Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The Anti-Cuccinelli Axis
Thursday, November 7, 2013 5:12 PM
JONGSSTRAW
Quote:How Democrats, Republicans, and low information voters combined to defeat a conservative. The roots of Ken Cuccinelli’s 2.5 point loss to ultrapartisan national Democrat and Hillary Clinton stalking horse Terry McAuliffe were planted by Republican incumbent Gov. Bob McDonnell. McDonnell began with a damn good start on state fiscal issues, cutting back runaway state overspending to balance the budget with no tax increases. But he finished by throwing in with the crony capitalist Northern Virginia business establishment, which always wants more tax increases (on others) to finance still more road building. McDonnell consequently ended his term by winning still another sales tax increase for roads, to further increase state spending on a Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce plan to pave over Northern Virginia. These tax increasing crony capitalists have a long history of leading those who go along with their tax and spending schemes to political defeat in Virginia. McDonnell’s tax increasing sellout to them polluted the Republican brand just before Cuccinelli’s campaign began. Cuccinelli actually declared McDonnell’s tax increase unconstitutional, which he had the power to do as Attorney General in Virginia. That forced the state legislature to go back and pass it again. But the fog created by the Northern Virginia party controlled press prevented this bold action from breaking through to enough Northern Virginia voters. Then McDonnell, who had been groomed for years by Virginia conservatives precisely to win the Governor’s office, inexplicably succumbed to a personal corruption scandal, possibly caused by family financial pressures. He allegedly sold favors to lobbyists for personal gifts. That further polluted the Republican brand with the stench of corruption, on the eve of the election season. Democrats did their part by nominating former Democratic National Committee Chairman, and Clinton fundraising chairman, crony capitalist extraordinaire Terry McAuliffe for governor. McAuliffe has no idea regarding good economic policy, or good policy on anything. But he does have long well-developed fundraising channels, which he exploited to outfund Cuccinelli on media 10 to 1. Worst of all, McAuliffe is a stalking horse for his pal Hillary Clinton for 2016. McAuliffe’s Democrats consequently ran a dry run campaign for Clinton with their completely fairy tale Republican War on Women theme. Central to that was the completely fabricated allegation that Cuccinelli and his Republicans wanted to ban contraceptives. The U.S. Supreme Court held 50 years ago that states do not have the power under the Constitution to ban contraceptives, in the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut. But the low information voters that constitute the Democratic Party electoral base do not know anything about what happened in America 50 years ago. So they succumbed to this Democratic Party manipulation of women once again, which Democrats also successfully employed against Romney in Virginia just a year ago. To low information nimrods, repetition of falsehoods lends them an air of credibility. So expect to see Hillary Clinton campaign for President next year as the savior of American women from the supposed Republican War on them. The notion that a major political party is conducting war on half the voting public cannot be taken seriously by adults. But we are not primarily dealing with adults in America right now, at least not in regard to the half of the nation made up of Democrats. But even the Virginia Libertarian Party lent itself to the Democrat crusade against Cuccinelli. It allowed non-Libertarian Robert Sarvis to take their nomination for Governor. Sarvis favored a mileage tax on cars, to be enforced by a driving recording device to be installed in all cars licensed in Virginia. The government would consequently have a record of everywhere you drive your car. Not exactly a Libertarian policy. But what can be expected of a man who renounces such Libertarian economic policy icons as Hayek and Von Mises? Turns out that the Sarvis campaign was financed by leading McAuliffe/Obama campaign finance bundlers, precisely for the purpose of dividing the conservative vote. On Tuesday, while Cuccinelli lost by 2.5 percent of the vote, Sarvis took 6.5 percent from the most free-market conservative ranks of Virginia voters. These are the reasons why Libertarian Party idol Ron Paul spent the last days of the campaign with Cuccinelli telling Libertarian voters they would be “insane” to vote for Sarvis. Cuccinelli is strong enough on Libertarian economic issues to have run with both the Libertarian and Republican nominations for Governor, something the Libertarian Party should consider in the future for both Democrat and Republican candidates who are good enough on their issues to beat out all alternative candidates. That is how the Conservative Party of New York operates, and it has greatly enhanced its clout. Cuccinelli’s campaign was also marred by unforced internal errors. The campaign did not correct the now regular malpractice of Virginia Republicans in failing to identify and turn out their voters, an essential campaign practice for victory that the Democrats have now perfected for their voters. There are conservative Republican precincts even in Northern Virginia, where Cuccinelli was crushed, losing the whole statewide race right there. But his campaign did not identify and reach his own voters in those precincts.
Thursday, November 7, 2013 7:16 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Mr. Cuccinelli has himself to blame for loss YOU COULD practically hear elated Virginia Republicans doing backflips in their kitchens last spring when the Democrats picked Terry McAuliffe to run for governor — a candidate so flawed, so insubstantial, so unversed in state government and so tainted by decades of shady dealings that he would simply collapse in the heat of an election, handing the GOP a victory tied up with a red bow. “One good statewide ad campaign could define McAuliffe before this race even starts,” National Review Online wrote in April. Now "No fair!" That’s the cry from some Republicans, especially tea party acolytes of Ken Cuccinelli II, the GOP candidate who lost narrowly Tuesday. In a spilt-milk snit, they are crying foul. A sulking Mr. Cuccinelli has refused to make the traditional call to congratulate Mr. McAuliffe on his victory. It may be news to the tea party, but politics can be rough. The vicious and negative ads, statements and news releases flew in both directions, every day, for months. Yes, Mr. McAuliffe, who raised $34 million, outspent Mr. Cuccinelli by $15 million. His fundraising prowess cannot have come as a surprise to the Cuccinelli camp; Mr. Cuccinelli’s lesser haul in turn resulted in part from his position on the far right of the Republican spectrum. We’re not in the business of offering advice to political parties, but we do believe that the two-party system has produced good governance for Virginia and is worth retaining. So it’s worth saying this to Republicans: If they wish to remain a viable political force in a moderate, purple state, they should take the right lessons from Tuesday’s defeat. That means, first and foremost, that they should avoid the easy trap of concluding that Mr. Cuccinelli was the victim of money, serendipity, circumstances, foul play or inclement political head winds. Fundamentally, what caused Tuesday’s Republican wipeout was Mr. Cuccinelli himself and the record he compiled — a clear, consistent right-wing agenda forged over a decade in Richmond. The Cuccinelli record had nothing to do with job-creation or the state’s economic well-being or alleviating deepening transportation problems, all of which are central to Virginians’ well-being. It was mainly about bashing homosexuals, harassing illegal immigrants, crusading against abortion, denying climate change, flirting with birthers and opposing gun control. A hero to the tea party and a culture warrior of the first rank, Mr. Cuccinelli lost because he was among the most polarizing and provocative figures in Richmond for a decade. That made him the wrong candidate for Virginia. The GOP-inspired government shutdown did not help matters for Mr. Cuccinelli. Nor did Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s ethics problems (which also ensnared Mr. Cuccinelli). In a purple state, Mr. Cuccinelli captured the GOP nomination on the strength of support from like-minded stalwarts on the party’s fringe. Nominated in mid-May, he trailed in every poll after June. The battle for the middle ground, and for Virginia’s rich crop of swing voters, was decided early in Mr. McAuliffe’s favor. Mr. Cuccinelli, despite valiant efforts, could never escape his own record. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-cuccinelli-has-himself-to-blame-for-loss/2013/11/07/d8b8cc54-47da-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html]
Quote:No, Sarvis Isn’t Costing Cuccinelli the Virginia Governorship David Weigel sorted through the Washington Post’s final poll for the race and discovered that Sarvis supporters were asked who they’d vote for if Sarvis weren’t running. 53 percent said McAuliffe, and 42 percent said Cuccinelli. http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-the-vi]
Quote:The state attorney general could look only to a Tea Party hero to help mobilize turnout. And that was the high point. In recent weeks, he’s dredged up C-list conservative celebrities with even less reach, such as radio talk-show host Mark Levin and the 19 Kids and Counting Duggar family. It’s a red blinking light for the Tea Party movement. Granted, Tea Party politicians can thrive in Republican-heavy states or congressional districts, but by their very nature they face enormous challenges in expanding and diversifying battlegrounds such as Virginia. Any candidate who swears allegiance to conservative orthodoxy automatically forsakes constituencies needed to build winning electoral coalitions on big, broad canvases. “It’s a big problem, and I don’t think the Republican Party has figured out the answer,” said Jerry Rich, a Republican Party activist from Fairfax County, sporting a Cuccinelli sticker on his blue blazer at the Paul rally. “The main thing for any politician is to win.” No wonder that Cuccinelli, looking out at the mostly white, older, and enthusiastic crowd packed into a hotel ballroom, mused, “I think we should just have the election in here.” In a state President Obama carried twice, Cuccinelli’s rigid policy positions endear him to the Tea Party but cut him off from key swaths of voters. The attorney general assailed a $600 million transportation-funding package to relieve the state’s economy-choking congestion, because it raises taxes—heresy in Tea Party world. But traffic is a top issue in commuter-heavy Northern Virginia, where statewide races are largely won and lost. The bipartisan initiative was also widely applauded by the business community, a key GOP constituency that blew off Cuccinelli and, in some cases, ran into McAuliffe’s arms. Cuccinelli’s opposition to immigration-reform efforts on Capitol Hill distanced him from other key voting blocs. Even Paul, in an overture to the fast-growing Hispanic and Asian-American communities, came out in favor of legalizing undocumented workers, although he voted against the Senate bill because he said it wouldn’t secure the border. Cuccinelli’s ultraconservative record limited his fundraising reach, as did a toxic scandal involving gifts and money to him and the governor from a local businessman. More at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/how-ken-cuccinelli-blew-it/281156/]
Friday, November 8, 2013 3:28 AM
ELVISCHRIST
Friday, November 8, 2013 9:05 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Friday, November 8, 2013 2:01 PM
Quote:David Weigel sorted through the Washington Post’s final poll for the race and discovered that Sarvis supporters were asked who they’d vote for if Sarvis weren’t running. 53 percent said McAuliffe, and 42 percent said Cuccinelli. http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-th e-vi
Quote:is an associate editor of Reason 24/7 at Reason.com. Shackford comes to Reason after nearly a decade of serving in various editing positions for Freedom Communications, a libertarian-leaning media chain. Prior to moving to Reason, he was editor in chief of the Desert Dispatch in Barstow, California, where he wrote editorials focusing on libertarian issues like wasteful municipal spending, school choice, the drug war and abuse of police authority. Before becoming part of the massive libertarian media establishment, Shackford once weighed in on much more important matters as a show recapper at Television Without Pity. http://reason.com/people/scott-shackford/all
Friday, November 8, 2013 2:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I guess you "missed" Quote:David Weigel sorted through the Washington Post’s final poll for the race and discovered that Sarvis supporters were asked who they’d vote for if Sarvis weren’t running. 53 percent said McAuliffe, and 42 percent said Cuccinelli. http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-th e-vi
Friday, November 8, 2013 3:02 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: "Turns out that the Sarvis campaign was financed by leading McAuliffe/Obama campaign finance bundlers, precisely for the purpose of dividing the conservative vote. On Tuesday, while Cuccinelli lost by 2.5 percent of the vote, Sarvis took 6.5 percent from the most free-market conservative ranks of Virginia voters."
Quote:McAuliffe deeply flawed... well, that's putting it nicely. If he still wins, which he's likely to, sends a pretty damning message to the GOP in Virgina, as well as elsewhere. Especially amusing in that Sarvis is likely to siphon votes from the conservawackjobs and blow it for Cuccinelli.
Friday, November 8, 2013 3:13 PM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I guess you "missed" Quote:David Weigel sorted through the Washington Post’s final poll for the race and discovered that Sarvis supporters were asked who they’d vote for if Sarvis weren’t running. 53 percent said McAuliffe, and 42 percent said Cuccinelli. http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-th e-vi If this is supposed to be addressed to me, I suggest you take off your partisan goggles and actually read my comment about the miniscule amount of money Sarvis got, compared to Mcaullinelli, and how funny it was that anyone would suggest that he was bankrolled by "...leading McAuliffe/Obama campaign finance bundlers". "When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
Friday, November 8, 2013 3:21 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Friday, November 8, 2013 3:23 PM
Friday, November 8, 2013 3:51 PM
Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Uh, no, at no time did you say anything to indicate "how funny it was that anyone would suggest that he was bankrolled by "...leading McAuliffe/Obama campaign finance bundlers"." From what you wrote, you thought it was funny how much each of them "paid" for a vote, but that's all. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's what you wrote. My response was that it wasn't about the money...the only thing your post addressed at ALL was the money.
Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: "Turns out that the Sarvis campaign was financed by leading McAuliffe/Obama campaign finance bundlers, precisely for the purpose of dividing the conservative vote. On Tuesday, while Cuccinelli lost by 2.5 percent of the vote, Sarvis took 6.5 percent from the most free-market conservative ranks of Virginia voters." Ahem. As I said elsewhere... Quote:McAuliffe deeply flawed... well, that's putting it nicely. If he still wins, which he's likely to, sends a pretty damning message to the GOP in Virgina, as well as elsewhere. Especially amusing in that Sarvis is likely to siphon votes from the conservawackjobs and blow it for Cuccinelli. And yanno what, y'all rightwingnut dimwits fell for it too, seems I recall also mentioning something about stupidity and gullibility in there too, neh ? -Frem
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Quote:David Weigel sorted through the Washington Post’s final poll for the race and discovered that Sarvis supporters were asked who they’d vote for if Sarvis weren’t running. 53 percent said McAuliffe, and 42 percent said Cuccinelli. http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-th e-vi
Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ElvisChrist: Who did you vote for, Geezer? Did you vote for the Republican, or the Independent?
Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: So the "Sarvis is likely to siphon votes from the conservawackjobs..." apparently isn't correct.
Sunday, November 10, 2013 2:47 PM
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: So the "Sarvis is likely to siphon votes from the conservawackjobs..." apparently isn't correct. How so, cause that's exactly what happened. -F
Quote:David Weigel sorted through the Washington Post’s final poll for the race and discovered that Sarvis supporters were asked who they’d vote for if Sarvis weren’t running. 53 percent said McAuliffe, and 42 percent said Cuccinelli. http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-the-vi
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL