Could Robert Sarvis Open the Door for Virginia Libertarians?

The state seems ready for progressive social values melded with a dose of badly needed economic realism.


Robert Sarvis
Robert Sarvis

Robert C. Sarvis, the Libertarian Party's nominee for Virginia governor, had to submit 10,000 valid signatures just to get his name on next month's ballot. But if Sarvis manages to win at least 10% of the general election vote—a strong possibility given recent polls show him drawing as high as 12%—then the Virginia LP would gain official status under state law. That means that for at least the next four years, the LP could nominate candidates in any partisan election without having to submit petition signatures. And while we're unlikely to see a Libertarian win statewide office in 2017, the prospect of LP candidates running at the legislative and municipal levels might introduce some badly needed competition into Virginia's lethargic political duopoly.

Sarvis identified the problem in an interview earlier this month with Reason's Brian Doherty. He said he first ran for the Virginia House of Delegates as a Republican in 2011 after noting many seats went to incumbents uncontested. In fact, nearly half of the House seats up for grabs this year—45 out of 100—have only one candidate on the ballot. And in the Virginia Senate, which is equally split between Democrats and Republicans, 14 of the 40 seats went uncontested in the 2011 election.

If Libertarian Party candidates win just a couple of Senate seats in 2015, they would hold the balance of power in the upper house. And with official status, the LP could field a lot more than the six candidates that managed to qualify via petitions for this year's House elections. Given that one of the two major parties failed to produce any candidate at all in half of the races this time around, voters should be receptive to a third-party—or in many cases, a second-party—alternative two years from now.

Fighting One-Party Machines

Virginia's lack of political competition is even more disturbing when you get down to the city and county level. For instance, in Charlottesville, home of Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia, Democrats have ruled for decades without opposition. In addition to all five at-large city council seats, Democrats hold the elected constitutional offices of Treasurer, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Commissioner of Revenue, and Clerk of the Courts. Three of these offices are up for election this year, but only the commissioner of revenue's race—where the Democratic incumbent announced his retirement—attracted more than one candidate. No Republican has won citywide office since 2002, and this year is the first time in nearly a decade the local GOP has bothered to field more than one candidate for city council.

Like all monopolies, Charlottesville Democrats rely on numerous barriers to entry. City leaders have long resisted switching to nonpartisan elections—the practice in many Virginia cities—or adopting a ward-based system for city council seats. The latter reform would help decentralize political power and afford residents of the city's poorer (and mostly African-American) neighborhoods a greater voice in city decision-making. But local Democrats are unwilling to yield any control over a process that has served their real constituents—city employees, their families and politically connected businesses—so well for decades. As a recent report by the Free Enterprise Forum, a local public policy group, noted, Charlottesville has the second-highest per capita spending on government operations among Virginia's independent cities, and indeed among all 134 city and county governments.

Opposing the well-oiled Charlottesville Democratic machine requires an equally sophisticated political operation. And that's unlikely to be the Republicans. The party's brand is simply too damaged to compete in a socially liberal city like Charlottesville. Between the national Republicans' national security policies (ignoring the fact these are also Barack Obama's policies) and the social conservatism of the state party exemplified by gubernatorial nominee Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, local voters are unlikely to consistently embrace candidates sporting the GOP label. That creates an opening for Libertarians who can meld progressive social values with a dose of badly needed economic realism.

Establishing a Libertarian Center

One explanation for Sarvis' stronger-than-expected poll numbers is the emerging realization by voters that Cuccinelli and Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe have no genuine interest in tackling the growing problems created by state government. McAuliffe, a longtime Democratic fundraiser who has never held elected office, is the personification of crony capitalism, a logical successor to scandal-plagued Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell. For his part, Cuccinelli appears to be running for leader of the Tea Party movement with Virginia as a secondary concern. (He recently campaigned near Charlottesville with another conservative celebrity, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.)

Sarvis, in contrast, has presented himself as a centrist—his slogan is "Open-minded & Open for Business"—in touch with Virginia's voters and their problems. And he's received respectful press coverage in return. Even the famously libertarian-phobic Washington Post featured an almost gushing profile of Sarvis recently, with writer Jennifer Rubin concluding, "His goals are, frankly, not that revolutionary."

Some small-l libertarians may balk at the apparent lack of ideological fire in Sarvis' campaign. There has been grumbling over Sarvis' comments to Reason criticizing Austrian economics, for example. But it's important to distinguish the Libertarian Party from the larger libertarian movement. The function of a political party is to win elections. Sarvis isn't running for president of the Mises Institute. If his campaign opens the door for other libertarians to compete—and yes, win—local elections in the future, then his efforts here will not have been in vain.

NEXT: Verizon Reportedly Tasked With Fixing Healthcare.gov

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh, he means in government. I thought he meant in a giant pit in the ground.

    1. I think it's a good step to have a libertarian center in the gas chambers.

  2. Could Robert Sarvis Open the Door for Virginia Libertarians?

    A door into Hell.

    1. How so? Can it get much worse than where we're at now?

      1. Sort of my thought. If the ruination of libertarian purity can end the drug war and get the public past debates over same-sex marriage, flag-burning amendments, and other social conservative hogwash, and open the door to debates that actually matter while getting socially liberal, fiscally conservative statesmen into office - I'll take it. We can always build another pure movement to prepare the way for the next step. In the meantime, let's get some people elected.

  3. This is great for the Libertarian party. But in practical terms isn't this just going to result in Virginia becoming a one party Democratic state like California as the anti-D vote splits between Republican and Libertarian candidates? I would imagine that Democrats would win even the reddest of state legislative districts if the libertarians and Republicans split the vote. I am not sure a Democratic super majority is going to make things very Libertarian. But we can always dream I guess.

    1. John, do you think that this same old song-and-dance routine is going to work? I've been hearing it since the year 2000. I mean, I like you, but fuck off, dude. Libertarians should vote for libertarian and libertarian-leaning candidates, not Republicans. Why? Because they aren't fucking Republicans. If you want Republicans to get more libertarian votes, then make more Rand Pauls and less Ken Cucinnellis.

      1. In the context of a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system it is absolutely true. Unless the VA state Libertarian party overtakes the Republican party, voters can rationally expect it to act the role of a spoiler and thus to facilitate the victory of parties that are more opposed to their interests than the Rs.

        1. You're assuming that all Libertarian votes belong to Republicans.

          Just because something tastes like 99.5% fecal matter doesn't mean I am going to eat it. There are more than two options on the ballot, and I am going to choose something else.

          And see, the problem is, frankly, people like you.

          1. I would think Libertarians take more votes from Republicans than Democrats. Nobody who subscribes to the politics of envy will even consider voting for anything remotely resembling a libertarian.

            1. Yes, among the informed electorate. In elections like this where you have two relatively unpopular candidates many people just pull down the lever for the first candidate who is not and R or D.

            2. Some polls suggest Sarvis takes more from McAulliffe. And many voters never vote when only given two choices; that's who Libertarians should aim for.

          2. You're assuming that all Libertarian votes belong to Republicans.

            No he is not. He is assuming that Libertarians and Republicans will split the anti-Democratic vote. And that is true. No one's vote belongs to anyone. But the fact is that Democrats are a lot less likely to vote Libertarian than Republican voters. The Democrats for the moment at least are fanatically loyal and willing to overlook a lot of internal contradictions in their party. That is just how it is.

            1. And yet when I canvas the people most willing to sign a Libertarian petition or take a flyer are African American women. Who in this race can at least vote for someone married to someone who looks like them. Why should they vote for McAuliffe?

          3. You're assuming that all Libertarian votes belong to Republicans.

            I voted for Gary Johnson, bitch. I'm just not deluded enough to think he (or the vast majority of the other Ls I've voted for) had a chance in hell of winning.

            Just because something tastes like 99.5% fecal matter doesn't mean I am going to eat it.

            You sure as hell are if the rest of the body politic feels like forcing it down your throat, which they do 99.9999999% of the time.

            And see, the problem is, frankly, people like you.

            No, the problem is how the incentives of a first-past-the-post system are set up. Me pointing those incentives out is not the problem.

        2. If I lived in VA, I'd have no problem voting for Sarvis, since if he were not in the race, I wouldn't vote at all.

          1. 40% of voting age citizens did not vote in 2012, beating Obama's 30% and Romney's 29%.

        3. You can sit here and tell us privately you're a libertarian or support liberty or whatever all day long, but if you go out and vote for Republicans, urge your friends to vote Republican, defend Republicans, and generally act like a Republican, guess what? You're. A. Republican.

          1. 1) Party affiliation and political philosophy are two very different things.

            2) Who cares whether I'm a Republican or not. The practical logic of what I'm saying holds resonance regardless of whether I'm the most unprincipled hack on the planet or not.

            I will continue to vote for whoever I want to vote for for whatever reasons I damn well please. The district I live in has had some pretty decent Rs to vote for (Jeff Flake and Jesse Kelly) who I voted for. My other Senator is one of the worst out there (McCain), so I vote L just as I've voted L for the past 4 Presidential elections. None of these votes was an expression of absolute political principle.

            1. The practical logic of what you're saying is trying to convince people not to vote libertarian. Ever. By your logic, which, as a reminder, is this:

              In the context of a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system it is absolutely true.[in that system] voters can rationally expect it to act the role of a spoiler and thus to facilitate the victory of parties that are more opposed to their interests than the Rs.

              Is there every any reason to vote anything other than Republican?

              1. Of course -- voting for a third party can send a signal to one of the two major parties, subjective preferences regarding "purity" of vote, protest vote, the potential for party expansion in the future, etc. Indeed, I highly doubt that you yourself are not voting L out of a belief that you believe you are contributing to a Libertarian victory in the upcoming election cycle. If you are, then I'd like to propose something: pick any L candidate that you are supporting for the next election cycle. If he wins, I'll give you $10,000. If one of the duopoly candidates wins, you'll give me $100.

                If you thought your candidate had a decent chance of winning, you'd be a fool not to take me up on my bet.

            2. Party affiliation and political philosophy are two very different things.

              So are stated preference and revealed preference.

              Guess which matters more?

              1. Stated and revealed preference are ways of evaluating a person's commitment to an ideological position. Voting in a FPTP system cannot be construed as an absolute or even a relative expression of ideology, as any pro-choice supporter of Ron Paul could tell you.

            3. Your doing it right. Good job!

        4. No one vote is going to change the outcome of an election. For an individual voter, basing their decision on the spoiler thing is illogical

          1. Meh. That's the kind of fallacy that Epi employs to justify not voting.

            1. It's not a fallacy, it's absolutely true. The only reason to vote is if you like voting.

              1. Warty is correct, at least when it comes to Presidential elections.

                Voting tends to become more rational as the pool of voters becomes smaller -- if you either restrict the franchise or make the basic democratic governing unit more localized, your voting pool finds that it has a rational stake in voting beyond personal preference or civic virtue.

                1. What IT said, especially the part about me being correct.

      2. Maybe that is the result you want. But that is the result. Go fuck yourself if you don't like it. I am just telling you what is going to happen.

        And everything you say about the Republicans, the Republicans could say about Libertarians. All you are really doing is swearing and screaming about how you are right and they are wrong. Well bless you little heart. That is nice to know. But no one ever said the Republicans have to kiss your ass anymore than you have to kiss theirs.

        Rather than scream and cry like a child, perhaps you ought to cotemplate reality as it is not as you wish it to be. Or maybe you have and losing and seeing a Dem super majority is what you want. You wouldn't be the first person to find feing a loser and a Casandra the most appealing rout.

        And one more thing, go fuck yourself.

        1. If the Virginia GOP doesn't like it, it can always fold its tent and join the LP.

          1. Sure. And if the Libertarians don't like a Dem super majority, they could always fold their tent and join the Republican party. Instead neither side will. They will both just be jackasses and divide the vote and hand the state over to the prog vampire. But fuck it, you will at least not have had to be associated with anyone outside the hive. And in the end Libertarians like losing anyway.

            1. Do you really think that after nine years of you crying that we have to vote Republican it's going to work?

              John, is there ever, and I mean ever, a good time in your mind to vote for the third-party candidate? And have you ever advocated such a thing? Ever?

              1. I will vote for a third party when there is a fourth party on the other side or when the Dems end their bout of insanity and become at least passible in office.

                We are stuck with a winner take all two party system. That may not be the greatest system. But it is what we have. As long as we have it, all a third party does is ensure that whichever party is on the other side wins much bigger than it should. That is it. It is like the Greens. If the Greens ever got to 10%, the Republicans would own a super majority in Congress and the White House. Regardless of what you think of that, that is reality. The American electoral system is set up for there being two parties. The parties have changed, but there has always been two dominant parties since parties were developed. So voting third party is in the short term voting for the other side. Long term, maybe your third party becomes the new dominant party and the existing party dies like the whigs. But as divided as the Right is right now, I can't see that happening.

                1. Something else that has gone unmentioned is that in a two party FPTP system, both parties will converge towards the center over time.

                  This means that for the L party to become one of the two main parties, one of two things must happen:

                  1) Large numbers of voters realign their politics to be ideologically and doctrinally libertarian, such that the new center is somewhere very close to where the L party is currently at. (For a number of reasons, I find this outcome unlikely.)

                  2) The L party changes such that it is closer to the political center of American politics and a viable electoral vehicle in itself.

                  1. Something else that has gone unmentioned is that in a two party FPTP system, both parties will converge towards the center over time.

                    Ordinarily that may be true, but how then to explain the leftward trend of the Democratic Party? It seems they've gone further left the last 10 years or so. Is it because they blame the Green Party for costing Gore the 2000 election so they lurched leftward to keep them on the reservation? Or is it because the center has moved that way? If it's the former than I think one could make the argument that perhaps the Libertarian Party could do the same thing for the Reps. I.e. force them to come at least a little bit more in our direction by costing them an election or two. If it's the latter (that the center has moved left), then we're pretty well and truly fucked anyway.

                    1. but how then to explain the leftward trend of the Democratic Party?

                      The media. We have never had such a monolithic media like we have now. Most people have no idea how far left the Dems have gone. If you talk to the average centrist American, they will tell you that Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist. That is because most people still get their information from the major media. So, yes the Democratic Party has gone way left since 2000. But the media has effectively kept that fact from the voters. Only crazy rightwing partisans think that the Democratic Party has gone left.

                    2. Institutional aspects of the system, particularly media, academia, and other public-facing industries (which tend to be democratic).

                      Additionally, voters in developed countries are explicit outputs of their educational system (often constitutionally denoted as such by those polities), meaning that the center will generally trend towards where educators educate the future voting pool. A Jesuit-educated monarch will be a Catholic one; so too the mini-monarchs who vote are little social democrats. Voter pool @ t_0 =/= voter pool @ t_1

                    3. Eh. I have a B.A. from a Jesuit college. Went in a former altar boy, came out an atheist.

                      Jerry Brown trained to BE a Jesuit.

                      Kevin R

                  2. "Something else that has gone unmentioned is that in a two party FPTP system, both parties will converge towards the center over time.

                    This means that for the L party to become one of the two main parties, one of two things must happen:

                    1) Large numbers of voters realign their politics to be ideologically and doctrinally libertarian, such that the new center is somewhere very close to where the L party is currently at. (For a number of reasons, I find this outcome unlikely.)

                    2) The L party changes such that it is closer to the political center of American politics and a viable electoral vehicle in itself."

                    Another thing's gotta happen:

                    3) The big-money donors and corporate interests shift their funding from the Dems or Reps to the new insurgent party. The little guys can shift their support wherever they want, but as long as the big two have their loyal multimillion sugar daddies, they're not gonna change their tune.

                2. So maybe you should spend your time getting Sheldon Adelson to fund the Greens?

        2. Rather than scream and cry like a child...And one more thing, go fuck yourself.

          John, you've outdone yourself.

          1. yeah, Tonio tell us more about how a guy like me, who is not a member of a church, and supports not a single blue prohibition be it drugs, gambling, porn or even child porn (yes, i actually think mere possession of child porn is a thought crime and thus should not be a crime) is really a SOCON.

            Maybe I am a SOCON. Or just maybe I have the ability to understand and defend people whose views I don't agree with. Since your MO seems to be to hate anyone who is in any way different from you or that you find objectionable, I could see where you would find that confusing. I would normally consider that a sign of your lack of intelligence. But in your case, you are not stupid, you just really believe that rights and freedom only should be available to people you like.

            1. you just really believe that rights and freedom only should be available to people you like

              Bullshit, John. I have frequently defended the free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist (Phelps family) here. Plenty of other examples.

              Behold, everyone, how John lives in a fact-free universe.

              1. Gee, you defended the rights of a group that you know is an embarrassment to the other side and can be used as a club. Yeah, that is surprising.

                And you were on here this morning telling us how the UK government has more claim over a minor child than their parents. You don't defend shit.

                Really? The best you can come up with is the Westboro Baptist Church? Hell, if I hated SOCONs as much as you do, I would want them out there too.

                Try again.

                1. And you are again mischaracterizing what I've written.

                  You will note that John rarely quotes me directly, but restates my position (inaccurately).

                  I quote John. I refute John. He cries and whines and acts out.

                  1. Did you not say in so many words that if they were taking care from the state they had no right to complain?

                    If the state can tell Muslim families how their daughter should groom themselves, what can't they tell them. It was a classic example of what I am talking about. You don't like religious Muslims, so you took the side of the state. I don't have a lot of use for religious Muslims either. But that doesn't mean I am ready to let the state stomp on them. You are. That is how you and I are different.

                    1. No, you don't get to change your story then re-argue from that position. Or rather, I can't stop you from doing so, but refuse to reward you for your mendacity by continuing to engage you.

                      Stew in your own juices, John.

                    2. No, you don't get to change your story then re-argue from that position.

                      Jesus, talk about epic levels of derptastic projection.

                      Reminds me so much of your disingenuous, bad faith "animals are clay" bunny-hugger argument from last year.

                      John has your number.

        3. If the GOP wants my vote they have to kiss my ass. After the GOP rigged the last two Republican primaries, I'm registering L when I renew my driver's licence. Besides, is McCain and Romney the best they can do? The GOP even put Frothy(!) ahead of Ron Paul. They better buy a Chapstick.

        4. All this "go fuck yourself." Tsk, tsk. Can't you libertarians learn to share?

      3. Precisely. If you want a kiss, brush those scummy teeth first.

    2. If the LP really started making serious inroads into GOP voters, the vote wouldn't be split for long, because the GOP would suddenly adopt enough of the LP platform to stop the bleeding.

      Let's hope we can have such problems instead of TOTAL STATE and TOTAL STATE LITE.

      1. Maybe. But then the L party would go back to being the fringe. Last I looked their goal was to be a real third party not just current the GOP. If their goal is to be a real third party, the result of that is going to be a Dem super majority in most cases.

        1. I'm not voting for anyone other than at least somewhat libertarian candidates. We're doomed if we maintain the status quo, anyway, so it doesn't matter much if it's the slightly slower Republican death or the accelerated Democratic death.

          1. You wouldn't make much of a doctor.

            1. Actually some patients choose not to have years of expensive and debilitating chemo or radiation instead of months of untreated cancer.

        2. But then the L party would go back to being the fringe.

          Personally this would be fine by me if it meant that the Republicans were at least "Libertarian Lite." I'm not affiliated with a party and I really don't care if the LP is a true 3rd party or not.

      2. This.

        The way I see it, voters either go for principles or for laundry. If you want the principled guys you have to adopt their principles. Wrap those principles in the right laundry and the TEAM players will go for it.

        There remains the thorny issue of which principles will draw the most principled voters, but the TEAM voters have no right to any buy-in.

      3. Pro, This is what happened with the early 20th century Dems and the Socialist party. The latter was making inroads, and then disappeared once the Dems absorbed much of their platform.

      4. If the LP really started making serious inroads into GOP voters, the vote wouldn't be split for long, because the GOP would suddenly adopt enough of the LP platform to stop the bleeding

        Sure, because the GOP would love trading their base for the much vaster base of the LP.

        1. There are a lot of independents out there and the Republican base is reaching its "sell by" date pretty qickly.

    3. Cuccinelli is an awful candidate. If Bill Bolling would have been the darling of the political machine here in Virginia, he would wipe the floor with McAuliffe.

      A perfect example of the stupid party in action.

      1. Except Bill Bolling has shown himself to be unprincipled whiney baby. But yes, from a pure electoral standpoin, Bolling would wipe the floor because even though he doesn't excite, he doesn't scare people either. And with McAuliffe as your opponent, that would be enough.

    4. The other day Ann Coulter was on Howie Carr (a somewhat syndicated talk show host out of Boston) bitching about how she hates, Hates, HATES Libertarians for stealing votes away from Republicans.

      So I called into the Chump Line (a voice mail that you can call into and if the producer likes it it gets on the air around 5) and got on after saying "Sorry Ann. Sorry Howie. But if given a choice between a Turd Sandwich, a Giant Douche, or a Libertarian, I'm going to vote for the Libertarian."
      He angrily said "Well you're gonna get the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich, not the Libertarian!" to which I would have replied "At least my conscience would be clean."

      1. It's really almost offensive how short a memory John thinks we have. I mean, we have literallySeanHannity been hearing this same bit of soft shoe ever since I have been commenting here from the same people over and over and over again: Vote Republican, Because This Time the Consquences Are to Dire to Actually Vote Libertarian.

        Jeeeeez, if it didn't piss me off so bad it'd almost be funny.

        1. Hannity is a cock.

        2. I don't find it compelling mostly because the Republicans have done so little to rein in the state. I do think a good number of Republican voters have some or a lot of libertarian values but have been scared into quiescence due to their fear of the Democrats and their total state direction; however, the GOP leadership, by and large, is only somewhat less statist and socialist than their Democratic counterparts.

          So, the only way to change the GOP, which at least houses some libertarians, is to vote for libertarians within the party when they run and outside the party when they do not.

          1. This. I'd have zero problems voting for the Pauls or Amash. I'd even be willing to vote for someone like Ted Cruz or Mike Lee so long as they weren't pushing Socon stuff too hard. Cuccinelli? I wouldn't vote for him with sarcasmic's dick.

            1. Yes, I'd vote for, say, Cruz for president even though he's clearly only partially committed to limited government (Paul would be an easier vote). Because I'm actually okay with incremental or marginal changes in the right direction, realizing that we're unlikely to go from statist fuckstate to libertopia in one election, and further realizing that we've been going fast the other direction.

              1. Exactly. Even if a big-L Libertarian were to become President, there is a substantial limit to what he or she could do. Why not just start moving in the right direction? Cruz and Lee are at least real economic conservatives.

                1. The tripartite GOP is never going libertarian whole-hog. The Establishment GOP and SoCons are not at odds. As long as the EGOP hates fags and whines about abortion, the SoCons are happy to let the destroy liberty and dole out cash to their cronies.

                  It's not GOP v. Dems, it's us against all the fucking rest of them.

                  1. Where things could change is with a shift in the House to a more libertarian focus (the House because it has the largely unrealized potential to change in composition very quickly) and/or with a truly libertarian president. The latter, due to its inherent powers and due to Congress improperly delegating power, could do extensive damage to Leviathan--all, incidentally, quite legally by modern standards.

                  2. . The Establishment GOP and SoCons are not at odds

                    That is just not true. Those two hate each other. The establishment would probably take Rand Paul over a SOCON nominee. The SOCONS are to the GOP establishment what the blacks are to the Dems, a cheap date. They hate each other. I don't know why you don't understand that. Just because you don't like either doesn't mean they like each other or are in some big cabal.

                    1. Well, there's certainly more SoCons in office than libertarians, so it's more true than not. Look how much the national GOP caters to the SoCons versus the middle finger they give the libertarians.

                      I don't doubt the establishment GOP doesn't much care for the baggage that comes with the SoCons (and rues the lost votes caused by them), but they're definitely in bed together.

                    2. Look how much the national GOP caters to the SoCons

                      They really don't. There has never been a SOCON nominee. What exactly do the SOCONS get from the Republican party beyond keeping the Dems out of office and things getting really bad for them? Not much that I can see.

                    3. That is just not true. Those two hate each other.

                      They still vote together, which you have been arguing this entire thread is the only thing that matters--and is the only point I was making.

                    4. They still vote together,

                      That is only because the SOCONS know the Dems really hate them and have nowhere else to go. The SOCONS haven't gone third party. But they have thought about it.

                      The point is that the SOCONS would happily help the Libertarians destroy the GOP establishment. And they sure as hell are not going to stop them or do anything to help the establishment.

                    5. The point is that the SOCONS would happily help the Libertarians destroy the GOP establishment

                      Bullshit. We're dope-smoking fag-lovers. The only thing keeping SoCons from screaming to the high heavens about us is their general ignorance and the fact that about 50% agree with them on abortion.

                    6. Sugar Free,

                      Does it ever occur to you that you have as bad and warped of a view of SOCONS as you think they have of you? Seriously, think about it. In the same breath you say

                      We're dope-smoking fag-lovers.


                      he only thing keeping SoCons from screaming to the high heavens about us is their general ignorance

                      Really? Do you really think all SOCONs are ignorant? That all of the SOCONS that are doctors, pilots, engineers, business owners are all just stupid and ignorant? Maybe they do hate libertarians. But perhaps Libertarians' attitudes have something to do with that? You guys seem to understand blow back when it comes to the middle east. Perhaps it applies here. Maybe there is a reason they hate you?

                    7. That all of the SOCONS that are doctors, pilots, engineers, business owners are all just stupid and ignorant?

                      I think anyone who knows what libertarian really stands for and isn't a libertarian has proven they are fairly ignorant; if you don't know what libertarianism really stands for then you are ignorant of the political landscape and therefore a low-information voter. I'm sick of being ruled by the whims of the ignorant.

                      If you are a SoCon and want to use the law to control people in the name of your religion, you are an evil fuckbag and I don't give a shit what evil fuckbags think about me.

                    8. If you are a SoCon and want to use the law to control people in the name of your religion, you are an evil fuckbag and I don't give a shit what evil fuckbags think about me.

                      Then you think they are as bad as the Democrats. In that case, the Dems winning really isn't the worst option. The options are letting the Dems run everything or letting the SCONS have their way on some things. Which is worse?

                      I am not saying one is worse than the other. That depends on what you value. I am asking you, which you think it worse.

                    9. I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils any longer, John. You can do what you want.

                    10. Sure you are Sugar Free. But please don't pretend that doing that is letting one of the two evils win. You want to vote your conscience good for you. But please stop pretending that is a practical rather than ideological means.

                    11. Good thing you aren't smug or anything.

                    12. "The establishment would probably take Rand Paul over a SOCON nominee."


                    13. It would be a tough choice. But do you really think people like Boehner like the SOCONS? Do you really think a group of people whose main goal in life is to have the people at the Washington Post say nice things about them have any use for the SOCONS?

                      Stop making up reality and just accept it.

          2. I haven't seen any evidence that the Rs are even the slightest bit less statist than the Ds. Remember Bush? Fella who was president six, seven years ago?

        3. Most people seem to think right wing talk radio is conservative hosts airing their opinions and persuading listeners to agree with them. It's really all about collective mind control, and getting the base to support the Establishment Republican candidates. Hosts are expected to try to appeal to the fringes rhetorically, to draw them into the fold and keep them in line. But any host who goes to far gets disgraced. It's laughable that people can't see that.

          1. http://www.wilkowmajority.com

            This is the only right-wing radio guy I'll listen to. He's got some socon tendencies, but he's a punk rocker at heart, and he's a federalist let-the-states-decide kind of guy.

          2. Rush Hannity Levin Ingraham Miller and Beck mainly cover the machinations of Democrats in government.

      2. I am not saying to hate them. I am just saying it is what is going to happen. Colter hates the Libertarians for stealing Republican votes and people like Randian hate Republicans for stealing Libertarian votes. Who is right? Maybe both of them.

        The point is that unless and until people like Colter and Libertarians figure out a way to get along, the Dems are going to be in really good shape as the two wings of the right kill each other and split the vote.

        It feels really good for people like Coulter to say "fuck you dope smoking Libertarian" and for people on this site to say "fuck you, you dumb fucking moron religious hillbilly" but eventually both sides are going to have to figure out a way to work together or they will both effectively cede the field to the Dems.

        Kochtupus is a great example of someone whose idea of appealing to a broader base and working with each other is telling everyone who deviates from his dogma to shut the fuck up and vote as he tells them or better yet just get the fuck out of politics because they are too fucking stupid to be there and are really Democrats anyway. That makes him feel good and gives him and those like him a sense of smug superiority. But it doesn't seem to be very productive or successful a way of doing business.

        1. How do Republicans get along with Democrats? By giving Democrats everything they want. So what's the point?

          Well it's the same deal with libertarians getting along with Republicans. Republicans like libertarians just fine, so long as they sit down and shut up.

          1. And they thing the same about you. You both want your way. And perhaps maybe you won't ever get any of your way if you insist on even the people in your own party buying into every single thing you believe?

            You can be pure or you can be large, take your pick.

            1. When given a choice between a little poison or a lot of poison, I'd rather have no poison. Thank you very much.

              1. I would point out that in a medicinal context, the dosage is the poison.

        2. I'll say this: The establishment GOP has practically beat away the libertarian minority with a stick, most prominently before, during, and after Ron Paul's presidential run. Look how many state committees and the RNC have treated the RLC. Not good, not welcoming.

          The RNC and the establishment GOP in general have done everything they possibly could to marginalize and weaken the libertarian elements in the party. It's only lately, when the anti-government sentiment has gotten too loud to ignore, that they've tolerated people like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. But that's the word, tolerated. Barely.

          So, it's not the libertarians than are the problem. Most have voted GOP most of the time in the past, because of fear of the alternative. But the obvious corruption of the GOP (that's what it really is--they are corrupt and want a big state to reward themselves and their cronies) is alienating them in large numbers.

          1. But the SOCONs hate the GOP establishment just as much or more than the Libertarians do. Everyone hates the GOP establishment except for the establishment itself. It needs to die. And I think Libertarians would have a lot of help killing it if they would accept it.

            Rand Paul is a great example. He has gone out and talked to SOCONS and not engaged in the culture war and gotten their support on a lot of things. He actually won an election and has a better shot at the nomination than his dad every did. But if he does get the nomination, he will do it with the support of a lot of people libertarians find distasteful and culturally objectionable.

            1. Oh here we go. John is about to go all cocktail parties on us.

            2. I'm fine with unholy alliances or even holy alliances if it means less government, more freedom.

              Ron Paul is a "Southern Conservative" in a number of ways, but his libertarianism is so central to his politics that that doesn't really matter.

              One thing SoCons should learn is that libertarian doesn't equal libertine, and, even if it did, it doesn't matter.

            3. The Socons carry water for the GOP Establishment, and have for decades. I wouldn't call that hate. At least the Tea Party types tried to get rid of some of the R incumbents, and succeeded in some cases.

              1. The Tea Party went after the GOP establishment. So which is it, do the SOCONS hate the establishment or is the Tea Party really not SOCON? It can't be both.

        3. John, I don't talk to other people that way. I talk to you that way because every time a third-party candidate comes up, you cry like John Boehner about how terrible it is Libertarians just won't come into your Tent. NINE YEARS of the same shit.

          1. I am not crying at all. I am telling you what is going to happen. If you want to live in fantasy land where a divided right is somehow going to stop the Dems, that is your call. But believing it won't make it true.

            And you do talk like that. You are talking like that on this thread. I am sorry the SOCONs are the only readily available anti-Dem vote right now. Hell, I wish the blacks (many of whom are really SCONs) or the Chinese or someone that Libertarians could find cool were ready and willing to vote against the Dems. But this is it. You go to war with the Army you have.

            1. Uh, John, objectively you are the king of crying, butt-hurt and acting-out. Deny it all you want but it's there for everyone to see.

              1. Tonio,

                And your an idiot. I means seriously. I take back what I said above. You may or may not be a bad guy. But you are most certainly stupid and incapable of understanding much less making an argument.

                What does that post even mean? Nothing other than a sort of veiled cry from you that the adults are talking you just can't follow what is going on.

                1. I take back what I said above.

                  The true mark of mature, principled argument.

                  1. I don't know. Maybe you are a bad person. But if you take my saying well maybe you are not such a bad guy to mean I am not making a principled argument, you are without question, not very bright.

                    Again, you seem not to have a point other than that you have no idea what is going on on this thread, but you are sure you don't like what I am saying.

    5. If the GOP wants to get libertarian votes, maybe they shouldn't nominate shitheads like Cuccinelli

      1. And when the GOP nominates someone who appeals to libertarians and the SOCONS run a third party candidate they will say the same thing. And in both cases the Dems will win.

        Yeah, you guys hate the SOCONS. I get it. But you are not going to beat the Democrats without figuring out a way to work with them. And telling them to go fuck themselves and how much you hate them and wish they would just go away and keep their ignorant selves out of public life might make you feel good, but it isn't going to get you anywhere except for a divided right and a Dem super majority.

        1. Not voting for a Republican candidate I don't support = "telling them to go fuck themselves and how much I hate them and wish they would go away and keep their ignorant selves out of public life"? Damn John, your logic is unassailable.

          It's not like I'm asking them to nominate a radical libertarian. Ron and Rand Paul are hardly social libertines and I voted for Ron and will vote for Rand if he runs in 2016

          1. Why are you not voting R Calidissident? Because Cuccinni or whatever the fuck his name is a SOCON and made some idiotic statement about sodomy laws. That is it. I bet you don't know anything about him other than those two things.

            And sure you are not asking them to nominate a radical libertarian. You just want them to tell the idiot SOCONS to go back in the closet and show up to vote but not have the nerve to run. Well, that is fine and all. But the SOCONS say the same thing about you.

        2. Libertarians don't get along with SOCONS for the same reason we don't get along with progressives. SOCONS are hostile to liberty. Instead of being hostile to economic liberty like progressives, SOCONS are hostile to personal liberty.
          Without economic liberty there is no personal liberty, so the Republicans are a lesser of two evils. But they're still evil.

          1. Okay. But it is going to be pretty hard to have any political power when you can't get along with 75% of the population. If you add the SOCONS and the Progs together, it is about 75% or so. Maybe not that much but certainly more than half.

            So what is your plan here?

            1. Not 75% of the population, 75% of the voting population.

              I do think a good percentage of that 50% that doesn't vote would support libertarian candidates if they thought they could win. They can't win if those people don't show up, and they can't win so those people don't show up.

              I don't know how to break the cycle.

        3. SOCONs can spend a few decades being told to eat shit and call it yummy. Hold your nose, SOCONs, and vote libertarian you lousy fucks.

          1. They say the same thing Sugar Free. I guess it is a good time to be a Democrat. Do you want to stop the Dems or do you want to exact revenge? Who do you hate more the Dems or the SCONS? If it is the SOCONS, fuck it just vote Dem. They really hate the SOCONS and won't be constrained about going to extreme means to do something about them.

            1. The best part is that I'm going to bookmark this thread and throw it in your smug fucking face the next time you say you've never argued this position.

              1. I am not being smug. It is just reality. Cuccineli is not a establishment scumbag. He is a typical SOCON. And what I have seen of him, his big blunder was the whole sodomy thing. It was an idiotic thing to say. But it in no way makes him worse than Mcaulliffe.

                Here is the thing, what do you want other than your way? If you want to reform the GOP and punish them, that is a viable strategy. But I don't think that will be the message here. The message will be that Libertarians hate SOCONS and SOCONs need to leave the GOP if anyone expects Libertarians to join. And while that may be true, the result of that is going to be Dems winning every election.

                What do you want me to do? Pretend that the Dems won't win? I am not even saying you are wrong. I agree with you about a hell of a lot more things than I agree with the SOCONS about. But even if you are right, what difference does it make if being right means losing to the Dems, whom we know are lunatics?

                1. (Was in reply to Sug's 2:56 post. Squirrels.)

            2. Exacting revenge is better.

    6. Or maybe conservative voters will realize the Republicans have been selling them out for decades, and hold their noses and vote for the Libertarian candidate, and the GOP will whither away.

    7. But in practical terms isn't this just going to result in Virginia becoming a one party Democratic state like California as the anti-D vote splits between Republican and Libertarian candidates?

      Sounds to me like a necessary transitional step toward wrecking at least half of the current TEAM BE RULED in order to open up a space for TEAM BE FREE.

      That's a price I'm willing to see the Republicans pay.

      1. Sounds to me like a necessary transitional step toward wrecking at least half of the current TEAM BE RULED in order to open up a space for TEAM BE FREE.

        If you believe that every train wreck has a happy ending, sure. I am inclined to believe that sometimes. But then I look at places like Argentina and Venezuela and think perhaps not. Sometimes leftists get in power and things just get forever worse and the country never wakes up.

        I am often optimistic on here. I really think that Obamacare is finally going to discredit the Progs. But lots of people disagree with me. And I don't know that they are wrong. I think it is a pretty risky bet to let the Dems have total control on the theory that the resulting disaster will bring people to their senses. Maybe, or maybe the disaster will just make them worse.

        1. Consider the states that broke away from the USSR, which had by and large peaceful breakaways and understood firsthand the horrors of its economic system. About half of them have simply awful economic systems, and the other half -- while far better than during their Soviet years -- by and large have adopted Euro social democratic policies.

          Rare is the circumstance where libertarian politics wins the day, but rarer still is the revolution or breakdown which ushers in a libertarian paradise.

          1. Those states never voluntarily embraced communism. They had forced on them by the Russian Army. Contrast the fate of the Baltic states with the fate of Russia proper. Russia proper has a lot more problems and has had a much harder time embracing capitalism than the Baltic states. But Russia imposed communism on itself. The Baltic states always associated communism withe foreign occupation.

            We are doing this to ourselves and are thus a lot more likely to end up like Russia than we are the Baltic states.

            1. My point is that even in the best conditions (a recognized, socialist bully that is hated by its populace is overthrown in a bloodless bid for independence by a historically western-oriented region), we have not seen the type of state that would satisfy libertarians. Hell, most of these states are less economically free than the US. That is not said to denigrate the Baltic/eastern Euro states (which IMO have done a great job of recovering from a horrible regime), but to give the "let it burn" libertarians pause. Outside the ideal circumstance, it's horrible -- the Central Asian states, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, and plenty of other states that went full Commie have not become classically liberal models; to the contrary, they are mostly quite unfree.

              Libertarians should not be encouraging the US to jump off the ledge in the hopes that there's a soft mattress at the bottom.

              1. Sure, we may wake up. But remember Russia only woke up after 60 years and tens of millions of people being murdered. If that is what it takes, I think I would prefer to let the SOCONS ban sodomy.

                More likely, is that we never have that. And we just end up in decade after decade of poverty and misery but never quite enough to cause people to wake up and change the system.

                1. Agreed.

                  Tsarist Russia was much worse than present-day US, but I bet the classically liberal Russians who rooted for the October Revolution out of spite for the existing order wish they could have done something to prevent it.

    8. 40% of people don't vote; Libertarians should pull them back In and educate them. Libertarians should also shave off Democrat voters who are not excited about their criminal dullard candidate. I just did an evening of canvassing at an Arlington VA metro, heavily 'crat population. The most willing to accept a flyer - African American women.

  4. Cuccinelli is also running on the Men Against Blowjobs ticket, which can't be good for his polling.

    1. If you mean the State Attorney General Supporting the State Courts and trying to keep a Guy in Prison for Asking A 17 y/o to Blow Him and Then Falsely Accusing Her of Rape Ticket, then sure.

      Are you sure a Democrat AG wouldn't take that position?

      But the thing about adult-on-adult sodomy in private has been so often rebutted I hope that's not what you're going with.

      1. Cuccinelli is on record saying that in society based on natural law, homosexual acts would be illegal. Sorry if he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

        1. *a society

        2. I'm fairly sure that was in the context of SSM and gay-rights laws. And he said public policy "should reflect" this.

          As to "benefit of the doubt," he doesn't need it, because there's no doubt of his position, which I strongly suspect is the position a Democratic AG would take - the feds shouldn't release a creep whose conviction was sustained all the way through the Va courts. Heck, even an Obama-appointed federal judge shared this view.

          So if you want evidence of homophobia you'll have to find a better example.

          1. "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ? They don't comport with natural law."


            And he opposed an adjusted law that would have excluded private acts among consenting adults.

            You'll lick any boot that is against abortion. SIV should give up his handle to you.

            1. Cuccinelli, even if he is elected, has about as much chance of making Sodomy illegal as I have of dating Penolpe Cruz. Yeah, that statement is idiotic and infuriating. But what does it mean in real terms? Not much. I would rather have this idiot chasing windmills over sodomy than Mcauliffe looting the state.

              This is another case of the Dems and the typical stupid party help, getting people to vote of meaningless culture war bullshit and not notice that the Dems plan to loot the country.

              1. Santorum backs Cuccinelli and is dumping money into his campaign through his PAC.

                What you and Eddie and all the others refuse to understand is that SoCons never end up advocating economic freedom. They spend their time in office bitching about abortion and trying to get dinosaurs renamed Jesus Horses in textbooks, while looting the state or country to the exact same degree. Even the slap Walker managed to give the unions didn't embolden him to do more, he's spent the rest of his time in office on abortion.

                Those that love the power of the state to control other people never constrain themselves.

                1. Sugar Free,

                  If the SOCONs want to loot the government the same way the Dems do, why are not states like Oklahoma and Kansas, where real no shit SOCONs often win elections and control the legislatures going broke like California?

                  You say that. But I don't see any evidence of it. Cuccinilli is not even a 100th of the crook Mcaulliffe is. You don't like him chasing windmills over abortion and evolution. I don't either. But that is a hell of a lot lesser of two evils when compared to what the Dems want.

                  And so what if Walker didn't do more? He did a lot and the end result was a hell of a lot better than if a Dem had been governor. Answer me this, which is a better governed state, Wisconsin or California?

                  1. Because voting for them--even a protest vote--convinces them you support every kooky piece of shit idea they have.

                    You know, the entire problem with Obama?

                    Voting for Sarvis won't do that.

                    I don't live there, so it really doesn't matter, but another SoCon turd clinging to the Tea Party is not going to do it much good either.

                2. And one other thing. At least as of a couple of years ago, Kansas was listed as the most business friendly state in the country. How do you square that fact with your contention that SOCONs are really secret communists who don't believe in economic freedom? Show me a place where SOCONS have any power where business regulation is anything approaching what it is in Prog states. If what you were saying were true, places like Kansas and South Carolina would be as bad as California or Nanny Bloomberg's New York. Yet, you know that they are clearly not. How do you explain that? Are the SOCONs just pretending until they get the real power?

                  1. Business friendly until that business is something they don't like.

                    Most of the success of the SoCons states is that they are being left alone while kookbags tilt at windmills.

                    1. Business friendly until that business is something they don't like.

                      There is more to life than porn dude. And there are more strip clubs in South Carolina than in the Northeast.

                      Most of the success of the SoCons states is that they are being left alone while kookbags tilt at windmills.

                      Which is another way of saying the embrace economic freedom rather than idiotic prog bullshit. Just admit it Sugar Free. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean everything they do is bad or that don't agree with you on some things.

                    2. I never said they don't agree with me on some things. Progressives agree with me on some things. Should I vote for them too?

                    3. Progressives agree with me on some things. Should I vote for them too?

                      Maybe. It depends on how important those things are to you. Libertarians are not the majority. You have to compromise and vote with someone. Last I looked economic freedom and gun rights were pretty important. What do you agree with the Progs about? It sure as hell isn't those things whatever it is.

                    4. You have to compromise and vote with someone.

                      No, I don't.

                    5. No you don't. You just have to if you want to win, which in our system means have any say in things.

                    6. John, no single individual's vote is going to decide this election either way.

                      No individual libertarian voting Republican is going to change how any other libertarian votes.

                      The reason libertarians should not vote Republican is because they are not Republicans.

                      You don't get a prize for voting on the winning side and your vote is not going to change who the winner is.

  5. Sarvis is also polling well because McAuliffe and Cuccinelli are the two worst candidates for governor I have seen in a long time, and the options for LG and AG are piss poor as well.

    I will vote Sarvis, but McAuliffe has run such a lying, dirty campaign I almost want to vote Cuce to spite him.

    It has been miserable here in Virginia- I am looking forward to election day.

    1. "I almost want to vote Cuce to spite him."


      1. Is it really true that NoVA and the rest of the Commonwealth are like different states?

        1. Yes. If you get out of the DC suburbs, which are rapidly expanding, it's very different. First, it's VA horse country, which is just beautiful and it gets more and more southern feeling as you get out of DC metro.

          1. Well, there is always Charlottesville.

        2. It's more complicated than that, but the biggest divide is between the urban/suburban areas (NoVa, Richmond and Nofolk and adjacent cities) and the rest of the state. You have the rich people in Shenandoah valley, the poor people in Appalachia, more poor people on the Eastern Shore. And the people in the "toe" (southwest Virginia) love to remind politicians that the capitols of WV, KY and TN are closer to them than Richmond.

          1. that's fair. but i tink NoVA types think outside of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax .. maybe Prince William or Loudon if they are being generous and think -- rest of state

        3. Try talking to some folks along the I-81 corridor, then talking to some folks along the I-66 corridor. It's like two different planets.

          1. The folks along the I-66 corridor are the ones from Omicron Persei 6, right?

  6. It'll be great if Sarvis gets a significant vote, but we've seen this play performed far too many times before. On election day, all that Sarvis support is going evaporate and the major party cnadidates will get 99% of the vote. People tell poster they're going to vote for Sarvis not because they actually intend to vote for him, but because they want to express how unhappy they are with the guy they're going to vote for anyways.

    1. I agree with Clown Shoes up here.

    2. Or they, knowing that their Libertarian has no chance at winning, stay home.

    3. If you're right, and those Libertarians show up, this'll turn out to be a shocking upset win for Cuccinelli.

    4. Storms, what are you gonna do if Sarvis breaks 10%?

    5. Sarvis will probably get something like 99.999%. That's how the system works.

    6. I got 6% in DC last November. DC is much more of a government town and one party state than Virginia.

  7. Not to be all Debbie Downer here, but I've been hearing the whole "We could enough enough votes based on preelection polling to be a real party!" for a looong time now, in VA and elsewhere.

    The LP or libertarain candidate polls really well, and come elction night, that support evaporates like water in teh desert. Maybe because of people like JOhn, or maybe because stoners forget what day it is. I dunno. I'll believe it when it happens, and not beforehand based on polling.

    1. I think a lot of it is because the LP candidates are usually just like this Robert Savis guy. Probably really smart, right on all the issues, but looks like he's the computer help desk guy. Most people vote for chief executives based on a gut instinct reaction and tribalism. Even a certified badass like Gary Johnson suffered from this because he comes off as mild-mannered and weak.

      Libertarian types (and probably Green Party types as well) vote on principle and discount superficial appearances because that's how we are wired. But the vast, vast majority of people are highly tribal and are voting based on a gut instinct that their guy is the better warrior.

      On the plus side he's got a beautiful family. Since he clearly outkicked his coverage on that one, maybe he's got some pretty good charisma for the debates he won't get invited to.

      1. But the vast, vast majority of people are highly tribal and are voting based on a gut instinct that their guy is the better warrior.

        Is that why a pantywaist beat a veteran?

        1. Gut instinct, not fact. Taller is better. Better looking is better. Bigger is better. More assertive is better.

          Nobody will claim these as their reasons. But as a rule of thumb....

          Obama certainly looks more "Presidential" than McCain, who comes off as a little bit weaselly and somewhat decrepit. Obama has most of these down, except he's too skinny and wears mom jeans.

          Ford managed to lose to Carter, but that's probably more down to his boss's coattails than anything else.

      2. In 2008, I saw some polling during the Republican primary. Some old dowager said she voted for Romney because he "looked presidential."

        Jesus wept.

        1. Millions of people voted for Obama in 2012 because they felt like "he cared more about them than Romney".

          I always try to be an optimist. But good God. I would feel better if they voted for Obama because they loved his being a liberal. You could at least maybe change such a person's mind. But what do you even say to someone who votes for someone because they think that person cares about them?

          1. The ability of people to project is amazing.

            And yes, in either case - if you can't name specific policies of the candidate you're voting for, stay the fuck home. If I don't know anything about the candidates in a race, or the implications of a specific amendment, I don't vote for them / on that.

            1. Why is this so hard a concept for people to understand? Voting is not a right to be exercised self-indulgently; it is a trust to be utilized responsibly, if it is to be exercised at all.

    2. Even if they do become a "real party", so what? The election laws have done the LP a huge institutional favor by dangling that carrot forever and thus allowing LP's leadership to substitute as a goal some marker like that rather than the things libertarians would really like to accomplish. If a state LP succeeds, then 2 or 4 yrs. later it'll all be about retaining that status.

    3. I got 6% in DC last year, which is way more of a government town and one party state than Virginia. So why wouldn't Sarvis get more than that?

  8. In 2008 I did get suckered into voting for that turd sandwich from Arizona. I felt, well, violated afterwards. Like waking up after having drunk sex with some chick John would find attractive. Never again.

    1. Mercifully I wasn't 18 in 2008, so I was unable to vote for Colonel Tigh.

      Come 2012 I was enlightened enough to vote for Johnson and be happy about it.

    2. There were no good choices in 2008. When Barr said he was okay with pot legalization, I wound up voting for him. Then after he lost, he went out and tried to get Baby Doc's stolen loot for him. Fucker.

      1. Yeah, that was a tough vote to cast. But what, McCain? Obama? Yuck.

        1. Although I didn't in 2008, I hate hearing libertarians argue against voting in general. I look at voting as Lysander Spooner described it:

          "His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot?which is a mere substitute for a bullet?because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

          Libertarians should vote (irrespective of whether it is for the least bad big party option or LP) because the opportunity cost is very small, and the more of us that vote, the more influence we wield as a bloc.

          I think the "don't vote" argument is misplaced idealism. The system will never change due to a lack of legitimacy, regardless of how few vote.

          1. Agreed, especially on ballot initiatives/local elections.

      2. Sometimes protest votes are like that. As the likelihood of your guy winning drops your vote can increasingly be about the team or the statement and less about the candidate.

        1. Pretty much how I liked to see it. I voted [Libertarian] in 2008.

    3. Happens to all of us. I voted Bush in 2004, or at least I was close enough to doing so that I may as well remember it that way.

  9. The way the trend looks like it's going, I think Virginia might be a lost cause, especially when you have scumbags like Bob McDonnell who lie through their teeth and stab their supporters in the back with big tax increases.

    Another ten years or so and Virginia may almost as horrible as Maryland has become, with the big government northern tail wagging the dog of the rest of the state, the same way that Baltimore, Montgomery, and P.G. counties have ruined what was once a livable state.

    1. Virginia might be.

    2. Don't forget all the military, DOD employees and contractors in Norfolk.

  10. Fuck Virginia. You want to keep getting double-teamed by statists? Go right ahead.

    1. We used to isolate them in Alexandria. But the containment effort failed and the contagion started spreading. Some of us are holed up in the hot zone.

      1. It's sad to see, really. The anti-McConnell fight is going to be vicious here. We'll see if the KYGOP cares about liberty or fucking libertarians in the ass again.

        1. it happened so fast -- like 10, 15 years. NoVA wasn't really conservative, but it wasn't full progressive idiocy either.

          1. KY has a weird homeostasis. Most of the progressives move out of state and most of the hardcore SoCons are so dependent on state and federal welfare that they ignore politics. So we have the purple cities of Louisville and Lexington and hard red rural that does vote much, and our politics end up being a contest between establishment GOP and Democratic centrists.

            I only how the anger at Obama that got Rand elected gets turned on McConnell in the primaries. Unless a libertish GOP canidate goes completely nuts in the general, they should beat out an Obama-backed Dem.

            1. Damn, you need to learn to type, SugarFuck.

          2. Hockey, It is indeed crazy how fast Fairfax turned.

  11. The reason I'm unsure about Cuccinelli is not because he wants to protect the lives of all innocent human beings, or because of the bogus "OMG he'll put you and your wife in prison for a BJ" talking point. It's because his campaign Web page doesn't match up to his radical reputation - it looks like a bunch of mealy-mouthed waffling. Where's the fanatical Tea Partier I was told to expect, the guy who took on the federal government?

    And while some socially liberal Dems might support Sarvis, the chance of them doing so will go down once they find out (what I assume to be true) that he thinks citizens should decide for themselves whether to pay for other peoples' abortions or whether to provide contraception or sterilization to their employees. "OMG I thought he was an open-minded social liberal, but he wants your boss to make your reproductive choices for you!?!?"

    1. That right there is why libertarians are not "socially liberal." Liberals don't want social freedom - they want people to be coersed into a different set of norms than social conservtives do.

    2. The problem is that Democrats don't really give a shit about social liberalism if it comes with economic conservatism. The libertarian is just taking votes from the Republican and we get Jackass McAuliffe as a public figure for the next 4 years.

      1. The libertarian is voting for the libertarian candidate. If Republicans want more libertarian votes, then they can become more libertarian.

        The ballot doesn't ask me, "Who Are You Voting Against For Governor?" Did you know that?

      2. No, it's worse than that. Social "liberalism" isn't very liberal. It's not that they prioritize economic issues, it's that they're not for as socially tolerant policies as you think.

  12. OK, OK, I'll go vote. Jeebus!

  13. Hi all: I am voting Sarvis. The Republicans must be punished until they understand that they can only win if they adopt libertarian positions and actually work to rein in the size, scope, and costs of government.

    Look at it this way, the party will only prosper if it attracts the younger generation of voters who don't want to be taxed to death to pay for boomer social security and who want to legalize weed and gay marriage. SOCONs are becoming ever more irrelevant.

    1. Ron Bailey|10.22.13 @ 3:10PM|#
      "Hi all: I am voting Sarvis."

      Could you please put another one in for me?

    2. Look at it this way, the party will only prosper if it attracts the younger generation of voters who don't want to be taxed to death

      Younger voters voting to not be "taxed to death", that's hilarious.

      The younger voters aren't paying any taxes at all; they're unemployed and sitting at home in mommy's basement because the guy they put into office is actively destroying opportunity and full time job creation in this country.

  14. Look, let's stop the brawl for just a few moments, gentlemen.

    You know I like to give Socons shit.

    It would not be the worst thing in the world if Cuccinelli loses, and by an amount that makes it clear that the libertarian votes mattered.

    But I'm not saying that because I want to hate on the Socons.

    I'm saying that because we need to put one or two more scares in the GOP in preparation for 2016.

    The Rand Paul primary case is going to have to be, "You may not like everything about me, but I'm the only guy - the ONLY guy - who can pull the party wings together and give us a chance to win."

    If Cuccinelli has to go down to help that happen, so be it.

    But AFTER THAT HAPPENS, we need the Socons. And they're going to need us. So let's try to dial the acrimony back. It will be emotionally difficult (for me as much as anybody) but we have to start on it now. We need the practice, and we only have two years.

    1. That is pretty much all I am saying. I am not sure Cuccinelli needs to go down. But who knows. But I will tell you one thing. Rand Paul isn't stupid. He understands what you are saying. And he is going to say things and do things during the campaign in 2016 that a few people on this site and a few more of his Libertarian supporters are going to hate. The question is, will they still vote for him?

      1. I'd like to think that if Paul can walk the line between "This is what I believe" and "But that's outside the scope of the office I'm seeking" things will work out fine. I have no reason to believe that, but I want to.

        1. If he goes to the Socons with "school choice, let the gays and abortions be state issues," it could work.

          An frankly, I'd still vote for him. Federalism is much better than what we currently have.

          1. Rand has established some libertarian bona fides, which will gain him a lot of latitude for the nonsense he will spout at SoCons and Establishment GOP.

            Vague promises that Cuccinelli might not be as bad as he looks are laughable.

            1. What vague promises? There is nothing vague about it. McAulliffe is going to turn Virginia into Maryland. He is a known crook. All you have is against Cuccineli is some bullshit statement about sodomy, something he will never change.

              What is more likely, Virginia making sodomy a crime or Mcauliffe stealing like there is not tomorrow if he is elected? What is Cuccineli were a satanist and wanted to sacrifice cows in the governor's mansion? Would you give a fuck? I wouldn't. So why do you care that he dreams of outlawing sodomy when you and I both know that can't happen.

              1. Vote for who you want, John. McAuliffe might have had a real challenger if the SoCons hadn't nominated Santorum's dickrag.

                But people like you will blame libertarians when Cunty loses, not the shitty GOP in Virginia.

                1. Vote for who you want, John. McAuliffe might have had a real challenger if the SoCons hadn't nominated Santorum's dickrag.

                  True. And he might have had a real challenger if people like you didn't make every vote based on the culture war. If you were in VA, you would be voting based on sodomy and culture. That is your choice. But you really shouldn't be accusing other people of being a culture warrior when you clearly base your vote on culture war issues.

                  1. And he might have had a real challenger if people like you didn't make every vote based on the culture war.

                    So a different type of SoCon? Fuck that noise.

                    Your GOP sucks, John. I'm not voting for it unless a libertarian is on the ticket.

                    1. I didn't say you were a different type of SOCON. I said you were a culture warrior. If you are basing your vote on culture war issues, how are you not a culture warrior? Just because both you and the SOCONS are culture warriors doesn't mean you have to be on the same side. They vote one way on the culture war and you vote the other.

                    2. No, I vote libertarian as best I can.

                      Your projection about culture war is epic. "I never picked up a gun!" John says, while firing round after round.

                    3. I have never voted in an election based on a culture war issue Sugar Free. Never once. I have voted for people who were pro-choice. I have voted for people who were anti-porn and gambling even though I think both of them should be legal.

                      How am I culture warrior when I don't base my vote n such issues?

                    4. You say I am projecting, but how am I culture warrior? I agree with you on these issues. I think Cuccinilli is an idiot for saying that. I am just not going to vote on that issue, if I did vote in VA, because I couldn't give a fuck less about the debate over sodomy.

                      You in contrast are so offended by his statement about sodomy you would refuse to vote for him no matter what. But I am projecting and am the culture warrior?

                      You are always accusing me of that on here. How am I a culture warrior? What does that phrase even mean to you? Hell I agree with you about pretty much every cultural issue there is. Show me where I want blue laws or to ban sodomy or think porn should be banned. Show me. If I agree with you, why do you think I am on the other side? I just fucking care about those things. You seem to.

                    5. We're all culture warriors now.

              2. That may all be true. But McAuliffe will win and Cuccinelli lose not because a Libertarian ran, but because the GOP failed - to convince voters, to rid itself of consultants who sold it a bad strategy etc. So given that GOP campaigns fail like that, why should a Libertarian invest in them (with EXCEPTIONS to this rule for Massie, Amash, Paul).

              3. You seem to think McAuliffe is omnipotent. It seems to me just as likely that he will be elected, but then end up in court and prison for his corporate grift. This has happened to several DC elected Democrats recently in a much more Democratic jurisdiction. I am not sure a Governor under investigation facing a hostile house of Delegates can remake a state.

    2. I like your analysis, but nobody in the republican party or party base is smart enough to understand it.

      1. In which case, fuck 'em.

    3. Never, Fluffy, never.

  15. Red Tony be pimpin' TEAM! Fuck yeah! TEAM!

  16. Jayne Cobb: "I'm smellin' a lotta 'if' comin' off this plan."

  17. BTW, how is it possible for a white libertarian to be married to a black chick? Aren't libertarians and Libertarians all racist fuckheads that hate black people?

    1. She is a self hating black woman. She is an Aunt Teri or Uncle Tom if she were a man. Come on Kristen. You know that.

    2. Well, she's obviously not a genuine black woman; she's not supporting team blue.

    3. It's Lucy Steigerwald in blackface, operating as a Koch agent under deep cover.

    4. And he's half asian.

      1. 'Murkin is gonna break out in assholes and shit himself to death!

  18. The function of a political party is to win elections.

    The function of a political party is to get their agenda implemented. Actual Socialist and Communist Party candidates have failed to get elected, but their agenda has been largely implemented.

    1. That is a very true point.

    2. Because they've managed to co-opt one of the two parties, specifically the democraps.

      1. Starting with that democrap Nixon.

  19. McAuliffe seems eerily like a white version of Obama. That alone might be enough to hold one's nose and vote for Cuccinelli.

  20. Take it from someone who was very active in LP for decades: LP activism is worse than useless. http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/political.html and read the decade-old essays linked from the bottom, which are as applicable now as ever. If you're libertarian and want to do partisan politics, do it in either a major party or another minor political party, not LP. For the great majority of you in the USA, most of the time that'd be the Republicans; in selected circumstances the Democrats or others. Of course you might choose activity advantageously in non-partisan politics or in fields other than politics LP is a dead end sapping the strength of the libertarian movement.

    In general if you want to get involved with a socio-political organiz'n, you'll be most effective as the balance of influence in one that's about at equipoise, agreeing with you about 50%.

    1. A little turgid. And you assume all LP activism is the same everywhere. This clearly isn't and cannot be true. For example, some cities and states are already one party states, where the local GOP is no bigger and less robust than the LP. Some LP campaigns recently win permanent ballot status.

  21. progressive social values

    Yuk. I don't want feminism, affirmative action, gun control, open borders, forced integration, or government sponsored propaganda.

  22. my best friend's step-aunt makes $73/hr on the laptop. She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $21645 just working on the laptop for a few hours. go

  23. The assertion that a minor party always injures the major party it is closed too ideologically has been disproven by political science and polling research. The Oct. 22, 2004 Washington Post had a front-page story saying three of the nation's leading pollsters gave extra questions to any respondent who said he or she was voting for Ralph Nader. To a slight degree, most Nader voters said if they couldn't vote for Nader, they would vote for George W. Bush over John Kerry. Election returns verified this conclusion; see the research at http://www.ballot-access.org. It's in the Jan. 1, 2005 print edition.
    Also pollster turned political scientist Sam Lubell learned that Henry Wallace's 1948 Progressive Party run for president caused Truman to win. See "The Future of American Politics" (1950).

    1. One Politico cited poll shows Sarvis taking more votes from McAuliffe. Since McAuliffe people at this point may feel sure of a win, I actually think some should be persuaded to vote Savis rather than soil themselves voting for their criminal candidate, whose election is certain.

  24. Well, win or lose, he's got the prettiest family of any candidate out there. Those kids look adorable and his wife is lovely.

  25. Since I am currently a part time grad student at GMU I perused the reason interview people were tweeting where Sarvis was asked about Austrian economics. I don't remember him being critical as opposed to saying he likes various schools of economics and did not pick GMU because of the Austrians, but for its convenience as he lives nearby.

    In my intro grad school micro class at GMU one text is Simpson's "Beyond Politics," a public choice primer. The author says he is not an Austrian, and its a book on public choice theory, not Austrian capital theory or business cycle theory. But the author surveys other related schools and says he isn't an Austrian but often uses Austrian arguments, even unwittingly. I don't think you should treat these schools of thought like religions to whom you swear fealty.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.