12 votes

VA Libertarian Sarvis: 'Ron Paul was basically spoon-fed the GOP misinformation campaign'

Robert Sarvis captured 6.5 percent of the vote in Virginia's gubernatorial election Tuesday. The Libertarian's campaign was derided by some opponents as a dirty trick that doomed Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

Sarvis says that's not true.

"Am I an Obama puppet or am I a GOP puppet? I tend to think neither," he told U.S. News on Wednesday. "The GOP had a concerted effort to misrepresent my policy positions [and] this was one last-ditch effort to do so."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/07/sarvis-says-h...




Comment viewing options

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

Liberal or Libertarian?

Sarvis was a huge social lib. One of the planks on his site for enforcing Sodomite marriage:
"I want to lead the fight now—in this election—to recognize same-sex marriages in Virginia."
And for abortion, he said:
"Abortions that are otherwise legal should not be regulated in such a way that puts the government in the room with a patient and her doctor, mandating actions that assault a woman's bodily integrity and autonomy."
As a father himself he should know better. This fellow was rotten.

Ron Paul all the way!

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
http://standrewsnews.org

.

Why is government involved in marriage in the first place?

What once was a religious ceremony to sanctify the union - under complete discretion of the church - of two people has become a legal framework to grant privileges, extort individuals upon divorce, rip apart families, keep a steady cash/work flow to lawyers, judges, state appointed councilors, police, et al.

Seems like a better place to start if you're concerned with the biblical tradition of marriage being subverted.

I agree, the State should not

I agree, the State should not be involved in marriage. However, the State is involved in marriage (at least since 80s) as a means of redistributing wealth from men to women through family courts and no-fault divorce. Women can "quit" a marriage and reap big rewards. There is a huge incentive for women to leave marriages. I'm not sure why men get married anymore.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

.

I completely agree and share your befuddlement. It's a huge liability that perverts the institution. If you get married, tell the state to go jump in a lake.

Even at that, it would be wise to check state laws as the vagaries surrounding common law marriage could wind you up in the same boat.

Libertarian Party

Did you not know that libertarian party means socially liberal and fiscally conservative? It appears some people had thought libertarian party means really conservative republicans - that is not the case.

I belong to no party but i am not a fan of the government telling certain groups of people they are not allowed to marry. Nor am i in favor of the government stigmatizing people who want to get abortions that are legal in the eyes of the government. If the government doesnt want abortions - then make them illegal - but dont keep them legal and then put up some phony barrier. I support Rule of Law

HAHAHAHAHA up your butts republicans.

O...kay???

Not to trivialize Ben Swann's take on things here, but what it is with you guys and talking about putting things up the butts of others? I know you guys are big on the whole gay equality thing, but I didn't think it was that kind of big, if you catch my meaning. lol

“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

yep they love gays and hate Christians

They still hate but it's just for Christians now.

Libertarians are a funny bunch

.

What on earth are you talking about?

i am huffpo... stop being a homophobe

lmfao jk

its a figure of speech. Most people I am sure got that. relax....your butt cheeks lmfao.... you could be violated by the police apparently if you don't ;P

True

Indeed. We need a little bit of choas in our corrupt election system.

Virginians wont see much difference in their daily life between McAuliffe/Cuccinelli. The VA legislature is still republican and Cuccinelli was not talking about cutting spending. Things will continue like they have been.

Too bad more republicans did not throw their vote away to Sarvis shake the system.

I am a Virginian

and you haven't done your homework.
Lets revisit this post in 2 years and see if this statement is true:
"Virginians wont see much difference in their daily life between McAuliffe/Cuccinelli"

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

Ron's support would helped Sarvis and sent stronger message

I really don't get Ron supporting republicans like Cuchinilli whom wasn't going to win or Goldman Sach's Ted Cruz but I like Rand and Amash

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

Because Sarvis was a GOP establishment shank

he was not real, he was an open borders Globalist far left Nutjob

What planet do you people come from?

Libertarian Party Platform:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions

You might want to take a look at those sometime - one of their
complaints was the federal government trying to mandate immigration
policy and limit the ability of states and communities to decide for themselves.

Realization

User Stonewall has just brought something to light that i did not think about....

If Ken Cuccinelli is such a champion of liberty, how come Ken did not endorse Ron Paul in the 2012 republican primary in Virgina. You may recall that the ballot had only Romney and Paul to choose from. Ron Paul ended up getting 41% without spending a nickel. With a little help from someone like Cuccinelli, Ron Paul could have actually won a major primary state with a MAJORITY (>50%) of the vote.

So is Cuccinelli a champion of liberty?

What are you talking about Soy

Cuccinelli enforced the laws for the petition process to get names on the ballot? Only two campaigns had the organization (well really only one, Romney had the money) to get enough signatures to be put on the GOP primary ballot. Instead of allowing others on to split the vote Cuccenelli enabled Ron Paul to get the biggest percentage of the popular vote of any state he ran in.

no

That makes no sense. Your crediting Ken and not the law?

Ken could have just as easily been helping Romney. Ken does not get credit for Ron Paul having a lot of supporters in Virginia

Lol!

Ken was the reason Ron got 40%! what are you talking about, Ken enforced the law, and kept Santorum and the others off the ballot!

https://twitter.com/StonewallDP

Support these Liberty Candidates and find and add more !
http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Presidential Candidates Exposed!
http://www.dailypaul.com/307360/2016-potential-president

Did Cucinnelli endorse Ron Paul in 2012 or 2008?

I have not found anything about Cucinnelli endorsing anybody in the past presidential primaries.

Actually it use to be that statewide elected Republicans

did not endorse in primaries, it's a new phenomenon that happened over the Bush years.

Cuccinelli didn't endorse anyone, and it looks like Ron Paul thought that was fair because he campaigned for Cuccinelli and Romney didn't, nor any of the others left off the ballot in VA.

Mike Lee didn't endorse Ron Paul either.

Sometimes in order to build bridges, you have to be the person to lay the first plank. I don't think any of the major players in the Senate ever endorsed Ron Paul, but he in turn endorsed several of them and gained their respect. If Cuccinelli ends up running for the Senate and wins, that will be one more ally that Rand will have in working against the Neo-con cabal on matters of spending, foreign policy and the like.

There was nothing to gain by Paul endorsing Sarvis, who was a guaranteed loser from the start in a highly consequential election. Ron Paul refusing to endorse McCain or Romney was a bit different given that they were overt war mongers and big government tyrants. Thus far, the only complaint I've heard about Cuccinelli is that he is one of those horrible Christians that need to be gotten rid of.

“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

Good for the Libertarian Party

There is no doubt that Republican Ken Cuccinelli is a fiscal libertarian, but he isn't a social libertarian. Ron Paul is essentially a libertarian in both the fiscal and social sense. The reason that I like Ron Paul is that he doesn't let his beliefs alter his politics. He may be against abortion, yet he doesn't believe that the federal government should be involved in such matters.

It is good that we have the Libertarian Party to challenge the Republican and Democratic Party. There must be a group that best represents liberty loving people, like me. Many people here prefer the Republican Party, but the reality is that the Democratic party is just as good/bad. What the hell does it help to have economic freedom if we don't have personal freedom?

If ever a Libertarian such as Ron Paul gets the republican or democratic nomination, you can bet nearly all libertarians will be voting for him.

The Libertarian Party does not challenge the Dems

That party is the Green Party and they are inept as well.

As a Libertarian you will never ever ever pick up Democrats with Fiscal Libertarianism as you call it, it's not what they stand for, they stand for more government, keeping people on the government pot. It's how they get votes.

If the GOP abandons Social Issues, which they basically have policy-wise, but not "read my lips" -wise, people still believe because they don't follow actual votes, then the GOP will lose every single race, even with anti-social issues Libertarians coming into the party. Nationwide there are far more social issue Republicans than the non-social Libertarians. I am a Social Issue Constitutionalist, I would leave the GOP in a heart beat and just sit home, because 3rd parties are a waste.

So you would have 5 distinct voting blocks from largest to smallest

Socialist Democrat Hillary Clinton. - 41% of the vote

Blue Collar/ Social Democrat (gun rights/pro-life) Mike Beebe - Arkansas Gov. - 9% ov vote

Social Christian Libertarian Republicans Sarah Palin - 35% of the vote

Big Government Republicans Chris Christie - 10% of the vote

Libertarian Republicans (Non Social) Gary Johnson - 4% of the vote

Obviously, Social issue Democrats can never win the party nod on a National issue and this is what would happen if social issues become a non-issue in the GOP, but if the coalition was something like following, you can win.

Social Issues/ Libertarian Republicans and Social Democrats in Republican Primary they win with 39% of vote as long as they don't split the vote. Nationally they get a good portion 48% plus 6% of the BG Government GOP votes and you win with 52-56% of vote.

Possible candidates, obviously Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Palin, Paul LePage

Middle of the road, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Jindal,

Big Gov. Christie, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Karl Rove, Boehner

or

As republicans become less

As republicans become less and less fiscally conservative people will become less attracted to that party. The same is happening with democrats. They used to be socially libertarian but no longer are. Thus we saw ron paul recieve many democratic votes. The issues that scare people away from the republican party, abortion gay marriage etc, are things that libertarians see eye to eye with democrats. So as the democratic party and republican party become one then people will look for something else.

Only Democrats I met that became Ron Paul

supporters were socially conservative pro life / 2nd amendment voters that were attracted to Ron Paul because he talked truth.

Yea the libertarian party is

Yea the libertarian party is great it's challenge has prevented all the wars, Affordable health care, drone strikes, dollar printing, and so many horrible things from coming to pass. Not. It has been most ineffective. God love Ron Paul but even his efforts has very little legislative fruit. Plan B anyone?

it has kept the idea alive

Ron paul the libertarian party keep alive the message of liberty until it is one day ready to come back. Without them we would be far worse off than what we are now.

Plan B...leave the USA. No need to limit yourself to just there. There are many places in the world that are much freer. Free markets also force countries to compete for talent and money. Take yours elsewhere.