Spreading the message of liberty

So as many of you heard, Virginia is getting a new governor. A slime-coated, plastic, corrupt little despot by the name of Terry McAuliffe. How this noxious carpetbagger was able to march into Virginia and get thousands of people to give them their vote was an unfortunate combination of an incompetent campaign run by the minions of Republican Ken Cuccinelli, a smear campaign run by Democrat operatives, with the support of the libertarians, the scumbaggery of corrupt RINO politicians in Richmond and outright betrayal by the establishment GOP, exacerbated by Lt. Governor Bill Bolling’s hissy fit, because it was HIS TURN TO BE GOVERNOR, DAMMIT!, and the lack of support from the GOP and from big business, whom Cuccinelli pissed off more than once.

I’ve seen numerous Facebook posts and Internet articles debating whether Libertarian Robert Sarvis took away more votes from McAuliffe or Cuccinelli.

I would submit to you that it does not matter. At. All. And here’s why.

No one is entitled to a vote. Every person running for public office needs to run their own campaign, emphasizing their strengths and promoting their view of government and public service. If the people agree he or she is the best one for the job, they cast their vote accordingly. Sarvis didn’t “take away” votes from anyone. He had his own fan club, and 7 percent of voters in Virginia gave him their confidence, either because they believed he was the best one for the job, or because they were sick and tired of the two major parties.

Cuccinelli’s people ran an incompetent campaign. Cuccinelli is a pretty damn good liberty candidate. It’s true that he’s a social conservative, and a religious one at that. He believes life begins at conception. He does not personally support gays getting married. That said, he also wants to get the government out of marriage, and while gay marriage is against his PERSONAL beliefs, he has said his goal is to “make Virginia a place where everyone has equal opportunity.”  When asked about abortion restrictions, he told the Washington Post a few months ago, “I do not expect to use the political capital of the governor’s office to be moving those pieces of legislation. My focus is on job creation and job growth.” And he’s actually open to marijuana legalization!

And yet, when Democrats and libertarians began to advance the narrative about Cuccinelli being a misogynistic Neanderthal early in the game, the Cuccinelli campaign allowed them to define him, instead of striking back hard and striking back early. They didn’t define their candidate. They allowed those whose goal was to defeat him to do so. And guess what! It worked! McAuliffe spent millions of dollars he received from sources outside Virginia – sources interested in seeing him win the governorship – on sliming Cuccinelli as someone who wants to regulate women’s vaginas and anal sex!

Guess what! Twenty percent of Virginia’s voters admitted in exit polls that abortion was their top issue! ABORTION. Not the disastrous health care law. Not the economy. Abortion. McAuliffe’s support was pretty strong among women, who just happen to be the sole recipients of abortion procedures, and apparently voted with their genitals, not their brains.

And what did you think would happen if Virginians were consistently bombarded with ads falsely claiming Cuccinelli was a monster who would ban abortion, legislate their vaginas and wanted to ban birth control (an outright lie, by the way – I read the legislation the liberals allege would ban contraception, and there’s no mention of it and no way it could be construed to even attempt to ban birth control)? What would happen if loud libertarian voices echoed that message from every corner on the Internet? Exactly what happened. The “Vagina First” voters came out in droves to vote against Cuccinelli, because VAGINA!

Bill Bolling, who has had sand in his vagina ever since the upstart Cuccinelli got himself nominated for the GOP candidacy for governor, has been trying to sabotage the Republican’s campaign from the start. First, desperate to split the GOP vote, Bolling, desperate to get even, contemplated running for governor as an independent. He refused to do the classy thing, preferring to be a sore loser, and wouldn’t endorse Cuccinelli for governor. Then, he tried to persuade the Northern Virginia Technology Council to rescind their endorsement of Cuccinelli in favor of McAuliffe. Meanwhile, RINO scum comprised of Eric Cantor’s former chief-of-staff, joined the McAuliffe campaign, after his buddy Bolling didn’t get “his turn.” With friends like that, who needs enemies!

Governor Bob McDonnell’s corruption scandal dragged Cuccinelli in knee-deep. Unfortunately the Star Scientific scandal took its toll on Cuccinelli, even though he wound up giving the money to charity. ABC news reported in August that voters overall were divided about the candidates for governor when it came to honesty and trustworthiness, though the McAuliffe’s numbers were slightly better. McAuliffe. Even AFTER revelations about an SEC investigation regarding worker visas secured by his car company, GreenTech, and the way in which the firm attracted wealthy foreign investors. If you think McDonnell’s corruption had nothing to do with Cuccinelli’s defeat, I have a bridge to sell you.

The establishment, traitorous, corporate-welfare loving RINOs actively sabotaged Cuccinelli. There’s not much I can say that the linked article hasn’t said already.

Remember that the establishment came out hard four years ago for the now-tainted RINOish governor Bob McDonnell, but this year largely left the cash-strapped Cuccinelli to his own devices against the fabulously wealthy Terry McAuliffe, the Democrats’ Daddy Warbucks.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project, key GOP fundraising organs lavished funds in the 2009 election cycle on the ethically slippery McDonnell.  The Republican Party of Virginia and the Republican National Committee gave McDonnell $2,704,348 and $2,253,500, respectively.

In the 2013 election cycle, the two big political committees were stingy, according to available data.  As of Oct. 23, the Republican Party of Virginia had given Cuccinelli $843,085, and the RNC had coughed up a paltry $85,098 for the gubernatorial candidate.

As much as we hate to think that elections are won with money, they’re won with money. McAuliffe had millions of it, and he used it to bombard Virginia with television and radio ads, painting Cuccinellli as some kind of Taliban imam who would wrap women in burqas and force them to stay home barefoot and pregnant (as opposed to leaving them in the car crying with a newborn, while you attend a fundraiser). Meanwhile, the GOP stood on the sidelines and did practically nothing.

Misinformation came from all ends. It wasn’t just the Democrats who besieged the airwaves and social media with the mythical war on women allegedly being waged by Cuccinelli. Yeah, those lofty libertarians piled on as well. From every corner of the Interverse, all I heard was how Cooch was a tyrant, how he was a theocrat, how he wanted to legislate vaginas and sex… all from the libertarian camp. And that wasn’t just the “war on women and gays” that the libertarians spread misinformation about! Even on issues such as gun rights, the Sarvis campaign tried to tank Cuccinelli, who was by the way, one of the most pro-gun candidates we’ve ever had! EVER. He cites this RPV effort to get gun owner info via the Freedom of Information Act, ignoring the fact that there’s not a single indication that KC supported this effort, and Mark Obenshain actually tried to stop this effort. But hey, don’t let that stop the Sarvis campaign of falsely tying Cuccinelli to something he didn’t do! Between the dogpile about Cuccinelli’s supposed misogyny and the faux connection between Cuccinelli and the RPV’s efforts to invade the privacy of gun owners, I don’t ever want to hear Sarvis complain about how he’s been slandered as a Democrat plant! EVER!

Frankly, I want nothing to do with Sarvis. Period. While he wasn’t a bad candidate, I supported Cuccinelli as the candidate whose views more closely matched mine in matters most important to me.  I would have been happy to vote for Sarvis, had the GOP candidate been a corrupt scumbag like Bolling, but I honestly thought Cuccinelli was the better man for the job. Meanwhile, Sarvis admitted to Rob personally that he knew he had no hope of winning. His was a campaign to teach the GOP a lesson. And that lesson helped Terry McAuliffe to the governor’s mansion. Meanwhile the LP is jumping around squawking about how the Sarvis campaign helped spread the message of liberty.

Yeah. Right. By running a candidate who had no chance of winning with the goal of “spreading the message,” they helped tank a decent candidate – not perfect by any means, but decent – in favor of a corrupt, plastic, slimy leftist carpetbagger who couldn’t care less about Virginia, doesn’t know about Virginia and is using Virginia as a rung on his political ladder. They sent the message that they will whine about misinformation spread about them, while doing a whole lot of mudslinging of their own. They sent the message that bigots exist everywhere – bigots who will discount a religious candidate, because… OH NOES! VAGINA LEGISLATION! And they sent the message that it’s perfectly OK to elect a slimy, smarmy, corrupt leftist, who will work hard to relieve Virginians of gun rights, property rights and the right to make choices regarding their own health care, just to punish the social conservatives.

I’m all for spreading the message of liberty, but not at the expense of ACTUAL liberty, of which McAuliffe will work to relieve us.

And while I don’t believe, like some, that Sarvis was a Democratic plant, he certainly did his part to help McAuliffe get elected – and it wasn’t by siphoning votes.

36 responses

  1. McAuliffe’s support was pretty strong among women, who just happen to be the sole recipients of abortion procedures, and apparently voted with their genitals, not their brains.
    The exit polls I’ve seen (yes, I know people lie on exit polls, but it’s all we have) show Cuccinelli winning among white women 54-38 and McAuliffe winning among black women 91-7. Those numbers aren’t too far off where the overall vote split along racial lines. It’s also the case that McAuliffe did much better among unmarried voters than among married voters of both sexes. Given the fact that Democrats win the black vote by an absurd margin, and the rate of marriage among blacks is lower than among whites, the racial divide would also skew the vote breakdown by marital status. It seems possible that McAuliffe’s perceived strong support among women was more an issue of race and marital status.

    Like

    1. The 20 percent weren’t divided by racial or marital status lines, as far as I know. It would also help to look at geography. Urban vice rural.

      Like

  2. “That said, [Cuccinelli] also wants to get the government out of marriage, and while gay marriage is against his PERSONAL beliefs…”

    So why did he support Marshall-Newman? Why did he patron a resolution asking Congress to amendment the Constitution to define marriage AND ban civil unions and domestic partnerships? Why did he vote against a bill to allow private companies to provide health insurance to domestic partners? And a few years later, a similar bill about life insurance?

    Certainly these were all several years ago, but has he changed his mind on any of them?

    I bring this up not to reargue about Cuccinelli. But I would like to see future liberty candidates held to a higher standard.

    Like

    1. Is it impossible to believe that he decided being a dick about social issues is not the way to go, or as he said, there are bigger, more important issues to worry about?

      Like

  3. It’s possible, though I don’t want to give a politician credit when he doesn’t deserve it. I also find it very convenient for those who want to say that marriage is a distraction, or an unimportant issue, now that the public is turning against them, but it wasn’t while they were making it an issue year after year, election after election. And it’s not that I think marriage is the most important issue. But I do think it is both good policy and good politics.

    Like

    1. Those who were complaining about the right making a huge Issue about marriage in the past are the same ones making it a huge issue from the other side now. It’s good policy to get government out of marriage altogether, instead of advocating government authorization or rejection of a specific union.

      And while I’m loath to trust politicians, I’m basing my assessment on what he told the Post about abortion. There are bigger issues to worry about.

      Like

  4. The Democrats are always going to demonize the GOP on social issues. Leftovers actually even try to demonize Libertarians on them. If you read the trolls in the replies on Nick Gillespie’s TIME piece on Sarvis, there one is complaining that libertarians don’t believe in tax subsidies for birth control and quotas for gays at every workplace. But given this fact, that Dems will always scapegoat you to scare single moms and gay people of low intelligence, what do you do about it? Maybe pick a candidate who will keep his trap shut about this stuff.

    That said, I totally agree with the lovely and talented Ms. Fellenzer-Kenyon, even though I was on team Sarvis. If the GOP had funded Cuccinelli and not kept his balls in a box until the end, or if the shutdown had not happened and we had had another week of watching Obamacare collapse, he, the better of the two establishment candidates would be elected. Solution: fire the GOP consultant class.

    Like

    1. The lovely and talented Mr. Bruce Majors has a point. The consultants are idiots and need to go!

      The other problem I see is that I doubt anyone but a very few people live their lives with the express plan of running for statewide or national office, and I don’t think we’re accustomed to the whole Interwebs thing reminding us what we said 10-15 years ago and it coming back to bite us in the ass. Notice KC didn’t talk about social issues this election cycle. At all. He had bigger things to focus on. And actually, the same thing could be said about Jackson. He’s said some pretty mind-numbingly frothing fundamentalist fruitcake things during his sermons and in his past. He’s a Christian, and other than the WAY he said that stuff, it’s pretty mainstream Christian crap. But not once, during the many times I’ve heard him speak and met him, did he go off on social issues as a candidate. The biggest focus was and is the economy and all that’s associated with it. But like KC, his past words were hammered far and wide.

      Yes, the Democrats are going to demonize the GOP on social issues, whether fair or not, but you can’t deny that the libertarian set joined in on the bonfire, despite the fact that KC was not the theocon nutbag Democrats made him out to be. And they joined in early and hard. It’s unfortunate. It’s one thing to spread the message of liberty – a goal I wholeheartedly support. It’s quite another to run a campaign meant not to win, but to smear the Republican in order to teach him some kind of lesson. I don’t like the way business was done. I don’t.

      Like

  5. That he didn’t talk about those things on the campaign trail only tells me that’s what Cuccinelli (or his team) thought he had to do to get elected. I suppose that’s a small victory — even in Virginia, at least some social conservatives are realizing their greatest hits don’t play like they did just a few years ago.

    We disagree about the relative importance of the issue. That’s fine. Again, it’s not that I don’t think there are bigger issues. It’s that this is an issue that a lot of potential allies do care about, and ignoring that issue is practically an invitation to the next Robert Sarvis (whatever else you want to say about him) to try to exploit it.

    We also disagree about the best policy option. I think there’s plenty of room for disagreement, and I understand where you’re coming from. But whatever your preferred policy, Marshall-Newman is in the way. The votes aren’t there to repeal it, but that’s true of any number of issues, and that’s not a reason not to put pressure on Republicans. If you want to grow the liberty movement, particularly within the Republican party, this is a good place to start. At a minimum, let’s not sugarcoat the records of the likes of Ken Cuccinelli.

    Like

    1. Marshall-Newman is a steaming turd, and every time I see Bob Marshall, I glare daggers at him. My hatred for this idiot is palpable, which is really amusing when you watch the look on his face, trying to figure out why this woman is glaring at him. Rob will confirm this. It’s funny.

      That said, my solution is always less government, not more, and I think you get my point on this one.

      You might like this blog entry I did on Marshall a while back.

      I agree with putting pressure on the Republicans. I agree with spreading the message far and wide. But to spread exaggerations and outright lies, and making the guy sound way worse than he actually is, is pretty low. It’s Democrat territory, not LP. From what I saw, the Cuccinelli campaign virtually ignored Sarvis at first. That was a mistake, in my estimation. They should have reached out to the LP, but they didn’t. But the LP came on pretty strong with the Taliban description of KC, who is, by the way, pretty mainstream as far as Christians go. Putting pressure on the GOP, yes. Destroying the GOP in favor of a slimebag like McAuliffe, no. And essentially, that was Sarvis’ goal. He knew he couldn’t get elected, so why not just teach the GOP a lesson instead, helping screw the rest of Virginia in the long run. That’s why I’m pissed.

      Like

  6. First you say you can’t blame Sarvis. Then sum things up by blaming Sarvis in the end. Fact is those polled at exit polling who voted Sarvis were 2:1 in favor of McA over Ken. The Lt. Gov race should have been a clear indicator of where those votes would have went. The GOP lost that race by DOUBLE DIGITS.

    Like

    1. No, what I said was that I won’t blame Sarvis for siphoning votes from Cuccinelli. That’s unrealistic, and it’s stupid. No one is entitled to votes! Sarvis and his campaign are partially responsible for the slew of exaggerations and misinformation about Cuccinelli. And Cuccinelli’s campaign was too stupid to fire back (or as Bruce says, they put his balls in a box).

      Like

    2. Yeah, no. Mark Obenshain, who will be our next Attorney General, is a lot like Ken. If everyone who voted for Mark voted for Ken, he’d be Governor-Elect.

      Like

    3. You pointed out “gun rights” as a place Sarvis attacked Ken and even linked to his campaign page. I see not one mention of his opponent there. I see him talking “Republicans”(plural), but if you follow the link(as you did and linked to yourself) you’ll see(as you did) it was the RP of VA that made the requests and while one of their members tried to protect the data it doesn’t change the fact Sarvis didn’t lie when he said “Republicans” and never mentioned Obenshain or Ken.

      It is 100% right and proper for an LP candidate to attack both sides of the aisle and if the GOP doesn’t like it. Quit giving us all the ammo we need from TARP, the Patriot Act, two wars, uncontrolled spending(on both sides), etc…

      On divisive social issues, you should be advocating removing them from government control(Marriage belongs in the church right? It should be civil unions for ALL) because of the fact they are divisive(or at the very least leaving them to the states as some liberty R’s advocate).

      The only difference these days between the two major parties is whether you prefer the left or right boot on your throat.

      Like

      1. That’s exactly right! This is a not so tacit attempt to link KC to the RPV’s retardery, which he had nothing to do with. And not only that, but he’s not exactly the establishment darling! What is it that you think his focus on the GOP in that statement is meant to do, if not link Cuccinelli to that effort? Really?

        Like

    4. Did Sarvis actually spent any significant time talking about Cuccinelli on social issues? I know I didn’t. I did see some libertarians who did. I agree mcAwful is far worse in every way. Of course, I gave $25 to Cuccinelli and only gave Sarvis a week or two of full time volunteer work.

      Like

      1. Not sure about Sarvis personally, which is why I said libertarians as a whole. Quite many of them did. Sarvis pissed me off with this cowardly, cowry implication that KC has anything to do with the gun owner FOIA. The effort had nothing to do with Cuccinelli, and yet, he has it on his site as the Republican effort, which ties KC to it. Ugh.😦

        Like

    5. Nonsense. What you’re saying is that some Democrats decided to support the Libertarian candidate to somehow “teach the GOP a lesson?” That makes no sense whatever.

      Like

  7. P.S. It also not Ken opponents’ job to correct misinformation. about Ken.

    Like

    1. No, it’s also not their job to pile on the misinformation.

      Like

    2. Show me ONE place Sarvis mentioned Ken when talking about the FOIA request. If people tie Ken to the RPV stupidity… I’d blame that on the RPV of which he is a member. Did he speak out against their request? Not that I know of. If your not part of the solution, it will be assumed you are part of the problem.

      Like

      1. See my comment above.

        Like

  8. So, tell me again, why I should ever bother voting again?

    Like

  9. It certainly didn’t help that a former Obama Bundler from Texas virtually financed the entire “Libertarian” candidate’s campaign. More dirty tricks by the Democrats.

    Like

    1. That’s false. He has been giving the the LP for years. He gives to te party as a whole. Sarvis’s single biggest donation to his campaign was $20,000 by Sarvs himself. The outside money was spent by PurplePAC. Most of what that donor has given has been directly to the LNC. He has never given to the DNC. Yes, he bundled for Obama at one point… in 2008.

      All his giving since the 2008 cycle has been to the LP(His name is Joe Liemandt and you can look at his donations on the FEC website). He’s a civil libertarian who agreed with ’08 Obama on the drug war, closing Guantanamo and a slew of other left leaning issues Obama came out in support of during his campaign and abandoned once he became President.

      I voted Obama myself in 2008. In 2012, after the broken promises, I voted for Gov. Gary Johnson. He like myself is fed up with the party of the NSA, IRS. In other words, we, the people in the middle you need to win elections, are fed up with Republicrats who either want to run our lives for us or say one thing and do another.

      Like

      1. And you “think” that the way to DO that is to split the conservative vote so the left will ALWAYS achieve a plurality? What planet do you LIVE on anyway? The left is winning because it’s united in its efforts. The right loses because it’s broken into small factions–each with some issue they demand “purity” about or they pick up their marbles and go home. The left REALIZED that a few decades back and ENCOURAGES it. THAT’S where we got H. Ross Perot–a friend of the Clinton’s–who allowed himself to be USED to defeat a President he despised for costing his company a cool billion in DoD computer design by cancelling the contract. If you recall, Clinton NEVER received a majority of the votes, yet was elected TWICE.

        Like

        1. Yes, I do. I’m not a “conservative” in any way the GOP represents it. I’m for LGBT rights, cannabis legalization, against the NSA, IRS, against the wars, the Patriot Act, TARP, and against spending more than we take in(the GOP talks a good game here, but signs the blank check every time). As I said above, I voted Bush in ’00, Obama in ’08, and Johnson in ’12. I’m am a swing voter turned Libertarian by the politics of fear(quit arguing over who is worse and tell me why your the best one for the job if want a chance at my support).

          Like

        2. I am too. I’ve voted libertarian every presidential year since 1992.

          Like

        3. ..but where did the “Purple PAC” get IT’S money, Bruce? Absent that money, the libertarian candidate gets bupkis and Cuccinelli wins. Any rational person would do ANYTHING rather than insure the election of McAuliff. He may be the most criminal Democrat we’ve ever witnessed other than Obama and YOU “libertarians” got him elected, by pursuing votes in a race you couldn’t POSSIBLY win….certainly not with half the D.C. bureaucracy living in northern Virginia and welded hip-to-hip with ANY “progressive” candidate.

          Like

      2. I saw how much he gave to libertarians in the past. It was literally peanuts. A few bucks here and there. All of a sudden this Obama bundler gives the second largest contribution to the Sarvis campaign in a race that is absolutely critical. I don’t believe in coincidences. You can’t tell me it wasn’t an attempt to influence VA politics!

        Like

    2. It’s fascinating how many conservative voters like you are such low information voters who parrot lies told to you my your masters media organs. I watch this happen on the left daily so this case study of propaganda lies from the right is truly interesting as an epidemiological study.

      The Austin Democrat gave Sarvis’s campaign $11,000. Sarvis gave himself $20,000 and raised somewhere over $50,000. Then the all libertarian Purple PAC spent $300,000. Total Sarvis spending was somewhere between $380,000 and $500,000. The Democrat gave him less than 3% of his funds! but to you that is being totally financed by him.

      So I guess what the liberals say about the GOP being anti-science is true. Since you can’t do basic arithmetic.

      Also note Sarvis spent something like $2.60 a vote. Cuccinelli spent $14 a vote, and McAuliffe $21.

      It looks like Sarvis took 15% of the 25-29 age voters, since Politico says McAuliffe got 50% and Cuccinelli 35%.

      Like

  10. There’s an elephant in the room. The person most responsible for Ken Cuccinelli’s loss was not Ken himself (though he did run a bad campaign) nor Robert Sarvis (who ran a surprisingly good campaign — the best showing by a third-party gubernatorial candidate in Virginia history) but the running mate Ken did not want to run with: E.W. Jackson.

    If the GOP convention had nominated someone sane like Pete Snyder or Susan Stimpson, Ken would probably be governor-elect today. Jackson’s wacky and frightening rhetoric easily accounts for 3 percent of the anti-Ken vote, especially when you consider low-information voters who think that Jackson was chosen by Cuccinelli (as lieutenant governor candidates are chosen in Maryland, for instance, or as vice presidential running mates are chosen nationally). A lot of voters don’t understand that the three statewide candidates in Virginia are nominated separately and run legally separate campaigns.

    I know a lot of social conservatives don’t want to hear this, but E.W. Jackson sank Cuccinelli, and he may be responsible for sinking Mark Obenshain, too, if the canvass and recount don’t go Mark’s way.

    If Ken had stepped in at the convention and indicated his preference for Snyder, we’d all be looking forward to dancing at the inaugural ball.

    Like

    1. Sorry, Rick – while I agree that the selection of Jackson may have played a hand in Cuccinelli’s loss, I disagree that KC should have stepped in at the convention. Snyder was a plastic, Mitt Romney-like establishment GOP drone. I wouldn’t want him as LG any more than I would want Romney in the White House, especially with his loud and proud support of the gun ban on Virginia’s campuses. I will submit the following, however:

      I’ve met Jackson several times and heard him speak a bunch more in the political arena. He was great on gun rights and great on fiscal issues – two issues most important to me in a politician. The Democrats and libertarians laid into Jackson early – about the minute he won the nomination – painting him as a crazy extremist. Everything the media touted was in the context of his sermons – as a preacher – which, as much as I disagree with it, is pretty mainstream Christian mantra, despite its fire/brimstone tone. By the time everyone was done with him, it didn’t matter that he said several times that he did not plan on imposing his Christian views into the way he governs, or that he was in favor of decriminalizing marijuana – a major issue for libertarians. All anyone focused on was his religious fervor on the pulpit and tying KC to Jackson. We could have trusted Jackson on his claim that he would never impose his Christian views on others via government force or not. He doesn’t have a record in government, so who knows. We certainly can’t judge by his policy decisions. But what I can definitively say is that the left, aided by the libertarians, piled on the GOP ticket, and painted the entire ticket as some kind of extremist American Taliban.

      Would he have done as he promised, and kept his religious views out of public office? We’ll never know. But we DO know what kind of smarmy slime we’re going to have in the Governor’s mansion, and to me that is repugnant.

      Like

    2. No, I was all about stopping Pete Snyder. The candidates I considered more objectionable than Snyder (Davis, Martin, Lingamfelter) were all gone by that point. Pete is a plastic establishment tool who was in charge of the horrible 2012 RPV Victory operation, and spent that whole year traveling the state talking about himself rather than George Allen or Mitt Romney. He had been setting up to run with Bill Bolling, and built his team around Victory staff and Romney/Bolling people. I would have been enthusiastically behind Stewart or Stimpson. Pete Snyder? I think not. I’m glad Jackson defeated him, despite the fact that Jackson was doomed in the general.

      Like

  11. Also, people need to get off the Joe Liemandt thing. That PAC has helped a lot of LP candidates, including Laura Delhomme. Now, I do blame Ed Crane and his Purple PAC for coming in specifically because he opposed Cuccinelli (he’s quoted as saying so) and effectively helping McAuliffe.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: