Posted on 10/25/2013 2:10:07 PM PDT by TBP
While I’m closer to Sarvis’s viewpoint than Cuccinelli’s on marriage, marijuana, and I am sure other policy issues as well, there have been a number of concerning red flags about Sarvis’s positions.
Take tax policy, for instance, where Sarvis just doesn’t sound like a libertarian at all to me. Virginia is around the middle of the pack when it comes to tax climate, and could desperately use additional reforms in a time when the state economy is doing so well to lighten the burden on workers. Yet Sarvis told Chuck Todd he didn’t actually favor more tax cuts, but finding savings through more efficiency. In that interview, he also endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare – which most libertarians in Virginia have been fighting tooth and nail. Despite going through George Mason’s program, he doesn’t sound like he shares their views, telling Reason: “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” That makes sense, given that he’s endorsed more transportation taxes, too – including higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I read the transcript of his Chuck Todd interview and he sure sounds like one. He is actually a failed Republican candidate. He has some good ideas on how to produce more Doctors and Nurses and his 2nd amendment stance is good but on expanding Medicare he is horrible saying that we can’t expand Medicare till we fix government interference in healthcare/make it more efficient. Well that is not a good answer. The libertarian answer and the conservative answer is to NOT EXPAND it ever. The true conservative and libertarian would sever all federal management and regulation of healthcare and return it to the states.
Cuccinelli is the only candidate opposing the expansion. I watched Sarvis during the round table in Richmond today and he just looked stoned and came off as if the only reason to vote for him is because he supports ssm as if gay activism is anywhere near the primary concern of Virginians. Conservatives get blamed for pushing their ideology but they are the ones demanding everyone be taught to love Jesus in schools as lgbt activists are trying to force every child to be taught to praise and love homsexuality. Sarvis also is hugely pro-abortion.
Well, is he a drug-crazed, baby-killing, packer (who likes smaller government)?
If not, then he's a LINO.
I never see threads about Sarvis’s tax policy & views on Obamacare.
If he’s the better choice shouldn’t he be promoting his fiscal ideas??
The only thing the guy wants to talk about is ssm. It always comes back to gays for him.
If he’s for more taxes and Medicaid expansion he ain’t a libertarian at all, just a liberal saying he’s a libertarian like Bill Mahr. Too bad he’s taking votes from our guy cause people are stupid.
The point being that his social liberalism part, is fully libertarian, as the author makes clear.
Fully liberal too. Economics and size of government is the real focus of libertarianism. It’s not accurate to call yourself a libertarian if you want to raise taxes and expand government. People are supporting this chump because they think he’s for small government, if all they want is faggotry and abortion then they have McAwful.
I think I already said what he was in post 20, I don’t know why you keep repeating it.
He may have his flaws as a libertarian in some ways, but the author does point out that he is a good libertarian as far as being a social liberal.
So, is "your guy" a drug-crazed, baby-killing, packer-lover?
bump
WTF? If you can’t tell, I’m for Cuccinelli and I’m pissed off this joker Savris is taking votes from him. I assure you he isn’t talking more votes from McAwful, Libertarians NEVER do.
Whatever.
Well, I don't know who Cuccinelli is, it sounded like he was also supposed to be a "Libertarian". Hopefully he's a level-headed conservative.
What? I have no idea what you are going on about.
My point is that we don’t need the liberal/libertarian who wrote this article to tell us that Sarvis is liberal, Sarvis’s libertarian positions on social issues proves that.
Both Sarvis and the author are libertarians on social issues, that alone pushes them both over to the left.
The republican is the clear choice in this election.
Never mind.
I’m not a big fan of Libertarians, nor am I keenly aware of the gubernatorial candidates.
Hope your guy wins.
Ever heard of Paul LePage?
Ever heard of Paul LePage?
Yes. How's it going in Maine?
Well, it’s touch and go.
LePage is not a politician, and says things in public that you and I might exchange in a conversation...like that “The NAACP can KMA, they’re just a special interest group, or “47% of able bodied Mainers are not working”
While he is probably right on both counts, the RATagandists are having a hay-day trying to destroy him.
He declares his candidacy for a second term on Nov 5.
If he’s not a TEApublican...I’ve never seen one.
Ross Perot was not hired by Bill Clinton. Sarvis has undoubtedly received a great deal of financial support, albeit indirectly, from McAulife and his supporters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.