Skip to comments.Ron Paul Backs Cuccinelli, Snubs Libertarian Sarvis
Posted on 10/13/2013 8:08:21 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Ron Paul has endorsed Republican Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor, turning away from Libertarian Robert Sarvis, who many feel could bleed away GOP votes.
Paul, a former Republican Texas congressman with libertarian leanings who ran for the presidency three times, did not mention Sarvis in his letter supporting Cuccinelli, reports Politico. Instead, he praised Cuccinelli as someone who will "stand up to the politicians of both parties in Washington."
Polls show Cuccinelli trailing Democrat Terry McAuliffe, however the GOP candidate questioned the survey which showed the biggest gap nine points behind his opponent.
Sarvis is seen as a potential spoiler who could take votes from the Republican state attorney general, who in the past has spoken out against gay marriage and abortion. However Paul remains popular among libertarians, so his endorsement could lead some back to the Cuccinelli side.
But Paul said Cuccinelli stands for many of the same views libertarians hold.
"Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government," wrote Paul in an open letter. "He has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against Obamacare shows he is willing to stand up to Washingtons continued abuses on our individual liberties."
And Paul quoted libertarian activist Donna Holt, who called Cuccinelli "the most pro-liberty legislator and attorney general we have ever had in Virginia."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Because most third party voters know perfectly well that their candidate is not going to win the Presidency (or any other high Federal office). By definition, that makes third parties protest votes for people who know that Crook/Moron (D) or Moron/Crook (R) is going to be President, but who can't bring themselves to bother voting for either.
The bottom line remains that Bush I, Dole, McCain, and Romney can go on pretending that third party candidates cost them the election, when the fact remains that people wouldn't be voting for those third party candidates (or staying home) if the GOP fielded halfway decent candidates to begin with.
Incidentally, there are third party breakaways on the Left as well: Ralph Nader and his Greens. Gore blamed them for his loss in 2000. Chances are, most of those people wouldn't have voted for Gore either, even if there were no Nader and no Green party.
That attitude serves ONLY to accelerate the decline and destruction of America.
It does NOTHING toward sending any entrenched establishment a message.
Lately, establishment Republicans have done almost as much to accelerate America's decline as have Democrats, so I fail to see your point.
Does it really matter to me (or to you) whether amnesty for illegal third world immigrants is signed into law by a Democrat or a Republican? The net result is exactly the same. Or if the banks and wall street firms get another taxpayer-funded bailout under a Republican lead TARP vs. a Democrat-led "stimulus"?
There is a third party in VA guaranteed to elect McAuliffe. Cuccinelli has no chance; he has trailed throughout the campaign. He has avoided immigration as an issue, arguing that is a federal and not a state matter. I am sure will find out on the night Nov. 5 that VA is still stuck on stupid.
Yes, that is the point I set out to make before receiving a bunch of defensive, knee-jerk, excuses for 3rd party candidates.
Odd. Ron Paul finally does something decent with his endorsements — tries to convince his cultists to support the mainstream conservative Republican instead of the Paulbot Libertarian. Hope it helps.
The vote is a blunt political instrument. It should be used to achieve an outcome, not to make a statement, such that you can feel good about yourself.
Color me shocked. Good for Paul. He’s probably thinking about Rand 2016.
I’m sure most of those kooks will find a way to disagree with their idol.
Ron Paul was the LP's nominee for President in 1988, I'd hardly say he has nothing to do with them. He ran as a Republican to get elected to Congress, but he has close ties to the LP and most "big L" card-carrying Libertarian Party members are big Ron Paul fans who would love to run him for President again.
Yes, Paul's pro-life, and most of the LP is pro-choice, but the scary thing is that Paul is probably more conservative than the average Paulbot who worships him. I'd be willing to bet that at least 70-80% of the people who voted for Gary Johnson were Paulbots. I know several Paulbots who voted for Gary Johnson, including one who lied and claimed he was going to support Romney in the general, then admitted later that he pulled the lever for Johnson.
Ron Paul tried to stay neutral in the 2008 presidential election. He finally endorsed the Consitution Party nominee only because Bob Barr wouldn't shut up and kept trying to cash in on Paul's personality cult by retroactively claiming he was Ron Paul's BFF when the two served in Congress together. Paul knew it was BS, and endorsed the Constitution Party candidate just to make it explicitly clear he was NOT supporting Barr.
Millions of the votes Perot received were from people who wouldn’t have voted anyway because of the excitement of the Perot circus. Without Bush, Perot wouldn’t have happened.
>> Dont need a second of time to think about NOT supporting the anti-life pot smoking gay marriage libertarian party,
We don’t say democrats when referring to Democrats.
Your beef is with the Libertarian Party and the yahoos that subscribe to it. A libertarian does not intrinsically support the things on your list.
Someone only talked of the Libertarian Party and their platform is online. Nobody ever mentioned individual libertarians but it’s a long time since one expected those associated with the libertarian cause to be reasonable and Gary Johnson pulled his 2% or however much of the national vote.
Ron has endorsed Cuccinelli before. His biggest fault in my opinion is he unlike his son was never interested in winning or making sure his message wasn’t construed to be isolationist.
No, what's excessive is the number of RNC apparatchiks who are RINOs.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I find it ironic that people who were praised in 2010 are suddenly RINOs now. I don’t think I agree with anyone 100% of the time. I don’t think that makes them a RINO though.