« 67th District Update | Main | Another Press Release Disaster »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Attorney Generals Race:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Yes, Attorney General! Right on! I agree!



Great post NLS!!!

concise and informative as always :) LoL

Not Bob McDonnell


Alberto Gonzales?
John Ashcroft?
Janet Reno?
Kimba Woods?
Zoe Baird?
William Barr?
Dick Thonrburg?
Ed Meese?
William French Smith?
Benjamin Civiletti?
Griffin Bell?
Edward Levi (not Levy)?
William Saxby?
Elliot Richardson?
Richard Kleindienst?
John Mitchell?
Ramsey Clark?
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Bobby Kennedy?

Judith Jagdmann?
Jerry Kilgore?
Mark Early?
Jim Gilmore?
Mary Sue Terry?

Am I getting close?

Not Erwin Rommel

Personally, I've always been tickled by the practice of addressing the AG with the title "General." How could anyone call Jerry Kilgore "General" with a straight face?

Riley, Not O'Reilly

Okay, I'm nailed. I'm the mystery AG.

S Pi

What is just as odd, Not Erwin Rommel, is that the plural is "Attorneys General." That suggests that "General" isn't a rank, it's a description (say, as opposed to "Specific"). That would make sense, given their broad range of responsibilities. Still, the shorthand for addressing them is "General X." Doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Can anyone shed some light on this one? Jaded JD, I'm looking in your direction....

NOt Erwin Rommel

NLS is bound to spank us soon, since he's now posted the substantive piece he was working on under this title. Still, I can't resist adding to S Pi's comment.

You're right, of course. But how much more ironic. No one, given Kilgore's lack of any concrete proposals on any important issue, could call him "Specific" Kilgore.

Not Larry Sabato

Oh, this is so funny, I didn't realize some of it was posted. How much could you guys see? OK, the comments on the actual piece begin here.


I really don't see McDonnell taking that much of a lead on election day in Hampton Roads, though he may already be far enough ahead so that even a large dropoff will still leave him victorious on Eday. I have a feeling the Pilot will endorse him, but even given that, I have a feeling that nameID is pulling McD much farther ahead than partyID will ultimately allow for. Most voters there have no doubt heard about him plenty, and mostly decent stuff, but never actually had to pull an R in the ballot box for him.

Still, I think the Deeds campaign sorely neglected Hampton Roads for too long, and it could well cost them big.

Luckily for Deeds, the Kilgore campaign operation there is probably among the worst in the state, only getting a boost in the final days as the RNC basically "latterally fires" the deadwood of the Kilgore staff and scrambles to put things in some semblance of an order. They may have done too much damage already though: they basically alienated the Chesapeake Republicans and let McDonnell folks drive the campaign: which has created a Republican campaign in Hampton Roads bizarrely more focused on the AG race than the governor's race.


Though I'm disappointed with the numbers, the analysis is strong, for this campaign. But, I think your last note...

"There is no Democratic countermove to a Republican coalition that includes a significant number of Hampton Roads African Americans, and moderate suburbanites concerned about crime and safety."

... begs the question.

The AG race has largely been devoid of the social issue posturing present in the gubernatorial race. McDonnell may win big this year, but if he does and runs in '09, he'll have to take stands that alarm moderate suburbanites. Without getting too catty, it's possible that even then he might get some questions about the strength of his memory.

Not Larry Sabato

Oh, I agree ginter, I am saying there is no countermove to someone who can hold that coalition. McDonnell's "memory" could break it later, no doubt.


If you trust the ONE poll that shows McDonnell up by 9, this is a reasonable argument.

However, the latest Rassmussen poll (which seems to be mirroring other polls more closely than that M-D poll) has the race within 4%. Not bad for an AG candidate.

If Senator Deeds were in a Monty Python skit, he'd be "I'm not yet dead Fred"

ZB is a god

That's totally true, ZB.

Bob McDonnell can't gun ration his way to victory can he?

Gun owners, beware: Bob McDonnell is coming for you!

not likely

A massive favorite? I love when a faux pundit declares a landslide based on one poll. Maybe NLS hasn't been reading the papers lately, but the heat is being turned up on McDonnell. Violations of campaign finance law, getting slammed for misleading ads, and the national scene all add up to potential problems for McDonnell. Add to that Deeds' unprecedented (for a democrat)support by sportsmen groups and this will shape up to be a close one. Down-ballot races are more volatile than the top of the ticket and only someone with either an agenda or an axe to grind would make sweeping pronnouncements based on one poll.


Thanks for the elevation. I'm not a God---though I am a disgraced former President of the Galaxy and I do have two heads.

And I'm gonna enjoy a round of pan galactic gargle blasters when Attorney General Deeds makes NLS reduce his "accuracy" rating even further, by threat of prosecution :)


I personally have not seen a Rasmussen poll on the downticket races, but I agree that we are putting a little too much stock in this poll.
There was a poll out a few weeks ago that had Kaine leading 46-34 in the Shenandoah Valley. That is completely ridiculous. I too am surprised that McDonnell has a 26 point lead in Hampton Roads, but I imagine he will do better than most GOPs there.

The Jaded JD

I was told my name had been invoked here, so, like Mighty Mouse, here I am.

S Pi,

Indeed, your suspicions are correct. The phrase "Attorney General" dervies from the Norman French that permeated the common law after the Norman Conquest in 1066. In French, as many know, often adjectives follow their nouns rather than proceed them as in English. An attorney-general, as opposed to an attorney-special, was an agent representing his principal in all things, rather than within a limited field of delegated agency. (The origin of "attorney" is rooted in agency law (as anyone who has granted a "power of attorney" knows), so it's no surprise that this relationship is derived from agency law.)

Attorney-generals (and in England where hyphenations are more common that's the proper pluraliz/sation) eventually became the agent of the sovereign to represent the sovereign in all courts generally (as opposed to particular courts specially), which is how the term got its legal context. In American English, hyphenation is less common, so the Attorney-general became the Attorney General. Accordingly, the pluralization became Attorneys General because, obviously, there is a multiple of attorneys, not a multiple of generals.

Referring to an attorney general as "General" is truncation due to laziness. While addressed "The Honorable John Smith, Attorney General of Virginia," an attorney general is properly saluted "Mr. Smith," or "Attorney General Smith." But who follows protocol anymore, anyway?

The Jaded JD

Erm, yes, I mean "precede" not "proceed."


Deeds has the NRA endorsement, if he were pro-life too, he would probably have my vote. McDonnell is such a doofus.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment


NLS Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Facebook Fan Page


    Blog powered by Typepad