The Anti-Cuccinelli Axis
POSTED BY: Jongsstraw
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 19:45
VIEWED: 2389
PAGE 1 of 2
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 MiseNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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-bl
ame-for-loss/2013/11/07/d8b8cc54-47da-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html]
As for Sarvis, he pulled from both sides of the spectrum: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-th
e-vi
Cuccinelli is a prime example why the Tea Party rigidity is costing the Republicans; the Tea Party and their hard-core mentality are a MINORITY in this country, t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remember, Cooch personally had some 40,000 people removed from the voting rolls, the vast majority of them democrats.
He was the tea party's darling, but even that, a terrible dem opponent, and the forced removal of nearly 40k voters still couldn't persuade people to vote for him.
He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
That's gotta sting for you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Having just survived the Virginia governor's race, I note some spin.
"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."
This is pretty funny, considering that the Sarvis campaign took in a grand total of around $118 Thousand, while Cuccinelli got $19 MILLION and McAulliffe close to $33 MILLION. Interesting in that McAullife spent $30.77 per vote, Cuccinelli spent $18.91, and Sarvis just $.81.
http://www.vpap.org/offices/profile/2
"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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
The headline of that article is "No, Sarvis Isn’t Costing Cuccinelli the Virginia Governorship". They seem to disagree with you That's from Reason.com, which calls ITSELF a "Political journal advocating the gamut of libertarian causes" and is accepted as such by most people. Wikipedia states "Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation." The Reason Foundation "is an American libertarian research organization". I'm taking a wild stab here that such is an acceptable source…
The author, Scott Shackford, 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
I'm willing to accept his and their credentials, dunno if you are. Of course, anyone HERE might be biased against him because, while on Television Without Pity, "his dislike of Clay Aiken and his disappointment with the writing on Firefly earned him the enmity of the entire Internet. All of it." (same source)
I, however, am willing to accept him as a legitimate libertarian voice, despite vehemently disagreeing with him about Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
Did you even read what you're objecting to? It doesn't appear so...
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That problem is that people are being force to choose between one crony capitalist (GOP) or another (Dem), and if they don't like THAT choice they can choose to shoot themselves in the foot by voting for a reichwinger who believes that we should ALL be gladiators in the corporate Coliseum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who did you vote for, Geezer?
Did you vote for the Republican, or the Independent?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME