Archive | Ken Cuccinelli RSS feed for this section

Are Republicans (and Democrats) inferior goods?

12 Nov
You might think an inferior good is something like the lesser of two evils.

It’s actually a piece of basic economics jargon.  An inferior good is a good that people buy less of as they earn higher incomes or accumulate more wealth, unlike a normal good.  For example as people earn more money they usually buy more square footage of housing (as well as buying more in terms of a higher price as they move to better locations and more luxurious construction and finishes) – housing is a normal good.  Vacation homes are a normal good; people buy more of them as they become (or in inflationist economies, believe) that they are wealthier.

Inferior goods are things like second hand mobile homes, or cheap beer, or dented bin items, or merchandise at the dollar store.  Few people buy more of these as they get wealthier.  But they buy more of them as they become poorer.

Now let’s consider what “being wealthier” means to an economist.  Ultimately it means being able to make more and more exchanges so you can trade what you have for more of the things that you want, thereby satisfying more of your desires.  So having more options is having a higher psychic income, just as having a higher monetary income tends to give you more options (since you can buy or rent a wider range of goods and services).

So the question is:  is the conventional two party election a form of poverty?

Having more options on the ballot makes voters wealthier, in that they have more options, even if they continued to choose to buy the same product.  Which is what they would do if the products they had been buying were normal goods.

But apparently the establishment parties and their candidates are not normal goods.  When you end barriers to entry to the political market, either by managing to get past the barrier to entry created by ballot access laws and getting a new party on the ballot, or by raising even a fraction of the money the establishment parties have and doing enough advertising that a small share of the marketplace of voters knows there is another product, people stop buying the product they used to buy and start buying the new product by voting for the new party.  As the recent Virginia gubernatorial race shows, this happens even when the new product (the Libertarian Party) spends $3 per customer on advertising and the old firms outspend it, paying $15-30 per consumer in advertising.

Republicans and Democrats are inferior goods.  People only buy them when they are impoverished in terms of choices and information.

When Ron Paul Lost His Moral Authority

11 Nov
In the wake of Ken Cuccinelli’s squeaker loss Tuesday the interwebs and local Virginia and DC political events are tortured by conflicts between Republicans, Libertarians, and Ron Paul and other libertarian Republicans.

For example, a former staff economist for Ron Paul’s Congressional office, and an executive at Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, not only defriended me on FaceBook, but banned me from the Virginia Campaign for Liberty group, for a tweet I made in reply to Ron Paul and for my posts defending Robert Sarvis against the Paul’s and others. (My posts in the Virginia C4L group and those of other Sarvis supporters were being censored for weeks anyway.)

The tweet that got me banned was in response to Ron Paul’s statement at a Ken Cuccinelli rally where he called all Sarvis supporters “insane,” kind of a nasty and loose and sloppy charge from a medical doctor. (Did he intend to have them committed so they could not vote?)

He apparently thought we should bow to the Pauls because of their contributions. Uh huh. As we all know from Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, lots of great people get a little nutty, abusive and full of themselves in their dotage. My tweet he got hissy about was this: “Ron Paul says voting for Sarvis is insane, which is a subject some would say he is an expert on.” He thought that I was claiming that Ron Paul is insane. 

He doesn’t see it as a claim that Ron Paul’s experience should make him wary of charging that (other) people are insane because they disagree with his position, since that is what happened to him his entire career.  I don’t think anyone in the Paul camp realized that’s what they were saying, because they share the general GOP delusional mentality that not only do libertarian voters belong to them, but that we are their children whom they may abuse.  (And did Dr. Paul never pay attention to his own fans – did he really think calling us names and telling us “No!” would make us follow along?)

Overall I think the Paul supporters behind Cuccinelli, with their propensity to parrot lies, betray exactly this type of (I hope temporary) rashness and lack of subtlety and intelligence.  The Paul’s wanted to centrally plan the liberty movement, and collectivize our libertarian eggs, and put them all in the Cuccinelli basket.  It was a bad investment.   The Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. The GOP spent almost 45 times what the Libertarians did. But they got less than 7 times their vote. And the GOP didn’t have to first spend money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot.  So apparently Republican candidates aren’t cost effective.

The result of Ken Cuccinelli acting as a spoiler to keep the LP from getting ballot status is that now Libertarians will have to concentrate their resources again next time on getting the 10% required by the GOP coauthored ballot access law in the next gubernatorial race and do it all over again.  And Rand Paul doesn’t have have a reliable governor to support his next race.  And Ron Paul has lost his credibility with libertarians.  It’s bad timing for the Paul’s, coming in the same week when Rand Paul faces a second wave of plagiarism charges

This campaign may be a kind of watershed moment, when Ron Paul lost his moral authority and dug a new hole for Rand Paul 2016.

After a week of whining, inflantile, lying conservative Republicans, like The Blaze, Sean Hannity and Chris Plante, I forgot how retarded faux "progressives" are

8 Nov
But they are always there to remind us.

Since a few days before last Tuesday’s election, every conservative blog, every Virginia Republican activist, and every right wing talk show host, has been repeating a truly retarded article in The Blaze that deliberately creates the impression that an Austin Democrat under the direction of the Obama regime totally funded Robert Sarvis Virginia gubernatorial and got him on the ballot.

Here are the facts they omit or misreport:

1) The Virginia Libertarian Party always gets on the ballot, collecting the 10,000 plus valid signatures needed, to comply with the extremely restrictive ballot access laws the Virginia GOP helped write, laws that just last year kept every Republican candidate off the Republican primary ballot except for Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  The LP has run gubernatorial candidates before, recently Bill Redpath of Leesburg.

2) The Blaze claims the $11,000 the Libertarian Booster PAC donated to Sarvis was his biggest campaign donation.  That is simply a lie.  He gave his own campaign $20,000.

3) And the largest expenditure in his campaign wasn’t even by his campaign, but was an independent purchase (see below) by the newly founded, all libertarian Purple PAC, of around $300,000 in radio and TV ads.

The faux “progressives” at the so called Center for “Public Integrity” is clearly shaking in and soiling its panties as much as the GOPsters, as afraid of a Libertarian candidate with some money as they are of a black man with a gun (and you can bet they are for disarming him too!).

Lets do the math for these cretins:

Sarvis got 145,762 votes and had $380,000 spent on his campaign, paying a little over $2.60 a vote.

Cuccinelli got 1,010,929 votes and had $14,230,000 spent on his campaign, paying a little over $14 a vote.

McAuliffe got 1,066,149 votes and had $22,053,041 spent on his campaign, paying just under $21 a vote.

Libertarians declare ‘mission accomplished’ in Virginia — after super PAC help

Robert Sarvis, who earned record 6.5 percent of vote, bolstered by big-dollar groups

By Michael Beckel

22 hours, 39 minutes ago Updated: 7 hours, 0 minutes ago

Two days after Virginia voters narrowly elected Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe over Republican Ken Cuccinelli, Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict declared “mission accomplished.”
If so, a pair of super PACs played an overriding role in the success of Libertarian Robert Sarvis, who garned a sizable 6.5 percent of the vote — the third-highest vote total for a Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in history, in any state.
In the final stretch of the campaign, a pro-Libertarian super PAC called the Purple PAC financed a media blitz, spending roughly $300,000 on TV ads — nearly $100,000 more than Sarvis’ campaign itself raised during the race.
And of the roughly $200,000 raised by Sarvis, the Libertarian Booster PACranked as his largest donor, behind Sarvis himself, at about $11,500, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
Major donors to the Purple PAC include Kentucky horse breeder Richard Masson and billionaire options trader Jeffrey Yass, who sits on the board of the Cato Institute, as the Center for Public Integrity has previously reported.
Meanwhile, the Libertarian Booster PAC, which under Virginia law is allowed to accept unlimited contributions, was started in 2011 by Benedict. It counts Joe Liemandt — the Stanford University dropout who founded and runs the software company Trilogy — as its largest donor this year.
That relationship has earned Sarvis and the PAC ire from the likes of Rush Limbaugh toKarl Rove in recent days.
The reason for their fury: Liemandt and his wife Andra have deep financial ties not only to the Libertarian Party, but also to Democrats including President Barack Obama.
For instance, Andra Liemandt was credited by as bundling $326,000 for Obama’s 2012 re-election efforts, according to documents obtained by the New York Times. Federal Election Commission records show the couple alone donated $156,700 to the Obama Victory Fund, which boosted Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Democratic parties in battleground states like Virginia.
The Liemandts together also donated about $141,000 to the Libertarian National Committee between 2008 and 2012, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of FEC records.
In a press release issued Thursday afternoon. Benedict argued that Sarvis should not be called a spoiler by Republicans.
“My hope with the Robert Sarvis campaign was for the election to be close between the Democrat and Republican, with the Libertarian getting more votes than in previous elections,” said Benedict
“I want Libertarians to win elections,” Benedict continued. “But I also want them to run for office even when they’re unlikely to win. Why? To get the public to discuss and consider libertarian principles.”
Both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli also benefited from spending by independent groups, although not to the same extent as Sarvis. And for his part, McAuliffe raised about $33 million, while Cuccinelli raised $18 million.
Update Nov. 8, 2013, 10:16 a.m.: Purple PAC President Ed Crane — a former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee and founder of the Cato Institute — told the Center for Public Integrity that his group’s extra boost was a “healthy thing” for the Virginian electorate, which got to hear from a candidate with a “socially tolerant agenda” who also favors “lower taxes and less business regulations.”
Like Benedict, he challenged the notion that Sarvis’ campaign was a boon to McAuliffe.
“This idea that libertarians are automatically taking votes away from Republicans is just not true,” he said.
Crane added that if Purple PAC had started earlier and had $5 million at its disposal, instead of a few hundred thousand, Sarvis “could have got a quarter of the vote.”

Why Ken Cuccinelli deserved to lose

7 Nov
Another version of this was published at VA Right.

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.

Why Ken Cuccinelli deserved to lose

7 Nov
Another version of this was published at VA Right.

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.

Is Ron Paul contradicting himself?

24 Oct
Remember last year when all our Ron Paul libertarian friends, including the ones in Virginia now working on the Ken Cuccinelli campaign, complained that the GOP did not let Dr. Paul speak at the convention in Tampa? Will they complain that Libertarian Robert Sarvis is kept out of the debate tonight?

  • N As a Cuccinelli supporter, I do think it’s pretty ridiculous to not let a 3rd party candidate who’s polling as well as Sarvis debate. Not gonna change my mind on voting for Ken, but hey I haven’t liked most of the campaign’s tactics over the last year.

  • K Oct 9th… he needed a 10% poll average. He failed to meet those requirements. He is also NOT libertarian and does NOT have Ron Pauls endorsement.

  • K The latest poll from yesterday had him at 10 now. Rules are rules. They make deadlines because of debate advertisement.

  • J” It certainly bothers me. I recall quite well when the major networks excluded Ron Paul in 2007/08. How can we condemn that behavior then and be okay with this now simply because he isn’t Ron Paul’s choice?

    Yes, and what if the rules stated that anyone with an “R” next to their name couldn’t be included in the debate?  Rules are important, yes, but when they exclude candidates who will be on the ballot, that to me is a problem.

    • ” N  “K” this isn’t an argument we win. The honorable thing for the Cuccinelli Campaign to do would have been to issue a statement saying they think he should be included in the debate.

    • Bruce Majors My understanding is the TV station hosting tonight said they would include him if the other two campaigns agreed to it.

      • Joshua  Yes, I read as much and also that the McAuliffe campaign agreed. Cuccinelli cannot win over Sarvis supporters if they think he is trampling on free speech. I’d be surprised if many Sarvis supporters even watch the debate.

      • John Keith  I understand he has scored higher in other polls.

      • Lendon two PRIVATE parties should not hold our great republic hostage!

      • Richard  It seems to me that the FCC rule for equal time might apply.  Yeah, I know, federal crap, but when you’re drowning I’m not sure it really makes much difference who throws you the life preserver.

      • Chris  Rules are rules…just like the ones that prevented Ron Paul delegates from casting their votes for Dr. Paul at the convention, right? Because the rules are there, we just just blindly follow them, I guess 

The Sarvis/McAulliffe/Cuccinelli Race – Point/Counterpoint

19 Oct
(We may update this as we find other interesting posts on the net…)

Dear Friend — 

This weekend, I had the honor of delivering the Weekly Republican Address, a response to President Obama’s Radio Address to Americans across the country. If you missed my address, you can view it here

Our nation is facing tremendous challenges, and citizens are seeking leaders who are willing to speak out for our first principles and stand up to the federal government, which is eating away at our liberty and crushing opportunity. 
There is no better example of the extreme government overreach than Obamacare. Let me be plain and simple about this: Obamacare takes away our liberty. 
That’s why I stood up to fight it. With less than three weeks left until Virginia’s Election Day, I need you support more than ever. Will you chip in today to help support my fight against Obamacare?
As the next Governor of Virginia, you can be assured that I will never stray from protecting our first principles and our liberty. 
I know that many Americans like you, Friend, are deeply concerned about what kind of country we will hand to our children and grandchildren. That’s why your support during these final days is so important.
I promise that I’ll do my part in Virginia, but I need you to help me.
I know that together we can make America better tomorrow than it is today.
On to Victory,
Ken Cuccinelli
*****************************************************************************************************************************


“A” (a Cuccinelli supporting libertarian Republican))

Vote for Starvis, get Terry elected, way to not win for liberty. 


“This election is about a GOP run by Ken and the grassroots conservatives vs a GOP run by establishment big govt non-conservatives like Bill Boiling”- Chris Doss 

I get it that you guys don’t care about reforming the GOP, but I think Ron Paul cares about reforming the GOP and getting more of our guys on the field is what matters. I think the GOP it is our way to win and gain influence in this broken system we are forced to deal with. You can’t win while spending all your time and energy just trying to just get ballot access. I’d like to echo the notion of a house divided falls. 

Maybe you don’t think Ken is “pure” enough, but nobody ever is, nobody is perfect. 

We have to much at risk, in my opinion, and John I don’t doubt your commitment to liberty but supporting the LP this time is just not a smart political tactic.

Does anyone care that Ken has multiple COMMITTED Ron Paul supporters on his staff? Driving him around for the past year none the less? Spending more time with him than even his wife? Personnel is policy folks. Change doesn’t happen overnight. 
****************************************************************************
“R” (a non-libertarian gay DC voter)

I was interested to note, by the way, that a Politico poll —
shows that McAuliffe’s margin actually goes up slightly in a hypothetical two-man race against Cuccinelli. So Sarvis is not serving as a spoiler. A friend of mine said it is a pity that Cuccinelli (whose name, according to Dan Savage, sounds like vagina-shaped pasta) is so extreme, because he would like a better alternative to the soulless hack carrying the banner for the Democrats. Of course Sarvis does offer an alternative; whether he is better depends on one’s beliefs on the proper role and boundaries of government, and perhaps also on one’s assessment of character as it affects performance of one’s public duties.
Given the forces pulling apart the GOP from within, there will likely be more third alternatives as we go along. The question is how well organized they will be, and whether they can appeal to a broader slice of the electorate. I have long found libertarian ideas useful in raising a question that D.C.’s local legislators seldom even consider: whether it is the government’s proper business to boss its citizens on a particular matter. The idea of boundaries is as foreign a concept on the left as on the right. This is too important for it to remain the province of snarky blogging and fringe candidates.
*******************************************************************************************
“A” – a Cuccinelli supporting libertarian Republican

Just now, I received great news.

I’m thrilled to have the support of Congressman Ron Paul. A true warrior in defense of our liberty and first principles. Thank you, Ron for all you have done for our country.

I welcome and encourage you to read Congressman Paul’s endorsement by clicking here or visiting:http://www.cuccinelli.com/ronpaulendorsement/.

Ken Cuccinelli

****************************************************************************************
“D” – a Libertarian for Sarvis

Still voting for Sarvis. All due respect to Dr. Paul – and he deserves a LOT – but I’m on the other side of the culture wars from Cuccinelli. A government that asserts that it has any business inside vaginas, bedrooms, or in regulating sacraments – like marriage – is an unlimited government.

*********************************************************************************
“J” – an undecided libertarian voter

Ken’s fiscal platform doesn’t even advocate the rollback of the biggest tax hike in all VA history, he refused to take the “no tax hike” pledge, he has pledged to not fight the tax hike / transportation plan, all in order to get some money from Richmond lobbyists and NoVA rent-seekers.  He doesn’t believe in constitutional carry, and had to be coached in order to get a passable grade from VCDL.

 So what do newly-minted inside the beltway libertarian activists do with what they learned in “real nature of politics” when “their guy” starts turning on them?  Of course they chuck that political wisdom faster than you can say “access-based”.  Sure, you get the photo ops with Ken, but its a big mistake.      
Whatever Sarvis represents to some doesn’t matter, nor does what “VA liberty folks on Facebook”, or this email list, think matter, statistically.  What matters is getting KEN to paint in bold colors NOW (actually a year ago), so that general liberty voters believe him.  That means getting in his face, telling him to finally get that he screwed up, and telling him he needs to do a Hail Mary now, tossing out some serious red meat, if he wants to answer the Sarvis challenge.  A great one that would look evolutionary from his current posture would be Marijuana decriminalization.  Instead, this small coterie is playing the “we’re with you Ken tribal ritual”.  It feels good, I’m sure, but it won’t get Ken over the 50 yard line.  
******************************************************************************************

Dear Sarvis Supporters:

This message is a call out for volunteers to attend festivals and events where we would like to have an official Sarvis for Governor presence!  Below, you will see events which will be taking place in your region before Election Day.  For a more comprehensive listing of events, please visit our website HERE.

HAYMARKET OKTOBERFEST
WHEN:
 October 19 from 11AM-5PM

WHERE: See website for details
EVENT PAGE – http://www.haymarketfun.com/

SARVIS MEET AND GREET / FUNDRAISER
*Hosted by Chad Thevenot

WHEN: October 20 1-3PM
WHERE: 2105 Haycock Road, Falls Church, VA 22043

EVENT PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/events/223977254434128/

STAFFORD COUNTY FAIR
WHEN: October 25-27
WHERE: Mountainview High School

EVENT PAGE: 
http://www.staffordfair.com/

Bring your family, friends, colleagues or anyone else who might be interested in spreading the word about Robert Sarvis and his bold plan for Virginia!   If you already have materials that you would like to hand out, feel free to do so!  If you NEED something to hand out, you may print off our event flyer by using the link below.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/help/get-stuff-download?id=-1583017860

Please make sure that you “like” us on Facebook and check our event page regularly for a list of current happenings.  We are always looking for supporters to create smaller events that increase voter awareness and name recognition. If you would like to set up a sign wave or other event to show people that they have a third (and better) option, just send me a suggested time and place and we will work to have something up on our Facebook page and email supporters in your area.

We appreciate your support and look forward to earning your vote this November!

Sarvis Campaign Team