7 votes

Why Ken Cuccinelli Deserved to Lose

I spent the last two weeks handing out literature door to door in Arlington, Virginia and the last few days going to events in southern, central, southwest and far west Virginia for the Sarvis for Governor campaign. I've been to Bedford, Chesterfield, Chesapeake, Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Annandale, Norfolk, Hampton Roads, Harrisonburg, Reston, Winchester and Roanoke.

I've met a lot of Ron Paul supporters who supported Robert Sarvis, who was polling at 8-13%. The polls were all very inconsistent, some showing the Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, at 51%, some at 45%, and the Republican, Ken Cucinelli, anywhere from 39% to 44%. Cuccinelli closed the gap toward the end, when his handlers finally let him take his balls out of the box, awakened by the public outcry against Obamacare as it was implemented. MSNBC's Chuck Todd said given another week of campaigning against Obamacare failure, Cuccinelli might have won; but it is also true that if he had started being aggressive a week or two earlier he might have as well. Rather than own up to this GOP failure, the consultants and the talk radio spinners are blaming the Libertarian.

Libertarian Robert Sarvis got the biggest chunk of his vote, over 40%, from people who said they would otherwise not vote, probably not unlike the kind of vote Ron Paul turned out for primaries and caucuses. This is important to note since in reply to this discussion, Norman Singleton, a longtime staff economist in Ron Paul's Congressional office and a current staffer at Campaign for Liberty, insisted that it is "conventional wisdom" that Libertarians take Republican votes. Warning Bell #1 - a Paul functionary approvingly quoting "conventional wisdom." In one poll, one third of Sarvis voters had Cuccinelli as a second choice and a fifth had McAuliffe as a second choice.

In the last two weeks, a somewhat desperate Cucinelli campaign attacked Sarvis, usually with weird and irrelevant picayune issues: that one of his unpaid staff tweeted a response to a Ron Paul organizer pointing out that she was a devotee of a recherché Beckian conspiracy hypothesis; another Ron Paul organizer posted 6 seconds, not even a full sentence, from a wonky Sarvis answer, onto YouTube, making it seem that Sarvis favors a new tax (Robert Sarvis has three policy papers on the Mercatus Center website calling for less spending and less regulation); others charge that Sarvis is not really a libertarian because he said he studied all schools of economic thought, not just Paul approved Austrian economics; or just the general cry that Sarvis is a spoiler causing McAuliffe to win. On this last point the Cucinelli Paulistas were so desperate to get another 2% for Ken from the Sarvis vote that they ignore the evidence that if Sarvis weren't there some of his voters would also increase McAuliffe's total. In the end, the Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. He spent almost 45 times what they did. But he got less than 7 times their vote. And he didn't have to first spend his money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

So apparently Republican candidates aren't cost effective.

On the last day of the campaign Glenn Beck's website The Blaze reports that an Obama supporting high tech donor gave money to a PAC that gave to the Sarvis ballot drive, and every conservative chattering monkey from Hannity and Chris Plante on down has called this a dirty trick and said Sarvis is created by the Democrats to hurt the GOP. Even though the Virginia Libertarian Party always gets on the ballot, including for gubernatorial races, with or without a donation from a Democrat. And even though the biggest independent expenditure for Sarvis was from the all libertarian Purple PAC, $300,000 for radio and TV ads in the last two weeks of the campaign (and overlooking that Sarvis gave his own campaign twice as much as this Obama affiliated donor). As one Paul organizer said of why she is supporting Cuccinelli, "personnel is policy." She's right. Ken Cuccinelli deserves to lose; the GOP infrastructure supporting him is shot through and through with liars and smear merchants. Note well by the way all the conservative media outlets, The Blaze, Breitbart, and DC's WMAL that spread last minute questions for and charges against Sarvis never interviewed him earlier or had him on their air. And their friends kept him out of the debates where these issues might have been aired. Should such a Nixonian GOP be rewarded with victories?

As to Rand and Ron Paul, it's funny that Paulistas assume that they know how voters will vote, and how they will vote given their changing expectations about the outcome. Their own Austrian economics says they don't and that their attacks on Sarvis represent, as their hero FA Hayek entitled two of his books, "a fatal conceit," and "a pretense of knowledge." Surely some voters change their vote, giving it to or taking it from an independent candidate, depending on who they think is winning. The Paulistas assume that votes are static and a zero sum game, in direct contradiction to their Austrian economics, which would instead suggest that competition and markets are dynamic and a discovery process, where a new "firm" or a new "product" like the Sarvis campaign, actually increases the size of the market and the number of market participants, and where these new entrants as well as everyone else discover what they want to "buy" during the process of the campaign, not before entering it. But the Paul's assume they possess this knowledge, and that they can centrally plan the liberty movement. Norm Singleton has told me that my use of the phrase "central planning" is a smear on the Paul's. But the problems of central planning related to decentralized information are known to apply to large firms in a market economy, which may be so big that their internal operations, no longer run by prices, become dysfunctional. And since Paulistas encouraged us to get behind the GOP, now once again shown to be unpopular, shot through with liars, and a flailing failure (unwilling to really fight, until the very end of their campaign, when it was too late), it looks like this is a case of dysfunction. This hubris led them to waste a lot of time attacking, and even lying about, Sarvis, instead of competing for votes with McAuliffe. Including ironically charges that Sarvis is not sufficiently Austrian (is Ken?) or is too moderate and wonky and doesn't oppose taxes (didn't Ken Cuccinelli's administration and governor just raise taxes?)

Now the Pauls no doubt have good reasons to support Ken Cuccinelli. He quashed a move to change the election rules during the Virginia primaries last year, when only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul did the onerous work to make it onto the Virginia ballot and Newt Gingrich and other slackers asked for special favors to be put on without collecting signatures and doing the work. (That is, all the other Republicans in that primary were kept off the ballot by the same restrictive ballot access laws the Libertarians face every election, which is why Robert Sarvis aimed for 10%, to get the Libertarians permanent ballot status and free them from annual petition gathering, by complying with the Republican co-authored ballot access law which requires them to get 10%.) This "favor" (of obeying the Virginia law) that Cuccinelli did Ron Paul must be repaid. And presumably a Governor Cuccinelli would have been helpful to a 2016 Rand Paul presidential effort.

The Paul's and their groups, like Campaign for Liberty, have decided that they must centrally plan the liberty movement. They know best, and like Obama or some other statist, they want to collectivize our eggs and invest them all in one basket, the GOP. As anyone who knows me knows, I am only supportive of Paulian efforts, from Rand's anti-NSA petitions, to C4L kids protesting Syria, to recruiting candidates like Thomas Massie and Justin Amash. And I would support any William Proxmire or Eugene McCarthy type Democrats who try to liberate Democrats from the Borg that controls them, should these extinct species reappear. And the Paul's and others are free to PERSUADE us that their strategy is the best, or even only, one. But when they start lying and spinning, though it is not coercion, it is akin to the demand of the central planner that they know best and we must invest all in their 5 year plan, even if we think it may fail.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I concur.


it is what it is...

im sure he learned his lesson.

Oh well, all else aside, have

Oh well, all else aside, have fun with your Democrat governor!

Is that another tired implication that not voting for the 2nd

place loser is really a vote for the winner?


It's good old fashioned reality. You guys have the worst possible outcome and you're congratulating yourself for it. Be happy, and maybe next time Sarvis will get 8%.

“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

Voting for Cuccinelli doesn't do any good either.

Your delusional if you believe otherwise.

Just like voting for Romney was any better than Obama - at least where it really counts.

Notice, Obama continued every piece of egregious nonsense Bush started.(and him the same with Clinton's nonsense.)

Obama's Republican successor will NOT repeal Obamacare, or anything else.

You're in dream land if you really believe otherwise.

I'll even wager if that successor is Rand Paul himself, he won't repeal it. (at least not the meat and potatoes of it, he'll probably re-package it and put lipstick on it though)

There may be fun to be had

Investigating and then indicting him. But the Virginia GOP may not have the balls.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


It's all fun in games until you feel the pain.

I just got a notice that my health insurance premiums are going up 34% next month and the Dems. are basically calling McAuliffe's victory a validation of Obamacare. You might think it's funny, I don't.

“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

Lets set the Record Straight!

Cuccinelli and Sarvis lost nothing. They were both would-be public servants for and of the people trying to restore their Republic form of Government. Neither candidate lost anything by NOT getting elected.

Because neither Candidate showed any form of maturity to focus on the 'BETTER GOOD', the Communistic Democratic Candidate won his non-winnable election.

Therefor the ONLY LOSERS were the GOOD PEOPLE of the Republic of Virginia.

Shame on both repugnant political candidates for wasting everyone's time and energy. And even more shame on those who cast votes for the absolute undeniable candidate who had NO CHANCE of winning what-so-ever.

Because WE ARE OUR OWN WORST ENEMY, we've become a joke to those trying to stop us, .. and all because too many of us are ignorant independent FOOLS.

www.SpiderWebbs.com (Take Your Bookmarks Wherever You Go!)

This "chance of winning" crap has to stop.

It is THAT thinking that got us into this two-headed one-party state.

If you can't see that, you are destined to waste your vote over and over.

Voting for the 2nd place loser just in a failed attempt to prevent the winner doesn't EVER produce a good candidate, or a winner.

It ALWAYS results in a crappy candidate getting elected and driving off all the good ones. The letter next to the candidate name is now irrelevant because of this asinine illogical strategy.

You're almost right, and if Cuccinelli fell into that camp,

you'd be right. But he's not, and was worth supporting as evidenced by both the Paul's endorsements.

For most, their endorsements were good enough, but for u it's obvious it was NOT.

So my only question to u is this; "Ron Paul I know, and Rand Paul i know, ..but who are you? ..and why should I consider your opinion over either of there's?

www.SpiderWebbs.com (Take Your Bookmarks Wherever You Go!)

As I noted before, I'm not in Virginia, so I didn't vote in that


Maybe if I was, I would know more about all of it, and would have voted for Cuccinelli.

But I will never vote for someone simply because they get an endorsement from someone else I support, even Ron Paul.

I will make that decision on independent factors, just like I did for Paul himself.

recherché Beckian conspiracy?

Okay, either you are all WAY TOO informed on fringe conspiracy theories OR... more likely... you feel your status at the DP will be threatened if you admit that you have no idea what a recherché Beckian conspiracy is.

Personally, I googled it and found nothing in the first page. WTPh is it?

Yea yea, if you can't imagine it it must not exist

A very prominent and once respected Paul activist in Virginia and a Sarvis volunteer staffer got into a twitter spat about Agenda 21, and THEN the Paul forces smearing Sarvis demanded that he spend his time addressing this and talking about it, and attacked him about it for days.

I suggested that if they wanted to make it so important we in the LP will just tell journalists to ask Ken, or Ron and Rand, about their position on this central Virginia and 2016 election issue.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor



D and C SP post #2; NOV 10, 2013.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Terry McAuliffe deserved to lose

He has a good chance not to serve out his term any way. He has indictments on the way, including ripping off old people with insurance (Rhode Island) fraud, he had his own tax payer funded fraud involving a so called Green Tech car (non) company, with the FCC that I know of so far and of course he was the bagman for the Clintons.


He deserved to lose too. Though his party at least fully funded him, and he didn't make as many stupid mistakes, so that he would have to whine and blame Sarvis.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


I don't vote Libertarian

I vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

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

Excellent, Excellent

Thank you for this essay.

Every other line was worth boldfacing: the fact that Libertarians face ballot access obstacles exceding those of the dominant parties EVERY TIME, for example. (Not to mention the loss to voters when they fail.)

It's time the incumbents who write these laws realize that they don't own the votes.

As we know, it is hard work to run for office, and Sarvis has a young family, so it's quite a sacrifice. I hate to think what the cost is to the children, having their father lied about and blamed.

It's hard to compete fairly when the other teams play dirty. Voters need to step up and referee.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

His kids

Are 2 and 3, so this time around I don't think they noticed. And they may have enjoyed the last few days of the campaign, where they travelled with him.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


Free to persuade Us?

Who is this us that you speak of?

Or are you just offering your individual opinion?

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

No I am speaking for the

Eternal eide.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


so why was Obama SupporterJoe Liemandt throwing money at Sarvis?

I didn't see a specific answer to this in your post.

Does he really like and support him? If so think that brings some questions with it.

OR was he just hoping to just lift competitor to Cuccinelli?

Also I didn't see addressed Sarvis' promotion of a mileage tax. I believe that was specifically why Ron Paul mentioned he was not a true libertarian.

Can you address these?

I don't know enough about the individuals to have a clear opinion but I will agree that there were definitely some questions raised in my mind about Sarvis after reading what what Ron Paul said and about getting support from the Obama team.

If Dick Cheney donated to your fictional campaign under the LP

banner, would you return the money?

Or USE his money to advance your own message?

It doesn't matter why the guy donated. The fool was parted with his money, so use it and advance the LP.

Remember, the LP draws from both and from independents. There is no real net benefit to either the GOP or DNC supporting the LP. IF they are dumb enough to keep this up from either direction, the LP will be in danger of gaining the exposure they need to be perceived as legitimate.


1. I'm no expert on Sarvis, but why would you trust the opposition's description of his position? It's the voter's job to do the research.

2. There's no question that a fee for a service is a dandy way to pay for things. Charging a fee based on mileage makes way more sense than charging income or property ownership. Basically, the gas tax used to be that method of collecting a fee--back when it could only be spent on roads and before electric and hybrid cars. Clearly one would not want to add the fee without ending the gas tax, first.

Silly to argue over ONE thing, when it is way more important to judge the candidates' overall principles and character.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

While I am not a mileage tax

While I am not a mileage tax fan, when did THAT become the litmus test for libertarianism!?

Paul was phoning in a favor from Rand, which party big-wigs asked him to do. It had little to do with ideology.

Can you provide a quote...

...where Sarvis said he believed whatever form of road financing he thinks better should be done by a mandatory government owned road system?

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


Address 3%?

Address the fact that a high tech millionaire, a group that always gives more to Dems and Libertarians than to the GOP, gave a PAC money that then gave $11,000 of it to Sarvis, for less than 3% of his budget.

The PAC is run by a long time Libertarian, Wes Benedict. The millionaire had given to Libertarians before.

Don't you think the fact that the RNC didn't give Ken money, so McAuliffe spent twice as much as he did, might be a bigger issue?

Who do you think is spreading anti-Sarvis smears so you won't notice that?

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor


On the other hand

I, personally, think that the endorsement by Ron Paul was, in fact, made because he knew that the theocratic portion, of Cuccinelli's platform, would never gain enough support to pass any of his theocratic bs, if he had won the seat. The first amendment was obviously very important to the founding fathers, and still should be important to us, today. I don't need anyone telling me how to believe, as I don't need to tell anyone else, (as they do in the middle east), how they should. We don't need a theocracy. But I did not foresee the stances of Mr Cuccinelli doing so. Ron Paul does not support abortion, either.

Dr Paul pointed out that Mr Cuccinelli did support limited government and was fiscally responsible. Unlike the presidential election, voting Libertarian resulted in losing a person, who Dr Paul felt was worth supporting. Third parties are going to remain spoilers as long as the two party system can suppress, through the elitist establishment behaviors.

What we needed was a liberal spoiler, too!

And now every time Ron Paul endorses a candidate

...people will dredge up not only the newsletters and any other stain or smear on Ron Paul, but that he is so "libertarian" he endorsed the vaginal ultrasound mandating, anti-oral sex prohibiting candidate, INSTEAD of a Libertarian, just so he could get his son in better with the GOP. Maybe those charges are all unfair, but they will be used to neutralize Ron Paul's endorsements.

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor