Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
Once
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:48 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Once »

Admittedly, keeping up with the politics of my own state is about all I've managed, but from what little I've read, Cuccinelli seems to inspire a lot of widely swinging opinions. I looked at a piece written about him last night and I'm not linking it here (because it was written by someone close to me and I don't wish to champion/defend the opinions of someone else when I don't really know what Cuccinelli is all about). Besides, the piece I read was narrowly focused on one portion of public policy and how that portion affects felony prosecution of sexual crimes against children. I'd like to hear more about your overall impressions than get down in the weeds on one or three issues.

TIA
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by BigDave »

He was a horrible choice - if Bill Bolling were running as an independent, he would have had my vote and I think he could have won. Take everything that people hate about neo-cons, gift wrap it up in a package, and you have Ken Cuccinelli.

He is a legal wonk to the point of being pedantic. For example, when a judge threw out a conviction of that guy who was falsely accused of rape, Cuccinelli refused to release him from jail, saying that the judge didn't have the authority to make that decision. (Fortunately, Governor McDonnell heard about it following the media outrage and he was able to issue a conditional pardon allowing the guy to get out of jail pending the legal steps being followed.) When Cuccinelli first became AG, he told schools in Virginia they were not allowed to ban discrimination against gays. What absurdity.

There is nothing whatsoever about him that I like ... but Terry McAuliffe is far, far worse. I don't usually consider a gubernatorial candidate in Virginia to be scary - but McAuliffe scares me. If the democrats had nominated one of the other options, I likely would have violated by abortion litmus test and voted for Robert Sarvis. But with McAuliffe, I'm voting for Cuccinelli, though I'm not happy about it.
Once wrote:Admittedly, keeping up with the politics of my own state is about all I've managed, but from what little I've read, Cuccinelli seems to inspire a lot of widely swinging opinions. I looked at a piece written about him last night and I'm not linking it here (because it was written by someone close to me and I don't wish to champion/defend the opinions of someone else when I don't really know what Cuccinelli is all about). Besides, the piece I read was narrowly focused on one portion of public policy and how that portion affects felony prosecution of sexual crimes against children. I'd like to hear more about your overall impressions than get down in the weeds on one or three issues.

TIA
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by USN_Hokie »

BigDave wrote:He was a horrible choice - if Bill Bolling were running as an independent, he would have had my vote and I think he could have won. Take everything that people hate about neo-cons, gift wrap it up in a package, and you have Ken Cuccinelli.

He is a legal wonk to the point of being pedantic. For example, when a judge threw out a conviction of that guy who was falsely accused of rape, Cuccinelli refused to release him from jail, saying that the judge didn't have the authority to make that decision. (Fortunately, Governor McDonnell heard about it following the media outrage and he was able to issue a conditional pardon allowing the guy to get out of jail pending the legal steps being followed.) When Cuccinelli first became AG, he told schools in Virginia they were not allowed to ban discrimination against gays. What absurdity.

There is nothing whatsoever about him that I like ... but Terry McAuliffe is far, far worse. I don't usually consider a gubernatorial candidate in Virginia to be scary - but McAuliffe scares me. If the democrats had nominated one of the other options, I likely would have violated by abortion litmus test and voted for Robert Sarvis. But with McAuliffe, I'm voting for Cuccinelli, though I'm not happy about it.
Once wrote:Admittedly, keeping up with the politics of my own state is about all I've managed, but from what little I've read, Cuccinelli seems to inspire a lot of widely swinging opinions. I looked at a piece written about him last night and I'm not linking it here (because it was written by someone close to me and I don't wish to champion/defend the opinions of someone else when I don't really know what Cuccinelli is all about). Besides, the piece I read was narrowly focused on one portion of public policy and how that portion affects felony prosecution of sexual crimes against children. I'd like to hear more about your overall impressions than get down in the weeds on one or three issues.

TIA
I agree with much of what you said, but I think the part in bold is a little imprecise. The public schools in VA were including sexual orientation as a protected class which is not recognized by VA law. Cuccinelli offered an opinion that public schools were over-stepping the bounds of the law and creating a liability for the state. That's correct, and last I checked, several schools (including VT) were still including sexual orientation.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

So you're voting against someone instead of for someone?
BigDave wrote:He was a horrible choice - if Bill Bolling were running as an independent, he would have had my vote and I think he could have won. Take everything that people hate about neo-cons, gift wrap it up in a package, and you have Ken Cuccinelli.

He is a legal wonk to the point of being pedantic. For example, when a judge threw out a conviction of that guy who was falsely accused of rape, Cuccinelli refused to release him from jail, saying that the judge didn't have the authority to make that decision. (Fortunately, Governor McDonnell heard about it following the media outrage and he was able to issue a conditional pardon allowing the guy to get out of jail pending the legal steps being followed.) When Cuccinelli first became AG, he told schools in Virginia they were not allowed to ban discrimination against gays. What absurdity.

There is nothing whatsoever about him that I like ... but Terry McAuliffe is far, far worse. I don't usually consider a gubernatorial candidate in Virginia to be scary - but McAuliffe scares me. If the democrats had nominated one of the other options, I likely would have violated by abortion litmus test and voted for Robert Sarvis. But with McAuliffe, I'm voting for Cuccinelli, though I'm not happy about it.
Once wrote:Admittedly, keeping up with the politics of my own state is about all I've managed, but from what little I've read, Cuccinelli seems to inspire a lot of widely swinging opinions. I looked at a piece written about him last night and I'm not linking it here (because it was written by someone close to me and I don't wish to champion/defend the opinions of someone else when I don't really know what Cuccinelli is all about). Besides, the piece I read was narrowly focused on one portion of public policy and how that portion affects felony prosecution of sexual crimes against children. I'd like to hear more about your overall impressions than get down in the weeds on one or three issues.

TIA
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by BigDave »

Yes, almost always.

Voting for Romney was a vote against Obama. Voting for McCain was a vote against Obama. Voting for Allen was a vote against Kaine.

I did enthusiastically like Bob McDonnell when he ran for governor (he has been a huge disappointment) ... and of course, I like Congressman Forbes and enthusiastically vote for him.

But more often than not, it's the lesser of two evils. If the greater of two evils is palatable, I'm willing to vote third party, but Obama, Kaine, and McAuliffe are so unpalatable that I'm willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

If Chris Christie is the nominee in 2016, I will NOT vote for him and I will vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Marine Hokie wrote:So you're voting against someone instead of for someone?
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

It's that kind of thinking that will keep the two entrenched-party system alive.
BigDave wrote:Yes, almost always.

Voting for Romney was a vote against Obama. Voting for McCain was a vote against Obama. Voting for Allen was a vote against Kaine.

I did enthusiastically like Bob McDonnell when he ran for governor (he has been a huge disappointment) ... and of course, I like Congressman Forbes and enthusiastically vote for him.

But more often than not, it's the lesser of two evils. If the greater of two evils is palatable, I'm willing to vote third party, but Obama, Kaine, and McAuliffe are so unpalatable that I'm willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

If Chris Christie is the nominee in 2016, I will NOT vote for him and I will vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Marine Hokie wrote:So you're voting against someone instead of for someone?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by USN_Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:It's that kind of thinking that will keep the two entrenched-party system alive.
BigDave wrote:Yes, almost always.

Voting for Romney was a vote against Obama. Voting for McCain was a vote against Obama. Voting for Allen was a vote against Kaine.

I did enthusiastically like Bob McDonnell when he ran for governor (he has been a huge disappointment) ... and of course, I like Congressman Forbes and enthusiastically vote for him.

But more often than not, it's the lesser of two evils. If the greater of two evils is palatable, I'm willing to vote third party, but Obama, Kaine, and McAuliffe are so unpalatable that I'm willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

If Chris Christie is the nominee in 2016, I will NOT vote for him and I will vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Marine Hokie wrote:So you're voting against someone instead of for someone?
Like I've said before... Show me a country without two primary parties, and I'll show you a banana republic.

Alternatively, not participating in the election process until election day will ensure candidates you (generally speaking) get candidates you don't like. Once election day rolls around, you should consider viability of the candidate you vote for.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

What are you suggesting? That a government needs exactly two parties to function the way you want?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:It's that kind of thinking that will keep the two entrenched-party system alive.
USN_Hokie wrote: Like I've said before... Show me a country without two primary parties, and I'll show you a banana republic.

Alternatively, not participating in the election process until election day will ensure candidates you (generally speaking) get candidates you don't like. Once election day rolls around, you should consider viability of the candidate you vote for.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by USN_Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:What are you suggesting? That a government needs exactly two parties to function the way you want?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:It's that kind of thinking that will keep the two entrenched-party system alive.
USN_Hokie wrote: Like I've said before... Show me a country without two primary parties, and I'll show you a banana republic.

Alternatively, not participating in the election process until election day will ensure candidates you (generally speaking) get candidates you don't like. Once election day rolls around, you should consider viability of the candidate you vote for.
No, I'm saying that a two party system provides the stability that a country needs long term. It necessarily requires that a majority of the interested population buys into it. If we want to make the republican party more libertarian, that's something I'd welcome. A third party...not so much. Ron Paul understands this, it's something I can appreciate about him...
One4VT
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:20 am

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by One4VT »

Like him or hate him, Ron Paul's end game in his presidential bid has been very effective at forcing change in state Republican Parties... its what has caused so much turmoil between the factions. He's gotten his people into leadership positions and the old guard (mostly people living in and near the state capitals) have their panties in a wad. Its one reason that Bill Bolling got rolled, for instance. Bill Bolling has turned out to be nothing but a political punk, IMO. He couldn't get his way and after years of preaching to folks to support the party candidates, has tried his best to run down Cuccinelli.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:What are you suggesting? That a government needs exactly two parties to function the way you want?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:It's that kind of thinking that will keep the two entrenched-party system alive.
USN_Hokie wrote: Like I've said before... Show me a country without two primary parties, and I'll show you a banana republic.

Alternatively, not participating in the election process until election day will ensure candidates you (generally speaking) get candidates you don't like. Once election day rolls around, you should consider viability of the candidate you vote for.
No, I'm saying that a two party system provides the stability that a country needs long term. It necessarily requires that a majority of the interested population buys into it. If we want to make the republican party more libertarian, that's something I'd welcome. A third party...not so much. Ron Paul understands this, it's something I can appreciate about him...
Don't "Sub-Forum" my Thread Bro!
Once
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:48 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Would it be fair to say that Cuccinelli has a few "pet"

Post by Once »

Political issues that have clouded or demoted his interest in the myriad other issues that require governing? In other words, it looks like the media has focused on a few aspects of his agenda to the exclusion of everything else, or is it that Cuccinelli is only focused on a few aspects to the exclusion of everything else?
BigDave wrote:He was a horrible choice - if Bill Bolling were running as an independent, he would have had my vote and I think he could have won. Take everything that people hate about neo-cons, gift wrap it up in a package, and you have Ken Cuccinelli.

He is a legal wonk to the point of being pedantic. For example, when a judge threw out a conviction of that guy who was falsely accused of rape, Cuccinelli refused to release him from jail, saying that the judge didn't have the authority to make that decision. (Fortunately, Governor McDonnell heard about it following the media outrage and he was able to issue a conditional pardon allowing the guy to get out of jail pending the legal steps being followed.) When Cuccinelli first became AG, he told schools in Virginia they were not allowed to ban discrimination against gays. What absurdity.

There is nothing whatsoever about him that I like ... but Terry McAuliffe is far, far worse. I don't usually consider a gubernatorial candidate in Virginia to be scary - but McAuliffe scares me. If the democrats had nominated one of the other options, I likely would have violated by abortion litmus test and voted for Robert Sarvis. But with McAuliffe, I'm voting for Cuccinelli, though I'm not happy about it.
Once wrote:Admittedly, keeping up with the politics of my own state is about all I've managed, but from what little I've read, Cuccinelli seems to inspire a lot of widely swinging opinions. I looked at a piece written about him last night and I'm not linking it here (because it was written by someone close to me and I don't wish to champion/defend the opinions of someone else when I don't really know what Cuccinelli is all about). Besides, the piece I read was narrowly focused on one portion of public policy and how that portion affects felony prosecution of sexual crimes against children. I'd like to hear more about your overall impressions than get down in the weeds on one or three issues.

TIA
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

How so?
USN_Hokie wrote:No, I'm saying that a two party system provides the stability that a country needs long term. It necessarily requires that a majority of the interested population buys into it.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by USN_Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:How so?
USN_Hokie wrote:No, I'm saying that a two party system provides the stability that a country needs long term. It necessarily requires that a majority of the interested population buys into it.
It prevents major swings in government like you see in other countries. For example, if you had 5 different party candidates in a race, 21pct of the voting population could theoretically elect a candidate. Then, in the next election, a few pct swing could shift power to another party at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. These two parties could have completely opposite views on finance policy, defense, entitlements, etc..

In America, with our ethnic/racial divides, it could be even worse. Imagine a "La Raza" party...

I guess I'm saying that, while the status quo sucks, it's still better than anything else. My example embellishes a little on purpose, but you get the point.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

So it's better to have two entrenched parties, the republicans and democrats? Do you believe they're essentially the same, or very different? If they're the same, then why not just have one party? If they're different, it's the same as in your example.
Currently, fewer than 50% of the voters can elect a candidate. What's the difference in that and 20%? Either way, people are voting into office a person who will do things millions of people don't want.
The purpose of political parties is to convince people to vote in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Why would you want two groups deciding who runs the government?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:How so?
USN_Hokie wrote:No, I'm saying that a two party system provides the stability that a country needs long term. It necessarily requires that a majority of the interested population buys into it.
It prevents major swings in government like you see in other countries. For example, if you had 5 different party candidates in a race, 21pct of the voting population could theoretically elect a candidate. Then, in the next election, a few pct swing could shift power to another party at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. These two parties could have completely opposite views on finance policy, defense, entitlements, etc..

In America, with our ethnic/racial divides, it could be even worse. Imagine a "La Raza" party...

I guess I'm saying that, while the status quo sucks, it's still better than anything else. My example embellishes a little on purpose, but you get the point.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by USN_Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:So it's better to have two entrenched parties, the republicans and democrats? Do you believe they're essentially the same, or very different? If they're the same, then why not just have one party? If they're different, it's the same as in your example.
Currently, fewer than 50% of the voters can elect a candidate. What's the difference in that and 20%? Either way, people are voting into office a person who will do things millions of people don't want.
The purpose of political parties is to convince people to vote in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Why would you want two groups deciding who runs the government?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:How so?
USN_Hokie wrote:No, I'm saying that a two party system provides the stability that a country needs long term. It necessarily requires that a majority of the interested population buys into it.
It prevents major swings in government like you see in other countries. For example, if you had 5 different party candidates in a race, 21pct of the voting population could theoretically elect a candidate. Then, in the next election, a few pct swing could shift power to another party at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. These two parties could have completely opposite views on finance policy, defense, entitlements, etc..

In America, with our ethnic/racial divides, it could be even worse. Imagine a "La Raza" party...

I guess I'm saying that, while the status quo sucks, it's still better than anything else. My example embellishes a little on purpose, but you get the point.
Oh, I think they're very close...but the word entrenched is yours, not mine. Politics in America have changed a bit in the last 200yrs, so that's obviously not true.

The idea is that you spread your ideas through the party you most closely identify with. Because there's two parties fighting for power (and not ideas, they want power) the scrimmage line of politics will necessarily shift. Then, you just have to get leaders with the charisma and ideals to make your vision happen.

Democrats are much better at this than Republicans. They run middle of the road folks like warner in states like VA, but the Senate still does what Harry Reid and the White House want. Obama is an ideologue as well, it with no real political background prior to his election, he won on charisma alone. In 4 years, he shifted the Overton Window enough to run in his record.

One party? Please.

Do I think there's a big difference between 20pct and 50pct? He'll yes. Look at any poll.... 15-25pct of any study group will ascribe to the most ridiculous of positions, whether that's Obama being a secret Muslim trying to institute sharia law, GWB causing 9/11, etc..

If we live in a country where 25pct of the population can live elect a libertarian, then we also live in a country where 25pct can elect an outright Marxist. That's not a trade I'm willing to make, and it doesn't portend a stable transfer of power.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

I don't disagree with all of your post. However I have a problem with being forced to accept whichever of two parties you agree with most (or disagree with least). I'm not saying 20% deciding on a politician is better than 50%, just that 50% isn't much better than 20%. ~50% of people telling the rest what to do still isn't freedom. Barely half of the 18+ population voted in the 2012 presidential election, barely half of which voted for Obama. At best, we can say that 25% of Americans eligible to vote are able to pick the president.
In reality, a handful of people pick the candidates. Watch FNC and MSNBC and tell me if each primary candidate within a party receives the same coverage. If you don't have support of a party's establishment, you're unlikely to win that party's nomination. If you don't have a D or R nomination, you have almost no chance of winning the election.

When you're effectively limited to two choices, most people aren't going to be happy. Obama won with 25% of eligible voters casting a vote for him. In polls, most people are against Obamacare and higher taxes, yet he still claims he has a "voter mandate" to implement his policies which restrict freedoms of those who don't want them.
USN_Hokie wrote:Oh, I think they're very close...but the word entrenched is yours, not mine. Politics in America have changed a bit in the last 200yrs, so that's obviously not true.

The idea is that you spread your ideas through the party you most closely identify with. Because there's two parties fighting for power (and not ideas, they want power) the scrimmage line of politics will necessarily shift. Then, you just have to get leaders with the charisma and ideals to make your vision happen.

Democrats are much better at this than Republicans. They run middle of the road folks like warner in states like VA, but the Senate still does what Harry Reid and the White House want. Obama is an ideologue as well, it with no real political background prior to his election, he won on charisma alone. In 4 years, he shifted the Overton Window enough to run in his record.

One party? Please.

Do I think there's a big difference between 20pct and 50pct? He'll yes. Look at any poll.... 15-25pct of any study group will ascribe to the most ridiculous of positions, whether that's Obama being a secret Muslim trying to institute sharia law, GWB causing 9/11, etc..

If we live in a country where 25pct of the population can live elect a libertarian, then we also live in a country where 25pct can elect an outright Marxist. That's not a trade I'm willing to make, and it doesn't portend a stable transfer of power.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:Oh, I think they're very close...
I think they're very close too, which I realize is part of your earlier point, but I wanted to make sure we were clear about where you stand.
If that's the case, wouldn't it be best just to have one party? Why have two, just for the sake of having more than one, when they're almost indistinguishable much of the time?
Why not just have one party, or no parties at all?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by USN_Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Oh, I think they're very close...
I think they're very close too, which I realize is part of your earlier point, but I wanted to make sure we were clear about where you stand.
If that's the case, wouldn't it be best just to have one party? Why have two, just for the sake of having more than one, when they're almost indistinguishable much of the time?
Why not just have one party, or no parties at all?
If there's only one party, then what little accountability which exists is lost. Party leadership still fears losing power... even if the guy replacing him isn't too different.

I'll point out again that this is where I think Ron Paul got it right. He battled from within to shape the republican party, but stepped back when it was clear his candidacy wasn't viable after the primaries. I'm not saying someone should pick a side and label themselves as a "democrat" or a "republican," supporting every policy - I know I don't. I just feel strongly that a two party system is the best of the horrible choices we have, and people should pick and choose their battles. Hell, I'm registering as a Democrat in MD for the next election because I feel that's the best opportunity to make a change with my vote (I know you disagree with this logic, we'll just have to agree to disagree here I think)
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by Marine Hokie »

Though there are exceptions, I don't see much in the way of accountability.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Oh, I think they're very close...
I think they're very close too, which I realize is part of your earlier point, but I wanted to make sure we were clear about where you stand.
If that's the case, wouldn't it be best just to have one party? Why have two, just for the sake of having more than one, when they're almost indistinguishable much of the time?
Why not just have one party, or no parties at all?
If there's only one party, then what little accountability which exists is lost. Party leadership still fears losing power... even if the guy replacing him isn't too different.

I'll point out again that this is where I think Ron Paul got it right. He battled from within to shape the republican party, but stepped back when it was clear his candidacy wasn't viable after the primaries. I'm not saying someone should pick a side and label themselves as a "democrat" or a "republican," supporting every policy - I know I don't. I just feel strongly that a two party system is the best of the horrible choices we have, and people should pick and choose their battles. Hell, I'm registering as a Democrat in MD for the next election because I feel that's the best opportunity to make a change with my vote (I know you disagree with this logic, we'll just have to agree to disagree here I think)
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Someone (everyone) educate me about Cuccinelli.

Post by RiverguyVT »

It is almost like Dave just cheated off my paper.
"ditto"

I think Cooch is a bit of a nut.
McAuliffe, though? eieye yii yiiii...



BigDave wrote:He was a horrible choice - if Bill Bolling were running as an independent, he would have had my vote and I think he could have won. Take everything that people hate about neo-cons, gift wrap it up in a package, and you have Ken Cuccinelli.

He is a legal wonk to the point of being pedantic. For example, when a judge threw out a conviction of that guy who was falsely accused of rape, Cuccinelli refused to release him from jail, saying that the judge didn't have the authority to make that decision. (Fortunately, Governor McDonnell heard about it following the media outrage and he was able to issue a conditional pardon allowing the guy to get out of jail pending the legal steps being followed.) When Cuccinelli first became AG, he told schools in Virginia they were not allowed to ban discrimination against gays. What absurdity.

There is nothing whatsoever about him that I like ... but Terry McAuliffe is far, far worse. I don't usually consider a gubernatorial candidate in Virginia to be scary - but McAuliffe scares me. If the democrats had nominated one of the other options, I likely would have violated by abortion litmus test and voted for Robert Sarvis. But with McAuliffe, I'm voting for Cuccinelli, though I'm not happy about it.
Once wrote:Admittedly, keeping up with the politics of my own state is about all I've managed, but from what little I've read, Cuccinelli seems to inspire a lot of widely swinging opinions. I looked at a piece written about him last night and I'm not linking it here (because it was written by someone close to me and I don't wish to champion/defend the opinions of someone else when I don't really know what Cuccinelli is all about). Besides, the piece I read was narrowly focused on one portion of public policy and how that portion affects felony prosecution of sexual crimes against children. I'd like to hear more about your overall impressions than get down in the weeds on one or three issues.

TIA
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Post Reply