8 votes

Rand Paul: Don't Vote Libertarian!

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Thursday urged Virginia Republicans supporting Robert C. Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for governor, to come home to the GOP and vote for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the party’s nominee.

“I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative, a libertarian Republican,” Paul said in a phone interview Thursday. “A lot of things (Cuccinelli) talks about are free-market, limited-government, leave-me-alone government. I think there is a lot to like there.

http://www.staffordcountysun.com/news/local/article_1a8851cc...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

.

well rand isn't giving me many reasons to vote for him... i'm more likely to vote libertarian than for bland rand.

The Establishment has found a way??

Is Rand Paul the compromise made by the Establishment to the grass roots to continue Establishment control of the Republicans while allowing the appearance of a move by the party to the right?

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

Ben Swann's response: Vote Libertarian!

Ben Swann's response: Vote Libertarian!

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Ben Swann panders to the stupid wing of the movement...

...as by entertaining nonsense about "vote flipping," conspiracy theories about Ron Paul staffers, etc. As the stupid wing overlaps heavily with the purist-with-no-sense wing, color me unsurprised that he would jump on the Sarvis bandwagon.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yeah Rand is a sell out..

Yeah Rand is a sell out.. anyone with half a brain knows that by now.

What did voting for Sarvis get you?

...I'm waiting.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I guess j/k once again Rand was wrong.

spent the last two weeks handing out literature door to door in Arlington, Virginia and the last few days going to events in southern, central, southwest and far west Virginia for the Sarvis for Governor campaign. I've been to Bedford, Chesterfield, Chesapeake, Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Annandale, Norfolk, Hampton Roads, Harrisonburg, Reston, Winchester and Roanoke.

I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters who supported Robert Sarvis, who was polling at 8-13%. The polls were all very inconsistent, some showing the Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, at 51%, some at 45%, and the Republican, Ken Cucinelli, anywhere from 39% to 44%. Cuccinelli closed the gap toward the end, when his handlers finally let him take his balls out of the box, awakened by the public outcry against Obamacare as it was implemented. MSNBC's Chuck Todd said given another week of campaigning against Obamacare failure, Cuccinelli might have won; but it is also true that if he had started being aggressive a week or two earlier he might have as well. Rather than own up to this GOP failure, the consultants and the talk radio spinners are blaming the Libertarian.

Libertarian Robert Sarvis got the biggest chunk of his vote, over 40%, from people who said they would otherwise not vote, probably not unlike the kind of vote Ron Paul turned out for primaries and caucuses. This is important to note since in reply to this discussion, Norman Singleton, a longtime staff economist in Ron Paul's Congressional office and a current staffer at Campaign for Liberty, insisted that it is "conventional wisdom" that Libertarians take Republican votes. Warning Bell #1 - a Paul functionary approvingly quoting "conventional wisdom." In one poll, one third of Sarvis voters had Cuccinelli as a second choice and a fifth had McAuliffe as a second choice.

In the last two weeks, a somewhat desperate Cucinelli campaign attacked Sarvis, usually with weird and irrelevant picayune issues: that one of his unpaid staff tweeted a response to a Ron Paul organizer pointing out that she was a devotee of a recherché Beckian conspiracy hypothesis; another Ron Paul organizer posted 6 seconds, not even a full sentence, from a wonky Sarvis answer, onto YouTube, making it seem that Sarvis favors a new tax (Robert Sarvis has three policy papers on the Mercatus Center website calling for less spending and less regulation); others charge that Sarvis is not really a libertarian because he said he studied all schools of economic thought, not just Paul approved Austrian economics; or just the general cry that Sarvis is a spoiler causing McAuliffe to win. On this last point the Cucinelli Paulistas were so desperate to get another 2% for Ken from the Sarvis vote that they ignore the evidence that if Sarvis weren't there some of his voters would also increase McAuliffe's total. In the end, the Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. He spent almost 45 times what they did. But he got less than 7 times their vote. And he didn't have to first spend his money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

So apparently Republican candidates aren't cost effective.

On the last day of the campaign Glenn Beck's website The Blaze reports that an Obama supporting high tech donor gave money to a PAC that gave to the Sarvis ballot drive, and every conservative chattering monkey from Hannity and Chris Plante on down has called this a dirty trick and said Sarvis is created by the Democrats to hurt the GOP. Even though the Virginia Libertarian Party always gets on the ballot, including for gubernatorial races, with or without a donation from a Democrat. And even though the biggest independent expenditure for Sarvis was from the all libertarian Purple PAC, $300,000 for radio and TV ads in the last two weeks of the campaign (and overlooking that Sarvis gave his own campaign twice as much as this Obama affiliated donor). As one Paul organizer said of why she is supporting Cuccinelli, "personnel is policy." She's right. Ken Cuccinelli deserves to lose; the GOP infrastructure supporting him is shot through and through with liars and smear merchants. Note well by the way all the conservative media outlets, The Blaze, Breitbart, and DC's WMAL that spread last minute questions for and charges against Sarvis never interviewed him earlier or had him on their air. And their friends kept him out of the debates where these issues might have been aired. Should such a Nixonian GOP be rewarded with victories?

As to Rand and Ron Paul, it's funny that Paulistas assume that they know how voters will vote, and how they will vote given their changing expectations about the outcome. Their own Austrian economics says they don't and that their attacks on Sarvis represent, as their hero FA Hayek entitled two of his books, "a fatal conceit," and "a pretense of knowledge." Surely some voters change their vote, giving it to or taking it from an independent candidate, depending on who they think is winning. The Paulistas assume that votes are static and a zero sum game, in direct contradiction to their Austrian economics, which would instead suggest that competition and markets are dynamic and a discovery process, where a new "firm" or a new "product" like the Sarvis campaign, actually increases the size of the market and the number of market participants, and where these new entrants as well as everyone else discover what they want to "buy" during the process of the campaign, not before entering it. But the Paul's assume they possess this knowledge, and that they can centrally plan the liberty movement. Norm Singleton has told me that my use of the phrase "central planning" is a smear on the Paul's. But the problems of central planning related to decentralized information are known to apply to large firms in a market economy, which may be so big that their internal operations, no longer run by prices, become dysfunctional. And since Paulistas encouraged us to get behind the GOP, now once again shown to be unpopular, shot through with liars, and a flailing failure (unwilling to really fight, until the very end of their campaign, when it was too late), it looks like this is a case of dysfunction. This hubris led them to waste a lot of time attacking, and even lying about, Sarvis, instead of competing for votes with McAuliffe. Including ironically charges that Sarvis is not sufficiently Austrian (is Ken?) or is too moderate and wonky and doesn't oppose taxes (didn't Ken Cuccinelli's administration and governor just raise taxes?)

Now the Pauls no doubt have good reasons to support Ken Cuccinelli. He quashed a move to change the election rules during the Virginia primaries last year, when only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul did the onerous work to make it onto the Virginia ballot and Newt Gingrich and other slackers asked for special favors to be put on without collecting signatures and doing the work. (That is, all the other Republicans in that primary were kept off the ballot by the same restrictive ballot access laws the Libertarians face every election, which is why Robert Sarvis aimed for 10%, to get the Libertarians permanent ballot status and free them from annual petition gathering, by complying with the Republican co-authored ballot access law which requires them to get 10%.) This "favor" (of obeying the Virginia law) that Cuccinelli did Ron Paul must be repaid. And presumably a Governor Cuccinelli would have been helpful to a 2016 Rand Paul presidential effort.

The Paul's and their groups, like Campaign for Liberty, have decided that they must centrally plan the liberty movement. They know best, and like Obama or some other statist, they want to collectivize our eggs and invest them all in one basket, the GOP. As anyone who knows me knows, I am only supportive of Paulian efforts, from Rand's anti-NSA petitions, to C4L kids protesting Syria, to recruiting candidates like Thomas Massie and Justin Amash. And I would support any William Proxmire or Eugene McCarthy type Democrats who try to liberate Democrats from the Borg that controls them, should these extinct species reappear. And the Paul's and others are free to PERSUADE us that their strategy is the best, or even only, one. But when they start lying and spinning, though it is not coercion, it is akin to the demand of the central planner that they know best and we must invest all in their 5 year plan, even if we think it may fail.

http://www.dailypaul.com/304934/why-ken-cuccinelli-deserved-...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Ron speaking at Cuccinelli rally tonight 8:30pm EST

http://www.dailypaul.com/304456/ron-paul-streaming-live-830-...

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Virginians have to vote against Mcauliffe.

Mcauliffe will take the firearms away from Virginians. There is NO recovery... 17 trillion in debt and a 127 trillion in unfunded liabilities. There is NO way out. A president Ron Paul could not fix this mess.

The right to right to bear arms is ALL you have left... prepare for the 3rd world hell hole, the US WILL become. It's a single issue vote... don't let the statists take your guns... vote against the a-hole Mcauliffe, and prepare.

Ron Paul and Rand endorsed

Ron Paul and Rand endorsed Cuccinelli. I'm voting for Hucci Cucci tomorrow not Sarvis or McAuwfille.

Do you always look for authority figures to tell you what to do?

Rand and Ron Endorsed Ted Cruz, too.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

He's right

When have the libertarians ever won anything?

Ron's strategy is to take over the Republican Party.

Isn't that what we've been trying to do?

Why take over a socialist

Why take over a socialist entity?
It's like a dog that finally catches the car it was chasing... now what does he do with it?

I can

understand not voting for Sarvis because you don't like his beliefs or what he stands for. However this democrat scare tactic is pretty lame. Any VA 2012 delegates here? How does it feel to support a party that prevents it's own delegation from showing up on time to the convention? how does it feel to abandon roberts rule's and keep Ron Paul from speaking? Republicans seem to act like victims of domestic violence...keep coming back after being brutilized. and you folks can sleep well and continue to support this because the other party is worse?

This is grand?

Is this the best we can get?

Label Jars, Not People!

The Democrats want to

The Democrats want to "legalize" gay marriage.

The Republicans want to keep it "illegal".

A True Libertarian wants the government to have No Authority either way: "legal" or "illegal".

Ron Paul understands this six ways to Sunday.

Rand Paul - not so much.

I myself am generally opposed to gay marriage, but I know it takes one hell of an Authoritarian to tell others how to live their lives and also not understand Thomas Jefferson's theory on neighbors: "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket"...

I think it's time to back the Libertarian party and stop dreaming that Republicans will suddenly come to Jesus and reverse course.

Denise B's picture

If Thomas Jefferson

were alive today, what do you think his thoughts on gay "marriage" would be? I believe it was Mr. Jefferson himself who suggested castration for those who were caught committing the act of sodomy. I am not saying that I agree with that stance; however, Thomas Jefferson would never have been a proponent of gay "marriage", despite the fact that it neither broke his leg or picked his pockets. Gay "Marriage" is not and never has been a civil rights issue. It is a moral issue.

Jefferson's broken leg/pocket

Jefferson's broken leg/pocket picking comment is extremely well known.
His comment about wanting to lop off some dude's balls or drown some carpet munching witch.... not so much.

Anyway, my point was missed. Who in the god damned hell is the government (my neighbor) to tell anyone who they may or may not associate with?

For my own moral reasons, I don't like social workers... maybe I should lop off the balls of anyone who enters into a contract with a social worker? Yes?

Denise B's picture

I have a simple question for you,

Why are you personally opposed to gay marriage? Other than the fact that you believe the government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriages at all. I understood your point; however, although Mr. Jefferson was very well known for his disdain for government interference and control in our everyday lives, at the same time he recognized the necessity of a moral code in our society. Mr. Jefferson and virtually all of his peers of the day would have considered homosexuality an immoral and distasteful behavior and would not have ever defended it on the basis of it being a civil right. In fact, that was the prevailing position in this country from the time of its inception and only began to change within the past few decades. None of the founders would have ever declared it to be a civil right because they viewed it to be immoral and an act against nature. And this coming from a group of people who were to willing to die to defend freedom. These people;however, never intended freedom from oppression to include freedom from morality. In fact, John Adams declared that our form of government was ONLY suited to a moral and upright people.

Yes, I concur.

It's pretty cool to have laws dictating behavior according society's majority view of morality.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=movie+the+stoning+of+son...

It would be a critical error

The liberals have no means of reason and if they gain control in VA, that state is finished at being a "free one".

"free"?

"free"?

Sweet

I am going to go check out Ron Paul here in central Virginia when he comes through to help campaign for Cuccinelli.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

No thanks

No thanks, as a Virginian I know that KC is also FOR govt. where most Republicans are, in the bedroom and in our social lives. Sarvis is VERY questionable as a "libertarian," I was voting for him, but after further recent research I'm simply not voting.

So you are cool

with Mcaullife ruining your state? I get it that you don't like the system...no one does. As I mentioned before, just look north. Maryland is a nightmare...and Mcaullife is Omalley reincarnate. I can't begin to tell you how much more difficult it is to stop the train wreck with a liberal governor. Our state is getting pummeled specifically because of liberal politicians. I don't want to see VA change that way either...I am envious of your state...I won't be any longer if your governorship goes the way of Mcaullife.

Rand Doesn't Understand

Rand Paul and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. A lot of people dislike Cuccinelli because of his social views. In my opinion, this is only an issue because it seems he has a lot of hate associated with those views, it's all he used to talk about, and he was purposefully polarizing. The bigger problem with Cuccinelli is that his plans are unrealistic and from what I can tell they are not from the correct premise. Cuccinelli just says "less government, lower taxes" but his plan involves picking winners in government to "create jobs" and lowering taxes without thought to reforming the expenditures underlying those funds. Typically when a politician does this it is because he or she just wants votes and doesn't actually have a sound philosophy behind the policy.

Robert Sarvis does have the correct philosophy. He understands why limited government works better and what "limited government" actually means (hint: doesn't always mean lower taxes). This is why he can move us towards liberty without pissing off the entire General Assembly.

I don't think Cuccinelli is a bad guy like many people; from all accounts he is actually OK (as a person). I just believe Sarvis would be a better governor and therefore I vote for him.

I agree with your point about

I agree with your point about him making a big deal about social issues. Before he started running this current campaign, social issues were the things he talked about the most. It's what he's most passionate about. and it's what I disagree with him most vehemently over.

If I were in Virginia, I

If I were in Virginia, I would vote for Sarvis. Cuccinelli is a complete mess when it comes to personal liberty and social issues, and he's not really for smaller government but just wants less taxes to fund that large government.

I don't hold this against Rand, though. He's a Republican and has to play the Republican game.

what about 2nd amendment and obamacare

If mcaullife wins, goodbye guns and hello blue Virginia...and most likely a hillary clinton victory. A vote for sarvis, unfortunately, is a vote for more socialism.

Nonsense. The political

Nonsense. The political makeup of the state would stay the same and a McAullife win would change nothing.