Cuccinelli “So-So” on Gun Rights?

VCDLEarlier today, I read on Facebook that Ken Cuccinelli was given a “so-so” ranking by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.  Curious, I called the folks at the VCDL to ask about Cuccinelli’s score.  I was told that in previous campaigns Ken gave very pro-gun answers and although he still completed a somewhat pro-gun rights survey, he attached a multitude of qualifying statements to his answers that troubled the folks at the VCDL and thus earned him a “so-so”.

It doesn’t come as any surprise that the three Democratic candidates did not answer the survey and that the other two Republican candidates, E.W. Jackson and Mark Obenshain, have been labeled “very pro-gun” by the VCDL.  But, the Cuccinelli score is shocking.  However, as you will note according to the VCDL, there is a very pro-gun candidate on the ballot for governor, the Libertarian Robert Sarvis.

Although the specific responses of each of the candidates will not be available until several days before the election, is this news another misstep for the Cuccinelli campaign that will have ramifications come November?  It seems likely.

4 Replies to “Cuccinelli “So-So” on Gun Rights?”

  1. Robert Sarvis does not have a prayer of winning. Cuccinelli is 100 times better than McAuliffe. Just think of all the good things that Cuccinelli has done for us. He has gone to bat for Virginia not to have Obama health care.

  2. It’s true that Robert Sarvis won’t win this election. I was very active in a third party for many years and that’s the number one reason we heard from people for why they would vote for the “lesser of two evils” over a third party candidate that they strongly agree with. We called that “Wasted Vote Syndrome.” “Well,” they’d say, “I agree with you and I’d love to vote for you…. but I’d just be throwing my vote away.” Smashing the two-party duopoly (I would argue it’s a MONOpoly, but that’s for another time) would do wonders towards getting our republic and our commonwealth back on the right track. Voting is, of course, a numbers game. A candidate wins by getting the most votes. In order to get to the point where we have viable third party alternatives, we need a few brave leaders who think outside the box willing to step up and vote their conscience even if the person they vote for has no realistic chance of winning. When third parties start pulling in double digit numbers in elections, more people will be willing to step up and vote for them. Of course, at that point, the mainstream Republicans and Democrats will pass more “campaign finance reform” laws to prevent third parties from succeeding, but I guess that’s a little outside the scope of this post too. Even if third parties can never win in America, when they pull in 10% or 20%, Republicans and Democrats will take notice and they’ll realize that they need to start treating the concerns and opinions of that third party’s demographic with more respect. Sarvis just polled at 10% in one poll (with an error margin of like 3.58% or something like that). Sarvis will probably not get 10% because most people who said they’d vote for him will succumb to Wasted Vote Syndrome and vote for a mainstream candidate that they consider less evil than the other mainstream candidate. Sarvis will be lucky to pull 2% to 4%. But that is not insignificant for a Libertarian Party candidate. And as third parties pull in bigger numbers, as I said before, more people will have the courage to stand up for what they really believe in at the polls.

    Cuccinelli ran as the Tea Party candidate. I was quite happy when he was selected at the convention. But since then he’s taken a major swing towards being an establishment politician. Frankly, I don’t think he’s done a great job of running his campaign either, but that’s neither here nor there. Cuccinelli seems to have become more concerned with his own political future than with fighting for the cause of small government and personal rights and responsibilities.

    Cuccinelli is, by leaps and bounds, a FAR lesser evil than McAuliffe. But, after giving it weeks of thought and prayer, I believe that he is still likely an evil. I have not ruled out the possibility of supporting him. But I’m strongly leaning towards Sarvis or towards writing in someone or writing in “None of the Above.” Before I could support Cuccinelli, I would have to be convinced that he is not an evil at all but, rather, a good. Voting for the lesser of two evils is, after all, still an evil act. If Cuccinelli is evil, then it is evil to vote for him, even if he’s less of an evil than McAuliffe. To use hyberbole as an illustrative device, let’s pretend that Terry McAuliffe is Adolf Hitler and Ken Cuccinelli is Charles Manson. Charles Manson is less evil than Adolf Hitler by almost anyone’s estimation. But voting for Charles Manson would still be an evil thing to do. To clarify, before someone jumps all over me, I KNOW that Terry McAuliffe is nowhere near as bad as Hitler and of course Cuccinelli is nowhere near as bad as Charles Manson. I’m simply using an extreme example to illustrate the point that voting for the lesser of two evils is an evil thing to do.

    I’m not trying to tell you who to vote for. I’m just saying that you should vote your conscience and you ought not dismiss the possibility of voting for Robert Sarvis simply because he’s unelectable. I rarely vote for a politician who ends up winning. But I sleep with a clean conscience at night because I know that, while America and Virginia may be headed in the wrong direction, my actions did not contribute to it. Often, I write someone that I know in for an office where I find that there are no acceptable candidates. Or I simply write in “None of the Above” (because that should ALWAYS be an option on a ballot unless it’s a yes or no referendum question).

    I might vote for Sarvis. I’m not sure yet. It’s possible that I might decide to vote for Cuccinelli if I find that he’s not the evil I’m starting to suspect he might be. Frankly, there are things about Sarvis I don’t like. But I do believe he’d be a good, overall. I KNOW that Terry McAuliffe would not be a good and I suspect that Ken Cuccinelli might not be a good. But my point is that you should always vote for good, even if you’re that only person who does.

    Food for thought….

    TL;DR: Why not Zoidberg? 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *