« Its Official: Bob McDonnell Is Coming to MC | Main | Tom Davis Votes With Democrats On Iraq »

February 16, 2007


Interesting you mention the GA's partisan rancor in negative connotation, then proceed to only add to that. Nevertheless, the WaPo has no idea what they're talking about here.
The Bar decided to work on this almost 2 years ago and on their own initiative...well before Creigh started working for this new firm.

I also think its humorous how Sen. Tommy Norment says he opposes it. His law firm, Kaufman and Canoles, practices in front of state boards and agencies. This ethics opinion would make it so that they can keep doing it! I guess he's looking for a new job.

Not Susan Allen

This is just a blatent, thoughtless smear job. Senator Creigh deeds is an ethical thoughtful politician who managed to get the redistricting bill passed, when others simply failed. If Deeds was is so unethical, why is he well respected enough to earn bi-partisan support and praise? Disappointing piece.

Riley, Not O'Reilly

What part of "Without the proposed change, Deeds would be violating state ethics rules." don't you understand, NSA? The proposal hasn't been enacted yet, therefore Creigh Deeds is in violation. It isn't like he couldn't hook up with a different law firm that didn't have a lobbying component. This one just happened to be willing to line his pockets in preparation for a run for Gov. in '09. And the opinion issued in Jan. that could clear the way for him to take such a job comes a little late given he joined the firm in Oct.

Not exactly the paragon of ethics here.


Not good enough NSA. As Riley points out, its a violation and Deeds is already doing it! And then he is trying to change the rules from the inside to help a firm he works for on the OUTSIDE! How is that ethical? Tell me? Even Brian Moran agrees!


The WaPost article is pretty poorly researched. If you actually READ the ethics opinion in question here, you'll find it states that "in looking at rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, and 8.4, the Committe opines repeatedly that some specific act of misconduct is required for a violation, rather than just the public service alone." In other words, there would have to be some impropriety on Creigh's part for him to be in violation of ethics rules, even before the bar's opinion. For a bunch of people who are constantly whining about the biased liberal media/Washingon Post/anybody else that disagrees with you, you sure are taking this story at face value. There are so many factual errors in it it's hard to take it seriously. And of course Moran is going to make some asinine comment about how terrible this "ethics issue" is, he's scared of Creigh running against him for Governor.

Spank That Donkey

Great Post, Chris!

The comments to this entry are closed.