4. You can lead a horse to water…
******************************************************

It is totally predictable that with every election cycle I get angry emails from some of the more partisan gun owners who are passionate members of one political party or another.

Some of the Libertarians say that VCDL is tacitly supporting a two-party system because we don’t support every Libertarian candidate who answers the VCDL survey.  They often feel that their candidate is not given the same level of coverage as the Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans are angry because either VCDL isn’t blindly supporting their candidate who has not turned in a VCDL survey, or they are angry because VCDL includes information on Libertarian candidates, who they view as unelectable and will just draw votes away from the Republican candidate, handing the election to the Democrats.

For federal elections, VCDL cannot and does not make any endorsements.  Since VCDL-PAC is a *state* Political Action Committee, it can *not* and does *not* participate in *federal* elections.  

All that VCDL can do in *federal* elections" is to educate our members on public positions by the candidates, tell our members if the candidates have filled out the VCDL survey or not, and release candidates’ survey answers shortly before the election.  

Yet, many of the angry emails accuse VCDL of endorsing either the Democrat, the Libertarian, or the Republican.  Amazing.

For state and local elections, VCDL cannot and does not make any endorsements.  The VCDL-PAC, however, can make endorsements and often does.  For VCDL, it’s the same as for federal elections:  all that we can do is to educate our members on public positions by the candidates, tell our members if the candidates have filled out the VCDL survey or not, and release candidates’ survey answers shortly before the election.

Also, VCDL sends a survey to ALL candidates on the ballot for races of interest to gun owners.  Period.

Well, here is an LTE that is a case in point on the recent federal elections.  A gun owner is angry that VCDL didn’t blindly push a Republican candidate, Ed Gillespie, who has NO voting record and ACTIVELY refused to fill out our survey.  The only conclusion we could draw was that the candidate either didn’t want gun owners to know his exact positions on a host of important federal gun issues, or didn’t want to be pinned down to any pro-gun positions that might become unpopular.  (Gillespie did answer the NRA survey, but that survey is always kept secret and is therefore useless to grassroots gun owners.)  But, somehow, gun owners were supposed to be EXCITED about GIllespie's candidacy nonetheless.

Good luck with that.

Over and over again a variety of gun owners, including Republican chairpersons and volunteers from local Republican groups, asked Mr. Gillespie to turn in his VCDL survey so as to tout his pro-gun stance.  The result was either dodging and weaving by talking mostly in vague generalities, saying he was better than Warner (wow), or simply pivoting on his heal and walking away (as he did to a VCDL member who was a Republican Party volunteer).

With 26,000+ gun owners on VA-ALERT waiting to see the candidate surveys, Gillespie, not VCDL, handed a tight election to Mark Warner by 17,000 votes.  VCDL provided both Gillespie & Warner ample opportunities to answer the survey.  However, the responsibility for refusing to answer the VCDL survey rests squarely on Gillespie's shoulders, and thus any consequences of his decision are his.
<snip Wash Times letter to the editor>

Quoted:
If a candidate doesn't care enough to go on record with the VCDL about their position on firearms, why is it the VCDL's fault?

You all act like a bunch of liberals. Don't blame the person that is lazy, you blame the third party.

Disgraceful.

Quoted:
I don't feel that the VCDL did anything to sway towards any candidate and while I don't always agree with them, they like the NRA, are our best weapon against pieces of shit like Mcdouchenozzle, Timmay, Warner, Bloomberg.

Gillespie should have filled out the questionnaire but like most these days, he is probably only pro gun during elections.

Back to the original thread question, Sarvis is a jackass who probably is more democrat than Libertarian. People are fucking stupid for voting for him, but it is their vote to waste as they see fit.

Quoted:


Now let's look at Sarvis:  A slimy worm who is so desperate to be elected to something... anything... that he ran for Governor, and immediately after getting single-digit percentages of the vote, for Senate, despite the fact that he has precisely zero in the way of qualifications.  My impression is that he is not to be trusted. With anything. I suspect his survey answers were complete bullshit.