Categorized | News, Opinion


I feel that I must say this.  Right now.  Remember, if I blog, I blog for God.  I have to have integrity.  So here’s my statement about this campaign:

When I started to write about Libertarian candidates, I was sincerely impressed at the effort put forth – now there are six House candidates and of course Robert Sarvis for Governor.

But the more I learned about Sarvis, I realized he is truly an awesome candidate.  Articulate.  Some natural charisma.  Smart as a whip!  Most do not know that Sarvis co-founded a law journal at New York University Law School dedicated to liberty and free markets!  Now I have written several law journal articles but I have never dreamed when I went to law school I’d even think to start a liberty law journal.  (I was an underachiever until I went to work for the Framme Law Firm and I decided I’d try for a full-time academic job.  I did not get it but I did get nine law journal articles published!)   I also see that Sarvis is a fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  He also clerked for a federal appellate judge.  (It takes top grades and good writing/research skills to land a job like that.)  Sarvis has a law journal article of his own to his credit.

I met Sarvis and immediately liked him.  He could and should be a major party candidate (I mean that as a compliment!) but I am glad to see him running for Governor.

So, what’s the matter with Ken Cuccinelli?  I should support him enthusiastically:  He stood up to the Obama administration on Obamacare and would have won if the Chief Justice hadn’t decided the mandatory individual mandate was a tax. The Court actually agreed that the commerce did not reach the individual mandate.  Cuccinelli also insisted that scholars who use public funds account for those funds and believe the law ought to be changed to allow future AG’s to take those cases.  He’s a social conservative.  He’s way better than his opponent.

But Cuccinelli just is not inspiring me this year with a negative campaign against his opponent, seeming to distance himself from his lieutenant governor candidate and just taking his base for granted.  He also was deep into the Star Scientific scandal and negatively benefits from the mess surrounding the governor.  Yes Cuccinelli did some things that he should have done and has called for tougher ethics laws.  For McAuliffe to criticize Cuccinelli’s ethics is like a very dark pot calling the kettle black!  But without a better plan, he’ll lose the election.

No I do not want McAuliffe to win.  But I am truly undecided on who to vote for this election.  I have given some behind the scenes help to the Sarvis campaign.  I think my readers ought to know.  I am close to formally helping out; I probably would vote for Sarvis if the election were today.  No I am neither a member of the LP or the local GOP committee.  I’ll vote as the Lord instructs me.  I do disagree about Sarvis on several issues such as abortion and “gay marriage” (although my position is a hybrid of both liberal and conservative positions.) but he is what he is and I can admire that.  I believe Sarvis can win if he had the resources to run an ad campaign on radio and some on TV.

As for Christopher Sullivan, I think he’s admirable and a strong candidate for the Libertarian Party.   But I am still firmly for Buddy Fowler.  I will send in news from Sullivan and I have given him an idea or two and some encouragement this election.

So, I’ll continue to cover the election but now I have integrity again.  This is my disclosure.  I will say it again:  This has potential to be a historic election if Sarvis can get the funds to be competitive.  A million dollars or so ought to do it.  Unless Tom White asks me not to cover the Libertarians or Sarvis anymore, I’ll continue to do so.  But now you know where I stand on this.

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

8 Responses to “SANDY has to MAINTAIN HIS INTEGRITY for this CAMPAIGN!”

  1. Gene says:

    Well, first off, regarding the ObamaCare Supreme Court decision. I have no proof of my opinion, other than common sense, but the Chief Justice ruled in favor of ObamaCare because he “owed” the President for screwing up his inauguration. You cannot prove that I am wrong either, so we will never know. It is a a standoff.

    I am all for ObamaCare. Just where is the Republican plan? I welcome debate, however, to do nothing about rising healthcare costs is not debatable. At least not by the cowards who call themselves Republicans. ObamaCare is the law of the land, at least for those of us who still believe in our Constitution, and Republican Speaker John Boehner.

    Second, you failed to mention why anyone who is Conservative would even consider voting Republican?
    If you look at the current budget, you will see that it increased spending at a rate of about 4-5 times the cost of living index. The previous 2 yr. budget being about 75 B, current budget 85B. That is a $5B per year spending increase, while the cost of living index runs about 1.5%, if that. Also, look at the Republican tax increase, largest in Virginia history. What more is there to say?

    Do I have to remind you that this is a Republican budget, and tax increase? The budgets of Gov. Kaine were far more Conservative than the Republican McDonnell budgets.

    Cuccinnelli is out of the same faucet as McDonnell. Wash your hands of both of them! Could they both end up in the same jail cell? At taxpayer expense? Do the right thing for yourself, and Virginia in November, vote for McAuliffe! Don’t reward the Republicans for failure, by wasting your vote.

    Is the Tea Party trying to get out the vote for the Jackson campaign, without mentioning Cuccinnelli? If so, that is nothing more than back door support for Cuccinnelli. They should come out of the closet!

    • Sandy Sanders

      First, I would say thanks again Gene for coming by.

      Obamacare might be the law of the land (it depends on the will of the Leader I suppose) but so was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Both should have been repealed or dfefunded.

      Yes let’s debate health care – I am no authority on this subject but I would trust two people I know know a lot more than I do: Gov. Jindal and Ron Paul and both have said that we need a free market approach.

      Certainly Republicans have done a terrible job of reducing government. That is why so many are considering alternatives.

      But I will either vote for Sarvis or Cuccinelli and the two Republicans in the down ticket races. I could never vote for McAuliffe. I hope if the people dump McAuliffe I might get a Democrat I could vote for: Sen. Chap Petersen.

      Thanks again for coming!

  2. Ellie Lockwood says:

    He may be smart, he may be clean cut and well spoken, etc. but he entered this race way too late. THIS IS NOT HIS YEAR!!!!!

  3. Freddy Boisseau says:

    While I would not ask anyone to vote for the lessor of two evils, the question that every voter should is how do I get towards the goals we all seek, more liberty.

    The die is already cast, if Ken Cuccinelli does not win the election the Virginia Republican Party is going to blame it on the radical libertarian/tea party, and use it to move the party more towards the Democrat party. Keep in mind the only reason that a lot of people in the Republican Party are even considering voting for Cuccinelli, is that he has the R behind his name, most of them would of rather have voted for Bollings and had him at the top of the ticket. Basically the libertarian faction in the Republican party won the argument and got the candidates they wanted for all three races. I was at and participated in the convention, the party leadership used every trick in the book to get their choices on the ticket, especially in the Lt. Governors race, and failed. Now the Libertarian faction is going to throw that win out the door, because Ken Cuccinelli is not Libertarian enough. Sorry in my book that is not a winning strategy.

    I would even suggest that if you were honest about your position and really thought them through, Mr. Sarvis would not even meet your high goals.

    Take the issue of gay marriage, he is for the state recognizing and allowing it. But to my Libertarian mindset that is not the question, the question to me is why should the state be in the business of defining marriage, and giving special treatment to it in the first place. I have proposed and would propose that the words marriage and spouse be removed from the state code, and be replaced with other criteria that achieve the same results of providing the best circumstances for children to be raised in.

    Another issue is the drug laws, that so many libertarians wish to see gotten away with. I contend that should not be your primary focus, instead it should be the elimination of the welfare state. You can not escape the fact that when one persons is providing for your welfare, they control you and have a right to control your life. The drug laws are just one example of that, there is a reason they both have grown together.

    I am also not saying that Cuccinelli is the best candidate, there are a lot of issues that I know I disagree with him on. One issue in particular is that medical facilitates have to prove that there is a need to the state, before they can offer new services. But I also know that he moves us further in the right direction, which will not happen if McAuliffe is in the office.

    What I am saying is that your best solution to get what you want, is to not to try to jump from A to Z, if you do that you will lose. Instead it is better to take small steps, but hold that ground firmly, by keeping the heat on the candidates you do get into office. Who is more likely going to listen to you once they get into office, Terry McAuliffe who will always see you as the enemy and someone to ignore, or Ken Cuccinelli who if you support will at least know that he owes you. This might be different if Sarvis had a chance of winning, but he currently does not. But then again 10 or more years ago the same could have been said of Ken Cuccinelli.

    In closing what I have to say to the those that are Libertarian minded is the following. Are you going to prove the naysayers wrong and prove that you can truly play this game of politics and win? Or are you going to prove them right and again shoot yourself in the foot, and let them laugh at you and discount you again in the future? I do not know about you, but I believe this battle is too important to lose, just to make some silly point. One that you have proven several times in the past, that you can lose and in the process take down a good, but not perfect candidate with you.

  4. Gene says:

    Mr. Boisseau, in your comment,

    “But I also know that he moves us further in the right direction, which will not happen if McAuliffe is in the office.”

    Could you please tell me what group of people you are referring to as “us” ?

    Candidate John McCain did not know how much a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk cost when running for President. .Did he also joking refer to $5 million was needed to be a Republican? I wasn’t laughing. Was he one of the “us” you are referring to?

    Can you please define the “right direction”? I think a lot of people, me included, would like a Republican to define what that means?

    When you talk about elimination of the “welfare state”, are you referring to “BernankeCare”, the $85B a month in welfare that the Federal Reserve is pumping into Wall Sr. every month? Also known as QE? Over a trillion dollars a year.

    I eagerly await your response?

    • Freddy Boisseau says:

      When I say us, I mean those that want a smaller government, liberty and personal responsibility.

      John McCain and Mitt Romney were not us and most people in office are not us. But they get elected because of two very important reasons. One they have enough people who will believe party is more important than principle and the ones that are left are split evenly between those that want the above and those that want the government to take care of them. Basically in an ideal situation you have 33% that will vote for a D and 33% that will vote for an R. The rest will be split between the two depending on who they like the best, and that is going to be evenly split. So even the best case is that a third party candidate with good support is going to get about 10% of the vote, which is where Sarvis is currently at, from what I understands. He could have a billion dollars in his campaign, (ie Perot who was basically self funded) and he will not get much above 10%. The only way for a third party to win is for people from BOTH current parties to leave their party and join together to form a new party. You are not going to create it from one party only, and it will not be the Libertarian party.

      When I say the right direction, I am not speaking as a Republican, because the leadership of that party in my opinion is lost, and they know I am not one that toes the Party line.

      So what do I believe is the correct direction, full reverse of where we are currently heading and back towards the ideals of John Locke and the founders of this nation. A government that is based on the idea that it exist for one reason and one reason only, to protect the Life, Liberty and Property of it’s citizens. A government composed of leaders that realize that they are servants to the people and their only role is to protect those rights, and to NOT RULE OVER THE PEOPLE. A SOCIETY where each person realizes that they are responsible for their own well being, but also realizes that when their neighbor is overwhelmed, they should step forward and PERSONAL offer what help they can.

      When I was talking about the “welfare state”, I was talking in relationship to the drug war, so I was talking about personal “welfare”. But I do believe that all forms of “corporate welfare” should be eliminated. Even here I would have to say that Cuccinelli, is moving in the right directions, proposing that we eliminate a lot of the tax breaks that BOTH parties use to reward their supporting big corporations. Do you think that will even cross McAuliffe’s mind, since that is how he got rich in the first place?

      See I have been here and I did this before. I voted for Perot in 1992 to show the Republican party that they need to change and move in a different direction. What did I hear from them. I was, rightly or wrongly, blamed for their lost in 1992 and Bill Clinton getting into office and in 1996 they ran Bob Dole. Their action very clearly told me that they did not wish to listen. We give them the house in 2010 mainly because of ACA, and they then run Mitt Romney in 2012, the very persons who created the health care plan that Pres. Obama used as a basis for ACA. The fact is the leadership is not going to listen to us, mainly because we play by their rules, and it is not in their best interest to do so.

      When I read Sun Tzu “Art of War”, I came way with an understanding of a basic idea that he seem to be proposing. Do not fight the battle your enemy wants you to fight, EVER. If they want to fight on the plains, take the battle to the forest. If they want to lay siege your fortress, charge them or retreat. Do not let them set the terms of the battle. So what do I believe is battle the parties want us to fight, the very one that we are attempting to fight. Cuccinelli is not pure enough, so we will run our own candidate that is purer Sarvis. That way if McAuliffe wins, we can be blamed for the lost, and if Cuccinelli wins he can ignore us because we did not support him. To those that wish to move us in the direction away from Liberty, it is a win win for them and a lose lose for us.

      The only way for us to even have a chance to win is for Cuccinelli to win, and for that win to exist because of the strong showing of those of us that support Liberty. Then we have to hold their feet to the fire and stand firm. That also means we have to be two steps a head of them, and have plans ready to deal with issue that we know are coming before them. If we do not do this, if we sit home, if we vote third party, or we go home after the election, then they get their win.

      Finally do not be too quick to judge me, I am playing a the long game and I intend to win in the end. I do not have a lot of resources except my mind, but if you sat down with me, you will find that I will push you even further on some issues then you are comfortable with. I like to think of myself as a deep looking libertarian, I look below the surface and try to see how things are interrelated or linked together, and only then do I come to conclusion. Also all conclusion are always open for review, if new evidence presents itself, and I am always looking for that new evidence, I will modify my conclusion. But all conclusion are based on moving us towards a Government that exist solely to protect the Life, Liberty and Property of the citizens, so that they can pursue that which makes them happy.

  5. Excellent series of posts. I do believe that Sarvis could be elected with enough money. Sandy


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!