Home 2013 races If You’re a VA Republican Who Thinks Cuccinelli’s Nuts on Social Issues,...

If You’re a VA Republican Who Thinks Cuccinelli’s Nuts on Social Issues, Why Not Vote for This Guy?

334
13

Are you a Virginia Republican who is “pro-business,” who favors low taxes and small government, but who also abhors Ken Cuccinelli’s Pat Robertson-style obsession with what goes on in your bedroom and your doctor’s office? For those reasons (or others), are you looking for an alternative to Ken Kookinelli (I’m not expecting many Virginia Republicans to vote Democratic, although I’d hope they’d consider it!)? Well, you’ve got one: Robert C. Sarvis, the libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia, is now officially on the ballot.

On Sarvis’ website, he says he’s running for governor of Virginia because he believes our state “needs open-minded, economically literate leadership, not culture wars and class wars.” That includes, of course, ending a bunch of taxes, while also eliminating “all subsidies, credits/deductions, preferential valuation rules, etc.” and repealing the transportation bill signed into law by Gov. McDonnell this past spring. That actually makes Sarvis more consistent than Ken Cuccinelli on the small government/low taxation front, as Cuccinelli refuses to say how he’d pay for his tax cuts, and also has done a wild flip flop on the transportation package (from opposing it as a massive tax hike back when it was being debated, to now saying it’s a done deal that he won’t revisit).

Also in stark contrast to Cuccinelli’s crusade on social issues, Sarvis believes in ending the war on drugs and the over-criminalization of our society. It’s a classic, libertarian combination that you’d think would appeal to sane Republicans and low-tax/pro-business conservatives who think Cuccinelli is, frankly, bonkers. Of course, there’s a risk that some confused progressives might also vote for Sarvis, but I think that about 2 minutes of pondering how badly Sarvis’ tax cuts would devastate Virginia’s infrastructure, social safety net, etc., would turn off about 99.9% of progressives to his candidacy. I’d also note that Sarvis says nothing about a woman’s right to choose {UPDATE: see here for Sarvis’ opposition to mandatory ultrasounds and applying hospital regulations to women’s health clinics), about climate science {UPDATE: see here for Sarvis’ statement that “I accept that the scientific consensus on climate change is that the Earth is warming and that human activity plays a role”) or energy/environmental policy {UPDATE: see here for Sarvis’ belief that “Approaches that put a price on carbon-dioxide/methane/etc. emissions make more sense, so that markets can determine how to economize most efficiently.”}, or about a lot of other issues for that matter, on his website. It will be interesting to learn more in coming weeks/months.

In the end, the bottom line is that any Republican who finds the Cuccinelli/Jackson/Obenshain ticket far too extreme on social issues (which they are, big time!), with the added bonus of being corrupt (in Cuccinelli’s case, at least), but can’t get themselves to vote for a Democrat, might want to seriously consider casting their gubernatorial ballots instead for Libertarian Robert Sarvis. Thoughts?