14 votes

Tommorow's Headline: Cuccinelli Loses, Is the Tea Party Finished?

The MSM is already developing this narrative, and it will be the theme for the next couple news cycles - but it doesn't fit the facts.

First, the MSM and the pundits of both parties were predicting a landslide victory for McAuliffe: As it turned out, the race was EXTREMELY close, within ~2%. In other words, they were all WRONG. Throw their false predictions back in their faces. Which brings me to the second point: Romney (Mr. Moderate Milquetoast) lost in Virginia in 2012 by a LARGER margin: ~3%. Cuccinelli won every county that Romney won, except for one: and he won 3 others that Romney lost. If anything, this proves that the conservative candidate is MORE ELECTABLE than the "moderate" candidate.

So as you're bombarded over the next several weeks with nonsense about the demise of the conservative/libertarian wing of the GOP, keep these facts in mind.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This was a Pyrrhic victory for the Establishment

The Liberty / limited government folks received nearly 53% of the vote yesterday.

The Corporatists / fascists poured 10s of millions in this race from outside the Commonwealth, again 10 to 1 TV ads alone in air time!

The Establishment knows how to read this election and is not happy and are scarred.

Remember we were fighting on multiple fronts, the GOP corporatists, the Dems criminal cartel machine and of course splitting our vote and sewing fear to weaken us.

What happened yesterday is only the beginning the liberty youth movement it is taking control of the Republican Party of Virginia and the spirit of Patrick Henry is being reborn.

More later... Freedom, Peace and Prosperity to you all :^)

Great point. New narrative. Let's get in front of it.

America clearly wants a nanny state. We have given up. We want to be controlled, told what to do. It's the easy way out. A slave state is an orderly state. Just give me a job.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

I see the fact that the liberty movement being attacked......

I see the fact that the liberty movement being attacked as a sign that the MSM and the administration are loosing major support. I just wish everyone could see this opportunity and get rid of their apathy, never let a liberty solution go to waste. Also nice post, way to get ahead of the rhetoric to come. Awesome!

They should have a recount just to show the non transparency of an electronic voting system. The question is, how would you do it, and how accurate would it be? This would only signify the problems with electronic voting possibly.

kind people rock

coffee_sponge's picture

Reject Rove -- or Embrace Defeat

The Rockefeller-McCain-Romney-Bush-Rove-Priebus-RINO Republican establishment did what it could to undermine Cuccinelli.

This race reminds me how the RINO establishment squandered enormous resources in their failed attempt to elect another worthless RINO, Meg Whitman, in a rather hopeless California race, but pulled all support and actually worked to defeat Sharron Angle, helping all-American dirtball Harry Reid to hang onto his seat in the Senate.

Rove symbolizes the corporatist wing of the Republican Party that wants to eject Constitutionalists and replace them with Romney-like RINO corporatists, the same group of self-serving dirt bags that employed every dishonest trick in the book against Ron Paul. Thanks to these jerks, we wound up with McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

Obviously, these milquetoast left wing politicians can't win. But, already we see Tokyo Rove and his fellow traitors laying the groundwork to weasel another RINO onto the ticket in 2016.

Frankly, I think Rove and his fellow corporatists are a bigger threat to our efforts to turn things around than any Democrat, up to and including Obozo himself.

I suggest we begin to regularly contact Faux News, Hannity, etc., and agitate to have Tokyo Rove shunned. Our consistent message should be that "The Architect" is the Architect of Constitutionalist defeat.

Agreed re Rove and ilk being a bigger threat than Dems.

The Dems at least are honest about their leftism. What's so insidious about the Roves of this world is that they pretend to be for free markets and limited government, thereby giving those ideas a bad name and co-opting the opposition. Only one way to beat them though, replace them. The RNC is filled with a bunch of SOBs? Yep, so remove them and put our people on the RNC. Etc. There's no other way.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Fluoride Won

It turned most Americans into Zombies and followers. Leaders don't exist any more. We are surrounded by stupidity and their is no way to stop it.

That seems to be the situation....LOL

...but you never know, we gotta give it the old college try.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

The GOP should abandon all

The GOP should abandon all attacks on Gay marriage, and Abortion. Just say you're OK with personal choice but still not willing to fund abortions with taxpayer money.

Humans failed

If their is a God, he is shaking his head at his creation.

As for national politics anyway...

...I think the best approach is to pass it down to the States. Not only is that the constitutional position, but allows us to sidestep the crap and focus on serious business.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

what about the states?

this was a state race

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Play to the polls, whatever sells best

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I don't give a damn about

I don't give a damn about social issues

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

ORLY?

You are ok with jailing people for victimless crimes?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Really

And no, I'm not okay with jailing people for victimless crimes. If I could snap my fingers and rectify those injustices I would. But I wouldn't expend much more effort than that, since there are much more pressing problems to be addressed. Likewise, I'm not going to fret about kids stealing lollypops from convenience stores while the federal government is robbing us blind every year: yes, theft is wrong, all theft, no matter how small, but some instances are rather more serious than others, doncha think?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

And that, exactly, is the

And that, exactly, is the attitude that loses the GOP elections. Thanks for making my point.

By ignoring the serious flaws in the social positions of a candidate like Cooch we ignore the fact that those issues are important to many, especially young voters and women, who share our economic views. We lost too many of these voters tonight.

It's nice to know that social issues aren't important to you, but that's irrelevant to winning elections. Successfully winning elections, just like success in every area of life, requires facing reality, and reality is that social issues ARE important to many potential liberty voters.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

People who vote on the basis of social issues are fools.

What I didn't realize is that there were so many fools among my fellow libertarians. Hence my disgust with tonight's results: the consensus seeming to be that libertarians voted for Sarvis on social issues. But anyway, as to winning elections, I think every candidate of ours should play to the polls and focus groups on social issues. I could care less what he says, so long as it sells.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Or, rather than playing to

Or, rather than playing to the polls our candidates could support and be able to defend libertarian positions on social issues.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Three Points

1. I'd rather see a libertarian say anything at all on social issues so as to win and be able to pursue the libertarian agenda on economic issues, foreign policy, and civil liberties, than have a libertarian stand firm on social issues and lose, and get nothing done.

2. There is no libertarian position on abortion: the entire question turns on the definition of "person," and libertarianism does not offer any definition. Libertarians are as divided as the rest of the population on when/whether an unborn child becomes a person. And there's no correct answer to that question, it's a matter of gut feeling.

3. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state should have nothing to do with marriage at all, any kind of marriage. This alienates both sides in the debate: the pro gay marriage people are on a crusade for social recognition (via the state) for their lifestyle, while the anti gay marriage people are on a crusade to keep heterosexual marriage privileged by the state while denying those privileges to gay marriage. The libertarian position is a political loser.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

you are wrong

1. All economics is a social issue. Especially in a time when government picks winners and loosers. Heck One of the major things the government needs to save money is to send out pink slips to hundreds of thousands of government workers whose sole job is to make buisness run less efficiently, whose job is redundant with another government agency, whose job is to clean their fingernails because they know the right person. Heck cut the amount of future spending and the media has an aneurism. the war of northern aggression was both fought over the economy, talk about a social issue.

2. Thats a cop out. I feel the libertarian issue should be to point out that according to the medical science monitor 64% of women wanted to have their baby but were coerced into having an abortion. If you want all the footnotes too read this article http://clinicquotes.com/statistics-on-coerced-abortions/ If the majority of women having an abortion are being pressured into it then the right choice is to outlaw it to protect them, since the only reason why abortion is legal is because its a woman's "choice".

3. With a lot of the Christian community opting to do marriage covenants I think that you can get Christians to agree with you on this subject. But only if you are respectful. If you can not do that do not bring it up.

I am right! (LOL)

1. I'm basically talking about abortion and gay marriage, that's what I mean by social issues.

2. I'll have to read about that, women being coerced into having abortions. Obviously that's anathema to libertarians, whatever each of us happens to think about abortion. But this is wrong: "If the majority of women having an abortion are being pressured into it then the right choice is to outlaw it to protect them." That logic is flawed. The crime is the coercion, not the thing which the women are being coerced into doing. Likewise: if women were being coerced into having boob jobs, you don't outlaw boob jobs.

3. I hope you're right about that. While I'm fine with libertarian candidates taking whatever position on gay marriage is politically expedient, I'd be delighted if the politically expedient position happens to coincide with the right position.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

On gay marriage, if Cooch

On gay marriage, if Cooch would have adopted the position that the state should not be involved in marriage at all that would have lost him far fewer votes among the young than the position he did take - that not only should the state recognize hetero but not gay marriage (thus treating gays unequally under the law), but that gay sexual behavior (sodomy) should be criminalized.

On abortion, if Cooch had taken the common libertarian position of being personally pro-life but opposed to the state sticking it's nose in the decision between a woman and her doctor that would have lost him far fewer votes among women than the position that he did take.

A libertarian candidate who did as you suggest and just played to the polls on social issues without regard to libertarian ethics would be roundly dismissed by libertarian voters as non libertarian.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I agree re Cuccinelli

I'm not defending his position on gays, it's both wrong and stupid politically. On the other hand, I think libertarians ought to have voted for him anyway, because who gives a damn about this crap in comparison to the big problems destroying this country? That's my view anyway, I can't imagine how any libertarian could care more about a ridiculous nonenforceable sodomy law (which would never pass anyway), than about, say, the impending socialization of medicine in the US - but hey, I guess we all have different priorities.

As for this: "A libertarian candidate who did as you suggest and just played to the polls on social issues without regard to libertarian ethics would be roundly dismissed by libertarian voters as non libertarian."

Doesn't change my prescription: pick the position that gets the most votes, or loses the fewest. That includes libertarian votes.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

the classic libertarian position on abortion is pro-choice

See here:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Whether you agree with it or not, this has long been the classical libertarian position.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

That's Rothbard's position...

...it's by no means consensus among libertarians.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

not today, no

And that's solely because of Ron Paul's influence. But historically, that was the generally accepted libertarian position. Walter Block, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, they all oppose (or opposed, RIP Harry) government intervention in abortion. That translates to pro-choice. You need a huge government bureaucracy to enforce the pro-life position.

In fact, the LP's slogan used to be "pro-choice on everything."

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

There may have been a near consensus...

...on the pro-choice stance in the past, but there certainly isn't now, and it;s the present which is politically relevant. A libertarian that focused on abortion might well split the libertarian vote.

And anyway, as I said, the fundamental question (what is a person) is outside the scope of libertarianism. A libertarian is not essentially pro-choice or pro-life, but only accidentally: being a libertarian does not entail having one view or the other. So it's wrong to say that "we libertarians" ought to stand on principle on abortion - we, as libertarians, don't have any principle about abortion. We each individually have whatever view we have, and maybe we all happen to agree, but that's only accidental. So, you see, a libertarian candidate is not betraying libertarianism by taking one stance or the other, or by ignoring the issue altogether.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

agreed, it's a wedge issue

But it's used by TPTB oh so well to divide us.

But the other social issues are not so minor. For example, Cuccinelli is not opposed to the war on drugs. He is not even for pot legalization. That was a deal breaker for me.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Drugs are another matter

By "social issues" I basically mean gay marriage and abortion (and perhaps prayer in schools, biblical whatnot on public monuments, etc). The drug war is much more serious (fiscal impact, police state, gangs, etc), but still not on par with, say, the Fed, the welfare state, the empire, etc. I think Rand's position on drugs is smart. I have no doubt he's for legalization, but that's just not gonna play in the GOP, or probably even in the Democratic party when it comes to drugs other than pot. So, reducing sentences, it's a political palatable step in the right direction. Enough to not alienate us but not so much that it alienates the mainstream.

As for Cuccinelli, let me ask you this: was McAuliffe any better on drugs? If not, then that election was simply not an opportunity to do anything about the problem, so why base your vote on it? Vote to do something useful. Cuccinelli could have done good work on other fronts, especially re Obamacare. Not just bull$$$$ing in the Senate, but real resistance. Ron's speech touched on nullification. The next (last?) stage of the fight against the ACA will be the States. Or, rather, could be if we had the right kind of State governments.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

your an idiot.

does my name calling make you more or less likely to agree with me?