From: A Faithful Daily Reader [Email her]

Ken Cuccinelli's loss to Terry McAuliffe, the far less qualified candidate, is an opportunity to bring up a quandary that I have faced at election time: what to do when the candidate whose platform otherwise coincides with your desires for the nation espouses policies that offend your core principles.

In this case the better candidate, Mr. Cuccinelli, voted against regulation of puppy mills, against requirements that veterinarians report signs of dog fighting to police, and against increasing the nominal penalties for cock fighting.[PDF]  During his campaign he invited elephant hunter Tony Makris (whose flippancy towards the act of killing should bother any conscientious hunter)  to participate in his campaign.  

I have to perceive his actions as attacks against animal welfare.  (To be fair, I include this link to a press release announcing an award the Humane Society of the United States gave Mr. Cuccinelli, evidence that he is not all bad when it comes to animals: The HSUS Presents its 2012 Humane Law Enforcement Awards in Seven States,  September 12, 2012.)

Unfortunately the choice between the animal-friendly candidate and the Republican candidate is one voters often have to make (PDF).

But there is absolutely no reason why that should be true!  Patrick Buchanan has kindly included Matthew Scully's writings on this issue in the American Conservative Magazine, in fact. [Fear Factories |The case for compassionate conservatism—for animals, By Matthew Scully,  May 23, 2005]

I do not wish to be forced to choose between the candidate who is good for the nation's sovereignty and the candidate who is kind to animals. Yet when the immigration patriots like Steve King (see King Farm Bill Amendment Angers Animal Advocates, By Nicole Greenstein, August 17, 2013) hold unconscionable views towards animals, that is what I am forced to do.

James Fulford writes: Republicans in general are less likely to worry about animal cruelty, feeling that hunting is not necessarily a bad thing. They do tend to favor the rule of law, though. Cuccinelli got his Humane Society award as Virginia AG for prosecuting cases of animal fighting, because cockfighting and dog fighting are illegal in Virginia.

 Democrats, on the other hand, are the party of mass Mexican immigration, and that will bring more animal cruelty to America—see They Kill Horses, Don't They? (Mexicans, That Is.), Mexican Animal Cruelty Considered at the New York Times, and Mexicans Defend Cruel Horse-Tripping Diversity in Their Rodeos, by Brenda Walker, who’s been covering this issue for years.

 It turns out, for example, that when the Mexican-American Political Association had a convention in 2005, one of the sponsors was The California Association For Preservation of Gamefowl. (I. E. cockfighting.)

In today’s immigration column Allan Wall asks if Hispanics “have a collective veto power over the future of our nation?”

In a blog post on the “Hispanic Right To Cruelty To Animals”, I asked if, in effect, Hispanics had a collective veto over animal cruelty laws?

After all, bull fighting and cock fighting are part of their culture, and if the threat of their votes can prevent enforcement of immigration laws, it can prevent enforcement of animal cruelty laws. And guys like Terry McAuliffe are for amnesty all the way.