This libertarian is voting Cuccinelli

I’ve been largely silent about the elections in Virginia, mostly because I’m burnt out on politics, but also because I find my libertarian self in the unenviable position of supporting the Republican candidate for governor.

It’s not just because I simply despise the slimy, smarmy, smug putrescence that is Terry McAuliffe, and it’s not because McAuliffe is a Democrat who is backed by the likes of the Clintons, supports destructive statist redistribution programs, has no real ties to Virginia, and is only using the Old Dominion as a rung on his political ladder. It’s not even because his entire platform consists of, “I used to run a business… LOOK! CUCCINELLI WANTS TO LEGISLATE YOUR VAGINA!”

It’s because as much as I want to support the LP’s candidate for governor, and as much as Rob Sarvis seems like a nice guy, he’s much less libertarian on things that really matter to me.

For the record, I’m more concerned about Sarvis wanting to “reform” rather than end the nanny-state health care system than I am about the fact that Cuccinelli’s personal views on marriage equality do not match mine.

I’m also more concerned about Sarvis’ support for a privacy-endangering miles driven tax than I am about whether or not Cuccinelli wants to regulate abortion clinics.

For the record, as a legal immigrant to this country, Sarvis’ intent to “protect” illegal aliens living in Virginia – people whose first act in the country they supposedly love is to violate basic laws for legal entry – bothers me a lot more than Cuccinelli’s nonexistent effort to ban birth control pills that the liberals have been touting, despite the fact that a thorough reading of the legislation they claim attempted to do, revealed it so did no such thing. At all.

To be sure, there are issues Ken Cuccinelli and I ardently disagree on, because I’m in no way a social conservative.

But you know what?

I’ll take a guy who wants the federal government out of marriage, has turned around on marijuana legalization, wants to reduce the influence of the federal government on the Commonwealth and kick the nanny state in the nuts over the guy who wants to ensure Virginia law protects those who violate laws, doesn’t mind some government control over health care as long as it’s “reformed,” and doesn’t seem to mind the state keeping track of your movements in order to tax you.

No thanks.

And while both the Libertarian Party and the Democrats are tripping over one another to paint Cuccinelli as someone who will stick a permanent speculum up the collective vaginal canal of Virginia’s women, even though, for instance, he opposed the idiotic attempt of theocratic nutjobs to force women into a transvaginal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion, Cuccinelli is actually more libertarian than the Libertarian.

And yet, here you have Libertarians opposing the guy who actually has an overall pretty libertarian record, because… ZOMG! CUCCINELLI WANTS TO REGULATE YOUR VAGINA!

Do me a favor, Virginia. Vote with your brain, not your genitals.

23 responses

  1. Have you seen the current polls? I agree with your points however if the polls hold true we are looking at a landslide victory for Mr. McAuliffe.
    Source:
    http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe-3033.html

    Like

    1. Yeah, and I’m nauseated by this fact. Absolutely revolted.

      Like

    2. Just shows what the IQ is of many of the people who would vote for such a slime bucket.

      Like

  2. At this point, it’s important to get out the vote for Mark Obenshain for AG. We should win that one if we do.

    Like

  3. I do not live in Virginia but Cuccinelli is by far the better, wiser, choice. Same thing happens where I live, POORegon, home of poverty with a view, The LIV cancer has spread from left to right coast, disgusting. Maybe McAuliffe will change the state’s name to Vaginia to honor the horrid progessive regressive agenda.

    Like

  4. When did we reach the point where refusing to pay for someone else’s birth control is tantamount to a “war on women?” All women don’t USE “the pill”…not even MOST women.

    Like

    1. In McAuliffe land, it’s war. Because we’re all responsible for one another’s vagina.

      Like

  5. Even McAuliffe’s?

    Like

    1. I don’t want to be responsible for his vagina. It probably reeks.

      Like

  6. I agree it’s acceptable for a libertarian to support the Cooch, but there are some myths floating around Sarvis that need clarification.

    Sarvis didn’t, for example, endorse taxing cars based on mileage, but rather merely listed that idea as one more closely adhering to the user-pays policy that should fund transportation. On a radio show today Sarvis clarified that easily technology could use a mileage plan that didn’t violate privacy. But you’re right the black box idea too easily could be manipulated by tyrants to violate privacy and add one more thing to a govt database, and it’s regressive to rural folks who have to drive many more miles than urban folks. That said, his transportation policy is superior to the Cooch’s, since the AG backed the recent move towards non-user fees to fund transportation. And Sarvis wants more local control of roads. On transportation, Sarvis, not the Cooch, is the libertarian choice.

    As far as Medicaid, sure it’s strong of the Cooch to oppose expansion, but it’s also libertarian of Sarvis to want reforms to what is a dangerously-expanding entitlement. On Medicaid, both are libertarian. (Sarvis is stronger on free market reforms for the overall health system, so he wins on that issue).

    Regarding immigration, I didn’t know Sarvis doesn’t prioritize sicking Big Brother on undocumented visitors. To me that’s the more libertarian position, if by blogging on this topic you imply the Cooch would go after these poor immigrants. To say they should “wait in line” like you did, is like saying they should get their background check for a gun because you did (even though the background check violates the 2nd amendment). Let’s speed up the Work Visa line to reduce the need to enter illegally. On immigration, Sarvis is the libertarian.

    You say the Cooch no longer is a drug warrior; we heard similar promises from Obama – but it took 5 years for him to take the DEA’s boot off the throat of pot fans. And Cuccinelli’s record as AG isn’t so good for drug users, is it? You’re asking us to treat the Cooch like Bob Barr – forgetting his savage past and hoping his promises are real.

    Now perhaps you’re right that Cuccinelli’s social interventionism (wanting Big Brother in womens health care or in gay love expressions) has been exaggerated. But Sarvis has the libertarian position here, not thinking abortions are at such epidemic levels that a governmental surge response is needed, nor believing the government should waste taxpayer money on the private lives of gays. Increasingly libertarians just don’t want social interventionists to get away with their acceptance of Big Brother in the bedroom.

    Now there is something else that may make this exchange irrelevant, and that’s the latest poll showing McAwful, not the Cooch, losing more voters to Sarvis. And, Sarvis’ success has brought libertarianism to the attention of Virginia, and the nation. It’s obviously been effective because even Cuccinelli now is trying to sound like a libertarian – worried about losing our vote.

    Would I lose sleep if the Cooch won? No. Would I feel guilty if he lost because a potential vote for him went to Sarvis? About as much as I felt guilty when Romney lost to Obama – not at all.

    P.S. You write well. And my best to Rob and you.

    Like

    1. Hi, Charlie – thanks, first and foremost, and our best to you as well.

      Couple of things here. Sarvis actually said he didn’t mind the mileage tracking. And as you said, there’s just too much opportunity for abuse. Additionally, a mandate will add yet more money to the cost of automobiles, and making cars even more cost prohibitive for people is unacceptable, and unlibertarian. And while I disagree with Cuccinelli’s stance on transportation funding, I disagree with being tracked a lot more.

      RE: illegal immigration, this is something I have long disagreed with the LP on. Yes, you have the right to travel, but no – you don’t have the right to settle in my home. A country without borders is not a sovereign nation. There has to be some type of control as to who enters, proof that they will have a job and not live off society, etc. We can’t be importing collectivism and welfare recipients. I have always held this stance, and while I don’t support immigration quotas like we have these days, I do believe there has to be a modicum of control as to who enters this country. I have always believed this, and I always will. I have no problem with the documentation we had to fill out when we first entered this country, documenting with whom we will be staying, guaranteeing that we wouldn’t mooch off society, etc. And I find the whole, “Let’s protect illegals” attitude offensive.

      Medicaid… ANY expansion of the nanny state is unacceptable to me. And instead of reform, we libertarians should be advocating making it go away. It’s already economically untenable and morally reprehensible. Reforming it doesn’t sit well with me.

      Yes, Ken’s social interventionism has definitely been exaggerated! The libertarian position should be to get government out of marriage completely, not to have government recognize gay marriages vice straight. Cuccinelli at least wants the feds out of the business of marriage. That’s a start. I loathe the idea that government has the authority to sanction my relationship. Overall, Sarvis’ position is better, and I absolutely disagree with any intervention of any government on any level in the bedroom. Regarding abortion, however, I don’t see any difference between regulation of hospitals and the existence of certain safety and cleanliness rules and having the same rules for abortion clinics. IF the state has the authority to ensure safety and cleanliness standards for hospitals and regular clinics, I don’t see why abortion clinics should escape this. Again, though, a moot point.

      My whole point was that despite my disagreements with Ken on social issues, to me his economic views are much more important. He has a very decent, libertarian-leaning record, and I’m not going to support someone who does not have a chance and perhaps hand the scumbag McAuliffe a victory in the process, no matter HOW much I agree with Sarvis on social issues.

      Like

    2. What you obviously don’t understand is that Sarvis will NOT be the next Governor of Virginia and a vote FOR him is a vote for one of the worst criminals in the Democrat Party. The same thing as not voting at all, which is what happened to us in 2012 when we had a decent chance of removing Obama and too many conservatives stayed home because Romney wasn’t “perfect.” Sarvis won’t win, but wasting your vote on him for some nebulous “principle” insures McAuliff becomes governor.

      Like

      1. Pappad, I’ll disagree with you on Romney. He was a pathetic candidate, who had no actual views other than sticking his finger in the wind and seeing which way it was blowing. I thought seriously about voting for him, but in the end, I voted for the candidate I really wanted to be president. In this case, we actually have a pretty good candidate in Cuccinelli, and I have no problem with the fact that he’s not “perfect.” Romney wasn’t just imperfect. He was pretty much a zero.

        Like

  7. …yet INFINITELY better than what we wound up with…and that’s the whole point. I didn’t much like him either, but I voted for him anyway, hoping that enough people realized what a disaster Obama was (and WOULD be during a 2nd term) to make a difference. One thing is for certain. Our next President will be either a Republican OR a Democrat. Voting for some obscure, 3rd Party merely insures that it’ll be a Democrat.

    Like

    1. INFINITELY better? I doubt that. Bad on the Second Amendment. Bad on health care. Better on the economy? Sure. But without quantifying statistics, I would say he would only be marginally better, and frankly, I would rather have the evil I know vice the evil I don’t. Same with McShitstain in 2008. That shitbag was so off the reservation on so many issues, that I would rather have O in office. At least I know what I’m getting.

      Like

      1. Which is precisely why we have Obamacare and a Democrat majority in the Senate. Too many people have your attitude about it. “Better the devil I know than one I don’t.” Do you REALLY believe that we’d have Obamacare today if Romney had won and we’d taken back the Senate last year? What we have to do is take back the REPUBLICAN Party from those who seem to want us to get to the same place as the Democrats, but with THEM deciding where to spend the money, so a bit slower.

        Like

        1. No, we’d have RomneyCare. And too many people vote for the establishment rather than vote to take back the party. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. It’s not even about the President. It’s about the fact that no matter how low Congressional approval is, the vast majority of the idiots in this country still vote for the establishment. What has that gotten us? Not much. You don’t take back the party by giving the people who are the problem your vote.

          Like

        2. I doubt it, Nicki. Romney made it clear that a STATE system is perfectly constitutional. It’s the FEDERAL sort that isn’t. I’m unhappy with the GOP establishment, too, but you can’t get them out by voting for some obscure “Constitution Party” candidate…or even the “Libertarian” Party, which is marginally better-known. You DO it by primary-ing the establishment types OUT and taking back the Republican Party.

          Like

    2. Romney lost my vote and support when his minions cheated at the convention in Tampa, changed the actual rules of the party, and refsued to let Ron Paul speak. Seeya, Mittens!

      Like

  8. […] This libertarian is voting Cuccinelli: LibertyZoneAP Editors Lament: Obama Relies On Staged Propaganda Photos: WZWhy is Hillary Clinton’s popularity sliding?: Jon Terbush, The Week […]

    Like

  9. SARVIS is a DEMOCRAT PLANT to sabotage Cucinelli.
    He is, as the author says, NO libertarian.

    Like

    1. That is not what I said. I said Cuccinelli is more libertarian than Sarvis in ways that matter to me. There is a difference.

      Like

  10. […] And what did you think would happen if Virginians were consistently bombarded with ads falsely claiming Cuccinelli was a monster who would ban abortion, legislate their vaginas and wanted to ban birth control (an outright lie, by the way – I read the legislation the liberals allege would ban contraception, and there’s no mention of it and no way it could be construed to even attempt to ban birth control)? What would happen if loud libertarian voices echoed that message from every corner on the Internet? Exactly what happened. The “Vagina First” voters came out in droves to vote against Cuccinelli, because VAGINA! […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: