In a series of recent public statements, Rob Sarvis has revealed himself to be an ideological sham, and an intellectual mess.
The more we learn about Rob Sarvis, the more we learn that he is essentially an empty vessel for those poll respondents who would rather not express support for either of the two major party candidates. They really only say they support Sarvis because he’s not Terry McAuliffe, and he’s not the conservative caricature portrayed as Ken Cuccinelli in millions of dollars of Democrat TV ads.
How else to explain support for an ostensibly liberty-minded candidate who calls himself a “moderate”? Or who refuses to take a stand on rolling back expansive government? Who instead, as revealed in the interview below with Chuck Todd, actually endorses the expansion of Medicaid in Virginia under Obamacare?
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Seriously…the “libertarian” wants to add 400,000 of his fellow Virginians to the federal teat. But don’t worry…he only favors it after masterminds like himself can work around its margins and institute “reforms.” He talks about tweaks to regulations to increase the number of nurses, and to better manage the autonomy and authority of nurses in the healthcare system. THIS is what the Libertarian Party nominee talks about? Really!?! Instead of tinkering with Leviathan to achieve some utopian ideal, a real libertarian would be trying to put it back in its Constitutional cage where it belongs.
But that’s not the kind of “libertarian” Rob Sarvis is. Does he favor the state claiming less of a citizen’s property? No. He instead favors “prioritizing spending,” which is progressive-speak for making cosmetic changes to allow continued over-taxation. He’s the kind that favors higher taxes, because he tactically refuses to say anything that would put him in line with the Republican Party.
Higher taxes like
increased gas taxes, and instituting a Vehicle Driven Miles tax, where car drivers pay tax on the number of miles they drive. How does this get implemented? By having a GPS black box installed in your car so that the government can track your movements. Yay Liberty! [CORRECTION: Updated to remove reference to higher gas tax. I’ve seen Sarvis characterized as advocating a higher gas tax, but after my friend Ashton Gilmore pointed out that this video contains no such assertion, I have removed that reference.]
Don’t fall for this Libertarian In Name Only sham. Though he’s not perfect, Ken Cuccinelli is the best candidate for liberty. In last week’s gubernatorial debate, Ken Cuccinelli boldly said that he is the most pro-liberty candidate in his lifetime. And it’s true. No other major candidate in memory has acted and advocated on behalf of our Constitutional and Natural Rights like Ken Cuccinelli has.
Ken Cuccinelli is famous nationwide as the earliest and most forceful legal critic of the individual mandate embodied in Obamacare. He was the first Attorney General to challenge the ill-named “Affordable Care Act” in court, and has spoken passionately about the disastrous precedent set by allowing Congress to force individual citizens to enter into a line of commerce.
But it hasn’t stopped there. As Attorney General, Cuccinelli undertook a challenge to another federal overreach in the form of the EPA trying to classify rain water as a pollutant in order to expand their regulatory control over Virginia localities. He’s worked as Attorney General to free wrongly convicted prisoners, and to vindicate the rights of taxpayers. Recognizing injustices associated with the war on drugs, Cuccinelli has expressed openness to revisiting our marijuana laws. As a legislator, Cuccinelli has been among the most forceful champions of the right most dear to all others, the right to life. And he has consistently stood on the side of smaller government, even when it’s unpopular with the chattering classes.
And there is a reason Cuccinelli limited his statement on being the most pro-liberty candidate to just within his lifetime. It wouldn’t be true to say he was the most pro-liberty ever, would it? Folks, we’re voting for someone to occupy the office once held by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. Do we really want some inexperienced clown in that position? No, and liberty advocates don’t want Rob Sarvis there either. Even if you disagree with one or two of his positions, Cuccinelli is the only viable choice for liberty.
Haha wow the republican establishment must be getting desperate, for real. There are so many half truths and outright lies in this I don’t even know where to start. You’re not going to change the minds of anyone who is set on Sarvis, and even if we don’t hit 10% the movement has grown. Still a win. You’re just trying to bring us down with you since Cuccinelli’s campaign has been run into the ground. I guess we should consider it an honor though, because the fact that you’re attacking Sarvis means you’re taking him seriously instead of continuing to ignore him. Tell you what though, you guys put a proper liberty candidate up next time, one that isn’t going to push his intolerant social agenda on us, and I’d be happy to vote for a republican.
Sarvis is a big government progressive who stands no chance nor is he a threat to ANYTHING.
Except maybe GAY PARADES.
Wow! I didn’t want to believe it. But after reading this I know Cuccinelli is going to lose. When you start beating up on the Libertarian that has no money and no name recognition that signals serious desperation. Unfortunately, Ken is going to lose partly due to control freak party bosses who think they are showing strong leadership. The Libertarian plays a role to a lesser extent.
A GPS black box eh? I’m not the brightest man in the world but the simplest answer to me appears to be having your mileage checked when you get your yearly state inspection. Sounds crazy eh?
Now we know why this site is called The BULL Elephant.
There needs to be a four letter word in between bull and elephant. You see how gutter-like Cuccinelli supporters are (like candidate, like supporter). They will do whatever it takes to lose. And lose they shall on election day. Supporting a candidate like Cuccinelli begs the question: “Are you as corrupt as he is?”
“Gutter-like” from the guys throwing around the 8th grade scatalogical insults. Um…OK.
I’m reeling from the high-minded critique.
Because nothing says “pro-liberty” like trying to throw a guy in jail for solicitation of sodomy AFTER the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional and couldn’t be enforced. Cuccinelli’s the best choice this election cycle, but let’s not kid ourselves about his being so terribly pro-liberty. He’s only better than the other guy who could win.
I smell desperation.
If you think these continued personal attacks on Sarvis are going to generate more votes for KC, you are sorely mistaken. The RPV will need every voter it can get in order to rebuild and actually grow (imagine that) after Cuccinelli loses, but this circle the wagons approach you exhibit will have exactly the opposite effect: turn off those voters who should be your primary target for recruitment: independents and libertarians. The RPV will blame everybody but itself for its loss, and the true believers will say Ken lost because he wasn’t conservative enough on social issues. And the party will continue to shrink.
There is nothing about this that’s a personal attack. Did I question his integrity, make up a fake scandal, make false accusations about his ties to someone else, or twist his positions into knots to deceive anyone? No, that’s what people do to KC all the time, though (see, e.g., the tiresome “vagina” comment from Dan Fitzgerald). I’m saying Sarvis’s own statements on policy reveal him to be essentially a big government libertarian, ergo, not really a libertarian at all. Cuccinelli is the one campaigning on shrinking government and the footprint of the state.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve personally made plenty of converts. I know the true-blue LP types won’t change (as they will obsess about Ken “Boogeyman in the Vagina” Cuccinelli’s stance in favor of the unborn), but that’s only a small fraction of the support Sarvis gets.
As I’ve said many times before (and here’s where I agree with Dan F.), the future is libertarian. We just disagree how to get there. I prefer that libertarians act in coalition with the GOP, and move the GOP in their direction. That’s already happening, to great effect. LP diehards, by contrast, don’t give a hoot about the damage resulting from their ideological vanity, and prefer wander in the wilderness rather than do anything practical to protect liberty.
Yes, indeed, calling him an ideological sham, a mess, and an empty vessel I think can qualify as personal attacks. I don’t know the context or reason for his statement about Medicaid, and I could not disagree more with it, but to call him a big government libertarian while calling KC the real libertarian in the race is ridiculous. As a straight, white, male, you clearly care more about economic issues and freedom than other issues. But if one cares about building a broad based libertarian movement (not just a rightwing or conservative movement), then you had better care about more than low taxes and gun rights. KC doesn’t, and I have to question whether or not you do. I absolutely agree the GOP has to be the vessel to bring libertarianism to the mainstream, but I also realize that following the lead of the social conservatives and supporting people like KC will not take us where we need to go. You talk about the vanity of LP diehards, but the 8 or 10 percent of the vote that Sarvis may take goes way beyond that group. And yet instead of reaching out to them and trying to draw them in, you drive them away with attacks and insults, in this and previous posts. You can denigrate the opponents of government intervention into issues lilke abortion, birth control, etc., but they’re the ones, along with supporters of gay rights and social tolerance, who will have the last laugh on election night. More candidates like KC will make the Republicans a permanent minority in Va.
Thanks for the nice negative stereotype, and for assuming things I think based on nothing more than your prejudices.
I don’t think you’re hearing what I’m saying, and that you’re filling in a lot of blanks with what you think a straight white Republican male is “supposed” to think. But that’s OK.
I’m just glad that when I DID in fact make a personal attack (” Do we really want some inexperienced clown in that position?”) you knew who I was talking about.
Steve, my “stereotype” of you simply flows from your reasoning for supporting KC and the priority, or lack of it, you place on social issues. You say the future is libertarian, but we don’t get there by supporting candidates like KC and especially Jackson, people who actively oppose the libertarian principle of live and let live regarding personal freedoms and equality before the law, which are just as important as other pieces of the limited government philosophy (at least to a libertarian). Not once have I seen anything approaching concern or interest in those issues on your part, so it’s not hard filling in the blanks.
Steve, I really used to think you were a smart guy who just got his jollies being intentionally dishonest. But the more I read from you, the more I realize you really are just a stupid, stupid man, who doesn’t know beans about anything. Have fun losing on election day. Your REPUBLICAN candidate IS NOT going to be the next Governor. And you will have NOTHING to show for your vote for him. Not one thing. And in case you were wondering, this IS a personal attack. Just wanted to be clear about that.
I read his website, and it has all the obligatory libtard buzz words.
Kind of ironic you complain about the use of buzz words, isn’t it?
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
The future is libertarianism. Limited government that stays out of our relationships, bank accounts, bedrooms, bathrooms, gardens, child-rearing, education, and doesn’t get us into unnecessary wars. A government that asserts some interest inside of a woman’s vagina isn’t limited. Once you dinosaur Republicans come to understand that and embrace the way the nation is going, we’ll join together in a majority that’ll last as long as you remember it. Until then, I’m donating to, and voting for the candidate that most agrees with me on those things. In this race, that’s Robert Sarvis. McAuliffe wants my money, Cuccinelli wants to run my social life. Better luck with your nominees next cycle, Steve.
With libertarians, it’s more like, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they go back to ignoring you.”
Most modern “libertarians” are libtards in disguise.
Yes, Libertarianism, or, more properly, small-l libertarianism is the future. Problem is, from his position, Sarvis is neither. . .