Fail: Cuccinelli vs "Sodomites"

[j1mmyd]

I get what Cuccinelli is trying to accomplish here, but he won't get far by even *appearing* to be in favor of regulating consensual sex between adults. Part of what is required of a candidate is their ability to anticipate consequences of their actions, especially how things might be reframed or spun by a detractor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ken- ... lli-sodomy

[Swampman]

He keeps this crap up, he's gonna blow this election and we'll be stuck with that ass McAuliffe.

[FiremanBob]

If you buy into the portrayal by the Left of Cuccinelli's views, and you are duped into thinking that he is unable to separate his personal beliefs from his commitment to the rule of law, then you are the fool, not he. His quotes and actions are not the tyrannical puritanism so distortedly portrayed by the propagandists of the Huffing and Puffing Post. Read the headlines and hate him - read what he actually said and did, and see that it wasn't very controversial at all.

Since when is complete approval of homosexuality the litmus test of an American? It isn't to me. We are still free to have our own opinions and our own standards of behavior, and to make our own judgments, despite the political agitation from the Left and the gay lobby. Just because I have a certain opinion of homosexuality doesn't affect my acceptance of them, as of all law-abiding citizens, as citizens with the same constitutional rights as I have.

I urge you to read all Lefty agitprop bullhorns such as HuffPo with a gimlet eye.

[j1mmyd]

I think you missed - or I failed to make - my point. Regardless of his position on the issue, it is a VERY polarizing one. His failure is allowing himself to be played by the left.

Personally, I agree with him on this specific situation.

[FiremanBob]

It would be politically smart for him to make a statement on the subject, so that it can then be removed from the debate.

[Mindflayer]

It would be politically smart for him to make a statement on the subject, so that it can then be removed from the debate.

Indeed. Tho' maybe this means more folks will vote for Sarvis.

[j1mmyd]

Sorry, but a vote for Sarvis is still a vote for T-Mac. The left is too organized/hive-minded to let their bloc be pulled apart by Libertarians.

(Note: I sincerely hope to look back on this statement in a couple months and be proven wrong.)

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm going with Sarvis.

[trailrunner]

Sorry, but a vote for Sarvis is still a vote for T-Mac.

I don't agree with this.

I understand the pragmatic aspects of voting, but I am morally compelled to vote for the candidate that best reflects my views.

[trailrunner]

I think you missed - or I failed to make - my point. Regardless of his position on the issue, it is a VERY polarizing one. His failure is allowing himself to be played by the left.

I agree with this. The R party sets themselves up for distortion by the liberal media, and this distortion turns off a lot of the younger (under 35 or so) demographic. Anti-gay and arcane sodomy laws, no matter how nuanced, provides fodder for the liberal media. When I was growing up in California (a long time ago), I remember that the law was that whatever consenting adults did in the privacy of their home was off-limts to the government. In this instance, California got it right. (Too bad those freedoms in California don't also apply to guns, but that's another story.) If Cuccinelli were to come out and say: "I don't give a hoot about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, and neither should our government, because I believe in personal freedom" this would become a non-issue and wouldn't supply the liberal media with any more ammunition.

IMHO the R should soften the hard-line stance on social issues and focus more on the message of fiscal responsibility. This latter message would resonate well with the younger crowd, because they are the ones that are going to inherit this financial mess.

[Swampman]

It would be politically smart for him to make a statement on the subject, so that it can then be removed from the debate.

It would be, but will he? We'll have to wait and see. I agree with the general consensus that his positions will be used against him unless he makes a statement that takes it off the table. So, he has to do pre-emptive damage control, AND campaign at the same time. Quite a tall order given the left's ability to twist his positions like a Twizzler.

[Kreutz]

I agree with this. The R party sets themselves up for distortion by the liberal media, and this distortion turns off a lot of the younger (under 35 or so) demographic. Anti-gay and arcane sodomy laws, no matter how nuanced, provides fodder for the liberal media.

There is much truth to this. While I respect someone who sticks to their guns on an unpopular stance (whether I agree with it or not) out of principle, when you're trying to win statewide office I think some due consideration should be given to picking your battles. Much to lose and nothing to gain from this issue especially since the largest concentration of votes is a rather gay friendly area.

IMHO the R should soften the hard-line stance on social issues and focus more on the message of fiscal responsibility. This latter message would resonate well with the younger crowd, because they are the ones that are going to inherit this financial mess.

The R entered into a marriage with evangelicals in the 80's, and the social mores have changed dramatically.

The truth is social conservatives are likely as unhappy with the GOP as the GOP is with the social conservatives, a split may do both well in the long run.

[Reverenddel]

"The R party sets themselves up for distortion by the liberal media"

I beg to differ. I think the MEDIA only focuses on the NEGATIVE of the Republicans, and Libertarians, and molly-coddles the Progressive/Commies.

A Republican could rush into a burning building to save a baby, and the headline would read
"REPUBLICAN FAILS TO CONSIDER BURNING BUILDING IN SELF-SERVIING RESCUE!"

[NovaHunter]

What the left doesn't talk about is how the law is applied. The anti-sodomy laws are routinely used to put pedophiles in jail. Do we want a court to overturn these laws and then all pedophiles prosecuted under the statues to go free? You'll never ever see that point brought up in any of the discussions.

Ken (and the GOP) have never made these laws part of their campaign, nor are they trying to expand their use. The only people who are talking about this are the lefty papers and blogs like the Huffington Post so they can berate the GOP candidates for talking about the issue.

[FiremanBob]

Ryan, you are correct. Still, it is important for Ken to clear the issue off the table so that the Dems can't use it any more.

[Rualert]

Perhaps we should all drop him an email note stating just this. Who knows, maybe he and his campaign people will read it, and make said statement.

[Kreutz]

What the left doesn't talk about is how the law is applied. The anti-sodomy laws are routinely used to put pedophiles in jail. Do we want a court to overturn these laws and then all pedophiles prosecuted under the statues to go free? You'll never ever see that point brought up in any of the discussions

You have a source for this? There are ample existing laws concerning sexual activity involving minors for any Commonwealth Attorney to choose from.

[trailrunner]

What the left doesn't talk about is how the law is applied. The anti-sodomy laws are routinely used to put pedophiles in jail.

Why not enact laws specifically addressing pedophilia?

I don't buy the argument that we should accept a law that is so broad that almost all people are breaking it, but we're supposed to trust the government to only enforce it selectively against certain groups.

[SpanishInquisition]

Why not enact laws specifically addressing pedophilia?

Best...question... EVER!

I mean, really. This seems like a no brainer. Why would the extant verbage have been selected, if not to allow a catch-all that could be selectively enforced? Or was Richmond afraid of losing the NAMBLA vote if they target pedophiles specifically?

[NovaHunter]

What the left doesn't talk about is how the law is applied. The anti-sodomy laws are routinely used to put pedophiles in jail. Do we want a court to overturn these laws and then all pedophiles prosecuted under the statues to go free? You'll never ever see that point brought up in any of the discussions

You have a source for this? There are ample existing laws concerning sexual activity involving minors for any Commonwealth Attorney to choose from.

Look at the code:

"§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

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.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild. "

Any "parent" who violates their child can be prosecuted under this statue. I am sure many have, though I don't have the time to look up specific examples.