Our Log Cabin friend David Lampo on why, in Virginia’s upcoming election, Republicans should say no to their party’s gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli and lieutenant governor nominee E.W. Jackson. Can’t argue with that. But David didn’t comment on what a corrupt crony capitalist and shameless hypocrite the Democratic nominee, Terry McAuliffe, is.
The Libertarian party doesn’t always offer an appealing alternative, but this year in Virginia we have excellent Libertarian candidate in Robert Sarvis, who will get my vote.
19 Comments for “Virginia’s Choice”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Good on you, Stephen, and good on LCR for calling out Cuccinelli and Jackson.
Anyone who wants to help Sarvis can sign his petition for marriage equality in Virginia and make a campaign contribution at robertsarvis.com/marriage.
posted by Doug on
Obviously, Sarvis would probably be the better governor but the reality is that the next governor will be either Cuccinelli, YUK, YUK, YUK, or McAuliffe, YUK, YUK. Sarvis has close to zero probably of being the next governor, so voting for him accomplishes nothing and whoever wins will care nothing about those who voted for other candidates. Sad but true.
posted by Mark on
It’s true that Sarvis has no chance of winning. But McAuliffe is such an awful candidate that a protest vote for Sarvis might be the best approach.
Perhaps the ideal outcome, in terms of sending a message, would be a narrow McAuliffe win, with Sarvis votes being greater than the margin of victory–showing that Republicans lost by nominating an extremist.
posted by Doug on
I don’t think you can assume that all or even most of the Sarvis vote would go to either candidate. You could easily make the same comment if Cuccinelli were to win.
posted by Mark on
You certainly could make the comment, but it’s hard to imagine it would be taken seriously. Can anyone think of a single contest in the last 30 years in which the Libertarian candidate siphoned more votes away from the Democratic candidate than the Republican?
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s no way any self-respecting gay person can vote for Cuccinelli. If that means McAuliffe becomes governor in the process then maybe that will be the wake-up call that Republicans need to stop hating on gays to appeal to a shrinking base. For decades I’ve been asking gay Republicans why they were Republicans and when they answered it was clear that they were actual Libertarians and were never going to get anything they wanted from the GOP except perhaps an occasional tax cut.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s true that Sarvis has no chance of winning.
I can’t count the times I’ve voted for a candidate with no chance of winning, living in an area that we just recently turned from red to purple, and having moved back to this area after three decades of trying to elect “Independent Democrats” (that is, non-machine) in Chicago Democratic primaries.
Voting for someone who can win is not what counts. What counts is voting for the candidate that you think is the best candidate, and sometimes, working/voting against an unacceptable candidate, no matter what.
I’ve learned something along the way. The fight to change things has value, in and of itself, and often, in the long run, changes things.
I have no idea how many votes Sarvis might get in this election. The polls suggest that he’ll have a tough time cracking 10%. But I can’t imagine what it would be like to be gay, vote for Cuccinelli, and then look at yourself in the mirror the next morning. It is out of the question that a self-respecting gay or lesbian could vote for a man like him.
posted by Doug on
If you vote for what you think is the best candidate you could very well be cutting off your nose to spite your face. I’m sure all those Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000 voted their conscience but look what it cost them and this nation having Bush as president for 8 years. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for someone even if they are not your ‘conscience candidate’ because is stops someone far worse.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you vote for what you think is the best candidate you could very well be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
That’s true, as well. But look at the pro-equality conservative dilemma in this election, and in particular, Stephen’s.
It is clear, in Stephen’s case and in the case of many other deep-dyed pro-equality conservatives, that they will not vote for a Democrat in any case, and more so (if that is possible) when the Democratic candidate is deeply flawed, like Terry McAuliffe.
And yet they cannot, if they want to look themselves in the mirror come Wednesday, November 6, vote for Cuccinelli/Jackson, two of the most rabidly anti-equality candidates running in this election, anywhere in the country.
So what are they going to do? What should they do, in your opinion?
It is an important question, because as the Republican Party goes further off the deep end in the next few election cycles, it is a question that will be faced by a lot of conservatives.
The long-term answer, of course, is for pro-equality conservatives to get to work in the Republican Party and change the primary/convention process, which is stacked toward nominating candidates like Cuccinelli/Jackson in most states. But until that changes, and the Republican Party turns around on equality, pro-equality conservatives have to choose from among the available candidates in general elections.
posted by Doug on
It’s a tough call in Virginia, given the apparent corruption with the current governor and candidate Cuccinelli, not to mention his war on women and the LGBT community. I’m afraid I would have to hold my nose and vote for McAuliffe even though it would gag me. From a practical standpoint you could be worse off if you voted for Sarvis or did not vote at all and Cuccinelli was elected as a result especially if your are a women or LGBT. This is almost a do over of the 2000 election in Florida. It’s sort of like chemotherapy. . . it’s really shitty but it’s your only chance.
posted by Sandy Sanders on
I would not say Sarvis has no chance to win; it is a long shot but there is a lot of angst about both major party candidates. If Sarvis could raise some ad money and go up in the polls just a bit over the ten percent he is at in some polls, he could be a contender. Also if the LP gets 10% in VA no more petition drives for four years!
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree about the “throwing your vote away” argument. You should vote for your choice. Voting for a third party candidate is much better than staying home. Let your opinion count even if the person you support probably won’t win. I hate that line of thinking and I suspect it’s behind America’s embarrassingly low voter turnout.
I hate the position last year of most local elections having no Democratic opposition to the Republican incumbent. I did my homework and voted for quite a few Green and Libertarian candidates (all of whom were better on issues I care about than the Republicans, all of whom were openly hostile to gays and not just on the issue of marriage. It was right their on their campaign web pages.) People need to educate themselves on local issues and candidates and vote as they think is best.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
A friend of mine lives in Western Minnesota, where the electorate tends to be very conservative on social issues and candidates tend to avoid gay rights issues or come out strongly against them.
It is certainly different then the Twin Cities metro area where I attend University. When people think of Minnesota, they tend to think of the Twin Cities or maybe Duluth or the Iron Range.
He has been in a similar situation where his choice involves a rabid, anti-gay rights Republican or a conservative Democrat who (often) would prefer to ignore the issue all together.
Heck, in his case it is often worse, because very few third party candidates run for office in his region, and those that do tend to be even more right-wing. What is he suppose to do?
I am not a libertarian and have some problems with the philosophy (especially the Ayn Rand version of it), but might be interesting to see what would happen if the Libertarian Party in Virgina did not have to collect petition signatures for four years. Although, how many elections would they compete in with such an opportunity?
Frankly, I would prefer it if — after an election — the top five or six parties got automatic ballot access. I also think that we need to support IRV or PR, but those issues do not seem to gain much traction on a state or federal level.
What to do?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
In Virginia; If I could not vote for the Democrat in Virgina — I thought crony capitalism was what the Ayn Rand/’free marketeers’ wanted — then a strong showing from the third party, libertarian candidate would be the thing to try and do.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t believe I’m about to defend Rand who imho was a sociopath, but no crony capitalism is not what free markets or Objectivism are about. There’s nothing free about a market in which the rules are stacked in favor of some players and against others. I have a great deal of sympathy with this point of view since I believe that it is our nature to do better work when we are in a healthy and fair (as much as that is possible) competition. Corruption is certainly not what true free market types want. It unfortunately is what many who talk that talk want in practice so I understand the confusion.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
H;
For the record: I am not questioning the right of the Libertarian Party (or the Ayn Rand Party) to exist. I do not believe that our government should discriminate against third parties as much as it does, which includes the Libertarian Party. I am not a lawyer, just a lowly pre law student, but such discrimination would seem to run a fowl of the First and 14th Amendments.
However, it is the core economic belief of Randians and the right-libertarian movement that the government should not regulate the economy or business contracts or trade or whatnot.
That would almost certainly lead to crony capitalism of the worst sort.
I am not objecting to “free markets” or “capitalism”. However, the economic theories of these two philosophies would mean that the deck was greatly stacked against one side (typically the side without the money, power, land, etc).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ironically, it looks like Virginia might be the host of the Loving-equivalent decision. You can bet that Olson and Boies gave a lot of thought choosing the right jurisdiction in which to bring the case.
posted by Ed on
I will be holding my nose and voting for McAuliffe. Sarvis doesn’t stand a chance and will only draw votes away from McAuliffe favoring the rabidly anti-gay Cuccinelli. In this case, I will vote for the elitist left winger as the only viable option.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Washington Blade reports this morning that Ted Olson contributed $1,000 to Cuccinelli’s campaign in September.
Olson’s contribution is a good example of my problem with pro-equality conservatives — whatever they might or might not do to advance equality, when push comes to shove, they rally round the Republican flag and support anti-equality candidates. If the Republican Party is going to face any internal pressure to change, this pattern has to stop.
I’m glad you are taking a different stance this time around, Stephen, and I hope that you’ll do so in the future when a reasonable alternative exists.