search
top

What’s at Stake in Virginia

The Democrats are already spinning that this a great victory for gun control, to be able to elect someone like Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. I will make no bones that I absolutely can’t stand Ken Cuccinelli’s positions on a range of social issues, but gun rights are sinking along with the Republican brand, and we can’t honestly afford too many losses before this whole game will be up. We can make a statement in other races. Bloomberg is spending dollars by the millions to buy elections in swing states. Take this article from the New York Times.

“I don’t think you’ve seen any Democratic candidate run in Virginia as rabidly anti-gun as McAuliffe has in the last two weeks,” said David Adams, legislative director for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, the state affiliate of the NRA.

Cuccinelli reminds me a lot of Santorum, only without having a Bob Casey at least talking a good A rating as was the case in our 2006 Senatorial race. I would reluctantly vote for Cuccinelli were I in Virginia. Especially given that it’s coming out that a big Obama Donor is bankrolling the Libertarian ticket, and that the Libertarian candidate isn’t very err… libertarian.

So to Virginia gun owners, close your eyes and think of England. I’d be sure to get out and vote for Cuccinelli. You’ll only have to deal with him for four years.

30 Responses to “What’s at Stake in Virginia”

  1. mike says:

    These social conservatives need to lose. It’s just a shame they’re taking gun rights with them.

  2. Jim says:

    They are certainly treating victory in Virginia as a fait accomplit:

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/04/2887391/virginia-poll-cuccinelli-guns/

    I hope they are wrong. If not, it certainly looks like we will lose more blue dog democrats, which is very unfortunate since both parties must have a vested interest in the 2A for it to survive.

  3. Joe says:

    I voted the McDonnell ticket in 2009, but if I was still living in VA you wouldn’t catch me voting for Cuccinelli. I’m as Pro 2A as they come but I can’t bring myself to vote for someone who only supports the freedom of certain groups of people.

    Yes, you can say not voting or voting for someone other than Cuccinelli is a vote for gun control. But VA is quickly becoming ‘enemy territory’ anyway, talk to anyone who’s had the pleasure of watching the transformation of NoVA from a sleepy suburb of DC to the next coming of Boulder. Republicans should still be in good shape given the makeup of rest of the state, but that region is going to be the driver of gubernatorial politics from here on out, and VA will soon be (if not already) a reliable “blue” state on the national level as well.

    It does sadden me as I spent a collective 7 years in the state, in both the Tidewater and NoVA, as a sailor and a civilian, and I have some fond memories of my time there. But I had to move on, and hopefully the gun owners still there keep up the good fight. I do not however regret settling down in western PA. More open space, good hunting, less traffic, cheaper housing, and no longer indirectly earning my paycheck from the federal government. A cleansing of my soul of sorts.

  4. Steve says:

    It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to even write this, and I don’t live in VA.
    As a libertarian, my beef with the Republicans isn’t unheard of, but hasn’t been resolved. As long as the establishment keeps putting up these candidates who let their socially conservative convictions guide their policy leadership, they will continue to lose. Yes, you can point to Christie who in a way holds onto his socially conservative values, but I’d counter that he’s compromised himself on liberty in NJ with his position on gun rights, etc. Point being – the Republican party still needs to make a decision on which cannon they’re going to throw overboard to keep the ship afloat: the social issues or the liberty issues.
    Is it right to vote for Cuccinelli on the one issue of gun rights if it means forestalling the this critical decision for the GOP? Or should we happily watch Cuccinelli go down in flames and continue to press for the recognition of the libertarian imperative, in the interest of a long-term game?
    Being involved in my own state’s Republican party, this is an issue we still haven’t resolved – certainly at the national level it’s still not resolved, but I’m thankful I’m not a Virginian tonight having to make this kind of decision (again). And before any call me a potential sell-out, keep in mind that winning one battle might not be in the interest of the war. The fact that the Republican establishment keeps putting up losing candidates is what’s hurting us. Voting in Cuccinelli would tell the establishment that, “see, we really can win with the ’80s party line still!” Then we get another Romney up at the Podium and lose the bigger battle.
    Hard times ahead still for elections, and I worry about getting our stuff together on this front before 2016.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      As long as “liberty issues” include not forcing businesses to do business with people they don’t want to, churches not to marry people they don’t want to, insurers not to force us to pay for objectionable products or services (though I think most right-leaning and libertarian individuals are against Obamacare anyway), and life for all including the unborn, I’d embrace a “liberty platform.” However, I haven’t seen any candidate that has managed to bridge the gap between all the groups. Christie came close, but I still have concerns about his views on gun rights.

    • The Jack says:

      And in delicious “irony” voting for this Libertarian candidate isn’t even a valid protest vote / 3rd party vote.

      As this guy is a LINO

      • Steve says:

        That’s what I hear, but whether “the Cootch” loses votes to 3rd parties, his opponent, or a good TV special, his loss needs to be recognized as another failure in a string of failures for our party platform/image/message.
        My concern is less for the growth of the “Big L” party and more for the Republican tent getting our house in order. To me that means being consistent in aligning platform to principle, and articulating the message around that.
        Look, demonstrably the Republican party is losing elections because we’re unable to distance ourselves from the cloud of abusing federal power to enforce aged mores that far more than half the country abandoned at the turn of the century or decades before. That may be a bit of a strident statement, but it isn’t too far off. Some of the moral convictions that are currently party planks need to be relegated to personal conviction in a “live & let die” sort of disposition. I truly believe that the consequence of not addressing this is a lose-lose. We’ll continue to lose ground on the constitutionalism/libertarian front, and the social front. When it comes to the structure and operation of my government, I’d much rather have them bound by principles of liberty than principles of de jure religious conviction. By the former, you get freedom to practice the latter in your own space. By the latter, you get next to zero assurance of the former.
        I say this with serious respect for your beliefs, many of which I likely personally share.

        • Steve says:

          And sorry, I replied to Jack’s post, but it’s as much a response to HappyWarrior6. Best regards, all!

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          Steve, I can agree with a lot of that. I think I remember replying to your post on another thread about this sort of thing. My only concern is how far liberty goes. If we really want liberty, it would have to also include allowing a lot of things that liberal-minded people (Republicans included) may disagree with including the right of a business to do business with whomever they want, or a church to marry (or not marry) whomever they want without state intervention.

          If that’s the case (which I don’t believe it will ever be), then I can understand your position and could agree with it. However, we’re not on the brink of getting a vote on ENDA which goes 100% against liberty for business owners.

          For me to endorse that concept I would first need to see conscience rights respected as they should be by government.

  5. Spade says:

    Don’t buy Terry’s bullshit about Ken and social issues.

    • Frank says:

      That’s a good point. I have seen lot of McAuliffe-sourced stuff on how terrible Cuccinelli is but his positions on his campaign website don’t support that propaganda.

      Exactly *what* verified Cuccinelli positions are people like those in these comments actually objecting to? Or is it all just ‘I heard from the media and the Dems…’?

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        Okay. For one, there’s no actual means to ban birth control as the McAuliffe twits claim. The last law against it was struck down in Connecticut years ago. And I say this as a Catholic who is opposed to it. There is no candidate who has run on it at all in this race or in the time I can remember. None at all.

        Now what you do have are candidates who do not want to see public money going to support abortion or contraception. There is a huge difference between outlawing something and not funding it through legally forced contributions (whether it be tax money OR forced insurance coverage through the ACA).

        Federally, the Hyde Amendment is in place for the abortion part of that. And that is not the least bit controversial unless you truly are that foolish enough to believe that government should subsidize your sexual habits at my expense.

        This simple analysis above is lost on anyone who apparently running Cuccinelli’s campaign. Instead, they have failed to properly define the opponent first.

        • Frank says:

          I don’t see that this is Cuccinelli’s failure – this is the LIV who does not understand what Cuccinelli and his campaign say. Instead, they accept the Dems/Statists/MSM propaganda.

          And I guess I agree with Cuccinelli on this – I don’t care if others use contraception but let them buy their own rubbers. I see no reason to buy them for them, since they won’t buy ammo for me.

          • HappyWarrior6 says:

            And to that I say: I guess I’m glad Virginia has a term limit of only four years for the governor. Good luck handling all the baggage that this man will bring to the office. I only hope it makes his positions toxic for the rest of the “downstate” to bear.

  6. Andy B. says:

    Maybe I shouldn’t raise the issue because I have no useful, practical suggestions for what to do, but it has been occurring to me that we have allowed gun rights to be put at risk by a lack of diversification. We have allowed our issue to be consistently bundled with social conservative baggage like Cuccinelli’s, and if it proves true that social conservatism is the death of the Republican Party as a national powerhouse (even for a short time, historically speaking) we have allowed the RKBA to be dragged down with other issues not related to it at all, and that many of use don’t share.

    Don’t ask me how it could have been done, but more work should have been put into infiltrating the Democratic Party (perhaps our religious cohorts could have given us some instruction on “stealth”) rather than just crying “Democrats! Yukk Phooie! Kill-Kill-Kill! in concert with the Republicans’ social conservatives. It just seems like an incomprehensible trap we have gotten into that we need to support a dozen issues we may not agree with at all, to save the single issue that we do agree with.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      The problem there is the team red/team blue thing. If you cozy up with the Dems on gun rights, you won’t get the “insider” access to the GOP.

      Now, I’m not saying that we should want that sort of access, but generally if you want to infiltrate a party, they don’t want to see you associating with the other team unless it is for intel gathering. However, given the scandals that are so easily turned up these days, I doubt many people could pull it off.

      The cause of gun rights (like many other issues) should permeate both parties. Really, parties should be irrelevant to our civil liberties. I think at some point if we see the GOP going like they are now, the Democrats will naturally tend to split on gun rights as they already have. It will give rise to the blue dogs once again.

    • The Jack says:

      Well here’s a couple things to think about.

      Downstate Illinois has some reasonably pro 2nd amend Democrats.

      That was part of how they got their CCW law to be Shall Issue.

      So contacting IGold or at least studying their methods would be good.

      There’s also that the Dems got majorities in states like Colorado by running as agnostic on guns and for some of them pro-gun.
      (What they did once they got control shows some of the other problems).

      There’s also that the Senate effort on gun control failed because of a a couple Dems that broke party ranks.

      So there are Dems that will make the pro gun calculation.

      The question becomes how to protect them and how to make choices like that politically profitable for up and comers.

      One of the big problems is that the Democratic Party went through their Progressive / Anti-Blue dog purity fight. That and the loss of vulnerable house seats.

      There’s also that the power bases in population and power of the Democratic party are very anti-gun.

      I think HappyWarrior has a point on Blue Dogs. The key part is being able to exert enough pressure on a politician to get them to break ranks if their leaders are pushing them for gun control.

      Also another thing to keep in mind is that the Republicans are only pro-gun in recent memory. How many Republican Presidents and Presidential Candidates have been pro AWB?

      • One of the big problems is that the Democratic Party went through their Progressive / Anti-Blue dog purity fight. That and the loss of vulnerable house seats.

        And Bloomberg is continuing to try and push that to weed out the last few. I think their goal is to make the Dem party completely inhospitable to the 2A (gun control is already part of their platform — not too much of a stretch), force 2A supporters into the GOP, and then kill the 2A in areas where the GOP cannot hold ground, or nationally if they can sweep an election cycle.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        Very good point… And for some Republicans not only have we not spooked them, they are actively working against us on an issue that naturally tends to spark a pretty sizable legal outrage when our rights are opposed.

        I am not sure what some of these red state senate Democrats truly think of guns, but some of them seem to have gotten religion. The problem is, like with the GOP, what their party demands of them. Since their party holds the white house, the communication line is pretty much a well-oiled machine. If they go through another purity fight purging on the left, which I think is inevitable (after the GOP is on the tail end of theirs), we will probably have a stronger coalition of red/blue senators who support gun rights.

        Let’s also remember that national CCW reciprocity got more senate votes (58 total) than the Manchin-Toomey bill. I believe the next gun bill that comes up for a vote would have to have national CCW to pass if you do the calculation.

        • The Jack says:

          If Manchin-Toomey passed then National Reciprocity would have passed with it.

          The battle in the house and the WH from there would have been… interesting.

          And yes, Bloomberg has been open that he’d rather go for purity than coalition building. Course he’s not of the Democratic party, he’s merely a very well-heeled fellow traveler.

  7. Carl from Chicago says:

    Fox just called the race for Bloomberg’s gun control champion.

    • mike says:

      On the plus side, these people might actually learn that they won’t win the War on Women, and maybe the GOP can learn to drop their theocratic nonsense and embrace limited government for a change.

  8. What about the down ticket results?

  9. Steve says:

    Yeah, now curious about the analysis of the loss. The Libertarian took 6% of the vote, I understand, arguably most of it from the Cootch. I Imagine Jackson’s rather uptight comments lost a few votes for him as well. This seems like it was completely winnable had he secured the libertarian camp, and I hope that’s really meditated upon by the establishment around our country tonight.

  10. Andy B. says:

    I just turned the TV off, and I’m heading for the showers in a minute, but here’s how I’m thinking:

    This turned out much closer than the the mainstream (or I!) had been expecting. Clicking from channel to channel, I saw MSNBC (at the most leftist channel) saying it was a given for McCaulliff, when for most of the time it wasn’t at all. They had to be shitting bricks until close to 11:00 PM. The Cootch had a big lead, through a big percentage of the votes.

    Here’s how I honestly see it: Here in PA I saw a sampling of the Bloomberg-sponsored ads that were all about gun control. I disliked the Cootch about as much as Sebastian did (actually, more) but if I had been about to walk into a voting booth, they would have caused me to vote for Cootch.

    I think the election was as close as it was because of the gun vote. Without us, the Ds would have had a commanding lead, rather than a marginal one. The campaigned away their own easy victory — though victory they had.

    I believe in that, and let’s spread that meme — because it’s true!

top