Posted on 10/14/2013 8:47:37 PM PDT by Kenny
With just three weeks remaining before the election, Republican leaders in Virginia fear that their nominee, Ken Cuccinelli II, is on his way to losing the governor’s race and that the party will squander command of a state that is key to their quest to dominate next year’s midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.
Distressed over a flurry of recent polls showing Democrat Terry McAuliffe with a solid lead, Virginia Republicans are talking about rebuilding their organization, which is suffering from deep internal rifts similar to those roiling the national party.
It’s a party that is disunited, in flux, in transition and defeated,” said Thomas M. Davis, the former Republican congressman. “We have nominated a ticket that Virginians don’t want to buy.”
While some Republicans say enough time remains for Cuccinelli to recover, Davis said that a defeat would require the party to confront like never before the division between the tea party activists who spurred Cuccinelli’s nomination and the moderates, independents and business leaders turned off by his conservative views on social issues.
That divide echoes the discord within the national GOP, now in full public view as congressional leaders struggle to end a federal shutdown connected to conservative activists seeking to defund the health-care law.
A Cuccinelli defeat in Virginia, Republicans fear, would give Democrats dominance in an important state as the two parties prepare for the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race. Democrats would control the state bureaucracy and patronage appointments, which can drive fundraising.
“It sets the tone,” said Ralph Reed, a Republican strategist. “It’s an institutional advantage, no question.”
*** SNIP ***
With McAuliffe holding a decisive fundraising edge and the federal shutdown fueling voter anger, Republicans are afraid that time is running short for Cuccinelli to alter the race’s dynamics.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
One more question — why in the world would you want Sarvis to stop talking about ‘marriage equality’, race, and drug legalization? For the love of God, the more he talks about that stuff the more likely he’ll pull from Fast Terry’s soft support.
Are the governor and lieutenant governor elected as a set in Virginia? Or if Cuccinelli loses is there still a chance that Jackson could still win?
The governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately.
Shrill because I used "queer" instead of the much nicer "gay?" Because I pegged the liberal as a racebaiter? Guilty, then. I'm sick of playing games with words and not pegging degenerates for what they are.
"I will then ask you, do you think the Cuccinelli campaign has been run in a smart way? Do you think the Republican party has behaved in a smart way? "
Do Republicans ever behave in a smart way? Rarely, and the more moderate they are, the more it holds true. Cuccinelli is no moderate, but I do believe his campaign could have been run better. Maybe he's allowing himself to be led by his handlers too much, instead of doing what he instinctively knows is right.
"How, precisely, do you suggest we persuade fiscal/small-govt conservatives who are also social moderates, to vote for Republicans (if that *is* your goal)? Has Cuccinelli -- or, for that matter, has anyone on this forum -- spent time trying to persuade that particular group that they should vote with their wallets? Have the Republicans in Richmond used their majority to limit the size and scope of government? "
What you're really asking is how do we persuade social moderates that we're not anti-abortion, anti-queer Jesus nuts. Maybe we can't. But those "moderates" see no sin, no wrong, in embracing sodomite marriage and the murder of unborn babies. Most conservatives know better. They understand that God is real, and that His standards demand accountability.
If some "social moderate" is enough of a fool to vote for McAuliffe or Sarvis instead of Cuccinelli, he will deserve what he gets...the problem is, the rest of us won't deserve it.
"I hope Cuccinelli wins somehow, but Sarvis's economic positions are substantially better from a conservative, limited-government standpoint."
Really? Sarvis wants to tax carbon emissions. Is that limited government?
A vote for Sarvis, who hasn't a hope in hell of winning, will ensure McAuliffe gets it.
You would think, but do a search of "Robert Sarvis splitting votes" and you'll see a consensus that Cuccinelli is the one suffering from Sarvis' candidacy. The most optimistic article I found (for Ken) estimated that Sarvis is siphoning off 7% of votes from Cuccinelli compared to 4% for McAuliffe.
No, "shrill" because you are nastier to fellow FReepers who disagree with you on anything than most FReepers are to Democrats. Do you think the squishy middle is going to rally to our side because we call them degenerates, sodomites, etc?
What you're really asking is how do we persuade social moderates that we're not anti-abortion, anti-queer Jesus nuts. Maybe we can't. But those "moderates" see no sin, no wrong, in embracing sodomite marriage and the murder of unborn babies. Most conservatives know better. They understand that God is real, and that His standards demand accountability.
"Maybe we can't?" You're not even trying. The left has the power of the media and two generations of public school indoctrination on their side. Using round numbers, it's a 40/20/40 electorate. If we continue to stink at presenting ourselves to the low-information, high-self-importance, "doesn't really know the issues and arguments but styles himself as an 'independent thinker'" middle, then the left will continue to hive off pieces. You see it in their otherwise-risible efforts to promote Democrats as the natural home for 'liberaltarian' (fiscal conservatism + social liberalism), and those smarmy pastors of the left (the socially liberal but soothingly acceptable mainline Protestant ones, not the Sharptons). They keep chipping away, and highlighting the most repellant personalities on our side, making it socially and internally unpalatable for the marginal voters to affiliate with us.
It might be a useful exercise to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is on the fence between Sarvis and Cuccinelli (I am not) and re-read your posts on other threads (I have), and see which campaign you are helping the most (hint: rhymes with 'sleazy grifter').
And yes, there will be a settling of accounts, but that is not for you or me to perform. Also, remember that Jesus dined with whores and IRS agents, and was more stern toward the Pharisees who went around judging others strictly.
Well, that's sort of my point. We're not going to boot him from the ballot, so he's in the race. The way he does the most damage to the crook is if he seems palatable to the socially liberal, fiscally conservative crowd. Since Cuccinelli hasn't made a good case on the economic side, that group is most likely to drift toward McAuliffe (but still feel unease with the sleaze). So let Sarvis talk up gay marriage, drug legalization, and other issues the social leftists like. Heck, we should help him there, point out to that McAuliffe is talking out of both sides of his mouth. If half the gays in the commonwealth voted for Sarvis instead of McAuliffe, that would probably even out the currently disparate impact his campaign is having.
That's a straight-out lie.
Regarding my initial post to you,I laid out Sarvis' positions and asked you if you thought they were smart. If that, to you, is nasty or shrill, you have the thinnest skin I've seen here at FR.
" Do you think the squishy middle is going to rally to our side because we call them degenerates, sodomites, etc?"
People like you never learn. Playing the nice, politically correct games of the left never "rallies them to our side." Your pre-election posts supporting Romney, and your optimism about him moving to the right prove that to be the case.
Understand this. I'm done participating in the redefinition of the language by a small percentage of sexual degenerates. Sodomite, queer, and fag work fine for me to describe sick perverts who play in feces, and who are actively doing everything they can to have their sickness accepted and celebrated.
"It might be a useful exercise to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is on the fence between Sarvis and Cuccinelli (I am not) and re-read your posts on other threads (I have), and see which campaign you are helping the most (hint: rhymes with 'sleazy grifter')."
Mm-hmm. No doubt you mean my conversations with the banned troll/retread shego, who tried to push Sarvis on this site, and who finally, after being repeatedly questioned, admitted he was all right with Sarvis' pro-queer agenda.
I will NEVER shy away from confronting someone who tries to push such garbage on my state.
"And yes, there will be a settling of accounts, but that is not for you or me to perform. Also, remember that Jesus dined with whores and IRS agents, and was more stern toward the Pharisees who went around judging others strictly."
Who is trying to "settle accounts?" All I can do is be responsible for my own actions. With that in mind, I know that my loyalty to God is above everything else, and I will not support a political agenda which is sinful in His eyes.
Eventually the GOP will cave, and fully support homosexual marriage and adoption. Republicans who dismiss the culture wars will have no problem going along with it. When that happens, I'm out.
" Also, remember that Jesus dined with whores and IRS agents, and was more stern toward the Pharisees who went around judging others strictly."
Yes, I used to hear that same canard from liberals in chat rooms. What they omitted, or didn't understand, is that Jesus never tolerated sin; He gathered those people around him to call them to repentance.
Misuse of the Scripture which says "don't judge" is common. Jesus was telling us not to judge sin if we're engaged in the same behavior; if not, He went on to tell us how to judge. And Scripture is filled with exhortations to make judgements.
BTW, did you address how Sarvis' carbon emissions tax fits into a limited government platform?
The devil likes it when spoiled Christians take their marbles and go home, rather than bring whatever semblance of righteousness is still possible to the picture. Even slowing Satan down buys time for developing a fuller beachhead. Who’s bigger, folks. God or Satan. This is ridiculous.
The devil likes it a lot more when Christians try to rationalize supporting agendas which are clearly anti-God.
That “taking your marbles and going home” mess was used quite a bit around here last fall when folks voiced their intentions to hold to their principles. It’s as inane now as it was then.
After Benghazi, I voted for Romney. But I’ll never cast another vote for a GOPer who supports abortion, queer marriage & adoption, etc. It’s just not happening.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Of course your mileage will vary, if you have hate and unbelief in your tank.
That’s deep.
Deeper than the ocean of most souls.
Next time the RINO’s demand we vote for and fund their candidates as the “lesser of 2 evils”. just remember the RINO’s never ever return the favor.
Palin and Cruz are not liberdopians
It is the RINO’s. the party apparatus that doesn’t support him from what I read, same thing as in New Jersey.
If the Republicans can’t figure out how to beat the Clintonian grifter slimeball McAuliffe, there really is no hope for the party.
The problem like always, women voters.
The same RINOs and establishment and “moderates” who demand we support the “lesser of 2 evils” never come out and support conservatives.
That is why we are seeing losses in NJ and Virginia
Who said they are?
The libertarian is carrying 9% to 12% of the vote.
Make him and his supporters a deal.
Palin and Cruz are deal-makers when it comes to furthering the cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.