[Eva]

Oh for Pete’s sake, all you had to do was listen to the positions of that Liberaltarian that ran as a Libertarian in VA to know that he was a Democrat in disguise.

The man was nothing but ringer for the Democrats and he didn’t even try to hide it.

The country would be better off if we just supplied the Libertarians with a whole lot of weed during elections and kept them away from the ballot box.

[Gene Eric]

>> The man was nothing but ringer for the Democrats

And supported by.

[Smokin' Joe]

Maybe in this case he was a democrat in disguise, and not even a well built one. If that is the case, who among those who voted for him would have voted Republican?

Whose votes did he "steal"?

The people a democratic appeal would have appealed to aren't Conservative, and, depending on how you define "libertarian" (an incredibly wide range of philosophies, predominantly united by the desire to have less government, but sweeping the full spectrum otherwise), the likely outcome is that most of the votes cast for the candidate were not going to the Republican under any circumstances.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain the guy was a Democrat (Liberal) shill (just listen to him!) AND that he stole votes from the Republican.

[ansel12]

Sarvis was a pretty good libertarian, pro-gay, pro-drugs, pro-abortion, it is why the libertarians nominated him.

There is no question that the libertarians nominated a libertarian, and then voted for him as libertarians.