Why Republicans will continue to lose
Joseph Cotto, writing for the Washington Times, states that Republican Ken Cuccinelli is a “textbook case of ideological zealotry.” Because Cuccinelli “took up with the fundamentalist Christian-dominated religious right,” Cotto declares, Virginia’s attorney general is not “fit” to be elected Virginia’s governor.
Cotto’s line of thinking reflects that of many who belong to the Republican Party these days. He doesn’t make a logical argument, and his views are representative of the GOP’s problem.
“Radical Republicans cannot win outside of select constituencies,” Cotto declares. The truth is, however, that Cuccinelli lead in the polls throughout the summer and until the liberal media managed to pin the government shutdown (which affected a lot of government workers who reside in Northern VA) on Cuccinelli and fellow Republicans. In addition, Cuccinelli has also made great strides in cutting McAuliffe’s lead in just the past week. Clearly Cuccinelli is electable if the race is competitive.
So is it really that radical Republicans “cannot” win, or is it that Cotto and company have taken the bait the media feed us, and painted Cuccinelli as a loser before the race even began? Or perhaps Cotto is a “moderate” who wants the Republican Party to model itself after the Democrats.
Cotto writes sneeringly of Cuccinelli for the following reasons: he has ideals, he is passionate, and he is pro-life. The thing is, though, people want choices, and a Republican candidate who offers an obvious contrast to his liberal opponent will have a better chance of garnering votes than someone with no discernible identity who doesn’t represent anything but a milder version of either party.
Being “extreme” is not the problem. Your average Democrat is just as “extreme” as Cuccinelli, but they’re never painted that way because, for one thing, they own the media, and for another, they lie and buy people off with entitlement programs until they don’t mind. Abortion on demand, a tenant of liberalism, is extreme in the same way “criminalizing all abortions” is extreme.
Cotto dismisses Cuccinelli for identifying with “the fundamentalist Christian-dominated religious right.” Last time I checked, the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, and 9 out of 10 say they believe in God. Do Cuccinelli’s religious fundamentals mean he doesn’t “deserve to be Virginia’s next governor”?
Cotto goes on to say that Cuccinelli “supports a host of terribly destructive causes.” How are they destructive, and to whom? Again, people want choices, not two parties who look the same. And maybe these causes wouldn’t be so “destructive” if fellow Republicans didn’t distance themselves from them as if they were the plague. Yes, Cuccinelli’s anti-sodomy campaign is a lost cause and I would argue a government invasion of privacy. Cuccinelli’s other “destructive cause,” according to Cotto, is “criminalizing all abortions.” Does Mr. Cotto know this also happens to be the official platform of the Republican Party?
Cotto’s solution to Virginia’s Election Day disaster is for Republicans to vote for the third party guy: libertarian Robert Sarvis. Libertarians should, by virtue of their beliefs, be the most extreme of all the major parties, so isn’t this a contradiction to Cotto’s former complaints? No, because Sarvis isn’t a libertarian at all. Among other things, Sarvis has stated that as governor, he “would be hesitant to cut taxes, (was) unsure as to how he might ‘reduce spending,’ and (is) open to indulging the largest piece of federal social policy since 1965 by expanding Virginia’s Medicaid program.”
Says Cotto: “There still is time for Virginians to stop Cuccinelli, thankfully.” Cotto’s idea of “stopping Cuccinelli” means electing McAulliffe instead.
Teresa Mull is the managing editor of Human Events.