Tuesday, October 15, 2013

On the Sad Ron Paul Endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli

It is said to see Ron Paul endorse Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia's 2013 Governor's race.

I have taken my time before commenting on the endorsement, in order to study Cuccinelli's positions and actions as a public official. I find nothing special about him. Ron Paul has a great liberty message to deliver and these types of endorsements do nothing to advance that message, they muddy the water.

I'm told there are likely all kinds of pressures on Dr. Paul to make these type endorsements. One RP fan and sympathizer remarked to me, "He's only human." But this doesn't mean Ron Paul supporters should follow Ron down a bad road.

Cuccinelli is no libertarian.

He served in Virginia on the Public / Private Partnership Advisory Commission. Translation: He was on the crony capitalist committee that divided up lucre.

He served on the Joint Subcommittee to Study Liability Protections for Health Care Providers. In other words, he served on a subcommittee that centrally planned liability protections in the health care sector, rather than leaving it to the free markets.

During his time in the Senate, he advocated increased care for the mentally disabled. Mental disability is a tragedy, but care should be left to private charity. I believe one of the greatest evils that politicians do is to promote government charity. It is an evil scam. They know full well that to object to charitable programs is difficult. That's why the creeps gather in that sector.

As attorney general, Cuccinelli issued an official opinion to "Presidents, Rectors, and Visitors of Virginia’s Public Colleges and Universities" that stated, "It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification, as a protected class within its nondiscrimination policy, absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.”

A lot of these courses are fruitcake, but the last thing one would want to see is more government involvement in dictating education. The correct libertarian stand is to call for the end to government colleges and universities---not micromanaging them.

On the crony front, Cuccinelli received $55,500 in campaign contributions from Bobby Thompson, a director of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association (a veterans group under investigation). Thompson was Cuccinelli's second-largest campaign donor. After receiving the contribution, Cuccinelli met with Samuel F. Wright, a USNVA representative on February 15, 2010, to discuss legislation which had passed the State Senate that would exempt the group from having to register with Virginia regulators.

Cuccinelli interfered directly with free markets in the loan sector. Since 2007, the Virginia Attorney General's Office has negotiated settlements with eight auto-title lenders to provide refunds or interest rate reductions of almost $8 million. When Cuccinelli  was in office, he filed a lawsuit in 2010 against CNC Financial Services, Inc., doing business as Cash-N-A-Flash, an auto "title lender," for charging interest rates above the legal limit.

Cuccinelli is a big supporter of retired government trained killers. In 2010, Cuccinelli announced plans to introduce a new level of veterans advocacy to the Attorney General’s office, including training state agencies how to use the law to better advocate for their clients when it comes to obtaining federal veterans benefits. Cuccinelli said that one of the most important things he could do for veterans was to help speed up the process for them to obtain the services they are eligible for from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

He's also big on government snooping. In 2010, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion that police, school administrators, and teachers could search students' cell phones on the basis of reasonable suspicions in order to deter cyberbullying and "sexting".

There's plenty more. Cuccinelli is nowhere near a libertarian. I would hate to see some new followers of Ron Paul think that Cuccinelli is carrying the libertarian banner and think his crony, interventionist ways are the libertarian message.

I generally don't advise voting, but there is a strategic reason to vote in the upcoming Virginia election. A candidate in Virginia is running under the Libertarian Party ticket, Robert Sarvis. He is far from my ideal candidate. For example, he wants a "rational tax policy." But, there is no chance he is going to get elected. He will likely be forgotten after the election. But now, he is polling around 10%. That's probably why the "Ron Paul Inc" crew put additional pressure on Ron to endorse Cuccinelli. It's a tight raise and they need as many Sarvis supporters as possible to switch to Cuccinelli.

The principled thing, therefore, to do is vote against "Ron Paul Inc" and vote for Sarvis. He won't win. He won't do harm, but it will send a nice message to the Inc. crew that Ron Paul followers are not going to follow Ron when he moves away from principle.

The two front runners are Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. They are both typical politicians. It won't matter which wins. A vote for Sarvis, though, will send an important message to Ron Paul, that libertarians aren't going to follow his endorsements when they suggest nothing but some kind of typical backroom party politics.

(HT biographical background on Cuccinelli via Wikipedia)

34 comments:

  1. Easy to understand.
    RP is still in the system.

    Freedom lovers are leaving it as much as is possible.
    Even a gold hater like Denniger gets it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm really glad you stuck your neck out on this RW. I know it is "heresy" to point out when Ron Paul makes a mistake, but it should be done none the less.

    I was as stunned by his Mark Sanford endorsement as well and was promptly "attacked" for it when pointing it out to other libertarians.

    If Ron Paul Inc. has this kind of power of Ron Paul we should at least know that and make our judgement accordingly.

    Kudos to you for pointing out yet another instance. Unfortunately I'm sure you'll be attacked in some way, but some of us appreciate you doing so regardless.

    In the totality of the contributions that Ron Paul has made in a positive manner, they are minor transgressions and I still hold him in high esteem, but they are transgressions none the less...and Ron Paul isn't Jesus for crying out loud. So the least we can do accept that he is human like the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think for more than just reasons, you've stated, VA voters should vote for Robert Sarvis. While I agree, I don't support all of his stances either, one being the rational tax policy as well (FairTax supporter myself), but I think it's long overdue to change the tides of our political environment. Too long folks will continue to vote for the main two, because they either feel it's their civil duty to do so, because they dislike one candidate enough to purposely vote for the other person, or because they feel like their vote won't count if they vote for a 3rd party candidate.

    There may be genuine individuals who run for office. In saying that, by not voting, it becomes nearly impossible to break the mold that's been built around us. Not only that, folks running for office, under 3rd party platforms, won't be able to bring about the changes folks look for & want. Thus, I feel folks should read up on the platforms that 3rd party candidates bring to the table and vote for those who best align with their views, whether it's the major 2 or a 3rd party.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe a good case can be made that if you punch through the bottom of the barrel you find there underneath specimens like Terry McAuliffe. An endorsement intended to help deny a Clinton consigliere from getting a potential national platform is not cringe-worthy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great breakdown, Robert. It's a puzzling endorsement and awful to see.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh there are just so few that won't compromise or succumb to pressure. Guess we'll get statism forever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for taking down Cuccinelli. Dr. Paul messed up on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe RP did this in exchange for Cuccinellli making a call to his prosecutor friends in Iowa to call off the dogs on the investigations into RP's campaign. Just a thought

    ReplyDelete
  9. First time I have had a huge problem with anything dr Paul has done. Must be some sort of deal to get endorsement for rand in 2016

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cuccinelli was the most pro-free-market legislator in the Virginia legislature (such as opposing government red tape, opposing trial lawyer giveaways at the expense of individuals and businesses, and opposing new onerous and unnecessary occupational licensing rules).

    Cuccinelli also supported property rights and legislation to reform eminent domain abuses in the aftermath of the awful Kelo decision (as did GOP attorney general nominee Mark Obenshain, a strong advocate of property rights).

    Cuccinelli is vastly better than the statistic, tax-raising incumbent Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. Yet while most Libertarians voted for McDonnell, the presence of Sarvis in the race all but guarantees that fewer Libertarians will vote for the mostly pro-free-market Cuccinelli than the statistic McDonnell.

    To me, that's ironic.

    Cuccinelli alone in the State Senate pointed out the constitutional infirmity in the tax-increase bill signed by Governor Kaine that was later invalidated 7-to-0 by the Virginia Supreme Court in the Marshall case. Only he and delegate Marshall knew enough about the relevant provisions of the state constitution to see the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I wrote "statistic" above, that was a typo. I meant to write "statist." Bob McDonnell, unlike the more pro-free-market Cuccinelli, is a "statist."

      Some of the seeming interference with the free market by the Attorney General's office is the result not of the AG's own leanings, but of the AG's office being vested by law with enforcing state laws that, unfortunately, are not very market-friendly. That is primarily the fault of the legislature, not the AG, since the legislature passed those laws.

      Delete
    2. Cuccinelli was also the first attorney general to launch a legal fight on Obamacare

      Delete
    3. Just because there may be worse than Cuccinelli doesn't mean he is good. They're BOTH statists. Bad ones.
      Since there is an option to vote for Sarvis or to simply not vote at all, there is no moral reason for libertarians to vote for Cuccinelli.

      And libertarians that voted for McDonnell, i would suspect simply aren't libertarians at all.

      Delete
    4. Cuccinelli also wants to use state power to ban certain sexual acts among consenting adults. So, ya know... SUPER libertarian...

      Delete
  11. Wenzel endorsed Neocon Rubin and begged her employer not to fire her. Wenzel should explain his neocon connection first before he judges Rand and Ron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick, Bob Wenzel suggested that Bazos allow all kinds of writers at WarshingtonPost to increase profits. Post their arguments (including that very scary Jen Rubin) in the same paper next to each other and let people decide for themselves. Anony has interpreted that to mean BW is a closet neocon. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
  12. Ron & Rand >>>> Wenzel

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cuccinelli was the most pro-free-market legislator in the Virginia legislature (such as opposing government red tape, opposing trial lawyer giveaways at the expense of individuals and businesses, and opposing new onerous and unnecessary occupational licensing rules).

    Cuccinelli also supported property rights and legislation to reform eminent domain abuses in the aftermath of the awful Kelo decision (as did GOP attorney general nominee Mark Obenshain, a strong advocate of property rights).

    Cuccinelli is vastly better than the statist, tax-raising incumbent Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. Yet while most Libertarians voted for McDonnell, the presence of Sarvis in the race all but guarantees that fewer Libertarians will vote for the mostly pro-free-market Cuccinelli than the statist McDonnell.

    To me, that's ironic.

    Cuccinelli alone in the State Senate pointed out the constitutional infirmity in the tax-increase bill signed by Governor Kaine that was later invalidated 7-to-0 by the Virginia Supreme Court in the Marshall case. Only he and delegate Marshall knew enough about the relevant provisions of the state constitution to see the problem.

    The fact that Cuccinelli does his job and enforces laws whose enforcement is vested in his office by Virginia law is not an indictment of him. If I were AG, there are some laws that I dislike that I would feel legally obligated to enforce under Virginia law. Blame the legislature for these laws, not the attorney general.

    (THIS COMMENT CORRECTS A TYPO IN MY PRIOR SUBMITTED COMMENT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Watergate doesn't bother me, does your conscious bother you--tell the truth...

    ReplyDelete
  15. You say RP Inc, I say you back Your Own Inc. Libertarian Party has a lot of people that love freedom and principles of liberty are more welcome there than in either the Dumbo Party or the Ripper Party.

    But the Libertarian Party is party-oriented, too, and also more welcoming to another kind of "freedom" that violates a natural right. Sarvis in an interview referred to abortion as a "metaphysical issue", and thinks the state would be better if we could "take four years off" from the "abortion wars", according to the interview with one Rubin.

    Little babies have just as much right to individual liberties as do the bigger babies irregardless of geography (inside or outside)..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody has the right to live at the expense of another. There is no such negative right. Since the unborn cannot live except by getting 'assisted' by the carrying mother, their right to life does not equal the right of a woman to her own body. To force women to carry pregnancies against their will to support an unborn, is no different than forcing people to support the poor or the sick who would be in big trouble without such forced assistance. Nobody can be enslaved to another person's needs, and therefor the unborn have no right to life that exceeds the right to self-ownership of pregnant women.

      To say that "geography" makes no sense is ridiculous. The difference is that "outside", a woman's body would not be rendered a slave to a child's needs. It's like saying there is no difference between a person living in another's house against the owner's will, and being outside of it.

      I know the conservatives among libertarians may find this unlikable, distasteful or whatever, but anyone who takes self-ownership to its logical conclusion should realize that there can be no right to any claim on another person's body for 9 months, or ANY time period.

      Delete
    2. "Nobody has the right to live at the expense of another." What about children, then? Children are not self-sufficient and thus rely on parents or other caretakers in order for their basic needs to be met. Are they in violation of this right? Does this make infanticide okay? Absolutely not!

      It's one thing to argue that an unborn baby is not a living thing or not a human yet. If this is true, then abortion is not a violation of the non-aggression principle, and, in fact, preventing a woman from doing an abortion is a violation of her rights. But if an unborn baby is a human, than killing it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, even though the unborn baby is utterly dependent on the mother.

      Delete
  16. Sarvis thinks a good idea is Virginia t0o do a moratorium on talking about abortion. He calls it a "metaphysical" issue.

    This is a weasel-y answer to a question. If babies have rights to respect for their individual rights, then supporting their termination (that's the abortionist's word) would be a horrible violation, all the worst for the abuse of innocence.

    Ron Paul is nobody's fool, nobody has proven more lifetime rock-solid can't-help-it stick-like-glue consistency in both understanding the issues and supporting the truth, and advocating freedom for people here and around the world at his own expense, meaning at the cost of what he could have done.

    So don't give me this baloney about Ron Paul Inc. That's a specious accusation, an ad hominem without credible basis, as if Ron Paul does not think independently. Puah!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is this. Most Ron Paul supporters do not think independently. They do whatever Ron Paul tells them to do.

      Delete
  17. You guys keep talking about Ron Paul, inc. Did Ron himself endorse the guy? If so, I wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Self interest. Just like everyone else. (including Budda, Jesus, Ted Bundy, and Henry Kissmyassinger)

      Delete
    2. To help his son's career. http://www.dailypaul.com/305077/when-ron-paul-lost-some-moral-authority

      Delete
  18. Wenzel isn't the only one who is concerned over RP Inc. Kokesh voiced his concerns over it about a year ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDQnSLMS0dQ

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stop voting, your just encouraging the bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sarvis is no real libertarian, and i wouldn't vote for him if my life depended on it. I also wouldn't need to send Ron Paul a message because i'm no "follower" of his to begin with. I've always maintained that nobody should be worshipped or exempt from justified criticism, and this includes "heroes" and "icons" of the libertarian movement. I loathe criticism-less thinking among libertarians when it comes to certain people.

    So that said, i think this is a great article and shows RW is willing, when necessary, to criticize Ron Paul for bad moves just as he is willing to criticize Rand Paul. As much as the libertarian movement has to thank Ron for bringing more people to the movement, he is damaging the cause by endorsing bad people and should be called on it, and on anything else he does that is bad. There should be no more excuses about putting faith in the wrong people around him.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is very sad that Ron Paul's operatives and even Ron Paul felt it necessary to repeat lies. http://www.dailypaul.com/305077/when-ron-paul-lost-some-moral-authority

    ReplyDelete