Political Consultants Prepare for Blistering Serves
Who Stepped Up: A good return is better than a fantastic serve.
Never thought you could learn about politics from watching Grand Slam Tennis, did you? Watch pros on the court and what will you see? Both usually can smash the ball and slam an ace at will.
But who wins? Winning on your serve isn’t enough. The winner is the one who can return the opponent’s serve and score a point. Anyone can hit hard; good counterpunches usually win.
I saw that strategy employed recently in Norfolk in a debate between two candidates for Norfolk’s Commonwealth’s Attorney, Greg Underwood and John Coggeshall.
Underwood spoke first and burned up his time touting his extensive resume. “Look at my qualifications and then look at my opponent’s qualifications,” said Underwood, calling himself a “career prosecutor.” He bragged about his record in the prosecutor’s office as the “Senior Deputy in the office right now.”
Not a bad opening punch. However, a good political consultant on the receiving end would have seen that coming and thought, “How can we make his biggest strength into a liability.”
Coggeshall and his team did just that and returned a blistering shot. Knowing that Underwood loves to say, “I’ve been a prosecutor in Norfolk since 2001,” Coggeshall collected some statistics. Since 2001, robberies are up 12%, aggravated assaults are up 37%, and murders are up an astounding 55%.
Coggeshall then asked for a show of hands of how many people are happy with the current level of crime in Norfolk. Not a hand went up.
Coggeshall is a Republican, Norfolk is a very Democratic town, and that audience was no Republican breakfast. But Coggeshall scored big.
Underwood isn’t an incumbent, but by campaigning as the heir apparent with eight years working in the office, he opened himself up to every criticism that can be launched about the current crime level in Norfolk.
The inevitable question for Underwood’s political consultant is, “how can he do better than his own record?” In a city and an electorate where Underwood has all the advantages, his campaign message forced him into playing defense.
And that’s a bad position to be playing from with a special election date of March 10.
All because Coggeshall knew how to return a serve.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:49 am
…the only problem is Coggeshall’s proposed solution - HIM - is not a viable alternative as he has never prosecuted one case. Additionally, Jack Doyle, the Commonwealth’s Attorney from 2001-2008 is hugely popular here in Norfolk among Dems and Republicans alike - that is why he ran UNOPPOSED in 2004. Had Cogg had a REAL problem with Jack, he would’ve runin 2004. Sorry whoever wrote this article - you obviously don’t know the Norfolk audience.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Alex,
You are so far off base, I do not know where to begin. I would suggest you not post at such a late hour again because it seems that a lack of sleep has affected your judgment. John Coggeshall is the ideal person to be Norfolk’s Commonwealth’s Attorney.
From 1992 to 2000, eight straight years before he was successfully elected to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office for the City of Norfolk, Jack Doyle did exactly the same thing John Coggeshall is currently doing: court-appointed defense work.
If, as you say, both Republicans and Democrats loved Jack Doyle, they’ll love John Coggeshall as much (or more) as Norfolk’s Commonwealth’s Attorney. Also, both prosecuted cases prior to attaining the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. Defense attorneys are allowed to prosecute cases under standard procedures, as Mr. Coggeshall has done over the past decade.
John is going to win on March 10th because of who he is and because of the team he has assembled to win.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
…you forget - Jack Doyle prosecuted for over 10 years before 1992-2000. John Coggeshall has prosecuted for 0 years and 0 cases. Jack Doyle never walked into a case in which he had a stark conflict of interest - representing a lady with mental health problems and then representing the sexual predator who assaulted that lady’s daughter. That is a serious conflict of interest for which John Coggeshall was removed from a case within the last 3 weeks in Norfolk Circuit Court. Do not try to tell me I do not know what I am talking aboutn when you do not even know who I am. Your ignorance just energizes me even more to expose John’s weaknesses and dangerous shortcomings. You cannot walk into the chief law enforcement position in the city handling the largest felony caseload in the state having had 0 experience with victims of crime and never having prosecuted even 1 shoplifting case - much less a murder. Jack Doyle was the Chief Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney before he left for solo practice in 1992. John does not have the reputationor the experience that Jack Doyle. Not even close. You can only package a lack of experience but so much before people realize the real package they are getting.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Alex,
I’m glad you decided to post at a reasonable hour, but apparently your judgment impairment is not affected by the hour you post. Your bias and lack of sense seems to be present at all times.
After eight years of criminal defense work. Jack Doyle would have had the same amount of case conflicts as John Coggeshall will have when he becomes Commonwealth’s Attorney.
Also, with laws, trial tactics, and strategy changing with every General Assembly and Supreme Court ruling; being away from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office for eight years is not a great credential for returning.
Why do you believe Mr. Coggeshall has zero experience with victims of crimes, or has never prosecuted a case? He’s the first candidate for Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney in history with fourteen years of Guardian-ad-litem work dealing with child and adult victims. He has prosecuted cases against adults under allowable procedures for over a decade.
Don’t try to bolster your flimsy position by grasping at straws.