Big Anti-Gun Money in Virginia

I already saw comments and photos from friends in Northern Virginia that the Gabby Giffords PAC has spent lots of money on a constant stream of campaign mailers that practically accuse gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli of wanting to give away free guns to babies, terrorists, and domestic abusers.

Then word broke yesterday that Michael Bloomberg is dropping another $1.1 million in advertising into the state in just the final two weeks of the race. Politico notes that if Terry McAuliffe wins, he is a guarantee to be a very big Bloomberg ally on gun control.

They will always try to outspend us, and with someone like Bloomberg behind them, it will sometimes work. Fortunately, Colorado showed that sometimes we can also counter their big money by motivating voters in a big way. In fact, I would argue that the Colorado losses and the continued threat of more recalls there is why the gun control groups are going so big into the Virginia governor’s race. They can’t afford to lose something so high profile in another purple state, and they know it. Unfortunately, the polls look like they just might get that win they so desperately need to remain relevant unless Virginia voters really step up and turn out.

24 thoughts on “Big Anti-Gun Money in Virginia”

  1. This is what happens when you run a poor campaign in a state with a large share of federal employees during a government shutdown.

    Also doesn’t help that Bob McDonnell’s foibles ended up leaking onto the Attorney General candidate.

    Earth to GOP… Anyone there at HQ or are you relying on the beltway 501(c) groups to send out the message?

    1. The Wayback machine crawled the page once in August. This is what they found:
      “Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt.”

  2. All the liberal money can’t put those illegal voters back on the rolls that Ken Cuccinelli just kicked off. When done with the process he will have removed just over 51 thousand phoney voters…. almost all dempcraps. They are really pissed over this so it shows they were counting on these voters…. thus all the extra last minute money.

    All this big money didn’t help in the Colorado recall vote recently.

    Also, I seriously doubt that the black population will show up for Terry McAuliffe in the numbers that they are planning on since Obama isn’t running this time. The state was largely red in 2012, but large turn out by the black population in the northern part of the state, plus all those illegal voters from out of state carried it blue.

    We’ll see what happens.

  3. Just to be stated about how sexual and raunchy the McAuliffe campaign really is. My best friend’s daughter got a post card and info packet from the McAuliffe campaign, and it was about…. birth control and abortions. I simply told my friend Tommy that based upon the last federal election, most women have a little sex fetish with eugenics. Thankfully, his daughter stated many of the things I just mentioned, and she basically said to her father and mother that if Cuccineli actually wanted to win he would slam the Dems about how the IRS through Obama care has already gotten inside a woman’s lady parts. The jackass republicans could simply state that obamacare has made the IRS the biggest rapist on the lose. The repubs should be out their saying that the IRS can garnish your wages, levy and lock your bank account, and eventually prosecute you for not having health insurance, and like a rapist, it will never stop pounding. These jackass republicans are spineless cowards.

    1. Let’s call a spade a spade: McAuliffe’s (and now Hillary’s) people are the sex-crazed groupies. It’s the primary voting issue for them. PP has a website dedicated to pumping out propaganda for the Democrats in Virginia. They are an organization nearly 100% focused on sex when it comes around to election time. The other stuff they provide women is really of no consequence.

      That, coupled, with a non-existant national GOP presence and a poor campaign by the Republican means trouble. And it will continue to mean trouble. I see the same thing happening in PA. And in PA, we have history what is actually in our favor since every governor has won re-election for the last 50+ years.

      1. The national GOP has given no support to Cuccineli. That says a lot about the GOP being in bed with the communist democrats.

  4. It’s funny how the leftists all get their panties in a wad about right-wing moneyspenders like the Koch brothers, but they give their left-wing counterparts (read: Bloomberg) a complete pass.

  5. I’ll wait for the “professionals'” post-election analyses, but from where I sit it appears that if Cuccinelli pulls it off, it will have to be gun owners who got motivated and did it.

    I will then wait and see if Cuccinelli does anything proportional for gun owners, in return. I’m recalling Lee Atwater’s 1989 statement, (approximately) “We don’t need to talk to gun owners about anything — the election’s over.”

  6. Cooch is f’ing terrible. If I lived there I’d have to vote against him and hope the legislature kept the gov in line on guns.

    1. I would like to see Sarvis win. Unfortunately, this just isn’t possible. There is also very little chance VA will see a third party candidate do better than 2% in a state-wide election. While I am unconvinced gun rights would be advanced under Cuccinelli, I do believe he would at least hold the line and not lobby against them with Bloomberg’s money pouring in from out of state. We are at least guaranteed that. This is not a Mitt Romney we’re talking about when it comes to 2A rights, after all.

      Really, there’s no way gun rights are going away in VA no matter who gets elected in this race. I just hate to see Bloomberg and Kelly attempt to do a victory lap here.

  7. Given some of the talk (from both sides) about McAuliffe, it may be that he is only around for 2 or 3 of the 4 years of his term as he seem to have eyes on a Hillary cabnet position; but liberals have shown they can cause a lot of problem in a short amount of time…

    With polling showing McAuliffe up by 8%… and up to 8% of potential voters saying they will vote for Sarvis… I wish I could get my libritarian friends to understand the spoiler effect. before they go and vote (or decide to not vote out of principal).

  8. a little revisionist history on Cuccinelli has been put forth. Google “Et Tu Cuccinelli” and read the May, 2010 VA Alert. a copy

    Juxtapose this with the current “endorsements”. He also put some crazy ruling about counties and cities having authority to ban firearms from public streets. It was one of the first things he did.

    Now, faced with McAuliffe or Sarvis, they endorse the guy who went all the way to the supreme court to prohibit guns on campus.

    Cuccinelli is not only losing, he’s losing bad because gun owners, deep down in their hears know this guy is a false prophet who says one thing to get elected, then stabs you in the back.
    Because he’s already done that. He is a slick, political opportunist comfortable arguing talking points from the Brady campaign, supporting gun control when and where he wants and talking about supporting gun rights.

    So at best, his record is mixed. It’s definitely not great.

    He’s so far down in the polls, he will get defeated handily. Bloomy’s money is not even needed. last I saw he was down by double digits. Gun owners should come out for Sarvis and send a message to both major parties.

    1. The thing I find interesting is that the gun issue didn’t seem to come up until Cuccinelli was so far down in the polls, that it was a done deal. It seems like the Dems felt like this election was won months ago so they are going to bring up the gun issue and then make it look like that is what won the election. Or try to prove that “see, forget about Colorado, this issue and Bloomberg’s month can still win elections”

      Both choices suck, but Cuccinelli will get my vote. At least VA governors are limited to 1 term. Hopefully pro-gun forces can hold the House and Senate during that time.

  9. Here’s one example of something being done on the left.

    The trouble is, most of what they are saying about Larry Pratt is true, without the necessity of too much spinning. For quite awhile now he seems not to have met a loon he won’t associate with and agree with, if it gets him some air time. I’m wondering if the point has been reached where a GOA endorsement doesn’t help at all, and hurts thanks to the fringey associations.

      1. You’re really quoting something from PFAW? “Right wing watch”?
        Do you think we should be picking apart McAuliffe’s associations, too, considering he is our political opponent? Where should we start?

        GOA endorsement generally helps when you are looking at a candidate’s long term record on gun rights. I don’t think Cuccinelli would be worthy of that endorsement should what “Joe” pointed out be true.

          1. “You’re really quoting something from PFAW? “Right wing watch”?

            I’m not quoting it, I’m showing what’s being done with the information. But, is it false? If so, let’s go and counter it, or try and field it in some way. No one seems to be working at that very hard.

            But on the other hand, if our “friends” are slowly (?) dragging our issue over into wackadoodle land — to die, if they’re successful, count on it — who do you think is going to tell us about that? Breitbart? American Thinker? WND?

            If anything is going to subvert us, it’s going to be our own self-censorship, our refusal to hear anything bad said that might rattle a delusion or two.

            Speaking of which,

            “GOA endorsement generally helps when you are looking at a candidate’s long term record on gun rights.”

            You are kidding, aren’t you? What a GOA endorsement means is that the candidate has a solid, proven record of action and orthodoxy on practically every other issue dear to the hearts of social conservatives, and has learned enough of the rap about about gun rights. If he or she has ever actually done anything about gun rights, that’s gravy.

            For a case in point, look at the campaign when Lou Barletta first ran for congress here in PA. His sole claim to fame was that as mayor of Hazleton he got passed a whole collection of anti-immigrant ordinances that were subsequently declared unconstitutional, including a ban on flying foreign flags — clearly a violation of the First Amendment. But had he ever done Jack Schitt about gun rights? Considering that he was willing to skirt the constitution to go after Mexicans, you’d have thought he might skirt state law, in the process of actually enforcing the state constitution regarding gun rights. But he didn’t, in any way that I have been able to find. And yet Larry Pratt was ready, willing and able to drive all the way up to his district to endorse him at a campaign rally, as a savior of gun rights, while a Christian Identity band played tunes for everyone’s entertainment. Where was that “long term record on gun rights?” Maybe Pratt got confused and was really supposed to be there on behalf of his old organization, English First!

            I’m sorry for going off like that, but after a lifetime of people like that bullshitting me about something I’ve cared about since my teens, I am just GD tired of it, and ready to say so.

            1. The problem is, the gun issue only advances with majorities willing to stand up for 2A rights. I agree with you that these guys are BSing us in big numbers.

              The reason I can agree in part with what you say is that we’ve had GOP majorities that have done nothing on guns. In fact in some states (NY) the GOP went anti-gun on important bills. But therein lies the problem. Not all Republicans are the same. The guys who you malign are the ones most apt to do something should folks of their calibre become the majority in their elected body. Do you mean to tell me if we had 100 guys like MetCalfe in the PA House or 200 guys like Barletta in the U.S. HoR we wouldn’t see the gun issue pushed our way? That’s what you’re telling me. And on that I wholeheartedly disagree. In maligning constitutional conservatives, you are giving as much weight to a Lou Barletta as a Peter King.

              What can they actually do without a majority of folks who also value gun rights? If you discount the GOA or NRA as you do, what objective method do you offer to ascertain the politician’s real interest in gun rights? Scoring politicians is what both of these groups do. And, yes, they also engage in publicity stunts as any 501(c) organization is woe to do.

              This reminds me of the posts on the social media sphere about all sorts of political theory where they rail on about Chris Christie or other political candidates being terrible and whatnot. And I agree with those posts, but what good is that ideology when you can’t get majorities of people elected who also agree?

              1. “Do you mean to tell me if we had 100 guys like MetCalfe in the PA House or 200 guys like Barletta in the U.S. HoR we wouldn’t see the gun issue pushed our way?”

                I’ll say I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Because gun rights isn’t even their sixth or seventh priority, and being authoritarians first, last and always, they would first be interested in making sure only the “right people” in fact had gun rights, and if any of the minority groups they’ve maligned started suggesting that maybe armed resistance was in order, they would rethink their own security real fast.

                Want an illustration? I won’t name names because I don’t record phone conversations, so I can’t prove it and I fight shy of charges of libel and associated public pissing contests. But, some years ago I was having a casual phone conservation with another RKBA “activist” who took the job of telling one of these Good Conservative pols what to say about gun rights to the rest of us yokels in public, and the subject of “Vermont Carry” came up. It is important to understand that both this activist and his pol buddy had frequently given lip-service to Vermont Carry in their public statements — to gun owner audiences. But the activist confided on the phone, “Of course we don’t really want Vermont Carry in Pennsylvania. We’re not like Vermont. We have too many [n-words] and spics and other dirtballs, so it could never work here. . .” I was speechless.

                But, Vermont Carry was OK for bullshitting the yokels at the annual Republican campaign event in the Capitol in Harrisburg, aka, the “Gun Rights Rally.”

                Here is what I have supported for YEARS: Supporting politicians in proportion to what they actually produce for us, or make a sincere attempt to produce. Not for their heartfelt RKBA rap, or their crocodile tears as they commiserate with us over our lost rights. In my example above, the pol in question for years would orate about the virtues of constitutional carry, but if asked why he wasn’t introducing any bills, he (and his supporter buddies) would get all huffy at being asked, and explain dismissively that “the time isn’t right. . .it wouldn’t go anywhere. . .” Anyone asking was just too, too unsophisticated to understand. What I understood was that he was a lying sack of offal, who needed the RKBA issue in his quiver to keep him in office.

                Until we learn how many of these Good Conservatives — in and out of government — are using gun rights only for a “decoy issue” to win votes and maybe future support for the issues they are really there to promote, we are placing the thing we value most in severe danger.

                Did you ever look into how many decoy issues Larry Pratt fielded, with different organizations, at the same time he was kicking off GOA?

Comments are closed.