Nothing In It Is New
A Fuss About Cuccinelli’s Book?
Posted: February 6, 2013
For a volume that hasn’t even reached the bookstores yet — not until Feb. 12 will it be released — Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s “Last Line of Defense” certainly has generated its share of controversy.
For example, we’ve lost track of the number of emails dispatched to our in-box specifically about the book, most of them from state Democrats in highest of dudgeon. Apparently excerpts have been making the rounds, as some did four years ago in the case of Bob McDonnell’s graduate thesis. The twist here, of course, is that Mr. McDonnell’s were long musty whereas Mr. Cuccinelli’s are technically not even in print. But, as Hillary Clinton might say, “what difference does it make” — that is, when it’s a political edge you’re after.
From what little we’ve read — which is, pretty much, all anyone has read — Mr. Cuccinelli does not exactly break any new conservative ground in his assertions. What has his political foes in a considerable snit is his contention that there still appears to be a poverty industry in this country.
That is, people come to rely so much on government programs that “they feel they can’t afford to have [them] taken away, no matter how inefficient, poorly run, or costly to the rest of society.” Though this has been conservative boilerplate for decades, or least since Ronald Reagan said that “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth,” state Democrats reacted as if they had never heard such sentiments uttered, as if somehow Mr. Cuccinelli had sunk to a new low.
Del. Charnelle Herring of Alexandria, the state Democratic chairman, called the attorney general’s remarks “very brazen ... a new low.” House Democratic leader David Toscano said they were “very disturbing,” while Senate firebrand Don McEachin predictably could not let an opportunity for bombast evade him. Mr. McEachin, noting there are 2,000 Biblical references to the poor, accused Mr. Cuccinelli of attacking “people of faith.”
Of course, someone may need to remind Mr. McEachin the Good Lord was making a case for individual charity,
not the governmental kind. And notice that these critics do not say Mr. Cuccinelli was wrong, for to do so would suggest that people are not dependent on these programs, meaning that they and the agencies that administer them could be terminated. Now we all know Democrats and liberals don’t want to see that happen.
For example, we’ve lost track of the number of emails dispatched to our in-box specifically about the book, most of them from state Democrats in highest of dudgeon. Apparently excerpts have been making the rounds, as some did four years ago in the case of Bob McDonnell’s graduate thesis. The twist here, of course, is that Mr. McDonnell’s were long musty whereas Mr. Cuccinelli’s are technically not even in print. But, as Hillary Clinton might say, “what difference does it make” — that is, when it’s a political edge you’re after.
From what little we’ve read — which is, pretty much, all anyone has read — Mr. Cuccinelli does not exactly break any new conservative ground in his assertions. What has his political foes in a considerable snit is his contention that there still appears to be a poverty industry in this country.
That is, people come to rely so much on government programs that “they feel they can’t afford to have [them] taken away, no matter how inefficient, poorly run, or costly to the rest of society.” Though this has been conservative boilerplate for decades, or least since Ronald Reagan said that “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth,” state Democrats reacted as if they had never heard such sentiments uttered, as if somehow Mr. Cuccinelli had sunk to a new low.
Del. Charnelle Herring of Alexandria, the state Democratic chairman, called the attorney general’s remarks “very brazen ... a new low.” House Democratic leader David Toscano said they were “very disturbing,” while Senate firebrand Don McEachin predictably could not let an opportunity for bombast evade him. Mr. McEachin, noting there are 2,000 Biblical references to the poor, accused Mr. Cuccinelli of attacking “people of faith.”
Of course, someone may need to remind Mr. McEachin the Good Lord was making a case for individual charity,
not the governmental kind. And notice that these critics do not say Mr. Cuccinelli was wrong, for to do so would suggest that people are not dependent on these programs, meaning that they and the agencies that administer them could be terminated. Now we all know Democrats and liberals don’t want to see that happen.