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."

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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Supporting A Mileage Tax

"Anybody conceivably who would vote for someone who would endorse a mileage tax -- I mean that's insane."

My reading is that he was asserting that the mileage tax is insane.

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

mileage tax

Sarvis said he supported funding roads with user fees as apposed to politics in the general fund. Sarvis listed a couple ways to do it.

I support user fees as well because they are a market-based approach. The GOP wanted to demogogue this issue - Ron Paul fell for it. Funding roads via user fees is not reason to trash a candidate

Also

Also, i would add that people like Gary Johnson were not good on healthcare. Gary Johnson had supported some sort of universal basic coverage.....But i did not see Ron Paul calling Gary Johnson's position "insane"

Ron Paul Was Not Campaigning For Gary Johnson's Opponent

.

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

The per mile tax

.

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

Seriously, are you on crack?

Sarvis was being quoted in an interview with a bunch of softball questions, he was in friendly territory and spoke his mind. Ron Paul was being sucker-punched by Welsh and company from a distance with a nasty Op-Ed article while the MSM was piling on over the newsletters. It is not the same thing, and the fact that you can entertain the notion that they are is beyond laughable.

Reason magazine is a bunk news source, but I'll even believe a bunch of pseudo-libertarian backstabbers when they say such things as "the sky is blue" and "water is wet" because facts are facts regardless of who notices them.

“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

Reason are 'left-libertarians'

Their brand of so-called libertarianism is really a fusion of libertarianism with left wing egalitarianism. It's inherently self-defeating because in reality those two things are at odds and incompatible.

I don't think that

But not everyone is perfect. If the Libertarians wanted to hurt the Republican in Virginia, They would have supported a right-wing candidate who sounded like a Tea Partier — who only talked about cutting welfare, Obamacare, and how bad Democrats are. They never would have helped someone like Robert Sarvis, who talked a lot about social issues that appeal to liberal voters. As it turned out, polls show that if Sarvis weren't in the race, McAuliffe would probably have won by a slightly bigger margin.

Label Jars, Not People!

True

It really isnt rocket science - why is it so hard for people to understand what you just said?

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

I think Ron Paul knows the Washington insider crowd

far better than Sarvis, they didn't call him Dr NO for nothing.

Sarvis give it a break you worthless Bottom feeder.

Virginia

But does Ron Paul know Sarvis?

Does Ron Paul know Virginia? Virginia he had a 1 v 1 with Mitt Romney and had 1 or 2 token stops the entire campaign....Did he spend any resources in the primary in VA (1 on 1....). Not much.

Paul won

one congressional district in VA despite putting in minimal resources
and effort - you'd think with a bit more effort he could have performed
better than he did there and gained momentum (having done pretty well
in Iowa and New Hampshire already).

One of the many missteps/lapses/screwups that characterized the campaign.

Oregonians fondly remember Benton announcing that Paul was suspending campaigning
the day before the primary there - like they couldn't wait 24 hours?

I'd characterize this cheerleading for Cuccinelli as another misstep - unless the actual
agenda is to suck up to the party establishment...

Sarvis is about as Libertarian as Bob Barr

But still more libertarian

But still more libertarian than Cuccinelli

THIS

is the key here

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Nope, try again.

If abortion, drugs and homos are your only standard for Libertarianism, your statement is true. Sarvis, however, was about as Libertarian as Paul Krugman on economics, so your statement is false. Try again.

“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

No

"If abortion, drugs and homos..."

No, that was the Cuccinelli platform. Sarvis said it shouldn't be a government issue while Cuccinelli has a long history of making it a government issue. Advantage Sarvis

That's exactly who he reminds me of.

Thumbs up.

“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

Okay, Sarvis is officially an idiot.

"The older generation of libertarians – like Ron Paul – were kind of illiberal on things like trade and innovation and, in some cases, drugs," he added. "Younger libertarians are more across-the-board libertarians." (Sarvis)

Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is illiberal on things like trade and innovation? Ron Paul has been one of the biggest defenders of internet freedom at the Federal level and has been the benefactor of one of the most tech. savvy election teams that broke records in online donations. He's never been anything but a consistent free trader. And insofar as drugs goes, Paul has been a consistent opponent of the drug war since he was elected, and got ripped on in 1988 for trying to argue his views on the Morton Downey Jr. show by those crazed "Guardian Angel" guys who were the 80s version of Neo-con storm troopers.

Sarvis, you are not an across-the-board libertarian, you're a moderate Republican reject who has found a perverse fascination with either Keynesianism or Neo-classical economics (not libertarian views) and sound more like a progressive than a libertarian when defending your bizarre priority of liberal social issues over everything else.

If the Libertarian Party has any sense, they will not back this fool again. And this is coming from someone 4 years younger than 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

After watching all the vitriol

I am starting to get motivated to call a few kettles black. So ... I am reading drivel like this:

"Sarvis, you are not an across-the-board libertarian, you're a moderate Republican reject who has found a perverse fascination with either Keynesianism or Neo-classical economics (not libertarian views) and sound more like a progressive than a libertarian when defending your bizarre priority of liberal social issues over everything else."

And contrast that with excerpts of the article linked in the OP such as:

"[Ron Paul] was basically spoon-fed the GOP misinformation campaign," Sarvis said, speculating he was also "investing in the GOP infrastructure for the benefit of his son," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is considering a 2016 presidential campaign."

"He also denies ever endorsing a mileage tax, which some press reports, including an Oct. 31 article in the National Journal, said could require government-installed GPS devices in cars.

"I listed several items that are closer to user-pays than a sales tax [to fund transportation]," Sarvis said. "In the smear campaign that got turned around to me endorsing the mileage tax specifically."

So I am thinking to myself hmmmm .... Ok, I don't know this guy but I keep seeing these same talking points come up in vitriol and I have seen plenty of people rail about the Libertarian Party in the past. I am thinking ... you know, I don't recall anyone doing any railing who keeps mentioning the same talking points providing any sources or context for those assertions. Notably the GPS per mile tax claim and the not a fan of Austrian Economics claim.

But this:

"He also denies ever endorsing a mileage tax, which some press reports, including an Oct. 31 article in the National Journal, said could require government-installed GPS devices in cars.

I listed several items that are closer to user-pays than a sales tax [to fund transportation]," Sarvis said. "In the smear campaign that got turned around to me endorsing the mileage tax specifically."

Well, that is interesting ... listed items closer to "user-pays" than a sales tax which gets turned around to mean an endorsement. Sounds like smearing 101. Happens all the time. I could probably dig up a ton of Ron Paul media clips where people tried to put words in Ron Paul's mouth or misrepresent something he said. It would be like someone saying because Ron Paul is opposed to the drug war he endorses drug use ... huh, wonder where I have heard that before.

I wanted to find out more about this whole Austrian Economics talking point ... low and behold:

http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2013/11/does-robert-...

Turns out this guy is a fan of Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, and Scott Sumner. Also turns out the reason he is a fan of Hayak is not "The Road to Serfdom, Sarvis said he “was more influenced by his 'The Use of Knowledge in Society,'"

Now these talking points I keep seeing repeated have my full attention and before all of this vitriol is all said and done these folks railing better be ponying up some sources and they better hold water in light of all the other things the man has said on the same topic.

I don't have any interest in playing an out of context game with some pissed off a-hole GOP members who lose an election. If someone was trying to take Ron Paul out of context and turn things he said into talking points that misrepresented Ron Paul's positions I would (and have) weigh in.

So let's start putting this vitriol in context to separate any B's from S's ...

Pointless rant is pointless.

If Sarvis is such a poor, hapless victim of vindictive conservative attacks (I identify as a right-leaning libertarian, and that has made me the antichrist in the eyes of some social libertines who went gaga for Sarvis), he should probably do a better job of cleaning up his language when talking about Ron Paul, because the whole "Spoon-Fed" remark indicates that Paul is some kind of intellectual neophyte. Speaking in such a tone with regard to an elder statesman who was fighting the good fight while he was trick or treating, simply because you didn't get his endorsement and he openly criticizes you mulling over new ways to tax people, reveals a childish character that probably shouldn't be in elected office at all.

For the record, I've been registered with the GOP for about 5 years, primarily because you don't get elected dog catcher in my neck of the woods as a Libertarian, though I've never supported a Republican presidential candidate in a general election and maintain a Libertarian ideology. You can call me a liar if it stokes your own sense of "American Majesty", but know that when you say things like "talking points" and "a-hole GOP members" you sound like a cross between a 12 year old and a feeble-minded moron. Just for the record.

Oh, and also, Rush Limbaugh has stated that he is a fan of both Hayek and Adam Smith, so color me unimpressed. Hayek is the preferred brand of Reason Magazine, an outlet known for spreading their own vitriol towards Ron Paul himself (link at the bottom), probably because they like their military interventions like their semi-free market views. Hayek was probably the weakest proponent of liberty in the entire Austrian School, and until I see Sarvis dropping names like Menger, Bastiat, Von Mises and Rothbard, I'm keeping my B's attached to my S's insofar as Sarvis is concerned. You don't like it? Tough rocks sweetie pie!

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over...

“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

I am familiar with

Reason and Ron Paul. I don't read Reason.

I don't even care about Sarvis. I didn't even pay attention to the occasional post about the VA race until the past couple days when several threads appeared making a big deal about the race.

Then there was the Ron Paul video ... who doesn't watch those? So I watched that ...

I already stated what has caught my attention is these past couple days I seen the same talking points over and over again but never any sources for the allegations.

So what does a preliminary search turn up:

Endorsing GPS black boxes ... doesn't seem like an accurate representation of a list of things more akin to user-pays than sales tax.

Keynes reincarnate or worshiper ... probably not a Rothbard, but the whole neo-con Keynes thing doesn't seem to be an accurate representation either.

Campaign funding ... haven't seen a lick of evidence behind this allegation such as any campaign disclosures showing dates, times, amounts, and names. Sarvis mentioned a specific pac the guy people keep mentioning donated to and says it occurs before he ran. It seem to me if Sarvis is lying there would be actual evidence to back those campaign finance allegations up.

All I am interested in is an accurate picture and I am not seeing it from people repeating those same talking points while blaming an entire Libertarian Party for one race in VA with hostile language.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I respect Sarvis for not

I respect Sarvis for not attacking Ron Paul directly.

Ventura 2012

Yeah, but you could tell he was thinking it, that's all I need.

This is coming from someone who has not voted for a Republican of Democratic presidential candidate in a general election since I was old enough to vote in 1998 (it was Browne, Badnarik, Baldwin and Johnson), Sarvis is not being misrepresented, unless he wants to pull a Barack Obama and say that he didn't openly reject Austrian Economics and sound exactly like a typical Neo-con when it came to the issue of taxes and that we were too stupid to understand what he actually meant.

Sarvis basically decided the entire election down there, and may well have helped the Democrats nationally come 2016. The fact that he's running around pretending like he wasn't a factor is an insult to everybody's intelligence. And yes, if he visits this site, I hope he reads and comprehends every word I've just said.

“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 thing

you can read minds. How about putting that talent to work and providing a stock market prediction ...

"Sarvis basically decided the entire election down there"

Hear Ye, Hear Ye. Members of the Libertarian Party are now king makers. I suggest members of the Libertarian Party enact a decree that any GOP candidate who expects to win start kissing more king maker ass! I am sensing a negative tone in your post and it doesn't read like you want to kiss any king maker ass. It reads more like you want to lose another election by pissing off a king maker you have created and wholly recognize.

This Libertarian would tell the GOP

TO go to hell with the rest of the tyrants. I would use force on them like they do us. I would make them get 1000s more signatures to get on the ballot then protest their signatures and get them kicked off the ballot. What I am saying I would act like a Nazi Republican!

*Yawn* your sarcasm is useless and boring.

If you wish to make light of McAuliffe being in control of Virginia because you like Sarvis' inconsequential viewpoints on some wedge issues and believe him when he walks back his views on taxes to deflect legitimate criticisms of things he has said, feel free to do so, but if you're goal is to impress yourself with trite-filled wit, you might want to try on someone else because I'm not impressed.

I'm not into the King-maker thing, I leave that to people with the name "majesty" in their Daily Paul pseudonyms, but I am into being able to control my economic situation, and have a stooge like McAuliffe able to deliver Virginia for tax and spend Marxists is pretty high on my radar, though apparently not yours.

Oh, and I don't play the stock-market because I don't gamble, but if I were I'd put money on you not knowing Reason Magazine's history with Ron Paul and how you going after me for criticizing Sarvis as though I were doing the same to Ron Paul is about the most asinine thing you could possibly say. I've been in the trenches trying to combat the idiotic accusations of racism against this site's namesake just as much as you have, though apparently you've learned very little regarding how to distinguish a Libertarian from a pseudo-Libertarian. My condolences.

“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

I agree with you

and I am not well versed in historical political issues. When Hillary, Bill, and Obama were stumping for Mcaullife, I knew how serious this was. Some prefer to let the liberals win then support a conservative like cuccinelli. That is one of the problems that I think we are going to face in this battle. There are some that are intolerant of social conservatives even though they are going to be needed to beat back socialism. It almost seems as if by design this is happening....