11 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."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


I know if I stand for the constitution I can't go wrong! I do not take the down votes to hart. I think we all have a good teacher and that is Ron Paul! A man that stood for the constitution all his political life. This is not my first time running. I know how corrupt the system is. Thank You for being a Ron Paul delegate and standing for liberty.

The R3volution Is Alive Well
Matt Schutter
Chair of Pa lp youth outreach


All those exclamation points and CAPS and Nazi accusations and excitement over an unenforceable ban on oral sex that would never have passed anyway? Since when are silly social issues like that the libertarian priority? ...Is that why you joined the liberty movement? To protect oral sex? Hmm, m'kay. I'm more interested in the Fed, the welfare state, the empire, the police state...but the legality of blowjobs? LOL

And how odd of you to use Ron Paul's "The Revolution is Alive and Well" while violently attacking the man Ron Paul endorsed and actively campaigned for.

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

I did not call for violence once!

Please read my post again. I called the GOP Nazi's because they are. They are the ones who use violence! I agree what you posted about issues. I just dont like them using Jesus to spread their Hate for gays! Cant I be part of the Ron Paul R3volution and not be a RP sheepel? The Republican candidate was Not what Ron tought us! Ron was playing politics for Rand's 2016 run for President.

Ron Paul R3volution = Love and the Constitution
Gop = Hate war and disrespect for the rule of law


Opposing gay marriage may be

Opposing gay marriage may be a Republican stance, but not necessarily a libertarian one. Another individual's religion and/or sexual preference is none of my libertarian business. The state has no business in it either.


Demanding others follow your own personal form of religion is un-Constitutional. It is against the part of the first amendment that assures the right for everyone to practice his own religion without interference from the government. There is a reason this amendment was included. It means that fundamentalists Christians cannot control a country that, for the most part, disagrees with some of their demands. I am one of those fundamentalists. But, I don't want a theocracy in our country, either! There are, way too many, man made rules from the many different religions in our country. We don't need any religious tyranny running things, either! I am a Ron Paul Republican, all the way!

Abortion is a completely different subject because it is complicated by the life of an unborn child! It puts a cog in the wheels of the issue by comparing the rights of a child to be born as compared to the rights of the mother to take that life. I think Libertarians are also in disagreement on abortion!

Laws cannot be established to legislate morality! Sexual preference and oral sex are things that are not harming anyone else. It should be un-Constitutional for the governemnt to try to insert itself in the bedrooms of a free United States of America!


And as a openly gay elected Libertarian I would fight and die for your churches right not to marry me. Healthcare, and gay right are designed too keep us fighting by the R/D when we should be looking at the constitution for answers because that is what protects us. What is the question? Freedom and the constitution the answer!

The R3volution Is Alive And Well!

Just so

Though I would much prefer ending the marriage franchise, if we can't do that, give it to anyone who can say or sign "I do".


government has no right to tell people what to put in their bodies or who they can marry

4th amendment mean anything?

Label Jars, Not People!

Marriage is mainly for raising kids

And if you want to see the kind of future we can expect Google: 'lesbian couple gives son hormone blockers'. I believe that purposefully raising children without both a mother and a father is child abuse and therefore an act of aggression, because children are psychologically dependent on this for healthy development. And since this is what gay marriage inevitably leads to I pretty much oppose it, even though blocking the act of marriage itself may technically be an act of aggression. I don't see any big efforts to allow gay marriage with the caveat that intentionally bringing kids into the world to be raised motherless or fatherless in a homosexual atmosphere is prohibited. So to me blocking gay marriage itself is the lesser evil.

Agreed regarding the raising of children...

...by same sex couples. They should be prohibited from adopting.

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

Perfect assessment.

There's something to be said for how "safe" Sarvis' positions were on all the wedge issues in question. Particularly on abortion, the progressives have pretty much won the fight and soon enough America will have a declining population just like Western Europe has, which in turn will lead to further economic stagnation and eventually this entire country turning into a land ripe for conquest by whoever wants to start making babies again, regardless to how anti-liberty their mindset is.

I think Michael Scheuer said it best, "We're done like dinner", and frankly Reason Magazine and other pseudo-libertarian outlets are helping to make it happen. Sarvis peeled off people that were mostly pro-market but socially moderate, and in doing so he served his democrat donor quite well.

“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

Unfortunately Sarvis could not stop McGauliff

So was Ron Paul correct in urging people to not vote for Sarvis?

It's obvious that the best shot to stop McGauliff was Cuccinelli.

Nothing new here Mr. Sarvis.

It's a fact of life.

Maybe you could spend eight years spreading your message tirelessly like Ron Paul if you really want to make a difference in the political conversation.

Otherwise, quit-your-b-i-t-c-h-i-n.


Sarvis sounds like a wounded child. If he wants to play politics, he needs to toughen it up a bit, and maybe research the libertarian intellectuals that he obviously isn't terribly well educated on. Because if he continues to hold the same views that he currently holds, he shouldn't bother spending 8 years spreading his message, Obama pretty well already took care of that.

“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


So when someone fights back against the establishment, it makes them whiney and childish? Is that how you characterized Ron Paul when the establishment was fighting against him in the primaries?

Sarvis wasn't fighting the establishment.

Seriously, did you read anything on Sarvis' so-called platform? He likes Hayek, considers himself "Mainstream" when it comes to economics, puts out the same tired talking points on gay marriage and abortion that you hear out of democrats with about half the level of sincerity. If Sarvis was anti-establishment, then I'm the Queen of Sheba.

Ron Paul wasn't whining, he was teaching. Sarvis was and is still whining, and the people that voted for him sadly skipped Ron Paul's free classes from a few years back it seems.

“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


The smear campaign waged at the 11th hour by the GOP and people like Glenn Beck at TheBlaze was the establishment. And Ron Paul mis-characterizing Robert Sarvis' positions means that Ron Paul was doing their bidding.

This does not mean Robert Sarvis was a champion of liberty. But the hallmarks of the establishment are easy to recognize.

What was said about Sarvis that was false?


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


That he was funded by liberals and sent to prevent a Cuccinelli victory.

Also false that he wanted black boxes in all cars - he mentioned other ways to have a road system based on user fees, but who cares, right?

Glenn Beck isn't the establishment

I don't necessarily like him, but the establishment is clearly ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN etc.


Well i consider anyone who resists real change to be establishment. Glenn Beck talks a big game but fails at every juncture.


Sarvis strikes back

Tis true that Ron Paul basically echoed the republican establishment talking point and then slurred all Sarvis voters by calling them "insane" (that is not the Ron Paul i know)

Neither Sarvis or Cuccinelli were true libertarians....But Sarvis was more libertarian than Cuccinelli

ron paul isn't a libertarian,

ron paul isn't a libertarian, never claimed to be one.


He ran for President of the country as a 'big L' Libertarian and has always made clear that even as a Republican he was a small l libertarian. If you don't know what those terms mean then look it up (not trying to be condescending, but if you are going to make that statement you really might not know).

I recall after he dropped out/stopped actively campaigning in the last race, when he was asked if he would endorse Gary Johnson, he spoke favorably of him, saying he "had a lot of libertarian ideas." His son just this week said he is a libertarian Republican.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

he only ran as a libertarian

he only ran as a libertarian because the republicans at the time pissed him off so much he gave a huge "F U" by running in a different party. he has referred to himself many times as a constitutional conservative, not a libertarian.

I downvoted you for misrepresenting Ron Paul

Please refrain from doing that.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison


Did Ron Paul say it was insane to vote for sarvis, or not?

of course it was insane

Do I realy need to explain why? Just read the comments above

He Called The Position Insane

He never called the candidate or those who would vote for him insane.

That was the media (even Reason) putting the word in a context in which Ron Paul never used it.

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


So people are going to criticize Reason for their reporting of Ron Paul but they will accept the reporting of the Sarvis interview without question?


"he called the position insane"

He called what position insane?