The Importance of the Virginia Governor's Race for Libertarians

[speciallyblend]

Would the liberty movement get behind a Mike Huckabee campaign? Serious question, because I can't tell Rand Paul, Ken Cuccinelli, et. al apart from him. None of the issues that I once gave a shit about in 2007 are even being remotely addressed anymore by these watered-down Republicans.

The gop is dying . What you are seeing is the creation of fossil fuel, even rand paul lost me as a delegate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGeskFzE0s

 

[fisharmor]

And voting for Sarvis isn't voting for the 'lesser evil?'

...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

 

[cajuncocoa]

This is how the GOP keeps losing elections. Instead of reaching out to libertarians and including our concerns in the platform, we get this. You need us more than we need you.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Many Libertarians first went through the phase of being Republicans (AKA, the people who lose legislatively). We're allowed to laugh at them back.

+rep. I laugh at those who think voting for the GOP matters at this point. What difference does it make? They end up caving to the Democrats when the going gets rough (which is synonymous with losing when it comes right down to it).

 

[cajuncocoa]

...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

+rep !!!

 

[cjm]

We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.

I disagree with this. Both Sarvis and Cuccinelli will provide net gains to the liberty movement. The only difference is that Cuccinelli is within the margin-of-error in a couple recent polls.

libertarian Virginians should vote for Cuccinelli

 

[Cap]

Serious question for Edwardo:

Ed, which camp do you place yourself in, the Liberty movement or the Republican camp? IMO there is quite a difference.

 

[speciallyblend]

...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

+rep but it wouldn't let me

 

[speciallyblend]

This is how the GOP keeps losing elections. Instead of reaching out to libertarians and including our concerns in the platform, we get this. You need us more than we need you.

so true, and they don't even need us anymore but that doesn't change the fact. They will lose without us and that is why i see them losing again and again. They deserve to lose. Accountability is a bitch.
Plan on serving it on election day.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

T-mator makes the best argument for me to stomach a vote in Sarvis's favor but even then, I'd still have to back Cooch. If the GOP nominee was establishment then I'd certainly go LP but Cooch was the grassroots delegates' choice against the insider (VAGOP) estab's pick at their convention, so imo that makes a difference. And the last thing the LP needs for their credibility is to keep fielding beltarians as their candidates. In the pursuit of coalition building, I'd think making allies w/ conservatives that are friendly towards libertarians for the most part would be the way to go. It's not too often when you get a conservative candidate that is clean enough to openly back decrim so that at minimum differentiates him from the more theocratic, doctrinaire socons like Santorum. The underlying theme here seems to be to stick it to the GOP in general and "they" need us more than we need them. Problem with that is a greater percentage of the GOP is being lined with the liberty movement and the tea party than ever before. So when some think they're making war on just establishment republicans, it's rubbing off on the growing segments of those who are libertarians and even ancaps in some instances. And by keeping this party transformation going, nominees in many areas aren't estab insiders anymore and we're seeing many more primarying of establishment politicians that have sold us out. The way I see it is we threaten hard in primaries and caucuses with libertarian-leaning republicans (they all won't be 5 stars, sorry) and take our coalition chances, but if we come up short against insiders I'm more than willing to vote LP and always have.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Serious question for Edwardo:

Ed, which camp do you place yourself in, the Liberty movement or the Republican camp? IMO there is quite a difference.

bumping so this doesn't get buried by other posts....I'd like to hear the answer myself. Not just from eduardo, but others who seem to continuously compromise bits of the liberty agenda for Republican victories.

 

[erowe1]

He made a very strong case that the members of Ron Paul Inc are opportunists and were so even when they worked directly on the 2012 Ron Paul campaign. They hold no libertarian principles and use libertarianism as a tool to advance their power.

The author of the OP should just say what he means. Instead of hemming and hawing about "Ron Paul Inc." he should just come right out and say that he's talking about Ron Paul himself here.

 

[cjm]

...In the pursuit of coalition building, I'd think making allies w/ conservatives that are friendly towards libertarians for the most part would be the way to go.

I understand the desire to try things out with a third party. I voted LP for most of 20 years. But in a state that gets bluer each year (we have general elections every year), Virginia Republicans have been somewhat welcoming to libertarians joining the party. Pro-life libertarians get the red carpet treatment in my observation. We don't have fist fights and broken bones here. We have Morton Blackwell and the Leadership Institute. The only libertarians that have had problems with the established GOP members that I know of, were those that came in with the "takeover" attitude that wasn't really appropriate here.

Virginia is a good place to build coalitions with conservatives. If we were deep red it might be a different story, I don't know. But this purple Virginia has opportunity for libertarians in the GOP.

Also, primaries are cheaper than general elections.

 

[erowe1]

rand paul lost me as a delegate.

+ rep

 

[Christian Liberty]

No, but I don't think he's that bad on issues other than foreign policy.

Huckabee is a freaking fascist. I seriously hope that you said this in ignorance

Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee

In April 2010, whilst speaking to student journalists at The College of New Jersey, Huckabee said that legalizing same-sex marriage would "be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?"[SUP][59][/SUP]

Shows how much he cares about liberty (Not.) I guess Mike either has never read 1 Corinthians 5, or he hates it.

Huckabee supports a larger military and a fifty percent increase in defense spending. In December 2007, he wrote:

"The Bush administration plans to increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize the challenges of increasing our enlistments without lowering standards and of expanding training facilities and personnel, and that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."[SUP][72][/SUP]
​

Disgusting. He should learn something from Ron Paul. but of course, being an evil fascist, he won't.

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. I 100% agree that we can't leave until we've left with honor because, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

[SUP]
I think this comment speaks for itself

Huckabee is "America’s leading Christian Zionist politician."[SUP][92][/SUP] He believes that the land of Israel was promised to the modern-day Jews by God. He has written that, "the Jews have a God-given right to reclaim land given to their ancestors and taken away from them."[SUP][93][/SUP]

You've spoken against Christian Zionism before, eduardo. Will you be consistent enough to condemn those who support it?

The Jewish Russian Telegraph reported that "When asked about a Palestinian state, Gov. Huckabee stated that he supports creating a Palestinian state, but believes that it should be formed outside of Israel. He named Egypt and Saudi Arabia as possible alternatives, noting that the Arabs have far more land than the Israelis and that it would only be fair for other Arab nations to give the Palestinians land for a state, rather than carving it out of the tiny Israeli state."[SUP][94][/SUP] He calls Israel an "ally", "America's greatest friend in the region", and says Israel should have access to advanced weapons and technology.[SUP][95][/SUP]

I think the implicit communism in this statement is obvious.


Huckabee said that he supports the death penalty, but only reluctantly. He believes that eliminating parole gives no incentive for rehabilitation,[SUP][7][/SUP] and believes that more prisons should be built, and their management should be privatized.[SUP][4][/SUP] As Governor, he granted 1,033 pardons and commutations which is ten times more pardons than Governor Bill Clinton granted during his tenure.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] He supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs, and supports tougher juvenile crime penalties, but believes that the states should set them. Huckabee supports drug courts for non-violent drug offenders, believes that drug education fails and drug punishment works, and that stricter penalties for drug-related crimes should be enforced. He opposes the medical use of marijuana, and said he would continue to raid, arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who are using marijuana as a medicine.[SUP][10][/SUP]

If that isn't evil I don't know what is.

[/SUP]

 

[Christian Liberty]

...
...How come you guys don't realize that we're doing exactly what you're asking?
We've already established that voting for any of the three is voting for evil.
You're asking us to vote for someone for political reasons.
We respond by saying
"Ok, then I'm going to vote for the one that
a) punishes the R team for screwing us over at every turn, and
b) brings another team into the mix which we have a prayer of controlling, and therefore
c) also brings pressure on the R team because if they ever want to win again they're going to have to deal with us."

The only practical difference for the evil we're supporting and the evil you're supporting is that we're taking the long view, and you're not.

Yeah, pretty much.

Although, as I've said, I'd probably just write in Eric Peters.

 

[idiom]

Serious question for Edwardo:

Ed, which camp do you place yourself in, the Liberty movement or the Republican camp? IMO there is quite a difference.

How many libertarian have been elected to congress outside of the Republican camp?

 

[speciallyblend]

bottom line is the gop didn't field a candidate that would sway the lp vote to come over, but the gop will not even account for their own failure. They will say the lp caused them to lose instead of fielding a candidate to sway their vote. The failure is on the gop not the lp. If the gop wants the lp vote that badly . Then run a f'in candidate they could vote for. If the gop loses? it is their own damn fault. Same will be true in Colorado, if you cannot run a candidate that is for the 2/3 voter majority in colorado. Then that gop candidate is dead in the water before the election.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The author of the OP should just say what he means. Instead of hemming and hawing about "Ron Paul Inc." he should just come right out and say that he's talking about Ron Paul himself here.

Nope. "Ron Paul Inc" refers to the political operatives who manage(d) Ron's (and Rand's) campaigns, specifically those more interested in their own personal gains than in advancement of the liberty movement and its goals. Jesse Benton would be an example, but there are others.

 

[erowe1]

Nope. "Ron Paul Inc" refers to the political operatives who manage(d) Ron's (and Rand's) campaigns, specifically those more interested in their own personal gains than in advancement of the liberty movement and its goals. Jesse Benton would be an example, but there are others.

No. Ron Paul willingly and gladly endorsed Cuccinelli, and this guy knows it.