15 votes

Fake Libertarian candidate spoils Virginia governors race

Fake Libertarian candidate spoils Virginia governors race
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/66163660246/fake-libertaria...

In a race that was closer than expected, Republican Virginia governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli (who was endorsed by Ron Paul) was defeated by socialist Democrat Terry McAuliffe by one point after fake Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis managed to garner around 7% of the overall vote.

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/66163660246/fake-libertaria...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

of course they matter to me

I care about all aspects of liberty.

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

But not Liberty for the

But not Liberty for the unborn?

I am not going to engage you in an abortion debate

There would be no point. Let's just agree to disagree on that issue. Suffice it to say that I am rather attracted to Walter Block's idea of evictionism. So while I am pro-choice for the woman, I am also pro-life for the fetus.

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

Yes agree to disagree but

Yes agree to disagree but what you just said makes no sense.

wiki has a basic intro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

Block has written a lot on this issue. You know what? You've inspired me to learn more about this. I am going to read more about what he has written on this.

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

Lol Really?

I've worked for Ron Paul at the grassroots level in two presidential elections, and even got myself elected to local office the 2nd time to try and spot any potential election fraud. Newsflash cheesy man, Sarvis was a fake Libertarian, and a lot of suckers who like the idea of women being abortion machines chose to vote on that rather than the economic collapse of an entire nation.

Also, you can add Ron Paul to the cadre of Neo-cons given the attitude of the fools on here making excuses for voting for Sarvis.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Ken

Tell me how Cuccinelli was better than Sarvis without using the "more likely to win" excuse

You've already been schooled on that earlier in this thread.

But to humor you, Cuccinelli didn't talk about increasing or coming up with new taxes, you're boy Sarvis was all over that. Furthermore, I didn't hear Cuccinelli denigrating the Austrian School of Economics in an interview with Reason Magazine as Sarvis did.

But if you want the real reason why I favor Cuccinelli over Sarvis is that Cuccinelli was not running around pretending to be something he's not. Sarvis was not a libertarian by any stretch on economic issues, whereas Cuccinelli was up front about his Christian faith and where it influenced his views. I prize honesty more highly than party identity, and I would venture to argue that the sole reason that you really like Sarvis is because he was the Libertarian Party nominee, and not because of his so-called ideological stances. In fact, I doubt you've even bothered to crack open a copy of Von Mises' "Socialism" or anything out of Rothbard's repertoire and yet you think you're as libertarian as the wind driven snow.

But to humor your idiotic sarcasm, Cuccinelli being actually able to win (Sarvis winning had a probability of absolute zero) was a factor, among several others.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

BS.....

Making the claim that the GOP has a better philosophy on economics than Libertarians is truly insane. If voters were supposed to vote to fix the economic collapse - they would have voted for Sarvis.

Another problem with your logic is that most pro-abortion people vote Democrat. So, if someone was voting on the abortion issue solely, as you have made that claim, they would most likely vote Democrat. And, if these single-issue voters did vote for Sarvis, then they obviously took votes away from the Democrat, not the Republican.

I don't really know anything about Sarvis or his positions. But, it seems anyone criticizing him here only mentions the abortion issue and nothing else. I just checked out Cuccinelli's web site - standard GOP crap. Nothing about the wars or the War on Terror. He is against equal rights for gay people. Nebulous Republican positions on everything. He is as establishment as it gets.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

No, you're comment is B.S. my friend.

Apparently your reading comprehension took a vacation because I never said that the GOP has a better philosophy on economics than the Libertarians. I spent almost a decade in the Libertarian Party and supported Browne, Badnarik and Johnson during the general elections, and all of them had superior economics views to the people running in the 2 major parties. However, Sarvis was a complete joke on economics issues, and openly rejected the Austrian view of economics in favor of "Mainstream Economics" (which would either be Keynesianism or Neo-Classical economics, ergo the economic schools of the 2 major parties). Sarvis would have been about as good for the economic collapse as Paul Krugman has been given his apparent hostility to sound money and/or his utter ignorance of Austrian Economics.

And another thing, the Libertarian Party OFTEN draws pro-choice people, and has almost an equal split of religious people and overt Anti-Theists, and most of the latter category openly brag about their pro-free market views while admitting that they would vote for a guaranteed loser over anyone who had even an inkling of a possibility of being a Born Again Christian, let alone someone who was up front about it.

Furthermore, your final paragraph pretty much clues me in on you not really having anything to add to this discussion. If you don't know anything about Sarvis or his positions, you aren't really in a position to make any comparative statements concerning him and Cuccinelli, and assuming Sarvis to be better sounds like simple party favoritism for the person with the L next to his name rather than an informed opinion.

Also, why do you think Ron Paul endorsed the guy? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with Cuccinelli actually trying to stop this abomination of a health care law that Obama ramrodded into existence. People are losing their shirts trying to keep their health insurance, and you're here babbling to me about Gay People having equal rights.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

As I thought.

Thanks for not addressing any of my points. Have fun in the false left/right paradigm.

If you think that establishment Republicans are "fighting" Obamacare, then you are perhaps beyond reason at this point. It is political theatre. If they did change it they will make sure the insurance companies get their money using some other fiasco. Cuccinelli is an establishment, run of the mill, Republican - he would have accomplished nothing because he would have checked his testes in to "the leaders" when he got there.

Just sad.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Lol! Cheesy Man! Now that's

Lol! Cheesy Man! Now that's funny I don't care who you are!

But on a serious note...you are 100% correct but I'd like to add that there were two other LP voters.

The pro abortion LP voter
The protest LP voter
And the 10% LP voter

None of which are justifiable when our country is in the sht and we had a great candidate put up who could have won.

What I see is that these so called Ron Paul LP people were riding the curtail of the Ron Paul Liberty movement only to gain some recognition so they could get a piece of the pie...then turned around and slapped us in the face. It's a disgrace.

they're called republicans

they're called republicans and now we know that it's the party not the ideas of liberty that matter most to many who heretofore we would have thought otherwise.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Guess what. Liberty does

Guess what. Liberty does matter to us but unlike most of you in the LP we want to extend Liberty to all...including babies in a women's whom. When pitted against a Ron Paul endorsed Tea Party republican and a fake Libertarian...the Libertarians voted for the fake Libertarian because of social issues. It's sad really. They would rather hand the state over to a commie.

All that is left to digest is

All that is left to digest is the fact that Cuccinelli lost. Until someone is able to question those LP voters why they voted for a pseudo-Libertarian rather than a pseudo-Republican is anyone's guess.

My guess is Cuccinelli had nothing to offer socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters.

UPDATE: Looks like the post-election polls are showing those LP votes would've gone to McAuliffe anyway. LOL!

breaking news ...

The Libertarian Party isn't of much interest to anyone without libertarian candidates.

Correlation does not prove causality!

egapele's picture

Break this

It is ***INSANE*** for anyone to vote for the "Libertarian" candidate in that race.

Whose words were those?

So what if Ron Paul endorsed him?

I love Dr. Paul - but he has been wrong before. Remember when he endorsed Ted Cruz? I disagreed then and called it - Cruz was a Teocon poser and a bankster whore. Nailed it.

Ron Paul said that solely based on the abortion issue. I'm fine with that, but that is how it happened.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Read

And.........?

I don't get it. That changes nothing.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Of course you don't get it.

You read Ron Paul's words and they shot straight through your head. Admit that you simply liked Ron Paul because of the anti-war stuff and the anti-drug war stuff (2 things I also support by the way) but couldn't give 2 craps about economic freedom. Sarvis was a pro-command economy tyrant in sheep's clothing and you bought the line hook, line and sinker.

"I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere [as well]." (Robert Sarvis, Reason Magazine Interview, Page 3)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/02/robert-sarvis-libertar...

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

and now we know that it's the

and now we know that it's the party not the ideas of liberty that matter most to many who heretofore we would have thought otherwise.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

It is but we also need

It is but we also need strategy and money. Coccinelli was not perfect but neither was Sarvis. But Cuccinelli had a winning chance and he would have been a great ally for us. Even Ron Paul said it would be insane to vote LP last night.

When

Since when does Ron Paul demagogue voting and call people crazy for voting against an establishment party?

You cant tell me Sarvis is worse than Ralph Nadar. So what is the real motivation for Ron Paul calling many of his supporters "insane"

Maybe it's because they are actually insane.

Terry McAuliffe is now the governor of Virginia, and he will have a lot of influence over who ends up winning Virginia in 2016, including and especially if Rand Paul can get the Republican nomination. If we want a tamer foreign policy that doesn't involve us in perpetual war in the Middle East, we need the Presidency, and having Cuccinelli as a friend in the governor's office would have made the difference.

By contrast, Sarvis potentially getting 10% of the vote (which was never going to happen) might have gotten the Libertarian Party better ballot access in Virginia so they could, potentially, continue to lose elections for another several decades while the state gets destroyed by Marxists and Neo-Cons.

Sarvis is worse than Ralph Nader, not because he has goofier viewpoints than Nader, but because Sarvis is nuanced enough in his language to fool otherwise principled by gullible people in the Liberty movement that he's on their side.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Of course he said it... and

Of course he said it... and he was wrong. Ron supported Cuccinelli over a religious and personal issue. Completely within his rights. He supported Chuck Baldwin also and Baldwin is also religiously aligned with Ron's views. Neither of them were Libertarians.

egapele's picture

YOU are wrong.

Ron Paul's endorsement had nothing to do with divisive social issues.

Text of Ron Paul's endorsement:

"Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government, he has consistenly and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up toWashington's continued abuses on our individual liberties.I am proud to endorse to Ken for Governor of Virginia."

link: http://www.cuccinelli.com/ronpaulendorsement/

what about the war on drugs?

not important anymore?

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

The War on Drugs is one issue you idiot.

And the election of one governor is not going to change something that is already in the works. If you want to smoke weed while the world falls apart that's you're business, but kindly spare me the malarkey that having a rational policy on drugs alone would save the entire world.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton