Ken Cuccinelli Makes Backroom Deal For VCDL-PAC Endorsement?

[ShotgunBlast]

Can someone from VCDL please verify this? I've never heard of this site but they definitely seem to be pro-2A. I've always thought highly of VCDL and was a little surprised when the PAC endorsed Cuccinelli over Sarvis. I don't know if they put in a "chance of winning" component into their endorsement decision, but Sarvis did score better than Cuccinelli.

Saturday at the Tidewater Libertarian Party's monthly meeting a couple special guests were there. The VCDL-PAC Chairman and a VCDL board member. They were there to "take their lumps" as they put it, for the endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli over Robert Sarvis for Virginia's Gubernatorial seat despite Sarvis' MUCH better gun rights rating by their own 2013 candidate survey. During the meeting it was revealed by the PAC chairman that Ken had received a "so so" rating on gun rights because he is AGAINST the Constitutional right of Virginians to carry a firearm. Mr. Sarvis on the other hand was revealed to fully support the unfettered Constitutional right of all law abiding Americans to arm themselves and received a "VERY PRO GUN" rating by the PAC.

A firey exchange began when the VCDL chairman was confronted by James Lee, Sarvis' Tidewater coordinater, about why they chose to endorse Cuccinelli who is Anti Second Amendment according to their own survey when there was a candidate on the ballot that supports the second amendment whole hartedly. It was revealed by the chairman that after the PAC received Cuccinelli's survey answers they immediately called him personally to "coach" him with his "second chance survey". It was during this "second chance survey" that Cuccinelli reiterated his ANTI second amendment stance which resulted in his ultimate "so so" rating. At one point during the exchange the VCDL-PAC chairman stated "I screwed ya" and then shrugged his shoulders. When pressed even further by Mr. Lee, the VCDL board member admitted "I have a Sarvis sign in my front yard". Vice Chairman of the TLP, Mike Ferris attempted to regain control of the meeting but not before Mr. Lee spoke up to say "Since you are admitting you screwed this up then I'll put you on stage with Rob so you can make it right" which was met once again with a blank stare and shrugged shoulders.

http://www.1mmagc.org/2-uncategorised/2 ... ement.html

[SpanishInquisition]

I had noticed earlier that Sarvis had a more favorable rating from VCDL based on the candidate survey results' yet Cucc got the nod from the PAC.

My VCDL renewal may depend on what the response from their leadership is.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

Here's the Sarvis statement on this matter:

"I am a strong supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment. I am also a strong supporter of an open and competitive political system under the rule of law. Back room deals to gain endorsements and to keep me out of debates are the antithesis of open and competitve politics. Voters see it for what it is, and they see the corrupting influence it has on our government. I have been forthcoming on where I stand on the issues, and voters have responded with elation that there is someone in this race who is treating them like the freedom-loving, intelligent adults they are."

[Chasbo00]

I would like to hear VCDL's take on this. Anyone think we will?

[OakRidgeStars]

While I don't know anything about a supposed "back room deal", I can understand why a group would be inclined to bet on the fastest horse in a race.

[Kreutz]

I would like to hear VCDL's take on this. Anyone think we will?

The VCDL Facebook page has been pretty active on the Sarvis vs KC endorsement issue for like two weeks now, with the hundreds of back and forth comments it apparently boiled down to electability.

[Chasbo00]

I would like to hear VCDL's take on this. Anyone think we will?

The VCDL Facebook page has been pretty active on the Sarvis vs KC endorsement issue for like two weeks now, with the hundreds of back and forth comments it apparently boiled down to electability.

I don't have a problem with that; it's what I suspect most of us think. I just want to hear VCDL say it plainly and publicly.

[SHMIV]

Some of you are members of VCDL. Why don't y'all write them a letter or email and see how they respond?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Some of you are members of VCDL. Why don't y'all write them a letter or email and see how they respond?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

In all honesty I genuinely don't care. It's just an endorsement. They really don't mean that much; vote how you wish as an individual.

[SHMIV]

Doesn't make much difference to me, either. My mind is already madeup. KC would have to change his mind on a few key issues to lose my vote.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

In all honesty I genuinely don't care. It's just an endorsement. They really don't mean that much; vote how you wish as an individual.

Exactly.

[FiremanBob]

I have to object to the knee-jerk conspiracy theory language of the OP's thread title. "Back-room deal" is a term for a corrupt transaction that trades government favor for campaign support. There is no evidence of such behavior in the text quoted.

Once again, a gratuitous smear on Cuccinelli. Bad enough that the left-wing extremists spread lies about him, now we see similarly crude tactics from a Libertarian.

[SpanishInquisition]

Some of you are members of VCDL. Why don't y'all write them a letter or email and see how they respond?

Excellent point. I have done so and await a response from the president (of VCDL).

[SpanishInquisition]

I have to object to the knee-jerk conspiracy theory language of the OP's thread title.

Fair enough. Care to comment on the reported VCDL behavior?

Also, I've noticed that every time something comes up about your chosen candidate, you immediately dismiss it as a lie, smear, etc... usually without any substantive data to back your position. Bob, surely as a fireman you've heard the old adage "Where there's smoke..."

Bring something more to the table than an argumentative statement.

[WRW]

@ FiremanBob, a search of the Million Moms Against Gun Control didn't yield much. That, and the lack of reference in the article, raises my suspicion of the site as well as those referencing it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

In addition to the VCDL president, I've contacted James Lee of the Sarvis campaign requesting confirmation and/or comment.

I've also contacted the vice-chair and communications director of the TLP with the same request.

[SpanishInquisition]

...and the first response:

On 10/7/2013 11:19 AM, James Lee wrote:
> Hey [REDACTED],
>
> Yes, I can verify it all. The VCDL-PAC chairman stated that When they received Ken's survey answers they immediately called him to give him a "second chance" survey which he still scored less on than Robert Sarvis. According to the chairman Ken is AGAINST Constitutional carry and even after having a chance to correct himself (which no other candidate in the state for any office was given) he stood his ground and reaffirmed his stand against the 2nd amendment. I went so far as to offer the chairman the opportunity to come clean and fix the situation in the name of transparency and he refused. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss it in more detail please feel free to call me at 757-448-5135. -James.

[NovaHunter]

I am sure Ken has a very reasoned answer why he would be against "Constitutional Carry". To be clear, VCDL's position is that they want Concealed Carry to be enshrined in the Virginia Constitution. This is different then the general "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" which we already have in our U.S. Constitution and State Constitution and which Ken has fought to protect.

Ken voted to preserve Virginians’ right to self-defense and prevent seizure or confiscation of firearms by the government. He also voted to keep handgun owners’ information private and to establish uniformity of firearm laws throughout Virginia. He's consistently been an ardent supporter of 2nd Amendment Rights.

I trust Ken's record much more then I trust Sarvis' statements.

[Chasbo00]

VCDL has the candidate survey ratings posted here:

http://www.vcdl.org/Candidates_2013_General

What VCDL should answer is why they endorsed a gubernatorial candidate with a "so so" rating over one with a "very pro gun" rating.

Most of us think it's based on a desire to back a candidate who can actually win. The article the OP links suggests that the reason is more sinister.

VCDL should clear this up with plain talk and do so publicly.

[FiremanBob]

I have to object to the knee-jerk conspiracy theory language of the OP's thread title.

Fair enough. Care to comment on the reported VCDL behavior?

Also, I've noticed that every time something comes up about your chosen candidate, you immediately dismiss it as a lie, smear, etc... usually without any substantive data to back your position. Bob, surely as a fireman you've heard the old adage "Where there's smoke..."

Bring something more to the table than an argumentative statement.

It is not my responsibility to "prove" a negative. The OP asserted there was a "backroom deal"; I explained what the phrase implies and noted the FACT that there was no evidence for such a claim in the quoted material, and even you said "Fair enough."

Now I must correct you about the loose use of idiomatic phrases and adages. "Smoke" in a firefighting incident is real evidence of some kind of fire, even if only at the smoldering level. It does not require interpretation to see it as such. The false claims (such as the accusation of "corruption" against KC) to which I object assert things as "evidence of wrongdoing" but can only be accepted as such if one already believes the claim. They ignore evidence of alternative explanations that are equally valid, if not more so, if considered objectively and logically. That is circular logic, which requires that one accept the conclusion in order to believe the "evidence". It is logically invalid. It is the same thing that Alex Jones does much of the time. I suggest you take care to differentiate between real smoke, and "smoke and mirrors".

When someone makes a disparaging statement about a candidate I support and fails to provide evidence to support his accusation, I will continue to call him out on it and ask him to provide the evidence which he failed to do in the first instance.