TexasCHLforum.com

As some of you may or may not know Virginia's new governor was elected on Tuesday with 47% of the vote. He is is Bloomberg's stooge and it was, in part, Bloomberg's $$ that brought him to our lovely state. Cuchinelli lost for many reasons. Some of his own making, some of the RNC, some of it was the DNC running a plant as a libertarian. The democrats played very dirty here. They out and out lied repeatedly and loudly for 9 months and out spent us by I think it was 10 to 1. That we had 45% of the vote was amazing. It was a bad beat.

I mention this hear to let y'all take lesson from this. Cuchinelli was thought to be a shoe-in a year ago. McAwful ( I will NEVER EVER call him by his proper name) was a carpet bagging joke. Please be aware. If this can happen in VA be on your guard TX. They will try to do the same thing to you.

Right now VA gun owners are trying to decide what to do. We still have the legislature. We might have the AG (uncertain at this point). It appears as though McAwful just wanted this governorship so that he could be Hillary's VP. But you do not take Bloombergs money without owing him something. So we are worried. We are trying to decide whether it is prudent to stay and fight the good fight here or whether we should look for a safer ground to make a stand on.

Don't let them do to TX what they did to VA.

Holding both houses of the legislature makes you fairly safe.
A Governor can advocate, but cannot pass legislation without the legislature to write it.
I think VA gun rights are still safe, but a watchful eye is prudent.

I think the bigger issue is that Hillary now has an "inside man" running VA, a key swing state for 2016.

The guy lost against a Clintonian fundraiser. Seriously? Virginia needs more viable candidates.

No argument from me. Cuchinelli could have been great but he spent 3/4 of his campaign running away from the his own positions on issues. He was a really good AG. It is in the could have..... should have.....would have.....oh well.

Time to get up and try again.

mamabearCali wrote:No argument from me. Cuchinelli could have been great but he spent 3/4 of his campaign running away from the his own positions on issues. He was a really good AG. It is in the could have..... should have.....would have.....oh well.

Time to get up and try again.

Are you and your husband still kicking around the idea of moving here to Texas? You guys would be worth 10 liberal California or New York transplants.

The idea still floats about. But it is a hard move and Chris is still finishing up his degree. I don't want to rock the boat when he is so close to being done. When he is done everything is on the table. I have family both here and there, but my parents are in VA so it is a hard call. Still.....we might just pack them up and take them with us! My dad has been jobless for years and my mom makes less than 20K a year so I am certain they could do better in TX.

Thank you btw, that is most kind of you.

The worst thing is the old guard apologists will probably blame everyone else and learn nothing from this.

Texas isn't far behind. We see "foreign" license plates down here all the time. It won't be long before the liberals take over. Then it will be decision time.

While the country collapses around them far too many Americans are still sound asleep.

Cuccinelli certainly wasn't helped by the so-called "libertarian" Sarvis, who received funding from a liberal Obama "bundler" out of Austin. I mean, Ron Paul wouldn't even endorse Sarvis, but he did endorse Cuccinelli, for what it was worth.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Cuccinelli certainly wasn't helped by the so-called "libertarian" Sarvis, who received funding from a liberal Obama "bundler" out of Austin. I mean, Ron Paul wouldn't even endorse Sarvis, but he did endorse Cuccinelli, for what it was worth.

Establishment Republicans refused to support Cuccinelli. That's why he lost. It appears the Republicans are working on perfecting the circular firing squad.

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Cuccinelli certainly wasn't helped by the so-called "libertarian" Sarvis, who received funding from a liberal Obama "bundler" out of Austin. I mean, Ron Paul wouldn't even endorse Sarvis, but he did endorse Cuccinelli, for what it was worth.

Establishment Republicans refused to support Cuccinelli. That's why he lost. It appears the Republicans are working on perfecting the circular firing squad.

That and the huge young, unmarried woman demographic that went for McAwful in a landslide. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it and the GOP has got to find a way to deal with that group. It is way more important in elections than Immigration.

Despite the squeak victory, I fear the Bloomberg will be emboldened to go after other races like he did in CO. Guns are soon going to be a major issue in many races and we can only hope that the gun owners start realizing that and voting correctly - or their gun ownership is going to be short lived. Anyone want to wager on the day count before McAwful proposes the first gun control bill?

chasfm11 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Cuccinelli certainly wasn't helped by the so-called "libertarian" Sarvis, who received funding from a liberal Obama "bundler" out of Austin. I mean, Ron Paul wouldn't even endorse Sarvis, but he did endorse Cuccinelli, for what it was worth.

Establishment Republicans refused to support Cuccinelli. That's why he lost. It appears the Republicans are working on perfecting the circular firing squad.

That and the huge young, unmarried woman demographic that went for McAwful in a landslide. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it and the GOP has got to find a way to deal with that group. It is way more important in elections than Immigration.

Despite the squeak victory, I fear the Bloomberg will be emboldened to go after other races like he did in CO. Guns are soon going to be a major issue in many races and we can only hope that the gun owners start realizing that and voting correctly - or their gun ownership is going to be short lived. Anyone want to wager on the day count before McAwful proposes the first gun control bill?

Actually, there was more to the "young voters" thing than meets the eye. The youngest of the young voters, 18-24, actually went for Cuccinelli by a 6% margin; it was the older young voters, 25-29, that went for McAwful. Read the stats here http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/06/yo ... ginia-race (and the article backs up what I said about Sarvis costing Cuccinelli the race, though I freely admit that Cuccinelli was left flapping in the breeze by the Republican establishment).

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Cuccinelli certainly wasn't helped by the so-called "libertarian" Sarvis, who received funding from a liberal Obama "bundler" out of Austin. I mean, Ron Paul wouldn't even endorse Sarvis, but he did endorse Cuccinelli, for what it was worth.

Establishment Republicans refused to support Cuccinelli. That's why he lost. It appears the Republicans are working on perfecting the circular firing squad.

Yup that about sums it up we're beating ourselves.

mamabearCali wrote: some of it was the DNC running a plant as a libertarian.

That was THE deciding factor. Even with all the lies, the underfunding, and C's mistakes, McAwful would still have lost had there been no fake libertarian --even if he only got 1/3 of the vote that went to the spoiler. The majority of the state actually voted against McAwful, and it's a little outrageous that a governor can inflict his politics on a populace from which he is only supported by a plurality.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:No argument from me. Cuchinelli could have been great but he spent 3/4 of his campaign running away from the his own positions on issues. He was a really good AG. It is in the could have..... should have.....would have.....oh well.

Time to get up and try again.

Are you and your husband still kicking around the idea of moving here to Texas? You guys would be worth 10 liberal California or New York transplants.

AMEN!!!