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.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Rand is getting pathetic, campaigning against a 3rd party

I gave a few hundred dollars to his dad's campaign in 2008, but I am just scratching my head wondering if at this point Rand Paul could even earn my vote. If Rand thinks libertarians are going to rally behind a bible-thumper who attempted to use his position to reinstate sodomy laws in Virginia, including getting into the business about what married couples can and cannot do in their bedroom, then the media really was correct to call Rand a kook. A candidate like Cucinelli is 100% unacceptable. This is a clear example of: the Republican Party needs to nominate better candidates. THAT is the reason that somebody like Sarvis, with very little campaign money, and without being allowed in the debates, is polling so high: Sarvis' poll number means, "hey there, Republicans, your candidate is NOT good."

Quite frankly, I am hoping that McAuliffe wins this race, as terrible as he is ... for the simple reason that the Democrats at least had the common sense not to nominate a dinosaur. Rand's plea is extremely patronizing and insulting to the intelligence of the voters who are leaning Sarvis. Rather than whining that people are supporting Sarvis, maybe they should just be grateful that those voters are not planning on actually voting for the Democrat opponent, as a direct, f-u vote.

you sound

like a Christian hater, kinda funny how the NeoLibertarians and NeoCons like George Will and Jennifer Rubin are backing Sarvis so McAuliffe can win.

Please I'm so sick of the in your face pro homosexual lobby, soright back at ya.

Liberty means no special rights for anyone, sorry the gay agenda has gone apeshit out of control.

only Christians who try to legislate their morals


This isn't about gays getting married, asking the govt. to pay for their HIV medication etc., or any special rights.

This is about Cucinelli trying to revive legislation making it ILLEGAL for a married man and woman to have any type of sex, in their own bedroom, in private, that does not involve procreation. Most Christians mind their own damn business. Cucinelli is not one of them.

Really never thought I would see the day when the DailyPaul board would start supporting issues involving the government monitoring what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.

Did you actually read the article?

First of all its widely known that the Washington Post is known to bash conservative candidates and take it easy on liberal ones.

See this part at the bottom of the article?
Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

Read up on the case and why he was using the law. It was used against a married older guy who was soliciting oral sex from teenagers.

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

I actually read an even longer article


The Washington Post actually gave him a huge break. Those teenagers were above the age of consent in Virginia, so had that married older guy solicited regular intercourse from the teenagers, he would not have broken any law. The fact that he was soliciting oral sex rather than intercourse is what Cucinelli was arguing that this man was guilty of a felony. Cucinelli is totally ridiculous; a slimy lawyer at best.

Haa ha ha

Now we are going to use Slate? Please these organizations hate anything conservative of course they are going to post this trash.

The crazy part is that it has nothing to do with sodomy and he was clear this is not about what consenting adults do in their private bedrooms. However, we do not want laws on the books that protect child predators.

He is a lawyer that fights for what the law actually says. Kind of like how he has fought for criminals that were wrongly convicted and even hired one of them when no one would give him a job.

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


First point: Just because an organization hates conservatives does not automatically mean everything they say is false.

Secondly: Cucinelli was trying to get a conviction on a technicality. (A bad technicality, that could not be logically argued.) The fact is, there is NO law in Virginia that covers an adult soliciting sex with a 17 year old. That is above the age of consent. So then what Cucinelli did, is he took a law that was written for the purpose of restricting sex acts between consenting adults, and got struck down by the Supreme Court, and then stating that rather than applying that law, (which was still on the Virginia books despite being declared unconstitutional) ... for its intended purpose, to instead utilize that law to declare that 17 is in fact under the statutory age for sex ... because apparently Cucinelli was unhappy with the fact that the legislative branch did not make the legal age high enough.

Now the type of sex that could actually make the 17 year old girl pregnant would not be considered illegal in Virginia, regardless of whether Cucinelli could get the man convicted of soliciting oral sex from the 17 year old. So Cucinelli's personal crusade to raise the age of consent was not even really a proper final solution to what he was attempting (or claiming to attempt) to accomplish.

Third point: Do you honestly believe, that Cucinelli would not like to have a law against sodomy? That is what is most disturbing about him. Cucinelli was not stating that "the law would not be used against consenting adults" because he personally believes that such government interference is wrong; he was simply acknowledging that he knows the Supreme Court will not stand for it. And in the end, the Supreme Court also did not allow him to redefine the age of consent in Virginia.

Cuccinelli loves to use the power of the state to persecute

those he disagrees with. That is truly frightening to me. The guy has an ideological, theological, nutty social conservative agenda that I find appalling.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Can you cite an example please

That would be helpful.

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

here you go


Please note that I am opposed to climate change alarmism as well as to the bullshit spewed by Michael Mann. But using the power of the State to go after a professor because you disagree with him is a frightening precedent. What will the Cooch do with the power of the governorship?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

I'm not sure if you are aware

but UVA is a state school. That means that taxpayers from VA pay for it to run. The state has the right to make sure that the taxpayers dollars are being used in an effective manner.

He can't make inquiries into an organization run by the state he represents? I don't know that I would have done it but it seems like he did nothing wrong here.

Many college classes and "research" is a waste nowadays.

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

yep, I knew you wouldn't get it

Yea, the attorney general routinely checks on how grants to universities are being spent.

That Ring, it's so sweet. It just needs to fall into the right hands.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus


whatever its not the worst thing that could happen.

Nothing came of it, it was an inquiry. It was a bit rare but he has done far more good for VA than bad and its not as if he was going around to every state university and doing this.

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

Liberty also means

freedom of choice. You have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't make it worthy of restricting other people's lifestyles.

I agree

You have two choices, Hillary Clinton or not Hillary Clinton. These are your choices folks period. If you want Communism to be locked in for good then just go vote directly for her. or we could delay the implementation of communism a few years if we stall it a bit. The Libertarian voting numbers will only cinch Communism.

Is this the plan? are Libertarians actually closet communists? Sometimes I wonder as I listen to those claiming we all need to wait for a "perfect" candidate. Got 20 years? Not me, this is the last free election we will have in this country and I am hoping more see this for what it is. We are on the abyss folks.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

clearly you payed ZERO attention to all the cheating that went

down during Dr Paul's last run. If you honestly think voting actually makes a difference, then you must have been out to lunch when GOP pulled all their scams....And even if someone who isn't a puke stain somehow magically gets the GOP nod, do you honestly think the Clinton campaign is not going to be way ahead of the game in terms of rigging the elections. She's been preparing since before Obama got re-elected. And no doubt she will have FAR more funding to buy off far more districts etc...

And besides, whom ever becomes the next potus is just going to inherit a collapse... let it be Hillary so free markets don't get blamed.

The complete and total economic collapse

The complete and total economic collapse is happening on Obama. The Democrats will be blamed. Hillary will lose. The End.

The thing

is.. Republicans are commies too.

Sarvis is an open border globalist

far worse than any communist, at least communists have nation states. Global government means no place to run.

Ideas like this

are what is keeping these two bastard party's in power. You ARE NOT GOING TO INFILTRATE AND TAKE OVER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Start promoting ENDING THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM to everyone you know!! Jesus.

I actually agree.... You

I actually agree.... You shouldn't vote at all. Waste of time :)

I voted Gary Johnson and considered it a protest...

My polling place is literally around the corner, there's no line, and I got to shout 'Vote Mitt Ramen Noodle!' in the halls of my grade school...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Haha! That's awesome.. I

Haha! That's awesome.. I decided last year that I will never vote in that system again.

I was very happy seeing

I was very happy seeing people sit out, vote third party, write in Ron Paul, or vote for Obama directly to make Romney lose, for revenge on the GOP.

If Jesus himself were running

If Jesus himself were running third party, he would lose!

Third party voters should learn to accept this concept and infiltrate the party with the ideology you want and take it over from within. Like we're doing with the Republican party. That's the only way you can win, eventually.

I hope you are

Successful in taking over the GOP. Ask anyone who was with them actively in 2012 about a thing called Roberts Rules. If there is a way to take them over from within than I'm all for it. Making it happen is another story. I worked as hard as I could for years to accomplish what you propose, only to find them to be the "lesser of two evils"...

I've grown tired of voting for any evil, even if it's the lesser If I was to "vote evil" I'd write in Satan!

The Libertarian Party Represents all my views and that is what I choose to vote for. I'd like to vote and be with a major party, if they had any meaningful track record for doing what they say they will do once elected. What little progress is made comes with trade-offs. We get more of what we don't like.

Milton once said it is better to reign in hell than it is to serve in heaven...

The Republicans and Democrats are both stealing votes from the libertarian party

Label Jars, Not People!

let me get this straight

If Jesus was on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate, you would still vote Republican? Do you not see how thoroughly effed up your philosophy is?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

So if a third party candidate helped elect Satan

your still voting for him?

if my vote for Jesus would result in Satan being elected

I would still vote for Jesus

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Loaded question...

Closest thing to that already happened but it was not another candidate that helped Bush become president in 2001. One man went to the Constitutional revision committee meetings here in Florida back in 1997. Before that, This state had the toughest access ballot laws in the nation. His actions ended the 2 party monopoly on ballot access. After that, Ralph nader appeared on the ballot and took more than 500 votes away from Gore. Thats how Bush got elected.

The only way I could ever help elect satan is if i knew the outcome of the election in advance. That would mean it's all rigged! is that what you are saying? It's possible for me to know the outcome of the election down to one vote? If i knew that I'd focus on some sports teams, bet the wnner and finance the libertarian party Perot style!

I'm all in favor of achieving enough support to be included in the debate with the dems and repubs

Label Jars, Not People!