CUCCINELLI'S BIG COCK PROBLEM

Janet Oleszek is playing the "cockfighting" card on Ken Cuccinelli in the last week.  I don't think this is the issue on people's minds day to day, but it is certainly an interesting and emotional one. 

Does Cuccinelli have a cock problem or is this issue just going to shoot over most voters heads? 

What do you think?

Comments

[Dan Geroe]

Most...disturbing...post title...ever.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Here's what Ken said about it in his Compass:

"Dear Fellow Republican:

Well, the cockfighting bill has reared its chicken head at the last moment of our election. The Humane Society has taken out ads in local papers complaining about my vote against the cockfighting bill last session. You can see the ad by clicking here. Highly unusual, to say the least. Well, I suppose the liberals stick together…

This is both serious and funny at the same time. I mean, we are talking about chickens after all.

Note that the Humane Society didn’t have any complaint whatsoever about the gambling element of the offense. All they cared about was making chicken fighting a felony.

Why Vote No on the Cockfighting Bill?

Two things about the current law to keep in mind: 1) cockfighting with gambling is already a crime punished as a class 3 misdemeanor. This is what Sen. Reynolds’ bill was addressed to. 2) Cruelty to animals is already a class 1 misdemeanor (including cruelty to chickens) (§ 3.1-796.122).

Some quick criminal justice background for you: There are four classes of misdemeanors, 1-4. Class 4 misdemeanors have a maximum penalty of $250, class 3 have a maximum penalty of $500, class 2 have a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail and $1,000 fine, and class 1 have a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail and $2,500 fine.

The lowest level felony is a class 6 felony. SB 1190 was put in by Sen. Roscoe Reynolds. It called for changing the penalty for cockfighting with gambling from a class 3 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony. Quite a jump! Mind you, I am no fan of criminal cockfighting, but spending $25,000 a year to put a chicken fighter in jail didn’t make sense to me.

Another side note: it costs roughly $25,000 per year to keep someone in prison, and about 70% of our prison beds are occupied by violent criminals (i.e., they were violent toward another human, not a chicken).

I would have supported changing the penalty from a class 3 misdemeanor to a class 2 misdemeanor so jail time would be available, but I try hard to make criminal justice decisions based on the WHOLE criminal justice system. Maybe you are asking, what do you mean by that Cuccinelli?

Well, let me tell you about some things that are class 1 misdemeanors, so you get an idea of what I am talking about…

Assault or Battery by Mob

Recruitment into a known criminal street gang (e.g., MS-13)

Kidnapping by a parent

Hazing of youth gang members

Reckless handling of a firearm so as to endanger life, limb or property

Assault and Battery

Assault and Battery against a household member (i.e., domestic violence)

Threat to kill or harm school personnel while on school property

Stalking, wherein the victim is put in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury

Sexual Battery

Infected sexual battery

Now, let me ask all of you, do you think that fighting chickens (remember now, they’re NOT HUMANS) is worse than domestic violence? Do you think it’s worse than infected sexual battery? Parental kidnapping? Assault and battery by mob? I do not.

Cockfighting does not warrant being treated as a worse offense than class 1 misdemeanors like these. Remember, when the bill was introduced, Sen. Reynolds wanted to make cockfighting a felony – much worse than a misdemeanor.

Senator Hanger proposed an amendment to the bill to reduce the charge from a felony to a class 1 misdemeanor. I supported the amendment to make the bill less bad. Not good, just less bad. That amendment passed by only 20-19!

At that point, I was sitting on the floor of the Senate saying to myself, ‘20-19? You have got to be kidding me!’

After the bill was amended down to a class 1 misdemeanor, the next question for me was, ‘is cockfighting just as bad as other class 1 misdemeanors like domestic violence, parental kidnapping, infected sexual battery, ‘regular’ sexual battery, assault and battery?’

Do you know anyone that’s been the victim of sexual battery? I do. It can have a profound and devastating effect on the victim and their family. Domestic violence can wreak similar devastation. And the list goes on…

How about fighting chickens? IMHO, it’s just not on the same level as other class 1 misdemeanors. Again, I don’t support fighting dogs, chickens, or animals of any kind for sport, for gambling, or for any other reason or no reason at all. I recognize that we need to address cruelty to animals as a criminal offense (as we already do).

I even support making cockfighting a jailable offense, i.e., a class 2 misdemeanor.

But we have to keep it in perspective. PEOPLE are more important than animals. Period. And we need to save and spend our precious tax dollars wisely.

I do not think it makes sense to spend $25,000 a year to put a chicken fighter in prison, when that money could be used addressing – or jailing – parental kidnappers, criminals that sexually abuse other human beings, those that commit assault and battery, etc.

THAT is why I voted against SB 1190 in its final form, because it put crimes against chickens on a par with crimes against human beings in our criminal justice system, and I do NOT support such a change.

I guess you could say that I’m “pro-people.” Of course, I do like a good drumstick…"

[charles]

It would be so easy to just go along. It's nice to see someone who thinks that beating up your wife is a more serious crime than putting two chickens together to watch them fight.

Does Janet think people who participate in cock-fighting are worse criminals than those who kidnap children from their custodial parents?

[Greg L]

How is a big cock a problem, pray tell?

[Not Frank Hargrove]

Is it OK to play with one's cock as long as no violence occurs?

[Doug]

NFH- the problem occurs when two cocks are involved, not just one. The Republicans would normally want to pass all sorts of laws that keep two cocks apart, while secretly tapping out codes, donning wet suits or lingerie, and paying young, nubile "consultants" to stage cock fights in hotel rooms, mens rooms, wherever they think they can get away with it.

Ken's stance is odd, in that regard, to say the least. And it is ok to play with one's cock, but, remember, if you do it too often it can make it less special.

[Doug]

Ben- the way the flier plays it, shouldn't the title be Ken's Small Cock Problem?

Support for cock fighting, protecting gun rights even in public schools etc....Just another window into his flawed and rabid right character.

[TC]

Oh, come now. It's not a big problem. I'd say it's just a little cock problem.

[Alex P. Keaton]

Maybe Janet's entire campaign of attack Ken is really penis envy...

[Saidmypiece]

The Humane Society placed the ad in local papers. People respect the Humane Society (unlike PETA).

Ken's smart-ass intro to his compass piece shows what he really thinks.

And remember, the committee on which he sits turned down a dog-fighting protection provision too -- a simple requirement for vets to report suspected dog-fighting wounds. Ken has clout -- if he cared about animals he could have turned it around.

[Va Blogger]

This is like Jerry Kilgore's death penalty issue. People may have an opinion about it, but its not going to convince anyone to vote for or against someone.

[I.Publius]

Anon 7:18 proves that Janet's supporters understand issues about as well as she does.

[TC]

You don't give people enough credit. Many people have much stronger opinions about cruelty to animals than to humans, regardless of what Ken thinks.

[Doug]

Saidmypiece- in all seriousness, good point. I doubt many people understand the difference in debate and position between Animal Welfare Activitists and Animal Rights Activists. The former wants humane treatment, but generally finds food animals tasty. The latter wants no capitivity in any situation at any time for any reason.

I have to explain that to friends and relatives often. We only want humane treatment of animals and not wanton brutalization like dog or cock fighting. I have no problem with hunting and fishing in a respectful manner- quite the contrary to being wantonly brutal, hunting is very necessary and very humane in Virginia.

[TC]

My post at 8:32 was in reply to VA Blogger at 8:28

This isn't complicated. Cruelty and barbarism to animals OR humans should be unacceptable in a civilized society. What part of that doesn't Cooch understand?

[Doug]

Well 8:35- to give him credit, the line of what one person calls cruel and what another person does isn't always the same. Much of it comes from how you are raised and what others find acceptable. I think in our current culture, raising any animals to fight one another is clearly cruel, but that hasn't always been the case. And Ken's mixing of enjoying meat as a food source with raising animals to fight one another is pretty cloddish and clouds talking about the actual issue.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

I'm not going near the title of this post. Ben, really!

Cooch's problems with shady real estate deals and unpaid grantor's taxes on his transactions is a FAR bigger problem than this.

The perspectives on our public dialogues are so messed up sometimes.

I saw 3 Oleszek commercials on network this AM during the Today Show, and only 1 Cooch ad.

I also saw a Schultz ad twice during the Today Show, and one Vogel ad.

Interesting races.

[NotNotJayHughes]

Ben:

It’s good to know that you’ve got your eye on the ball with regard to this issue. Striking the balance between prioritizing human life and preventing animal cruelty is definitely hard. Janet should just come clean and admit she’s throwing a big bone to her huge animal rights activist supporters. Janet’s working it hard so some people will get jacked up in the short term, but come election day, I think Cooch’s big cock problem will probably just blow over.

[Arlington Hostage]

Methinks what we are seeing in this race - and others - is something relatively new in GA races. Campaigns with too much money to spend, and having trouble figuring out what to spend it on.

[Amazed]

I worked as a Delegate's LA when this cockfighting bill was tied to the now infamous dogfighting bill a few years ago. We were stunned at the turnout of cockfighters who came to the General Assembly, and ultimately it was stripped from the bill. Who knew so many people did this?

NotNotJayHughes: Have you ever had an animal you loved? If not, maybe that explains your callous views towards animals. Of course, Republicans are callous towards people, so why would we expect them to show any compassion for animals?

[!]

Since when is having a big cock a problem?

[David]

Cooch's dismissive, light-hearted attitude about this issue says a lot about him as a person, but even more importantly it demonstrates his lack of knowledge. Abuse of animals is an extremely strong predictor of abuse of other humans.

His "it's just a chicken," or "it's just a dog" ethos no longer has a place here. Scary, and perfectly consistent with his other outdated views.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

The only other thing I would say regarding the issue of this post, is that when Ken engages in comparative moral judgements the way he does in his blurb that Ben posted above, he certainly is opening a Pandora's Box. There are numerous illogical and morally questionable differences in severity of punishment throughout Virginia's stautory law, mostly as a result of the hard-nosed law & order = severe punishment gang.

Does Cooch really want to open that box right before the election? I don't think so. It won't make him look any better.

[Doug]

NotNotJayHughes - you idiot. It's not an animal rights issue, it is an animal welfare issue.

This cock business is going to be a pain in Ken's ass, and as there's more friction, it's going to keep getting bigger and bigger, until it hurts so much that Ken can't handle it anymore. And then it will explode.

[David]

Eugene's here!

"How is a big cock a problem, pray tell?"

I'll tell you how, Mr. Smarty Pants. I have to tuck mine in my sock to keep from tripping over or stepping on it (Ouch!). It's not fun. I need cock reduction surgery, but can't afford it. Donations to my cock reduction surgery are welcome. Thanks to those of you who have already donated. That is all.

[James Young]

I see, with the title, that you're going for the high road again, Ben. ;-)

[Fan of Integrity]

"Does Cuccinelli have a (big) cock problem or is this issue just going to shoot over most voters heads?"

I think this will shoot over most NOVA voters heads... Have to agree it's a little cock problem - not a big one.

[charles]

David, when you say "Abuse of animals is an extremely strong predictor of abuse of other humans.", it could be interpreted as claiming animals are just like other humans.

As to "predictors", what about those who send humans into boxing rings to beat each other, or this new UFC stuff? Should we lock up the people who like to watch that, because it is a predictor of what they would like to do?

You could respond that the humans had a choice to enter those contests, while the animals did not. But your point wasn't that we were FORCING animals to fight, your point was anybody who ENJOYED animals fighting would be suspected of wanting to attack humans as well.

I oppose dog fights and cock fights, but I don't pretend to know what is in the mind of a dog or bird who is fighting.

Of course, Ken also opposes dog and cock fighting. But it's just typical of Democrats to overstep on an issue, refuse to compromise, and then lie about the result when the republicans attempt to make the law SANE. We see that here, Ken was happy to make a class 2 misd. which would make it a jailable offense, but they had to push for a class 1, which was out of proportion to punishments for other offenses.

I guess you could push the other offenses into higher categories, but I don't really see the democrats running around all up in arms about THAT.

Anyone who thinks violence against animals should be punished more severely than violence against people is seriously screwed up in the head. Either that, or they work for PETA. Actually, that's redundant. Sorry.

[dems4dems]

I wonder if Ken's wife has any knowledge of his big cock problem.

[Koochie, Koochie, Koo]

Clearly it's Kooch who's "seriously screwed-up in the head."

I'm amused by his TV ad that portrays Janet as not having a plan: Kooch’s constituents are well aware that, while he has plans, they are simply the wrong ones.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

LOL!!! Anon 9:24 (AKA Eugene Delgaudio!!)

Great one, David!

So, here we have a post about the Cooch...with a cock problem...shooting all over everyone's heads....

Two points:

1. It's not actually the sexual double entendre I find hilarious--it's the fact that so many people are commenting on this story seriously. The punchline used to be about sex organs; now the punchline is you.
2. I don't think Ben has ever needed a trip to Atlantic City more seriously. Seriously, go up to Jersey, play some cards, catch a show, and get some of this out of your system after Tuesday.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

"Of course, Ken also opposes dog and cock fighting"

Seriously, is THAT what you conservatives do in your spare time?

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

"I guess you could push the other offenses into higher categories, but I don't really see the democrats running around all up in arms about THAT"

Charles, you would be WRONG about THAT. I certainly believe that hit and run or striking a pedestrian offenses that result in permanent injury or maiming ought to be treated as seriously as hit and run or vehicular manslaughter that results in death.

I met a woman recently whose son was struck and seriously maimed while crossing with the light and in a crosswalk, and he has dealt with the consequences of that for years.

The kid who hit him had been in an accident two days earlier, and had several tickets. He basically got off with a slap on the wrist and a few hundred dollar fine, because the statutes don't provide for very severe punishment.

That's seriously F-d up. He was apparently very glib about it, and didn't have to worry about the years of pain, suffering, loss of income, and strenuous physical therapy that he inflicted on the poor guy. Not to mention the costs.

Seriously, how could this kid have gotten off so lightly. That is one law that needs to be fixed.

I am ALL in favor of finding this morally questionable differences in severity of punishment and FIXING them.

[Sam]

Can I just say, Ben, I approve the title and the whole post... To quote a previous commenter, way to keep your eye on the ball.

[David]

Charles, I don't think you understand. Abuse of animals is an extremely strong predictor of abuse of other human beings. That's an established, empirical fact in the behavioral sciences.

It's actually very likely that the kid Doug talks about who was "very glib" about the harm he inflicted on another human being has provided warning signs for years in the form of dismissing the suffering of animals. There is a large body of research that demonstrates this relationship.

Treating the practice of institutionalized abuse of animals as a joke is just another demonstration of how out of touch with the real world Cooch is.

[NotNotJayHughes]

You know….it’s nice to know that some people still have a sense of humor like Doug in Mt. Vernon and Anons 0924 & 0928…..I’m glad you saw the humor in my post (or I think you recognized it).

As for Anon 0903, yes I have had pets that I loved dearly and I currently have pets that I love dearly. Specifically: 2 pugs, 1 cat, 2 blue & gold macaws, 4 african grey parrots, 1 double yellow amazon parrot, 1 yellow nape amazon parrot, 2 emerald parrots and 2 kakarikis. In fact, many of the tropical birds Eddie and I own are rescue birds who were abandoned or mistreated by their owners. We nurse them back to good health and try to rehabilitate their socialization to humans. If we can restore their trust in humans, we try sell or place them in good homes. If they show an interest in breeding we allow them to breed so we can sell the babies to good homes to defray the cost of rescuing birds. So please spare me your silly perception that Republicans are “callous”. Maybe if you’d interact with someone other than extreme liberals you’d see there are lots of different kinds of Republicans. It makes me glad that quite a few of my friends are Democrats. It keeps me getting sucked into that knee-jerk reaction of stereotyping.

dmiv,
gee, what side of your mouth are you talking from when you suggest you want to want to increase severity of punishment for driving offenses? You have a problem with fines that are not severe enough? I suppose we will not hear any more from you about the "abusive driver" fees.

I suppose it would be wishful thinking that you and your liberal friends would stay consistant on an issue though. maybe you'd be better off sticking with the "cock" issue. An issue you seem to have a better grip on.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

Anon 12:12

You make absolutely no sense, and your jokes are tired.

Goodbye.

All I can say is there has been a lot of money shot in to these campaigns. As they get up hard against election day, I suspect they will both really pop. Ken's position on cock fighting shows he has a huge balls given that this is a hairy situation that can really hang on a candidate. In these final days, we may see Janet really rub Ken out on this issue. I just hope there will be enough tissue left to clean up what is likely to be an explosive mess.

[LAS]

Are there seriously people here defending cock fighting? Is this 2007 or 18007?

It's not just what it does to the chickens--it is what this sport does to the humans who participate. Cruelty diminishes us all.

Ken Cuccinelli opposes making cock-fighting a felony. Now the ock-fighters from Marylan and North Carolina come here.

It's a good thing see. It's a way to attract new industry and will be a tremendous boon to the Virginia economy.

I say we should all be grateful to Ken Cuccinelli who is only trying to make sure Virginia is recognized as a national leader in cock-fighting.

[I.Publius]

LAS, I know you're not as stupid as that last post makes you appear. Go back and read Cooch's comments, then try to keep a straight face and say that he supports cockfighting.

Unless, of course, like the anon moron who posted after you, the truth -- and sensible criminal statutes -- aren't important to you.

[fannyboy]

Can dannyboy please draw us an editorial cartoon that visualizes the metaphors from anonymous 9:24's posting?

I'll do that, I. Pub, you sanctimonious twit, when you learn to read.

I never said that Cooch supports cock-fighting. I questioned people--on this thread--who defend this disgusting practice. You know, because it's a "cultural thing." Or because it "used to be" acceptable.

This cruel and degrading activity brings out the worst in human beings. It introduces the worst element into our community. It is not merely that it is bad for the chickens; it is detrimental to our society as a whole.

As for Cooch--he makes a facile argument; I would expect no less from him. But I suspect there's another agenda working here. I'm guessing he voted against it because it appeals to his "f-off, nobody tells me what to do" streak that he confuses with independence.

Of course, it could be just that he really wants to preserve this ignoble tradition--he is sort of stuck in the 19th Century, isn't he?

[I.Publius]

Sounds like you just can't argue with Cooch's very reasonable argument that crimes against people should be punished more severely than crimes against chickens.

And since you can't argue with that (because he's right) all you can do is assume he voted against it for reasons that you CAN argue against.

Good grief, LAS, you're a tool.

[LAS]

And it sounds like to me, I. Pub, that you cannot grasp that it is not the crime against chickens that is of paramount concern, but the detriment to society. Society, if you recall, is made up of lots and lots of PEOPLE.

And if Cooch doesn't like the laws in place for crimes committed against people, he is in a very good position to do something about it. Instead, he decides that if one wrong exists, then it is only right that another exists as well?

No, "reasonable" is not the word that comes to mind.

[dems4dems]

I think most are missing the point. If Cuccinelli takes issue with how Virginia addresses certain crimes, what can he do about it? NOTHING!

He doesn't join coalitions, he's not a team player and he's got many enemies, some in his own party.

He doesn't make deals; he kills them. He's a go-at-it-alone type on issues that need a pragmatic, consensus-based solution. If you want a demagogue to pontificate on divisive wedge issues, then he's the man.

[LAS]

dems4dems, that's quite true. Cooch has alienated so many members of his own party and, of course, he's hardly a favorite with the other side. He has been out-of-step with his constituents for years, but has managed to bamboozle everybody with his "I'm a nice and friendly guy" bit. He does speak well, I give him that.

And here he is, making a principaled stand against the injustices perpetuated on human victims of crimes by...wait for it...voting for cock-fighting! Why, it's almost Jeffersonian. Except, you know, not.

Maybe his luck has finally run out. We can only hope.

[I.Publius]

"it is not the crime against chickens that is of paramount concern, but the detriment to society."

Yet, in the end, you believe that crimes against chickens causes a greater detriment to society than crimes against people.

Terrific.

[LAS]

And again you are being deliberately obtuse.

If your friend Cooch wants to do something about these inequalities, he is, or could be, in a position to do so. Yet how does he address this problem? By voting NO for a law against cock-fighting? Honestly, what does one have to do with the other? It seems to me if you have a chance to address a problem, you take it. You don't--as a Virginia State Senator--sit on your hands and whine that there are bigger problems. How does this accomplish anything?

[I.Publius]

LAS, please stop bothering to comment until you take the time to read what's already been said. You obviously do nothing more than listen to what the voices in your head (RK radio, Moveon podcasts, NBC news, etc.) tell you.

From Cooch's statement:

"1) cockfighting with gambling is already a crime punished as a class 3 misdemeanor. This is what Sen. Reynolds’ bill was addressed to. 2) Cruelty to animals is already a class 1 misdemeanor (including cruelty to chickens) (§ 3.1-796.122)."

So please tell us why, with laws already on the books to address cockfighting (gambling and animal cruelty), do we need another statute? Clearly, under these two statutes, cockfighting is ALREADY ILLEGAL. So what needs to be accomplished?