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.

The idea alive? What does

The idea alive? What does that mean? Do you mean people having a dream of being free? A party is not needed for that. Every person who has to turn over the fruits of their labor dreams "has the idea" that they should be able to keep all the fruits. What idea wouldn't exist without the libertarian party?

Freedom...

People do not believe in Freedom, at least not in its entirety. Libertarians believe that we are free, completely free, that we have the right to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is the idea that is kept alive.

"Every person who has to turn over the fruits of their labor dreams "has the idea" that they should be able to keep all the fruits."

Actually many people do NOT believe that we should keep ALL of the fruits of our labor, they believe that we should be FORCED by the government to give up our fruits for the greater good of the society. This idea is what dominates in the world. This is similar to the ideas of the Austrian School of Economics; it is a theory that if there doesn't exist a group of people to continue its legacy it will cease to exist because there are people that want it to disappear.

So yes, it is very important that even the idea of Liberty be kept alive. It is what Ron Paul has done for most of his life, and because he has kept it alive, in the last few years we have seen a large number of people accept these ideas. If it weren't for people like him, just consider how many people would NEVER have heard of these ideas.

Ideas can die.

"Spoon-Fed"

It amazes me that so many people now, treat Ron Paul like he is a 5 year old. He has made, and will continue to make, his own decisions.

You cannot blame every thing you disagree with him on Benton, and Rand, and "Ron Paul Inc" (so called)

His endorsements are serious, and strategic, as well as pretty darned good. He is not a little fairy godmother that runs around showering endorsements on mainstream GOP candidates like they are confetti!

His goal is pretty clear, to advance liberty through the election process, and he does not accomplish this by endorsing hundreds of LP candidates across the country.

His endorsements are like a fine wine, rare, and valuable.

Virginia 2013

I will forever remember this governor's race as one in which the 2 major parties nominated unelectable candidates which caused Virginians to search out alternative options at unprecidented percentages. Will also forever remember how the GOP freaked out about a rising 3rd party and brought in the the thing they hated the most (Ron Paul) in order to prevent the thing that scares them the most (viable 3rd party).

Game over

your way off

The GOP establishment spooned Sarvis. with money and endorsements, as did the Democrat Party's biggest bundlers.

Obviously you think they were unelectable, yet the Democrat Socialist GOT elected.

When the two parties establishment leadership know the populous is disgruntled, they push a third party candidate into the limelight and parade him/her around and the. begin a campaign of vote third party, why because they still win.

The establishment government based leadership of both parties did not want Cuccinelli, so they began a campaign of "both candidates are idiots", when they knew the GOP had been moving way more Libertarian and knew Cuccinelli would be hurt far worse than McAuliffe, no matter what the lying pollsters say.

Bottom line actual numbers say that 2.1 working voters for every 2 that were living off the government, no way, no how those non working voters picked a Libertarian, the Sarvis votes were sucked off Cuccinelli, and as Ron Paul said, "you have to be crazy to vote Libertarian in VA"

Ken likes Ron, Ron likes Ken.

I don't see what the GOP has to do with it. The Democrat won, game over.

Also, Ken was nominated at a Convention by GOP activists including Paul supporters, I believe this is the first time it was not decided in a Primary.

Ken likes Ron?

That is news to me....Was Ken endorsing Ron Paul during the 2012 republican primary??? Strange, i dont remember hearing about that

Um...

Ken is the reason Ron Paul got 40% in the Republican Primary in 2012.
Also, Seeing as Ron Paul endorsed Ken in 2009, for AG, of course he likes him!

"Ken is the reason Ron Paul

"Ken is the reason Ron Paul got 40% in the Republican Primary in 2012."

No, that would be the voters of Virginia. Many of the 40% were not even republicans.

Also, it is clear that the rule helped Romney more than anybody because he got to win a major state without spending any resources. Have we looked into whether there was a deal between Paul/Romney yet?

$$$

Run as any party you want, get every ones cash, who cares who wins! It doesn't have anything to do with principles. Nothing to see here, just a bunch d-bags acting in their own self interest. Thanks for screwing Virginia that much more.

Jeffro

Oh, really, Mr. Sarvis?

Either Sarvis is just another smarmy politician or, if he really believes that bs, then he's too stupid to represent anyone, anywhere. It's either - or. There's no third choice.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

BS?

What was BS? Sarvis got run over by the GOP smear campaign.

Ron Paul formed coalitions with people like Nadar and Cuccinich. But apparently, Sarvis supporting a transportation budget funded by user fees was just unacceptable as a candidate. Nevermind the fact that the person Ron Paul was endorsing accepted bribes and contributions that do not pass any version of the smell test.

Nobody should dismiss a candidate based on a single minor issue when there are so mnay important issues. The fact that GOP/Ron Paul isolated this minor issue and dismissed Sarvis while Cuccinelli has run a moderate campaign without many libertarian principles speaks volumes.

Don't think he was an Obama

Don't think he was an Obama puppet?

"A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert C. Sarvis on the ballot — a move that could split conservative votes in a tight race.

Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis’ name on Tuesday’s statewide ballot.

Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-ca...

Money

Notice you did not say how much money we are talking about....

$11,000 given to Sarvis by the Libertrian PAC
Sarvis' biggest contributor was himself at $20,000
Sarvis campaign raised $200,000

What were you saying again?

I'll repeat what the ARTICLE was saying...

That the $11,000 was spent pre-campaign to ensure that he got on the ballot. After that, it does not matter since there is a "Libertarian" to siphon votes from the Liberty/Conservative canditate.

Ballot

So you are against having a 3rd party choice on the ballot?

.

It just doesn't get much more obvious..

"$10,000 of the Libertarian Booster PAC’s $11,454 in-kind donations to Sarvis went to secure a spot on the ballot."

Is it possible this was simply a beneficent, civil-liberty minded billionaire who wanted people to have more choice? Sure.

Except this is the kind of guy that dines with Warren Buffet and does shit like this...

generous contributions to the Democratic National Committee ($92,400), the Democratic Party of Ohio ($12,453) and Barack Obama ($10,000), as well as more than $25,000 for Democrat Party organizations in Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

So clearly he's not solely concerned with civil liberties of any human being on earth.. as if there is some difference between economic and social liberty.

Hm.. I wonder what his motivations were to drop 11 grand on Sarvis.

Another real coincidence is Reason magazine coming to this little turd's defense when Ed Crane himself donated a huge amount of money on last minute Sarvis ads as the Republican party simultaneously disappears for Cooch.

Oh, what does it all mean? It's far too complicated for the likes of me.

3rd party is not tyranny

Yeah, cuz getting the libertarian party on the ballot in Virginia is such an act of tyranny.....LOL - WHAT???

FYI - Sarvis got $11,000 from a Libertarian PAC that received money from a former Obama bundler....Have you run background on all $20 million given to Cuccinelli? Why or why not?

.

I never said '3rd party is tyranny.' I don't know where you got that from my comment.

Read between the lines. It was a tactic. The intent was clear. It succeeded. There was no 'principled' stance to take on Sarvis if he isn't a principled candidate.

Especially on behalf of a man that supports Obama or the DNC.

I don't love Cuccinelli. I'm open to any news about any nefarious doings with his finances. I never said he was an angel either.

But it's over. I don't particularly care anymore. I view it as an act of last minute subterfuge. We can agree to disagree.

You implied it

You acted like it is wrong for there to be 3rd party. You imply that something is wrong with a liberal giving money to the strongest 3rd party in USA. You act like it is some kind of nefarious when really you have no idea what the motives were.

If the GOP cannot win an election in which a 3rd party is present, then it should be disbanded immediately.

All of this ignores the most fundamental truth, which is that Sarvis likely did not impact the election, or if he did - he hurt McAuliffe more than Cuccinelli....

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/06/stop-scapegoating-third-par...

Pre-election Polling (Sarvis voters go 53% for McAulife and 42% for Cuccinelli)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/...

Exit Polling: Sarvis gets most support from independents and 2nd most from liberals
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virgi...

Fox News: " In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/06/mcauliffe-wins-vi...

Exit Poll: McAuliffe lead stays same if Sarvis not in race
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.p...

CNN Exit Poll: "And if Sarvis had not been in the race, exit polls indicate McAuliffe would have beaten Cuccinelli by 7 points (50%-43%)"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/cnn-exit-pol...

.

I voted LP last year. I don't think there's anything evil about a third party. But in certain cases, such as this one, I believe it has the opportunity to be used against a Ron Paul endorsed "Constitutionalist."

Sarvis' motives? You're right, I don't claim to know either. But Ed Crane and the Liberal billionaire knew precisely what they were doing.

I certainly don't trust any polling data. For example from your Fox News article that claimed, "Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican." Methodology?

Edison Research conducted this exit poll for Fox News and interviewed 2,376 voters as they left randomly selected polling places in Virginia.

2,221,100 people voted. I'm supposed to believe 2,376 random voters are going give some sort of accurate depiction? I don't. There is nothing scientific about these polls. They can go whichever way the wind blows as has been shown time and time again.

I'm sorry, there's just too much that stinks about this story.

Again, we can agree to disagree.

Exit Polls

Exit polls have been determined to be a reliable indicator. They are used to call elections when trends are established. I didnt give you one exit poll - i gave you 4 or 5.

If we accept your position, if the republicans/democrats/media are not going produce reliable polling - then they have no right to whine and complain about who would have voted for whom if the 3rd party was not there.

One thing i do know is that our election system is backwards and corrupted. Most of the free countries in the world have a multi-party election system. Look where the current one has gotten us.

Peace

.

-The first is a Times blog article by Gillespie (paid for by the same people that funded Sarvis, mind you) that links to an ABC article that didn't link the exit poll source. You're left to assume it's contracted out thru Langer Research Associates which doesn't give any sampling data. Either trust them or don't, I guess.

-The WaPo polling says, "This Washington Post/ABT-SRBI poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 24-27, 2013, among a random sample of 1,251 adults in the Commonwealth of Virginia..."

-The NYTimes relies on the aforementioned, Edison Research poll collecting 2,376 voters.

-Fox News relies on aforementioned Edison Research Poll

-I could find zero mention of methodology or sample numbers anywhere on CNN. Though Edison Research lists them as employing their polling services.

-Last link was the CNN article that linked the previous PDF. Again, zero information.

My point here is at least to get you to question the validity of any 'poll' that includes such a tiny margin of the voting population. Especially when they are coming up with such in depth and technical analysis.

So far the very best guess is that they polled 3,627 people.. again out of 2,221,100 people that voted. And then you expect me to believe any technical analysis of such a close race?

I tend not to trust people peddling numbers. Especially when they are this lopsided and coming from people that lie to our faces every second of every day.

And it's not that I'm against a 3rd party. Like I said, I've voted 3rd party. But it can be used in a surreptitious manner by people who have another agenda.

Information / Evidence

If you have any information or evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it. So far, you are telling me to ignore the polling because of your perception of what libertarian voters usually are. I am telling you specific circumstances of this Virginia election of why the people who voted Sarvis were not necessarily Cuccinalli voters. Most were independents and included many liberals. I know two liberals in my office who voted Sarvis because he was talking crony capitalism and special interests - which the democrat candidate was one.

.

Yes, the evidence is that it's impossible to state your claim that Sarvis took mostly from democrats when the sample is 2 exit polls totaling 0.163% of the voting population.

It doesn't matter that CNN or the NYT said it's right, true or scientific.

Let's be generous and say that the unstated Langer poll included 2K people, what does that bring it to? 0.253% of the voting public.

Then lets be super generous and say CNN which didn't state it's numbers added another 3k. That brings it up to 0.388% of the entire voting population.

So you're going to extrapolate that all the Sarvis voters were really just democrats and independents that wouldn't have voted for Cuccinelli anyway based on far less than one half of one percent of voters because CNN said so? C'mon.

Unless there are more polls out there (I haven't found any), this is highly suspect.

The Libertarian Party is a crock of Sh*T

Worthless, pointless political party that gives us nothing but more socialism

Never been elected to a national office, not even a statewide office...heck even the Reform Party had Ventura.

Mainly won school board, city council positions that don't even allow political party designations.

40 years of nothing

So people who are truly constitution based get suckered into believing in this scam of party so that they can be contained into uselessness, when the real change, power, and protection of our liberties and Constitutional rights are given and taken by the two major political parties, while Libertarian Party members worry about getting ballot access. Ha ha ha ha ha.......too funny what a freaking joke. Even with all the promotion and effort by the GOP establishment to pump up Sarvis in Virginia the Libertarian Party still has no ballot access.

I have been in the third party movement for over 20 years and I have only seen the country crumble and third parties do absolutely nothing or gain traction. The two major parties working under one umbrella love third parties, it removes anyone from within their organizations that have a backbone and fight for change or fight for the Constitution, they want brain dead folowers not thinkers.

The GOP leadership is dying off, keep,your eye on the ball and take the GOP over, it's already happening state by state.

ever

notice state districts with small local races? There are some with only ONE PARTY RUNNING unopposed by the other (DEM-GOP). Why is that? because they work together. "Don't run a candidate here and we will not run one there"

2 party monopoly. the joke is on you. They work to exclude all others.

Label Jars, Not People!

Sarvis Did Not Endorse Black Boxes, Just A Mileage Tax

Ron Paul characterized the position as an invasion of privacy, ergot Sarvis thinking that Paul didn't understand the minutiae of his position (but instead relied on some misinformation).

Of course, the government tracking your mileage -- via black box or otherwise -- can be said to be an invasion of privacy, plus Paul went on to say the taxes generated would no go for roads but to the general fund and that Cuccinnelli had the right idea on taxes: "No new taxes."

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Roads

Cuccinelli's plan was to not cut any spending on roads and keep paying for the road spending deficit out of the general fund. That makes no sense because people who dont drive should not have to pay for the roads.

The idea of having user-fees on government services IS a libertarian notion. Sarvis said it could be done many ways. Republicans/Ron Paul got caught playing the same dirty politics that the left often does when talking about entitlements....Shame on GOP/Ron Paul

'user fee' black box car tax DESTROYS the environment

If you believe the AGW nonsense (which I do not), but if you DO then you want to tax gasoline not black box mileage.

Gasoline tax encourages people to prefer high MPG cars. That's what you asshats say you want.

If you tax mileage then then the incentive not to drive hummers around is reduced. After all you drive 100 miles in a hummer or 100 miles in a 'smart car' you get taxed the same.

Bullpucky argument.