Libertarian Candidate for Virginia Governor Rob Sarvis
Let’s face it. Rob Sarvis is a spoiler for Ken Cuccinelli. He will not win, nor will his campaign do anything to establish a permanently viable third party in Virginia. Unless those inclined to vote for him come to their senses, the only practical accomplishment Sarvis will have will be to elect Terry McAuliffe.
It doesn’t have to be this way. I’ll be the first to admit that the GOP has done precious little in recent years to live up to its stated principles–principles which are, with a few exceptions, largely in line with mainstream libertarian thought. Sarvis himself is a disillusioned former Republican.
But the right way to fix that isn’t by electing liberal Democrats like Terry McAuliffe. Instead, as my colleague Brian Reynolds noted last week, libertarians should follow the example of Rand Paul and other libertarians who have worked to change the GOP from within. Clearly there is going to be a lot of diversity of opinion within a large political party, but together those who identify with the conservative party (i.e., the GOP) can defeat those who identify with the liberal party. When we’re divided, everyone loses.
So, here are the top three reasons libertarians should vote for Cuccinelli, not Rob Sarvis.
1. SARVIS DRAINS VOTES FROM CUCCINELLI
I’ve heard from some Sarvis supporters that Sarvis draws votes from across the political spectrum, and I’m sure that’s right. But what is more accurate to say is that Sarvis draws overwhelmingly from those people who are focused on limited government, individual liberty, and adherence to the Constitution.
This sense is borne out in recent polling. As visible in the snapshot below of poll averages from the Huffington Post, the gains made by Sarvis have a direct negative correlation with Cuccinelli’s poll numbers.
Cuccinelli Loses Support As Sarvis Gains (Click to Enlarge)
We know from past experiences that third party pre-election poll numbers always overstate support, as most voters ultimately decide in the voting booth not to waste their vote on a candidate who will lose. But still, this kind of a draw away from Cuccinelli’s core support could be very damaging. Which leads to reason number 2.
2. THE BUCKLEY RULE FOR LIBERTARIANS
William F. Buckley once famously said his rule in deciding for whom he should cast his vote was to vote for the most rightward viable candidate, the most conservative candidate who could win. I propose the Buckley Rule For Libertarians: vote in the general election for the most libertarian candidate who has a snowball’s chance of winning. After the election, work within the major parties to move their policies and focuses to become more in line with libertarian thinking, but at the voting booth don’t sacrifice your vote on the altar of ideological purity.
Ken Cuccinelli is the most libertarian candidate with a chance of winning. To be sure, there are some issues that some libertarians disagree with him on (e.g., marriage), but let’s not forget this is the man who was the first state-level plaintiff in federal court against Obamacare. He’s the guy who has a record of fighting against federal overreach, be it via HHS or EPA. He’s a conservative crime fighter who recognizes that our system puts too many people in jail for too long. He’s made a career out of seeking more limited government, and greater individual liberty. Is he the Italian-American Ron Paul? No, but he most certainly is the most libertarian-leaning major party candidate we’ve ever had in Virginia.
3. MCAULIFFE IS AWFUL
I won’t waste too much time on this one. I assume for a libertarian/conservative audience I needn’t do much to convince you that Terry McAuliffe is just about the American antithesis of the ideal libertarian candidate. But here’s another angle you may not have considered.
Partners in Taking Virginia
So, in addition to being a partner of the Obama administration in overbearing environmental and economic regulations, including the expansion and entrenchment of Obamacare, a victory for McAuliffe means a tougher road to the White House for libertarian favorite Rand Paul.
Don’t waste your vote in protest.
56 comments
No one seems to understand the main point here. McA is going to win. I don’t care if every Libertarian in Virginia and the surrounding states could somehow vote for Cucc he would still lose. This is a very high profile election being fought in DC’s backyard and the people that run this country, Dems, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, New Worlders, whatever you wish to call them, are NOT going to lose this election. Period . End of story. They will sqeak by in an “historic close election.”
Do any of you actually believe that an unknown street agitator won the Presidency of the US in an honest fashion? Do you really think they are going to allow the Repubs to win this? It simply isn’t going to happen.
If you are a true Libertarian you will support your candidate. If you are a true Libertarian then you know that the Republican party, albeit a smidge less corrupt, than the Dems is still an evil party. If you vote for the lesser of two evils… Perhaps a tired old saw but STILL TRUE none the less.
For all of you who are enamored with the Paul Family please remember they are Republicans. Got it? They are Republicans, not Libertarians. Of course Rand Paul is asking Libertarians to vote for his party.
Here’s my take on this election. If you are a Libertarian then vote Libertarian. If you are a Democrat or Republican then you too should vote Libertarian.
Wait a minute, Steve, it’s not just about marriage that libertarians disagree with KC on. That’s not a litmus test for me anyway, and if he crossed some minimum threshhold of support for equality before the law for gays and lesbians, I’d consider voting for him. But he doesn’t get anywhere close to that. Anyone who opposes an act as benign as prohibiting the state from discriminating against its own employees on the basis of sexual orientation is not worthy of support. He is an unreconstructed theocrat who deserves repudiation for that. You clearly don’t think that’s a big deal since you’re not on the receiving end of his bigotry, but it’s time you and other younger Republicans get your ticket punched on the issue of gay rights if you’re going to be relevant.
Dlampo: I hear you loud and clear, and agree with your underlying point 100%. We’re getting there. I can understand the sense of frustration that it’s not fast enough.
On your particular points, I disagree with the theocrat assertion, as to agree with that would be to accept the corollary that the U.S. has been a theocratic country since its Founding. Is Ken religious? Of course. Does the way he votes line up with his religious views? Yes, but it also happens to line up with where mainstream American culture has been for its entire history. The definition of mainstream is changing, to be sure.
In terms of religious views influencing policy positions, for a religious person to not be a theocrat under this logic you’d have to reach the conclusion that any religious views (or is it just “certain” religious views?) are disqualifying of public officials unless those officials vote opposite of the way they believe. I know that’s not what you mean. One can disagree with a person’s religious views without it meaning that the corresponding political views are somehow illegitimate.
Finally, when an AG delivers an opinion on a constitutional question, he is supposed to opine on the law the way it is, not the way anyone (himself included) wishes it to be. I believe that’s all Cuccinelli did with respect to your assertion on state discrimination. Reasonable people may differ, but I don’t think there’s any solid jurisprudence upon which to challenge the AG’s findings. He’s not a court, so he doesn’t get to write the case law, only provide an opinion on it.
Steve, Thanks for responding, but here’s why you’re wrong. Theocracy means making government policy based on “biblical principles,” something many social conservatives explicitly advocate, and I don’t think KC would disagree. If one says “I believe sodomy is immoral” and then votes to outlaw it for that reason, that is wrong, regardless of how how long it’s been going on. That may have been where mainstream American culture was, but it is no longer. The point is, a libertarian sets aside his views on personal morality and religion and makes liberty the foremost political value, the one that guides his policymaking. A theocrat, on the other hand, puts his personal religious views first, and to hell with personal autonomy. I do indeed think the latter is illegitimate, at least if one believes in freedom. You say the mainstream is changing, and you’re right. But KC isn’t changing with it. Finally, I understand KC’s reasoning when he issued his opinion on state employment discrimination. But he could have easily said that he as AG believes such discrimination should be illegal and urged the G.A. to pass such a bill. He did not, of course, and he has never stated as a candidate such discrimination is wrong or proposed a remedy. Because he doesn’t believe that it is wrong. Like so many conservatives, he believes it’s ok for the government to promote and subsidize religious values he agrees with and to inhibit others he dislikes. Why would any libertarian vote for that? Only by defeating candidates like KC can his fellow Republicans and libertarian sympathizers make the party align with that changing mainstream you referred to. There are far worse things than another Dem. governor along with a Rep. House of Delegates.
Like I said the other day, anti-Sarvis articles like these can be counterproductive because it encourages diehard Sarvis supporters to make sure that Ken loses, even at the expense of letting McAuliffe win… and it looks like they’re well represented in the comments section. let’s hope and pray that cooler heads will prevail this time around.
Jeff, I don’t regard this as an anti-Sarvis post. I regard it as a pro-liberty post. Sarvis shares at least 80% of my beliefs, and I believe he is a good man advancing good principles. But to be effective in that effort, we must be part of a majority coalition until we can carry the majority ourselves. Otherwise the decline into pure statism is accelerated that much more.
How can you claim this is a “pro-liberty” post when you are supporting a candidate that wants to enforce sodomy laws, and who would deny a woman the right to control her own body? Ken Cuccinelli is less libertarian than the Democrat candidate on the social issues, so it makes perfect sense for a pro-freedom voter to vote for Rob Sarvis, Libertarian for Governor.
“Small and big “L” libertarians need to know Republicans and
“Conservatives” must and will attempt to co-op the libertarian mantel.
They need to re-brand the disorganized GOP so why not swipe
“libertarian” since polls show voters getting comfortable with its
essential message. Of course, they don’t actually become libertarians
or assimilate the principles. That would mean adherence to the
Constitution, Natural Law, Bill of Rights, Liberty, free markets,
economic sanity, human dignity, eschewing aggression, imperialism and
flipping the bird to the Military-Media Complex.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/brian-wilson/beware-conservative-republicans/
For the longest time I agreed with this perspective, especially during our last presidential election. However, the problem with choosing the lesser of the two evils is the fact that we are still choosing evil. va5thvoter is absolutely right, the GOP and the DNC are not as different as they once used to be, and the libertarian party will never gain any political traction so long as we don’t try our best to vote in those candidates that best represent our political perspective. This is not a thing about protest voting, this is just as much of a reason to vote for Sarvis as any other candidate. This is the very foundation of our political system. You want a Libertarian to vote for a GOP candidate? Have a GOP candidate that represents the Libertarian perspective. The idea that Libertarians are anti-government is not accurate, the Libertarians have a huge umbrella that contains many ideas as to how to govern. The common point though is that the government should not get in the way of anything as long as it does not take away the ability of any individual person to conduct his/her life the way that he/she chooses. From marriage, to drug use, to abortion, these are all things should be left up to the individual, not to be decided by the government. “Liberty or Death” remember that? that is what we have left a long time ago during our public discourse and it is time that we return to that ideal.
What a bunch of bull. Same tired argument we hear in every election. Your candidate can’t win, so don’t vote for him, which will insure he can’t win! Voting for duopoly candidates has only gotten us a sick country that is falling apart at the seems. Vote for true freedom and liberty which is what Sarvis runs on. Don’t half ass it by voting for yet another statist in libertarian clothing.
I really don’t get the mentality of third party people. They seem to have this idea you can work outside the system and win. When in the long history of this country has that happened? Few to almost never has a third party candidate made a difference, nowadays all they do is make the republican lose in races often(who more then often is conservative and aleast would be tolerable over the liberal choice). And shame on the people here that want cuccinelli to lose just to make a point, you’d sacrifice Virginia and turn it into a crap-hole, just so for a few seconds you can make a point? What in the heck logic is that? Probably the same people who voted for Johnson in 2012 and gave America Obama again. ..Thanks again for ruining the country again to all you stubborn dicks that contributed to that!
I’m a proud libertarian-conservative fyi. I just simply get third party doesn’t work. It just gets progressives elected, that’s pretty well it.
Great theory until one sits down with the voting record of these leftovers and discovers almost all R officeholders act like progressives also.
A look at the socialist/progressive goals of the late 1890’s to 1920’s is instructive. Basically all current R’s and D’s have co-opted the “progressive” ideology. McCain and Romney are prominent examples.
Voting R wins me nothing.
Nothing? Really? You are willfully blind.
If you really cared about your principles instead of aural masturbation you’d find the most effective way to support those principles. (Clue: it isn’t Bob Sarvis). You should be doing wht rand paul is doing and taking over the republican party. You can insist on 100% agreement and lose, or you can get in the game and advance your principles.
I don’t insist on 100%. I can get about 30% of my agenda with Cuccinelli. I can also get about 30% of my agenda with McA.
Like I said, I win nothing with either. I don’t consider a “net negative” to be a “win”, for the same reason I wouldn’t say losing $70 on a $100 bet was a “win”. My wallet would still be 70% lighter.
Voting for either one still leaves me giving up on 70% of my agenda. Either candidate will give me more intrusive government.
If your aim is to convince anyone to vote for Cuccinelli, why don’t you just slap yourself instead? That would be a lot more convincing than making stupid and insulting statements like “aural masturbation”.
Or was that just your way of admitting that your logic and reason are insufficient?
You’re dishonest if you say that one of these major party candidates isn’t closer to your principles. But you have to do that to justify to yourself that you’re not actually damaging liberty by helping to elect cryptocommie Mcauliffe.
I’ll leave the self-slapping to you as you seem pretty good at it. Lots of vigorous and sloppy activity while lost in a fantasy about LP victory, but in the end you’ve achieved nothing but self satisfaction.
Exactly Ronnie. Rand Paul is a prime example of a guy that who played the system smartly.. Fact of the matter is, for the better good or bad we have a two-party system. Goes all the way back to the first election in this country. People need to stop this fantasizing romanticism that their going to beat the system. They are not, if a few hundred years of political change couldn’t do it(even after a civil war) your not going to do it nowadays. The sooner people come to terms with that, the better we will be off, and if you want to make a difference, take over a political party(which the republican party is pretty now) don’t and try to be a revolutionary wannabe. It wont happen. In the end you will only lose and so will your movement if the reality of the situation doesn’t occur.
The System doesn’t work! But hey, let’s keep using it anyway. Great logic there.
“The sooner people realize we should just keep using this broken system, the better!” Bzzt! Wrong. The sooner people realize that the two party system is broken, the better.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. Even if it’s not in our lifetime, one day this country will finally not have a broken two party system. And I want to play a part in helping to legitimize that. Because it’s going to happen. And if it kills the Republican party along with it, fine by me. They’ve been just as bad as liberals lately, and the differences between the two parties have been minimal.
Your scare tactics (the only tactics you can use, because your candidate is a big DUD, and you’ve chosen a losing horse for Lt. Governor. And there are NO names for 2016 Presidential election yet either) are losing their effect.
The Republican party has no ‘Obama’ of it’s own to revitalize the party. They only have religious fanatics, and people who are about as fiscally conservative as Bill Clinton. .
Hey Cecelia all posts seemed to have exactly 4 dislikes. Someone seems to have gone through each one of them and given the same out of dislikes. Any idea who? Please don’t pay that game
No Ace you are a Republican. If you were what you say you are you’d be voting for the fine candidate that the Libertarian Party is running. FYI it is you who simply doesn’t get it.
1860
1860? A republican one that year. What are you talking about?
1860? A republican won that year, what are you talking about?
Exactly, who were the original two parties? You asked “When in the long history of this country has that happened?” in context of a third party. Republicans won in 1860, which at the time was a third party.
William They were not a third party. The republican party was one of the two parties since the 1850s. Check your facts
How long has America, been around? I repeat you asked When in the long history of this country has that happened?”. You can’t just ignore part of the history to suit your goals. The orginal two parties where the Democratic Republicans (which is today’s Democrats) and The Whigs, which imploded around the time of the Republican victory. Republicans were originally a third party, so I assert that a third party can win and has in the past. You are the one who needs to check their facts.
By 1860 the republican party was NOT a third party. 1856 was the first election it appeared and it was as a major party(after the whigs fell off). They were pretty instantly a major party. So your constant third party assertion isn’t going to work, particularly in what your trying to draw out of it in your case. You’re trying to suggest the libertarian party will become a major party. Based on what after how many decades? Who will bring it to that point? Gary Johnson? Who lost by alot in 2012? The republican party has Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash and Darrell Issa. They are all libertarian leaning and have established themselves in the GOP not outside it. It’s too late. You can twist and argue what you like but that is the facts of the matter.
The Libertarian Party is very likely to become a major party. We’re taking from both parties, more and more everyday as people become disenfranchised with duopoly that has destroyed our country. The Libertarian Party will win in the same way the Republican Party originally did, whom took the free soil democrats and former Whigs. And if the Republican party keeps putting up poor candidates like Romney, and Cuccinelli they are pretty likely to go the way of the Whigs.
Also Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not libertarians, except when it comes to economic policies. Justin Amash sounds like he possibly might be the real deal, but I’ve not extensively researched him. And this is the first time I’ve heard of Darrel Issa.
It appears the Clinton clan and operatives are doing all they can to help McAuliffe, meanwhile the Bush clan and operatives are running Cuccinelli’s campaign into the ground and to keep him from standing for anything anymore.
“nor will his campaign do anything to establish a permanently viable third party in Virginia.”
Sarvis is polling around 10 percent, which would be the minimum needed to help establish the Libertarian party’s credibility in this state by getting them into debates.
And the “establishment of credibility” might go beyond just Virginia, as this is a nationally watched race.
The GOP NEEDS to lose this race. Not because I want Terry in, but because the GOP has lost it’s way and has become corrupted. Ken could easily win this election if he wasn’t so far in left field while still trying to claim he stands for liberty. I take offense to a candidate that claims to stand for personal responsibility and personal liberty yet still believes in locking someone up for a plant or raw milk. An election is about EARNING the people’s votes, not demanding it and then crying when they won’t give it to you. I hosted a sign wave this past weekend for Sarvis, and I lost count of how many people thanked me for enlightening them to a third option because they were sick of the attack ads and BS spewed from Ken and Terry’s campaigns.
Your logic really doesn’t make any sense. Let’s purposely make the guy lose that has aleast who has some potential to a guy that probably has no potential? Why? Furthermore get it in your head Sarvis isn’t going to win(few 3rd party people ever have in this country). All your doing is screwing Virginia to be another liberal craphole. If that’s what you want, if you want to be like a michigan, illnois or california, be my guest and let the liberal win but if not, you will have no one to blame but yourself for the loss of your state.
Get it through your head. Ken Cuccinelli has no chance of winning either! All your doing is screwing Virginia to be another liberal craphole. If that’s what you want, be my guest and vote Cuccinelli. I’ll be happy knowing that I didn’t contribute to another win for a social conservative.
One don’t copy my point just because your too uncreative to come up with one. Your second point made no sense but from what I gather from you, you don’t care what happens to the state so you can make an immature point for a few seconds. You apprently are ok with progressiveism in some sort of way. Me, absoultly not. Cuccinelli isn’t a perfect cannidate but virginia will be far better with him then with the liberal loon.
Go ahead. Support your party’s candidate. But don’t come and tell me not to support mine because yours is going to lose if I don’t vote for yours.
Life in Virginia will be no different under Cuccinelli than it will be under McAuliffe. Bob McDonnell, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine prove that.
When your best argument is “The other guy is terrible!” then you know you’ve chosen a bad candidate. If the Republicans keep choosing guys like Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson, then they deserve to lose.
Give me a break. In my state we went from a liberal nut governor to a conservative one. HUGE difference in everything. Seeing differences is something one chooses to see, apprently you refuse too because you live in this third parties succeed fantasy relm. History isn’t on your side. Dislike my comments all day and it doesn’t change it.
You seem to not realize that at one time the Republican Party was a third party. You seem to think that we started with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. This is not the case. Please learn about History before talking about it. And I can’t dislike your comments because I’m not a member.
Cecelia, read my response to your buddy. Your wrong. Next I’m not a member of this group either so what’s your point? You and that other guy are the only two arguing away on here. Can only figure it’s one of you two, more then likely you.
I’ll go into ideology in a minute. Before I do, there’s something wrong with your math: Look at the chart. Cuccinelli’s line starts at what looks like 38%, while MacA starts at what looks like just under 40%. McA goes up to 45% and Cooch goes to 37%. Given the resistance voters have towards voting 3rd party, I suspect almost all of McA’s increase is likely coming at the expense of Cuccinelli. I have *never* understood voters who change their allegiance between the two major parties, but they do it ALL THE TIME because they *think* they’re voting for one or the other of the evil of two lessers.
But in any case, where is your crystal ball that allows you to read the minds of everyone polled, to support your baseless theory that Cuccinelli voters are abandoning him for Sarvis? Or are you just pulling WAG’s (wild-assed guesses) out of your hat?
Now as to my reasons for voting for Sarvis…
First of all, Ken Cuccinelli does NOT OWN MY VOTE. My vote belongs to me and any suggestion that I will find myself compelled to vote for Cuccinelli if I were not allowed to vote for Sarvis (or write in myself) is idiotic.
As an aside, I was raised a Democrat, and identified myself as one until I became a Libertarian in 1980. I am walking evidence that Democrats become/vote for Libertarians just as Republicans sometimes do. So now you know what to do with your assumptions about Democrats.
Second, ’tilting at windmills’ would be supporting the major parties expecting them to respect individual rights.
Political parties are what their constituents make of them. And too much of the RP’s constituency wants social control over people. Republicans might be OK on gun rights and eminent domain, but most of them would happily have the state shoot-to-kill drug users and gays, and are gung-ho supportive of the military & surveillance state.
Third, Sarvis wasn’t pulled out of some hat at the eleventh hour. The Libertarian Party of Virginia held its convention on April 21. The Republican convention was May 17, fully a month after. If anything, Cuccinelli, not Sarvis, should be thought of as being pulled out of a hat at the 11th hour.
Fourth, Cuccinelli is not a ‘liberty candidate’. He falls off the wagon far too much. With even a cursory look, one can find several issues where Cuccinellis’s votes were anti-liberty.
He voted to increase state control on these issues:
March 6, 2008 HB 12 Payday Lending Restrictions
Feb. 12, 2008 SB 476 Prohibiting Drinking with a Concealed Weapon
April 4, 2007 Sub HB 2750 Capital Murder of a Judge
Jan. 26, 2007 SB 1014 Payday Lending Restrictions
Jan. 23, 2007 Sub SB 1116 Capital Murder of a Judge or Witness (if one believes in liberty, one does not advocate making certain special classes “more protected” than others)
May 23, 2006 HB 5002 2006-2008 Biennium Budget
Jan. 25, 2006 SB 526 Defining Marriage
Cucinelli voted *against* expanding individual liberty on these issues:
Feb. 20, 2007 Sub HB 1778 Traffic Light Cameras
Jan. 29, 2007 SB 920 Requirements For Absentee Voting
Jan. 25, 2007 SJ 307 Voting Rights of Nonviolent Felons
-
And that’s just what I found with a Google search and reading a few of the listed bills.
Drink the Kool-Ade all you want, but Cuccinelli has a lot of issues where he is no friend of individual rights.
What part of the liberty movement actually supports that kind of collectivist leftovers? If the liberty movement supports the things most republicans do then it’s not much of a liberty movement at all.
This article would have more credibility were it not published on a site called “The Bull Elephant”. No hint of bias in that title, at all.
I’ll grant that correlation is not the same as causation. But most libertarians, like yourself, are pretty intelligent. In the absence of a libertarian candidate, they typically would not choose to back the party that is most inimical to their values. I think Occam’s Razor, and the negative correlation of polling averages, suggests pretty strongly Sarvis hurts Cuccinelli and helps McAuliffe.
And you’re right. I’m biased toward the GOP. No big secret there.
There are more and more Libertarians who are ex-Democrats, like myself, who would NEVER vote for a candidate like Cuccinelli. If Sarvis was not running, I would probably vote for McAuliffe because I don’t want Cuccinelli to win. And, as stated above, your math is just wrong and biased.
I did say “most” libertarians are pretty intelligent. Thanks for helping to prove the distinction.
And BTW, merely alleging a math error does not prove it. That requires a type of reasoning absent from the criticism above.
You assume that libertarians only care about economic freedom, but I’m a libertarian that believes in social freedom and staying out of other people’s lives as well as their wallets. The stupid part is you believe you are making the intelligent choice by voting like our elections are a horse race. But your path has only destroyed this country, we are constantly stuck with evil because cowards like you prefer to play the numbers game instead of doing what is right and voting for the BEST person for the job.
“In the absence of a libertarian candidate, they typically would not
choose to back the party that is most inimical to their values.”
These days, the identity of that candidate is usually indicated by the letters “G”, “O”, and “P”. Until the Republicans purge the Talibornagains, they can wander in the political wilderness for all I care.
I hate when people assume I “switched from Ken”……I have never liked the Cooch.
Marc, your argument that Cuccinelli is a late-comer is patently ridiculous. Ken was the only candidate to qualify as a candidate for the Republican nomination, therefore securing it, while Rob was still a Republican. Stop it. It just makes you look silly.
Robert do you *ever* run out of excuses for your candidate?
It was your pal Amanda who said Sarvis was a “ninth hour” candidate, when the fact of the matter is that Sarvis was nominated before Cuccinelli.
You guys want it both ways, and you’re turning yourselves into cartoons in the process. Now you’re splitting hairs over when the RP “knew” Ken was its nominee.
You know what? I could care LESS when the insiders in the RP “knew”. The important thing is when the RP publicly made its choice and announced it to the media, and that’s a matter of public record.
If you insist on rubberizing the truth, how does that convince anyone to believe a word you say?
You want my vote? Get a better candidate.
Throwing a tantrum demanding I give up my ideological preferences to vote for a Republican who is going to lose with or without Sarvis in the race is a waste of your time.
Lol… ‘Excuses’??? We had our candidate way before the convention, and again, Rob was still a Republican at the time. You’re spouting ridiculous hyper technical nonsense ‘we had our convention first!’
Get a better candidate.
Voting means doing research and voting for the best person you think will do the job based on an INTELLIGENT decision. It does not mean voting party lines or voting for the one who will do the less evil. Our current government system has been perverted and is in desperate need of reform. Asking us to vote for someone we don’t believe in to prevent the “other” guy from winning does a disservice to all Americans and proves the point that the current system needs radical change. I think that based on MY research, Robert Sarvis is a much better candidate and my vote will go to him.
Because libertarian ideals do not command majority support, for libertarian executive branch candidates to get elected they must be part of a coalition. In our non-parliamentary system, that means the coalition must be formed WITHIN one of the major parties. Rand Paul and many, many other libertarians understand this, and are making huge inroads in the GOP. Libertarians have reinvigorated our party, and are already shaping policy positions.
Will libertarians and traditional Republicans agree on everything? No, of course not. But preening, self-righteous ideological purity won’t keep you warm in the statist winter of a McAuliffe administration.
Explain to me again — Cuccinelli speaks to my desire for a free society… how?
Then, tell me why anyone who is interested in individual rights can support any of those liberty-robbing votes of his, as I mentioned earlier.
Don’t get me wrong — I could ask a D the same thing about McA.
Someone else here said it. If some R hack wants L votes, then give us a better candidate than these leftovers you always serve up.
As long as people think like that nothing will change. If you want Libertarians to vote for your candidate, you ought to choose someone who will appeal to those voters. Cuccinelli doesn’t do that at all. To me the difference between Cuccinelli and McAulife is negligible. Good ol’ Bob McDonnell shows that the difference in parties doesn’t matter much. Campaign Promises are nothing. Cuccinelli won’t have my vote. Robert Sarvis will. If nothing else because the Republican Party has drifted so far to the right on social issues, and closer to the left on financial ones.
Typical GOP BS. Vote for our guy cause your guy can’t win. Vote for our guy cause our guy can win. Vote for our guy cause the other guy is so much worst. BS BS BS
Cuccinelli is just about as freedom loving and libertarian as McAuliffe. He will NEVER get my vote. All you Cuccinelli fans would do the Commonwealth a favor and vote for Sarvis, then we would have an actual libertarian in the Governor’s office.