Ed Gillespie Can't Name Three Federal Programs to End

[andykim]

The better question would be, what programs would be worth keeping.

I suggest that none are worth keeping, in their current state, most should be abolished, regardless of their state.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

A B S O L U T E LY !

[andykim]

better get busy ...I'm looking forward to these elections....then...the SHTF for the liberal elites.

http://youtu.be/FTEbvh90iXI?t=2m2s

[seeknulfind]

Here's what I see...

We have yet another "choice" between the unacceptable (Warner), the undesirable (Gillespie) and the improbable (anyone else).

This election is too important to choose the improbable so we resign ourselves to choose the undesirable. WHAT election is not too important to lose to the unacceptable candidate?

In my opinion, "we" need a new strategy and new tactics. Who are "we"? You and me and anyone else bemoaning the lousy choices we face. Let's start by asking ourselves... how did Ed Gillespie become the "GOP Candidate"?

I never heard of the guy until it was too late.

Who IS the GOP if it is not us? I've always considered myself a Republican even though I have never, EVER embraced the entire Republican platform... whatever that is today. To put it bluntly, my own beliefs more closely align with the Libertarians.

I'll challenge you to do something right now...

Go visit the Virginia Democratic Party http://www.vademocrats.org site and the Virginia Republican Party site http://rpv.org/

What will you see? Looks to me like the Republican leadership is either incompetent or complacent. After the last national election, I contacted my local party leadership and offered to do whatever necessary to help overcome our losses. The response? Nothing. Zip. Zero. NO response. Must be I'm just another nutcase.

It's time for a change. I believe this change happen within the party itself. We could start from the ground up, vote out current "leadership" and replace them with new blood.

The question is... is anyone willing to stand with me?

Andy

[ShotgunBlast]

You say you can't vote for the improbable, yet you're going to pull the lever for someone who has been behind in this race 10-12 points since it started.

You ask how Gillespie became the nominee in the first place. Well the Virginian GOP decided that a few people knew what was better for Virginia and chose a convention process instead of a primary where the people have a voice.

Face it: the Virginia GOP left you. Fortunately, the Libertarian Party has been making inroads in Virginia politics, between fielding candidates for the state GA and governor's elections last year, along with Senate and House candidates this year. You say you want a change and to send a message. I'm thinking voting for improbable Ed will only send the message that you want more candidates like him from the Virginia GOP. You may not want to vote for Sarvis because he has no chance of winning, but neither does improbable Ed. However, Sarvis only needs 10% of the vote for a win in Virginia politics - attaining major party status where they don't have to spend tons of resources just to get on the ballot and can field more candidates in races (many that currently go uncontested) that line up with your self-described Libertarian views.

Something to think about.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

You say you can't vote for the improbable, yet you're going to pull the lever for someone who has been behind in this race 10-12 points since it started.

You ask how Gillespie became the nominee in the first place. Well the Virginian GOP decided that a few people knew what was better for Virginia and chose a convention process instead of a primary where the people have a voice.

Face it: the Virginia GOP left you. Fortunately, the Libertarian Party has been making inroads in Virginia politics, between fielding candidates for the state GA and governor's elections last year, along with Senate and House candidates this year. You say you want a change and to send a message. I'm thinking voting for improbable Ed will only send the message that you want more candidates like him from the Virginia GOP. You may not want to vote for Sarvis because he has no chance of winning, but neither does improbable Ed. However, Sarvis only needs 10% of the vote for a win in Virginia politics - attaining major party status where they don't have to spend tons of resources just to get on the ballot and can field more candidates in races (many that currently go uncontested) that line up with your self-described Libertarian views.

Something to think about.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have a hard time seeing Sarvis as being an alternative to the admittedly grim prospect of voting for a less-than 100% suitable candidate. Sorry, but as I see it, Gillespie is STILL the least objectionable alternative. Hell, even if he can't name 3 federal programs he would end, Warner can't name 3 he wouldn't expand; and Sarvis seems to me to be not only questionable as to his ideology, bona fides as a libertarian, and his likely policies (or lack thereof), but he would also be an outsider to both caucuses and totally outside the power structure and therefore inconsequential and without influence. The day might come when the thing to do is put libertarians or other 3rd party people in office, but Sarvis is clearly the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only thing I'd be confident about surmising about Mr. Sarvis is that here's another guy who wants to hold national office however he can get there. He'd set the libertarian cause back 100 years.

From the NATIONAL REVIEW, 10/31/2013:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -c-w-cooke

.................................................................................
"Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope

In polite society at least, questioning the fundamental claims that people make about themselves is rather frowned upon. If a person says that he is a Catholic, then one is expected to believe that he is a Catholic, even if there is no evidence for this whatsoever. If a person says he is a conservative when he clearly agrees with not a single conservative position, we are likewise expected to smile and nod grimly. “No, you’re not!” is not a socially acceptable response to erroneous self-description, alas.

There is some virtue in this convention, I suppose, even if it is just that it helps to keep the peace. But there is an awful lot more virtue in the integrity of our political language and terminology. This is to say that if we lose the capacity to demand that words and actions remain linked, then we will lose our ability to discuss current affairs with any meaning. And that, I’m afraid, will be disastrous.

It is with this in mind that I have taken a certain exception to Robert Sarvis, the supposed “Libertarian” candidate for governor of Virginia. “Libertarian” is, admittedly, a fairly broad term, and one that is claimed by a considerable number of people across the ideological spectrum — sometimes reasonably and sometimes farcically. Nevertheless, whatever the various internecine disagreements that surface inexorably among its adherents, it does have a core meaning, and one that I would argue is generally understood. A majority of people know approximately what the definition of “libertarian” is, I would venture, and know also which position in any given race they might expect the “libertarian” candidate to stake out.

I can only imagine, therefore, that the better-informed voters in Virginia have been somewhat perplexed by Robert Sarvis, for in recent weeks he appears to have been doing his level best to give the impression that his party label is incidental. In a recent Reason interview, Sarvis explained that he was “not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics,” preferring “more mainstream economics” instead. The candidate expanded on this during an oddly defensive interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, in which he seemed put off not so much by “strongly libertarian economics” as by libertarian economics per se. As governor, Sarvis told Todd, he would be hesitant to cut taxes, unsure as to how he might “reduce spending,” and open to indulging the largest piece of federal social policy since 1965 by expanding Virginia’s Medicaid program. I am generally a critic of the tendency of small-government types to try to purge their ranks of those deemed sufficiently impure, but I must confess that this interview left even me wondering whether Sarvis is in need of a dictionary.

Worse yet was Sarvis’s rambling interview with the Virginia Prosperity Project, in which the candidate expressed his enthusiasm for increasing gas levies, and for establishing a “vehicle-miles-driven tax.” It strikes me that it is almost impossible to square such a measure with any remotely coherent “libertarian” position on that most sacred of rights: privacy. Virginia’s mooted VMT plan requires the installation of government GPS systems in private cars — an astonishingly invasive proposal. Even if this isn’t what Sarvis has in mind, the fact remains that there is simply no way of determining how far an individual has driven without the government’s checking. On Twitter, an amusing fellow with a username not fit for print in this column responded to this idea by contending: “I’m no extremist, but if you put a black box in my vehicle and tax me per mile I will burn down everything you’ve ever loved.” What sort of “libertarian” doesn’t feel this way?"

[ShotgunBlast]

On economics:

school of thought that serves as the litmus test for being a libertarian.

But that is obviously wrong. Milton Friedman was not an Austrian but was clearly a libertarian. As Friedman said (paraphrasing) "There are no schools of economics, only good economics and bad economics."

Read the Reason magazine interview that touched off the GOP self-embarrassment. Sarvis sounds decidedly libertarian throughout the interview.

Sarvis actually responded at length to an emailed question about his comments on Austrian economics. Find a link to the reply here.

Moreover, while GMU's economics department is definitely libertarian, many of its libertarian professors are not Austrians—e.g., Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok, Russ Roberts (now at the Hoover Institution), and many others.

This claim actually shows how ignorant the GOP is of both libertarianism and economics. Indeed, every single one of Sarvis's policy proposals and stances had the support of numerous libertarian economists and legal scholars.

On Medicaid expansion:

Robert Sarvis opposes government-run healthcare and overregulation of healthcare. That includes Obamacare but also includes a century of bad policies from both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare is merely the latest incarnation of a fundamentally flawed approach to healthcare policy.

Robert Sarvis has actually studied healthcare economics and proposed numerous specific deregulatory reforms at the federal and state level that will increase competition, lower costs, and liberate healthcare providers and professionals. We can have affordable and accessible healthcare in every community throughout the United States.

Sarvis opposed Medicaid expansion because it would “lead inexorably to future state-level spending increases and tax increases and the crowding out of other spending priorities.” But he has also provided numerous solutions that can help make affordable healthcare available to all! Tellingly, the Virginia GOP's legislators did not propose a single bill in the 0214 legislative session enacting any of Sarvis's myriad deregulatory proposals.)

Of course, Mark Warner voted for ObamaCare, but Ed Gillespie isn't much better—he was a core advisor in the Bush administration, which expanded the fiscally unsustainable entitlement system to include a new, unfunded prescription drug benefit (at the time, the largest entitlement program created since LBJ). Gillespie also endorsed the individual mandate, and his economic plan tacitly admits he would leave most of ObamaCare in place.

On GPS devices in vehicles:

A commentator at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a lengthy blog post, "Memo to Road Socialists", showing how ignorant the GOP's claims about Sarvis were. The post concluded:

Robert Sarvis offered the most libertarian and sensible transportation platform this election (or any election I can recall).

The GOP shamelessly (and ignorantly) attacked the very libertarian and conservative idea that the users of roads should be the ones paying for them. Sarvis did not endorse any particular model of user-pays, but the GOP claimed that he supported government putting black boxes in your car. How did they make that seem even remotely plausible? They made it up! They falsely claimed that Sarvis endorsed a mileage tax, that such a tax could only be enacted via a GPS device, and that such a device would have to be owned by the state. Voila!

All of it was utter nonsense. To begin with, Sarvis never endorsed a mileage tax. He included it as one among several policy alternatives that fit under the "user-pays" rubric. Even if he had favored a mileage tax, a mileage tax does not require a GPS device. Even if such a device were used, it could be privately operated and managed. But all of that is irrelevant because Sarvis never endorsed a mileage tax and would certainly not support the government putting tracking devices in cars.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/gop-smears

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

I get that you don't like Sarvis in particular, but you can rest assured that he won't win the race. However, neither will Gillespie. It's not even close. No one is saying the race is neck and neck or that it's too close to call. So in essence a vote for Gillespie truly is a wasted vote, but a vote for Sarvis can help get him that 10% so that a third party can offer a choice in Virginia.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Yes, Gillespie is pretty much DOA.

The convention here in Roanoke was delayed two hours so the delegates from Fairfax+Loudoun could get in to vote for him, the other guy (Shak Hill) had a slim lead until then.

[mamabearCali]

Avnoyed the crap out of me because Shak Hill looked like a live one.

I don't like Sarvis. If the libertarians want my vote they have to do better than him.

Mark Warner is a tool and an Obama kiss bootie, but if think he has got this one sewn up.

Come Nov. I'll prob vote for Gillespie. Not because I like him or think he will win, but for me the other two alternatives I cannot pull the lever for.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[seeknulfind]

Michael,

It seems to me your answer is "Vote Libertarian". Voting Libertarian is an option rather than a strategy. Let's say for a moment, a number of Virginians did that and Virginia has a bona-fide third party. Where does that us? Ten percent of the vote gets us nowhere. Eventually they may win enough elections so no one party has a majority. That would force a coalition in one or both houses. This would be fine with me. BUT, once again, we would have to ask ourselves... whose party is it?

And here is what I'm getting at: it doesn't matter what the label on the party is if WE don't change. As long as WE are content to watch from the sidelines as our "leaders" pick the candidates and push them through the system, as long as the "leaders" write the platforms and make sure they are politically expedient, WE can expect our towns, counties, states and the nation to continue down the toilet.

I just read another post (http://vagunforum.net/politics/republic ... 20995.html) on this forum from lizjimbo. His observations are right on the money. Until you and I get involved nothing is going to happen.

Call me stubborn but I would rather urge my own party members to stand for freedom and revise our policies and platforms to reflect the majority rather than change parties because a select few rule the roost.

The most truly motivated and dedicated citizens I've seen in my lifetime are the communists (whether you recognize them as "liberals", "progressives", "social democrats" "RHINOS" or whatever.) They've infiltrated both parties. They've been chipping away at all of our freedoms for decades. When are WE going to roll up our sleeves and put a stop to it?

[ShotgunBlast]

MBC I appreciate your feedback. I probably would have pulled the lever for Shak Hill too.

SNF my personal answer is "vote libertarian" (notice the small L). I don't care which party a candidate comes from if their platform lines up with my personal values that happen to line up with the Libertarian Party platform. You dismiss 10‰ as nothing but really it's a shot across the bow of Virginia politics. A 3rd party actually making inroads in an entrenched two-party system (in Virginia no less). Voting Sarvis in this election is NOT an answer - it's the strategy. The Libertarian Party of Virginia has made advancements in the last two years of fielding candidates and will continue to do so both for state and national races (many of which currently go unopposed). Getting established as a major party knocks down one of the biggest barriers to getting elected - ballot access.

As far as WE changing, I'm not putting an ounce of effort into changing the VA GOP. They don't believe in the same values that I believe in so I'm not going to fight against that current. I have a party that does align with my beliefs with local chapters all across the commonwealth that I put my efforts into. You'll have to fight that one without me, but once your party leaves you it's a helluva uphill climb to get it back. I wish you the best.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

The VA GOP hasn't produced a viable decent candidate in YEARS! How about letting some of the LOCAL GOP'ers who have a better track record run for some state offices?

This whole "Well, it's your turn" bullsh't doesn't work.

[trailrunner]

I keep it simple and honest: I vote for the candidate that best represents my views. Quite often, that's the libertarian candidate.

Likewise, if you think the Republican candidate best represents your views, I encourage you to vote for him or her. However, don't whine to me that I sold out, or that I should get more involved in the Republican party. And most of all, don't blame me when a Republicans loses the election.

[Kreutz]

The VA GOP hasn't produced a viable decent candidate in YEARS! How about letting some of the LOCAL GOP'ers who have a better track record run for some state offices?

This whole "Well, it's your turn" bullsh't doesn't work.

My delegate and state senator (Republicans) are solid guys, despite that I don't see eye to eye on some social issues with them. If the GOP were more like them I'd vote Republican more often.

[seeknulfind]

Thank all of you for proving my point... and that point is this entire thread, nay this entire section of the forum is totally useless. We might as well meet at the local watering hole to solve the world's problems.

Some of us will show up at the poles and vote for someone. If those in power don't like it - no matter, they will just adjust the numbers until it favors their candidate.

Meanwhile we can all sit on our bums and bemoan how bad things are.

Good luck.

Andy

P.S. The REAL change needs to come from us - our own hearts and minds. Without that, we are merely chasing windmills.

2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

[Reverenddel]

The problem is that we have REAL jobs, we cannot devote entire days to watching someone. It's the same thing in business. you HIRE people to do a job FOR you, you don't micromanage them.

So you be careful in whom you hire, HOWEVER... sometimes a job CHANGES people. Cantor wasn't an azzhat at first, he was a stand up guy. Same for George Allen.

Washington changes people, and not for the better.

As to local GOP'ers who are stand up guys, i would encourage then into getting into the fray. My keister has a cemetary in my closet, I cannot run for sh't.

[ratherfish]

Warner voted in the Obama agenda 97%...

3 more percent and he'd be Polosi or Hair brained Harry!!!!!!!!!

Sarvis elected Mcazzhat! With democrap money???????

HERE WE GO AGAIN VIRGINIA!!!!!!!!



(see; conservativereview.com)

Virginias gone.

[ratherfish]

Thanks SGB for doing your part "for the cause"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... e-growing/

Virginia is gone.

[snatale42]

I have a dream of one day of voting for somebody I really like, and not basing my vote on who I dislike the least. I see the same crap happening here that happened in my home state of MA, it happens fast. Everybody needs to keep on their toes and "convert" people to not being low information sheep whenever possible. Most Dems can't tell you why their voting the way they are.

[Kreutz]

Most Dems can't tell you why their voting the way they are.