will likely be a large group of undecided voters who will be heavily influenced by the debate. So there are questions about whether the audience and/or moderator would strongly favor one candidate over the other. If the moderator asks leading, probing questions for one candidate but not the other, or continually cuts off one candidate but not the other, then it can change the dynamics of the election.

    In effect, it could become a political rally rather than a free exchange of information. Given that Cuccinelli’s views are different than those supported by the AARP and LWV, it is much more likely that the crowd or moderator would go against him. So why should he give his opponents the opportunity to make him look bad on statewide TV? It would be much wiser to find a less partisan, more neutral venue to hold such an important debate.

    1. If he welcomed it then he just turned down a good opportunity. Which is it? Do you say no to things you welcome?

      How do you know Cuccinelli’s views are different from the views of AARP and the league of women voters? It might be on a few issues but in general?

      Candidates establish the terms. Those are negotiated. Maybe Cuccinelli should just stick to speaking before Operation REscue, NRA and the Family Research Council. Nothing like preaching to the choir.

      This is further proof that Cuccinelli appeals to a select group of special interest groups and ultra conservatives and not the general population.

      Although we will never know, I wonder how many mainstream Republicans will go vote for McAuliffe behind the voting curtain? That happened when Mark Warner ran. I know all sorts of people who voted for him who consider themselves Republican.

  11. Kelly_3406

    The AARP should definitely support things that benefit older Americans.

    However, if it truly supported seniors, AARP would have opposed Obamacare, because it slashes >$500B from Medicare. As you probably know, Medicare Advantage provides seniors with access to services not covered by traditional Medicare. Planned cuts to Medicare Advantage over the next 10 years will result in higher out-of-pocket costs, fewer services, and fewer choices for seniors.

    However, AARP will benefit from these cuts, because it will drive seniors to purchase Medigap insurance rather than Medicare Advantage. AARP receives 4.95% royalties from Medigap plans, which was exempted from reform in Obamacare. So if you follow the money, you will see that AARP was not really looking out for the best interest of seniors.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/04/15/obamacare-to-slash-hundreds-of-billions-from-medicare-advantage-over-next-10-years/

    1. Your argument is flawed because not all medicare folks want or use medicare advantage which has some serious flaws, especially if you have end stage renal failure which hits many older people. Just because it has lower premiums doesn’t mean it is necessarily a good thing. You get what you pay for. Some disadvantages:

      Disadvantages of Medicare Advantage Plans
      •Medicare Advantage plans are annual contracts. Plans may decide not to negotiate or renew their contracts.
      •Plans are annual contracts and may change benefits, increase premiums, and increase copayments at the end of each year.
      •You may have higher annual out-of-pocket expenses than under original Medicare with supplemental insurance coverage.
      •Your current doctors or hospitals may not be network providers or may not agree to accept the plan’s payment terms.

      If Medicare Advantage was all that good, why aren’t most older Americans on it? That is the question you need to ask yourself.

      some of that $500 billion cuts out duplications and waste in Medicare also. That helps all Americans.

      Rather than believe the bullsnort about AARP, ask yourself why most seniors go with regular companies. Are they all senile and just like spending more money or is it because there are serious flaws in the ‘advantage’ plans? Most have some serious limitations.

      The ‘royalties’ you speak of probably is a deal with United Health Care. It is one of the most popular of all the gap plans in areas where it is available. Mr. Howler pays his gap premiums and has never gotten out his check book in all the times he sees various doctors. Have I mentioned he has a lot of health issues? He can go to any doctor he choses without referral. The gap pays the difference.

  12. Elena

    Kelly,
    Even NPR has been attacked as being Satan, er, I mean, liberal! There are no non partisan entities remaining if you ask the far right.

  13. I’ve been shredding AARP’s deluge of unsolicited direct mail for 9 years now. But the few people I know involved in League of Women Voters in Virginia seem genuinely committed to helping people become more aware of issues and candidates, rather than pushing an agenda. They’re like the Committee of 100 – present the situation or issue, invite panelists to talk, and let the audience decide for themselves.

    I can understand McAuliffe not wanting to do 15 debates around the Commonwealth – that’d be exhausting, when you could televise one debate and have a farther reach, and spend the travel time talking to people, face to face, not on stage, arguing with your opponent.

    Cuccinelli on the other hand seems way too controlling, from barring the door to keep protesters out of his public speeches to having security bark at people to stand back at his book signings. Now this. If you can’t cooperate with benign entities like AARP and LWV, who can you work with?

  14. Scout

    15 debates is far too much. One would do nothing else. No one would pay attention after the first three. Leave it at three.

  15. Elena

    Cindy,
    You bring up a very salient point. “If you can’t cooperate with benign entities like the AARP and LWV, who can you work with?”

    When you become governor, or ANY elected official, you represent ALL the people, not just “some” of the people.

  16. punchak

    The host at the 4th of July party I attended, a dyed in the wool Texan Republican said:
    (yes, we were talking politics)

    “I’ve voted Republican all my life, but I’ll never in’ell vote for Cuccinelli! I worked for him and voted for him as AG, but he has gone over the edge.”

    I believe others feel the same, since big donors seems to be holding back, according to the papers. Add to that his running mate and I think it’s going to be uphill. I’m not too keen on Terry but by comparison …

Comments are closed.