How many of you have ever watched a debate for Virginia attorney general? Raise your hands, please.
That’s what I thought.
Now, raise your hands if you plan to watch tonight’s debate between Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares and Democratic challenger Jay Jones.
See the difference?
For those of you who won’t be in attendance at the Virginia State Bar event at the University of Richmond, you can watch the livestream here starting at 6 p.m.
I daresay that this might be as well-watched as — and perhaps more decisive than — last week’s debate between gubernatorial candidates Abigail Spanberger and Winsome Earle-Sears. Let’s hope it’s at least a more decorous affair than that embarrassment where Earle-Sears spent the entire evening interrupting Spanberger. If that’s what political debates are going to be from here on out, I see little reason to have them.
The big question going into the gubernatorial debate was how Spanberger would answer questions around Jones’ text messages where he fantasized about shooting then-Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert. Spanberger had already condemned the texts, and condemned them again. Beyond that, there was no good answer she could give, so she chose to give the least bad one: It’s up to voters now to decide. Technically, she was right: It’s too late to remove Jones from the ballot. Politically, she couldn’t do either of the two things that Earle-Sears pressed her to do: She couldn’t re-endorse him, neither could she call for him to drop out or otherwise disavow him. The former would give Republicans more material to use (under the circumstances, I hesitate to use the traditional word “ammunition”); the latter would inflame part of the Democratic base.
For anyone wondering how Democrats can rationalize their support of Jones after these texts came to light, it’s the same way that Republicans rationalize their support of Donald Trump after one thing or another: Yeah, what he said was bad, but the other side is still worse. These are the times we live in.
For voters who aren’t quite so partisan (or for partisans looking for affirmation of their viewpoints), tonight’s Jones-Miyares debate will be must-see viewing. Jones has given only one interview — to WRIC-TV in Richmond — since the news broke. If he’s had public appearances, they haven’t been announced (that’s also the trend generally with campaigns, so I read nothing into that). Tonight, however, he’ll stand on stage for an hour and be forced to take what are likely uncomfortable questions. Spanberger dodged them, essentially saying “not my problem,” just not in so many words. Jones can’t do that so easily.
For Miyares, the key questions are policy-driven. For better or worse, one of the main roles of a state attorney general these days is to sue the federal government if you’re of the opposite party. When Joe Biden was president, Miyares frequently went to court, joining coalitions of other Republican attorneys general to sue the Biden administration over immigration policy, protections for LGBTQ+ students, climate-inspired regulations and, well, the list goes on. With Trump as president, Democratic attorneys generals have been the ones trooping to court, to sue over federal funding cuts, National Guard deployments, election rules and, well, that list goes on, too.
Democrats would love to see Jones tie Miyares to Trump at every opportunity. Jones will certainly have rhetorical opportunities to do that, and Miyares will have to defend his decisions, knowing full well that polls consistently show Trump is unpopular in Virginia (as did three straight presidential elections where Trump lost the state.)
At least one key question, though, Miyares probably can’t answer. The Trump administration forced out the president of the University of Virginia and is now pushing the school to sign a “compact” to qualify for certain federal funding — a deal that the administration says will guarantee that universities don’t “belittle” conservative thought and that critics see as an outrageous infringement on academic freedom. The attorney general’s office provides legal advice to all state universities. What advice did Miyares give the University of Virginia when the president was being pressured to resign? What advice is he giving the university now over Trump’s proffered “compact”? If there are points to be scored there, Jones can score them at will because Miyares is restricted in what he can say because of attorney-client privilege.
Likewise, Miyares can score points when he talks — as he surely will — about how the state’s death rate from fentanyl has come down. That’s a bipartisan issue — nobody except drug dealers are pro-fentanyl — but Miyares has been a tireless crusader in the “one pill can kill” campaign. I’ve lost track of how many events he’s held to warn about the dangers of fentanyl.
Let’s be realistic, though: Nobody’s going to watch this debate to hear an arcane legal argument about the state’s role vis-a-vis the federal government or the attorney general’s role as a consumer protection advocate. They want to hear what Jones will have to say about his text messages. I’d expect another fulsome apology, and then a pivot to Trump — and how Miyares is, in Democrats’ view, failing to stand up to a president who is straining against law and custom. However, there are some things we ought to hear about beyond an apology. Here are some of them. If I were a panelist (which I’m not) or had an interview with Jones (which we’ve asked for but haven’t heard a response to), here’s what I’d ask:
1. Can Jones document his community service?
Jones was convicted in 2022 of doing 116 mph on Interstate 64. Others convicted on the same day of lower speeds had their licenses suspended and, in some cases, a suspended jail sentence. Jones got neither. Instead, he offered to perform 1,000 hours of community service. At eight hours a day, five days a week, that’s 25 weeks — almost a half-year of community service. He submitted paperwork that showed he did half of that for his own political action committee, half for the state NAACP. Neither group has said what, exactly, he did for that time. Can he offer documentation of what work he did? Does he think it’s right that he got to work for his own political action committee when other people doing community service are picking up trash? Would he support legislation to spell out that community service can’t be done for a political group?
2. Can Jones explain why he thought Gilbert was a fascist?
In his texts, Jones said that then-Speaker Todd Gilbert and his wife were “breeding little fascists.” Can he explain why he thought Gilbert — whom Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine recommended for U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia — was a fascist?
3. Can Jones explain how he’ll deal with Republican communities if he thinks they’re electing fascists?
If he thought the Republican leader in the House was a fascist, what does that say about how he views Republicans — and their voters — in general? If Jones is elected, there will still be large parts of Virginia, primarily in Southwest Virginia, where 70% or maybe 80% or more of the voters cast ballots for Republicans. How can he assure those communities, and their residents, that he won’t view them as fascists?
4. Can Jones explain his comments on making people feel pain?
He said that “only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.” How much pain should people have to endure? Doesn’t this suggest that persuasion and logic play no role? If so, doesn’t that essentially negate the whole point of a political campaign, or even this debate?
Jones’ answers to those questions might tell us more than any apology ever will. The question is, do his text messages tell voters all they need to know, rendering anything else said after that moot?
To see where the candidates stand, see our Voter Guide, where both Jones and Miyares have responded to our questionnaire.
For more political news and insights, sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter:
