Virginia voters have spoken, and unfortunately for them, they elected a total Clinton hack — Democrat toady and stooge Terry McAuliffe — governor.
I would never have even considered voting for McAuliffe in my wildest dreams, but I would have had trouble voting for Cuccinelli because of his support for sodomy laws. I am sure I am not alone. It’s a shame, really, because if you put aside the man’s social conservatism, he is quite libertarianish.
I think that had Cuccinelli simply retracted his support for sodomy laws, he would have won. Obamacare gave him a major lift, and almost won the election for him, but there are a lot of ordinary people who simply cannot stomach the anti-gay stuff. (Cuccinelli’s running mate — who is on record as compared gay men to pedophiles and calling gays “very sick people”– only helped fuel the fire.)
Even in Alabama (which is much more conservative than VA), Dean Young — who is more outspokenly anti-gay than Cuccinelli — lost his race to be the Republican nominee for a vacant congressional seat.
But I don’t expect the noisy anti-gay right to do anything except get noisier. These dedicated activists think they are fighting a war to “save the culture” from a perverted 2% of the population, and forget the backlash this creates with the many ordinary voters who see sexual freedom as a barometer of their own freedom and privacy.
Precisely what the left wants.
As to what might be done about it, I honestly don’t know. I ran for office twice as a Republican, and grew sick of arguing against the resulting public stereotypes.
Interestingly, the anti-gay candidate who lost in Alabama (to an opponent he calls a “RINO”) is vehemently refusing to support him:
…Mr. Young, a conservative businessman who unsuccessfully ran for this seat last year, said again at his election night gathering that he would not vote for Mr. Byrne in the general election, and would not even call him to concede defeat.
Maintaining the defiant tone that attracted his supporters in the first place, Mr. Young said in his concession speech that he was considering forming a national organization.
“This is the first warning shot that goes out across the nation,” he said.
A national organization? Of what? Angry social conservatives who think you’re a RINO if you don’t like sodomy laws?
I can’t think of a better strategy. For defeat.
MORE: From today’s editorial in the WSJ:
…Mr. Cuccinelli sometimes gives the impression of being a charter member of the cast-the-first-stone coalition, which made it easier for Democrats to stereotype him with their deluge of TV ads financed by to he Clinton machine.
The cast-the-first-stone coalition?
Hey, that might a good name for the national organization Dean Young wants to start.
Comments
31 responses to “The anti-gay right proudly basks in defeat”
cuccinelli is a christian fascist which is a form of fascism not christianity. You can’t be a libertarian and wan’t to take away peoples rights. To ask him to oppose sodomy laws is like asking a nazi to stop hating jews!
This is why many of us believe Libertarian is really more about opposing Conservatives than anything else. Time and again Libertarians aid Big Government, demanding purity, and splitting the vote that allows Big Government Liberals to win.
It’s not a principled vote but a “anybody but them vote.” You seldom see Libertarians as exercised against Big Liberals as against any conservative. If Libertarians can’t have a perfect candidate, better to help elect the Devil himself. Like marxists, they would rather things get much worse, so they can fantasize about the world turning their way. They are just as Utopian as anyone else in politics.
“You seldom see Libertarians as exercised against Big Liberals as against any conservative.”
Really? I’ve been a libertarian for too many decades than I want to count, and except for a brief period in the 1960s and early 1970s, I haven’t noticed this. You must associate with a different breed of libertarian than I do.
@Scott
It’s utopian to refuse to vote for a crackpot?
Liberals want to take government out of the bedroom and put it into haliburtons and the banksters boardroom. Social conservatives want to take government out of the boardroom and put it in your bedroom to see what your doing. Libertarians want government out of both as much as possible ;but government came about to help and protect the citizens from things they cannot as individuais protect themselves from! Children eating out of garbage dumps and dying their for lack of medical treatment because the charities are overwelmed leads instabillity and authoritarianism to controll the anger.
Scott, it’s the socons that demand political purity. It’s the socons that won’t face the political reality that moderates everywhere find their moral crusades and badgering repugnant.
Social mores change over time. The socons need to accept this and move on. If socons were serious about reining in government they would give up their divisive moral crusades and positions and move to support fiscally conservative candidates that resonate with moderate voters as well as conservative voters.
Well, supporting Sodomy Laws is dumbed, hardly anyone goes to jail for Sodomy. Just opposing gay marriage is what he should have done. Unfortunately, the Tea Party Patriots don’t have the smarts and that why he lost.
Mr. Young, a conservative businessman who unsuccessfully ran for this seat last year, said again at his election night gathering that he would not vote for Mr. Byrne in the general election, and would not even call him to concede defeat.
Stupider as stupid gets the Tea Party patriots,
Social conservatism is dying. It is the over 65 crowd. And they are dying at the rate of 1+ million a year.
They have already ceased to be a political force (they can’t win elections).
When will Republicans cease nominating them? About 2025.
Look at the stats on pot legalization to get a snapshot:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/i8avozskwko3qplppgs9uq.png
From:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx
The Republican coalition is DEAD. I am hoping for a nice dead cat bounce in 2014 from Obamacare(less). But the future is not bright for socons who want to legislate their brand of morality.
And in any case the real problem is not gays. It is marriage itself.
I think the mind frame of an enabler helps explain why many* conservatives act the way they do. They see themselves as the responsible ones who have to hold it all together. Whatever scheme feminists cook up, enabling conservatives find themselves trying to make it somehow work, or at least to minimize the pain experienced by those who follow the scheme. Ultimately of course the end result is enabling the feminists by making sure their bad ideas don’t result in immediately noticeable consequences. This also explains the angry conservative response to criticism of their efforts to enact a working form of feminism; they see themselves as the sane ones who are holding it all together.
From:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/conservatives-enabling-feminism/
====
Traditional cultures marketed marriage with such punctilious alacrity that most people today dare not even question whether the traditional truths still apply. Hence, hostility often ensues from a mere attempt to even broach the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man’s own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemn his request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even just 20% of men to marry?
From:
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
And this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-05/trulia-rings-panic-button-young-adults-refuse-move-out-parents-basements-get-jobs
This has nothing to do with social conservatism. Cuccinelli lost because the Democrats subsidized a phony libertarian (actually a socialist) who siphoned off conservative votes. Without Young, Cuccinelli would have won.
As to fascism, historical fascism was a totalitarian form of socialism like Naziism and Communism. The true fascists today are the Democrats.
@bob sykes:
Assuming Sarvis did “siphon” conservative votes, why do you think they would vote for the libertarian vs. the socon?
Wake up. Campaigning against abortion and gay rights is a non-starter for more and more voters. People are tired of the religious trying to enshrine their superstitions into law.
Those who support fiscal restraint, small government and personal responsibility miss a bet when they vote for lying democrats or false libertarians because they somehow think a candidate holding onto traditional social values is going to diminish them if he is elected.
Conservatives move slowly on changing established mores because changes to our moral foundation introduces risks to civil society. We now live in a country where it is very difficult to know what the rules are (rule of law) and if the lying by government, selective enforcement of laws by government, and arbitrary exercise of presumed authority by law enforcement officials is not curtailed, we will continue our disintegration.
I think Eric knows this.
We do have a choice: to fight over the fundamental principles of liberty or to spend our time and energy fighting over specific fringe issues.
Bob T.,
Well it works like this. If a candidate works against liberty on some fringe issue people might suspect the candidate’s commitment to liberty is insincere.
In many cases the straight up statist wins such contests. As opposed to the timid Republican statist.
See Romney, Mitt.
Now he could have countered that by calling for the legalization of pot. And lost his core voters.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/i8avozskwko3qplppgs9uq.png
From:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx
You see what a hole Republicans have dug for themselves by supporting a program (Prohibition) started by progressives?
Very funny.
“If a candidate works against liberty on some fringe issue…”
Simon-
Now who’s casting the first stone? Purity ain’t gonna happen.
Did Cuccinelli actually campaign on social issues? No. But there’s an awful lot of people who will vote against him because of his beliefs, whether or not he acts on them.
May as well practice saluting the comissars.
Personal beliefs are one thing. But when a state attorney general supports sodomy laws, that is more than a personal belief. This is a lot more than a disagreement over gay marriage; it is advocacy of imprisonment. I would have found it difficult to vote for Cuccinelli, and even though I might have rationalized it as a protest vote against Obamacare, it would have stuck in my craw. Wanting to imprison people for their lifestyles is the worst possible sort of bigotry; it’s little different than wanting to imprison people over their religion.
According to Mark Levin it is all the fault of Libertarians.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/a-furious-mark-levin-reacts-to-republican-loss-in-va-governors-race-find-out-why-hes-livid/
BTW the place that needs to make forced sodomy illegal is New Mexico.
You know Cuccinelli could have probably gathered more than enough votes to win if he had advocated pot legalization. Like 58% (and gaining) of Americans do.
Trouble is he would have lost his base with such a stance.
Republicans are so screwed.
Don’t vote. Participating in the process legitimatizes an outlaw regime and the out-of-touch GOP. It is time to recognize this round has been lost. Go guerilla and destroy them from the ground up and inside out..
The term you are searching for is Agorist. Counter-economics is the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
Eric, I’ll invoke Kaus’ Law here. I’d rather have a politician in office who insincerely comes around on an issue. That shows he can be cowed by the voters.
I know what Cuccinelli said in the past, but he sure did keep his mouth shut on it during the campaign. What YOU are demanding is public officials who have ALWAYS agreed with you. Ain’t gonna happen.
Enjoy the gulag.
I am demanding that Cuccinelli should have always agreed with me? Hardly. I am opining that had Cuccinelli simply retracted his previous position on sodomy laws, he might very well have won. (I’m enough of a chump that had I lived in VA I’d have probably held my nose and voted for him anyway, and whined endlessly.)
As to his running mate, the guy was a total loon, and I don’t think that helped to balance out the ticket.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/20/the-virginia-gop-blows-it/
I consider my self about 1/2 conservative and 1/2 libertarian and 100% independent as to particular parties. That said, it is obvious to me that the bigger problem is stupid libertarians who refuse to make the CONNECTION between libertarian government and moral virtues. IF the libertarians REALLY WANT less government, overall, then, they will in my opinion have no choice but to accept coalition with the moralizers as the only ones who have the moral character to make it happen. So yeah, I’m saying the price of less government will probably be the restoration of the sodomy laws, etc. because morality demands its sacrifice.
Hey, and look at the way Eric is willing to toss all his faux “libertarianism” into the toilet all for the sake of sodomy and sodomites? WTF is up with that? OMFG!!!! There ain’t no hope if we insist on being this stupid!!!!
By that I meant, if “libertarianism” prioritizes sodomy, it it “libertarianism” that is fuct, not normal people. Sodomy is a celebration of death and sodomites love death. Ejaculating into a rectum is a symbolic celebration of eternal death.
The more I think about this, the more I cannot believe that a “libertarian” could be so stupid as to think it good to vote for the communist because the social conservative does not support special rights for sodomites. I just can’t see the sense in that. Is butthole love really all that more important than general property rights and fiscal sanity?
IF the libertarians REALLY WANT less government, overall, then, they will in my opinion have no choice but to accept coalition with the moralizers
Hmmm. Should I choose the moralizers on the left or the moralizers on the right? Either way I get bigger government.
What to do if I want smaller government?
I know. Vote libertarian.
Some of you may not know this but the Republican Party was at one time way more libertarian than the current crop.
And why do I always have to sacrifice? Shouldn’t the right want to give me something to get my vote? Lip service at least? And maybe just a hint of real action?
Evidently Republicans can’t do politics. Coalitions are ruled by the least committed.
A special rights for sodomites? What if my girlfriend likes it that way?
What if I’m against government persecution of dopers and gays? I guess I can vote for leftists or libertarians.
So James. Are you happy now? There are two parties that cater to my fringe issues. Evidently they WANT my vote.
You don’t want my vote? You won’t get it.
James,
You argument amounts to “what choice do you have”. Several. Including not voting.
I do get it. If Republicans start catering to my issues they will lose you.
Well. That is your problem, not mine.
Why not mine? Well the country is going left. Under the Republicans it goes a little slower. Medicare Part D ring a bell?
I’m interested in a change in direction.
Good point about sodomy!
Virginia’s sodomy law applies to both sexes, and heterosexual or homosexual acts:
http://www.sodomy.org/laws/virginia/sodomy.html
***QUOTE***
§ 18.2-361
Crimes against nature
A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
***END QUOTE***
Which means that heterosexual sodomites FAR outnumber the homosexual variety.
Eric you don’t know what you are talking about, and you are making pat presumptions you should be embarrassed to make. They say too much about your prejudices. The law was written so long ago that perhaps they weren’t heard of then, or it could not be conceived of then that it might be needed–so the law has no severability clause. Ken Cuccinelli was defending the laws’ constitutionality, not it’s utility in whole, because he’d have had to spend taxpayer money keeping people behindsbars convicted on part B of that law–hopefully not wasting it–if they law was struck down.
Part B was used to convict child molesting pedophiles who abused their own family members.
Simon, are you hearing me, you unctuous fuck!?
Mr. Cuccinelli never defended Part A in and of itself, it’s that he’d have rather not had to do without Part B!