Kokesh to run as a Republican?

[Njon]

I noticed that Kokesh is listed at RetakeCongress at http://www.retakecongress.com/candidates/new-mex/nm-district-3/adam-kokesh_23.html

According to http://www.retakecongress.com/our-mission.html RetakeCongress promotes running in one of the two major parties. Has Kokesh decided to run as a Republican rather than on the Libertarian Party? If so, that would be a wise decision.

[TastyWheat]

I agree. I say run with whatever party gives you the best chance of winning, provided you think you could actually win the primary. There's always the group of voters (an alarmingly high percentage too) that know nothing about the candidates and always vote straight ticket.

[ctiger2]

He should run as a Republican.

[Volitzer]

We should make it a point to run either Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates.

Otherwise the party bosses from the NWO Oligarchy are just going to render them impotent.

[Njon]

We should make it a point to run either Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates.

Otherwise the party bosses from the NWO Oligarchy are just going to render them impotent.

I'm actually registered with the Constitution Party.

I just don't think Kokesh could win running in the Libertarian Party; he stands a good shot if he runs as a Republican, though.

The Constitution Party and Libertarian Party need to focus their national party resources into a couple of U.S. House races in order to win them and get on the national scene, then after 4 or so years of doing that they can move on to bigger things (U.S. Senate seats and governorships).

[IPSecure]

Why does not the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party join forces, and re-take the Republican Party?

[Austin]

http://imgur.com/uUHf8.png

though that was some time ago...

[GunnyFreedom]

We should make it a point to run either Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates.

Otherwise the party bosses from the NWO Oligarchy are just going to render them impotent.

:rolleyes:

And if you had actually done what Ron Paul asked of you in 2007, then you'd BE the party boss by now.

But no.... actually winning and saving our American Republic isn't as important as our avoiding having to actually do the work now is it?

:mad:

[GunnyFreedom]

Why does not the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party join forces, and re-take the Republican Party?

This.

x1000

We already have a foothold. Like on Normandy Beach June 6th 1944.

Were getting pounded here but we're holding our own and making way for more arrivals.

Now all we need to do is push inland.

Manpower would be nice...

[idiom]

We should make it a point to run either Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates.

Otherwise the party bosses from the NWO Oligarchy are just going to render them impotent.

Because the NWO has been nimbly out-manouvered by the LP and CP?

[evilfunnystuff]

I'm actually registered with the Constitution Party.

I just don't think Kokesh could win running in the Libertarian Party; he stands a good shot if he runs as a Republican, though.

The Constitution Party and Libertarian Party need to focus their national party resources into a couple of U.S. House races in order to win them and get on the national scene, then after 4 or so years of doing that they can move on to bigger things (U.S. Senate seats and governorships).


this except im reged libertarian

[evilfunnystuff]

Why does not the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party join forces, and re-take the Republican Party?

dunno but ti would be a great idea imho

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It should be as a republican. There he stands a chance.

As a democrat means an unwinnable primary. Also ask yourselves how many libertarian or constitution party candidates have won seats in the U.S. Congress. There is a reason why.

Please put practical above ideology just this once and run as a republican. Plus the neo-con response on HotAir, RedState, FreeRepublic, etc. would be priceless if Kokesh wins; either the republican primary or the general or both.

[nobody's_hero]

The biggest downside to Kokesh running as a Republican is that he probably won't get much support from the Democrats. As long as he remains a somewhat neutral candidate, he could draw support from both sides, and that would truly be revolutionary.

A few days ago, I heard one of my misguided liberal buddies refer to the Campaign for Liberty as 'one of those crazy Republican cheerleading groups.' I asked him if he'd ever even visited the website, and the reply was "no."

It amazes me how people will ignore you based solely on whether you have a (D) or an (R) beside your name, but then again, when your party looks like the hunchback of Notre Dame drove a Mack truck into the oldest ugly tree in the woods, you can't really blame them for not looking in your direction.

I'm not sure about the political landscape in his district, so he may not even need their support. Adam has a well-defined record of criticizing Bush, which scores well with the liberals.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The biggest downside to Kokesh running as a Republican is that he probably won't get much support from the Democrats. As long as he remains a somewhat neutral candidate, he could draw support from both sides, and that would truly be revolutionary.

Regardless, it is more than guaranteed that Kokesh would get more votes running as a republican than a third party/independent candidate.

[FrankRep]

I agree. I say run with whatever party gives you the best chance of winning, provided you think you could actually win the primary. There's always the group of voters (an alarmingly high percentage too) that know nothing about the candidates and always vote straight ticket.

If he wants any chance of winning, he's go with a major party.

[Sean]

What is the turn out numbers for each party in the primary? If the district is Democratic, but has a lower Democratic primary turnout than Republican, it might be better to run as a Democrat. Whichever way you should also gage how your supporters are registered and what are the primary laws for registering.

[cheapseats]

It is PREPOSTEROUS to continue to both decry and perpetuate the two-party stranglehold.

It is PREPOSTEROUS to throw money into politics and then wail about the influence of money on policy.

I appreciate the Catch 22 dilemma, but the solution is to fold our little tents and move into the lodge? I'm pretty sure the voter who would validate the principle of withholding income tax-read-that-funding could make the stretch to Independent.

Independence is THE hallmark of liberty, is it not?

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, if you want to take down an enemy, you kinda have to go to where he is. The way I see it, it's simple logistics. They surely aren't coming out after US, so our only recourse is to go in and get them.

[LibertyEagle]

It is PREPOSTEROUS to continue to both decry and perpetuate the two-party stranglehold.

It is PREPOSTEROUS to throw money into politics and then wail about the influence of money on policy.

I appreciate the Catch 22 dilemma, but the solution is to fold our little tents and move into the lodge? I'm pretty sure the voter who would validate the principle of withholding income tax-read-that-funding could make the stretch to Independent.
I doubt it. As long as the preponderance of people get their news from MSM. Since they do currently, they won't even know someone else is running, if they're not a Democrat or a Republican. Then, we have the 'ol, "I don't want to waste my vote" deal, that we'd have to overcome, even IF they heard of our independent candidate.


Independence is THE hallmark of liberty, is it not?
Yup. So is using our noggins.

[cheapseats]

I’d like to acquaint you with a bold fresh candidate in the Republican party, but first I’d like to acquaint you with the New & Improved Republican party. Have you got 10 or 15 minutes? Twenty at the outside, but well worth every minute.

It’s true that GOP stands for Grand Old Party and that it has historically been associated with the Old Boys’ Network. But we will NOT be like them, we are INCORRUPTIBLE. We’re not Grand, but humble. We’re not Old, but young. We’re not so much a party as a focused non-collective of principled individualists. More of a Moovement, actually.

Why are we not, then, called the Humble Young Principled Individualist Party? Well, you see – aside from the danger of the HIPY party being misconstrued as the Hippie Party – we believe that the two-party stranglehold is one of the principle problems in American politics.

Why, then, do we run in one of the two detested parties, conveniently the one lately fallen from power? ‘Cuz everyone knows you gotta work within the system to change the system.

How does not paying taxes figure into working within the system to change the system, you ask?

As well you might.

[Imperial]

It will take a miracle to win, but I believe in miracles. Kokesh could have a shot, particularly if he runs again in 2012(I think he may need to build a huge infrastructure for the first go-round...)

If we could make sure nobody runs with the Greens, who last year's independent was associated with, that would be great. We share alot on civil liberties and war with the greens, if not on finance and the economy.

[eduardo89]

He will most probably run as a Republican, no chance as LP or CP

[cheapseats]

If we would not be Independents now, when?

[GunnyFreedom]

If we would not be Independents now, when?

Once we've had a chance to end the regulations and the legislations that protect the incumbent's jobs and preserve the 2 party monopoly? Our biggest obstacles are not people's attitudes, but the layer upon layer of laws and campaign regulations designed to protect the two party monopoly...which in turn LEADS to people's attitudes, which are only symptoms of the deeper problem.

[Imperial]

This.

x1000

We already have a foothold. Like on Normandy Beach June 6th 1944.

Were getting pounded here but we're holding our own and making way for more arrivals.

Now all we need to do is push inland.

Manpower would be nice...

Constitutional Liberty Party [CLP]

easy to recognize. Has four major caucuses between factions. Make a platform like the LP did with the Dallas Accord, but just prioritize certain things.

[cheapseats]

Once we've had a chance to end the regulations and the legislations that protect the incumbent's jobs and preserve the 2 party monopoly? Our biggest obstacles are not people's attitudes, but the layer upon layer of laws and campaign regulations designed to protect the two party monopoly...which in turn LEADS to people's attitudes, which are only symptoms of the deeper problem.

I understand the language of the position, but I do NOT understand maintaining the position.

It is tantamount to saying, "We'll get 'em next time by getting 'em next time."

There is no Reason, NONE that I can see, for thinking that tackling the abiding problems the SAME WAY is going to do diddly squat in our lifetimes. I argue that each generation is meant both to safeguard liberty AND ENJOY LIFE -- for what purpose, liberty, without joy of living?

Perpetual political activism is like tortuously sawing off a gangrene limb with a dull bread knife.

[GunnyFreedom]

The same way??

LOL - ok you do it your way, and I'll continue take Ron Paul's example. I figure he's pretty smart when it comes to all this politics nonsense. I also fail to see how getting crap tons of our people elected into office and affecting reform is 'the same way' as electing Newt Gingritch and George Bush. :rolleyes:

I mean, you can sit at under 1% for the next 50+ years convincing yourself that you are making a difference, while those of us who actually want to get stuff done will actually get elected and reform election law to make the process more open and fair.

But hey, you know more about this politics crap than Dr Paul right? Lolz

[cheapseats]

The same way??

LOL - ok you do it your way, and I'll continue take Ron Paul's example. I figure he's pretty smart when it comes to all this politics nonsense. I also fail to see how getting crap tons of our people elected into office and affecting reform is 'the same way' as electing Newt Gingritch and George Bush. :rolleyes:

I mean, you can sit at under 1% for the next 50+ years convincing yourself that you are making a difference, while those of us who actually want to get stuff done will actually get elected and reform election law to make the process more open and fair.

But hey, you know more about this politics crap than Dr Paul right? Lolz

You've no cause to be snide with me, and less cause to be smug about Ron Paul's politicking. I would remind you that he has been in the House of Representatives for OVER THIRTY YEARS. If the ways and means of a long-long-long-time politician don't constitute same-old-same-old, I guess I don't know what does.

Ron Paul is not a god. Ron Paul is fallible. While he clearly has a handle on what it takes to get HIM re-elected, his style and methodologies have NOT been particularly winsome amongst the representatives of OTHER constituencies. Or the dog doo-doo through which we are slogging wouldn't be so damn deep.

Principles and policies are one thing. Two, actually. Politicking is an entirely different animal, much more akin to Sales & Marketing.

Unthinking adherence to what works for one person or what one person says is unthinking, I don't care WHO the person is.

[GunnyFreedom]

Like I said, you do what you think is right. While you are stuck in sub 1% land, I will have been elected and working to change the laws to allow 3rd parties access.

Even if you GET enough people to vote for the 3rd party, you won't win. The access laws are too restrictive, and you can't change laws unless your are a..... lawmaker.

It's like drinking soda is a better idea than pouring it into your gastank. But trying to drink it with the lid still on is pointless. I say take the lid off THEN try drinking it, the other guy says taking the lid off is stupid because we don't want to pour it into our gas tank.

The ONLY way to get 3rd party access is to change the laws. The ONLY way to change the laws is to become a lawmaker. Until you change the laws, the ONLY way to become a lawmaker is to run in the big 2.

I'll say it again. The problem is NOT the 'wasted vote' attitude. Instead, that attitude is a symptom of the deeper regulatory problems that have to be fixed FIRST, if there is to be any hope then of changing the attitudes.

The logic is clear and unequivocal. If you ACTUALLY understood the language, but still do not comprehend why one would take this approach, then the only logical conclusion is that you would rather lose and do nothing than win and fix the problem. Thats not 'snide' thats just stating the logical conclusion to the position you described.

If you, as you say /understand/ what I said, but would still rather we did not run big two, then the only way those two positions coincide is if you'd simply rather not win an election.

If you don't run big two, in the current regulatory climate, you can't win. If you don't win, you can't change the regulatory climate.

And I'm sorry, but if you'd rather just wait another 10 years tilting at windmills while the people you scorn actually do the work and endure the CRAP spewing from the party establishment to open up the process so you CAN make a difference third party, then I am quite right to get annoyed when you bitch about the fellow swimming through elephant dung to make a way for you so you don't have to get your damn Italian loafers dirty.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Libertarian, Constitution party or as an independent = waste of time. No one is winning this seat as one of those.

Running as one of those only dooms Kokesh (or anyone) to a pre-destined fate of being another 2%er.

I hope Kokesh runs as a republican. I think he'd be an outstanding Congressman and that is only obtainable through the republican party.

Plus, again, imagine the neocon hand-wringing if he wins. Priceless.

[cheapseats]

Like I said, you do what you think is right.

EXACTLY. People should quit telling people how NOT to vote, and actually win them over.




While you are stuck in sub 1% land, I will have been elected and working to change the laws to allow 3rd parties access.

Big Talking is what I hear.

Word to the wise -- you ARE running for office, are you not? You'll want to be careful not to state as fact that which may later make you look arrogant or prideful . . . wrong, or cocky.

My father often employed, and sometimes personified, the expression OFTEN WRONG BUT NEVER IN DOUBT.




Even if you GET enough people to vote for the 3rd party, you won't win. The access laws are too restrictive, and you can't change laws unless your are a..... lawmaker.


Or unless you are a determined and courageous citizenry that REFUSES to be taxed, fined and lorded over by self-absorbed, self-indulgent Lawmakers.

Lawmakers are Necessary Evils, like Executioners. Lawmakers are NOT Saviors.




It's like drinking soda is a better idea than pouring it into your gastank. But trying to drink it with the lid still on is pointless. I say take the lid off THEN try drinking it, the other guy says taking the lid off is stupid because we don't want to pour it into our gas tank.

No, it isn't.




The ONLY way to get 3rd party access is to change the laws. The ONLY way to change the laws is to become a lawmaker. Until you change the laws, the ONLY way to become a lawmaker is to run in the big 2.


The Entrenched Elite is DELIGHTED to hear you say so.




I'll say it again. The problem is NOT the 'wasted vote' attitude. Instead, that attitude is a symptom of the deeper regulatory problems that have to be fixed FIRST, if there is to be any hope then of changing the attitudes.

Repeating oneself does not automatically make one right, just so we're clear.

But you ARE right that the problem is NOT the 'wasted vote' attitude. The problem is supposedly-in-the-know people . . . quasi experts such as yourself . . . BUSHWHACKING an INCREASING number of had-it-up-to-here voters with ANOTHER Mixed Message: WAKE UP to the truth of lifetime propaganda and your own brainwashing, NOT that we want you to do anything as avant garde as VOTING INDEPENDENT. Let us not be RASH.




The logic is clear and unequivocal. If you ACTUALLY understood the language, but still do not comprehend why one would take this approach, then the only logical conclusion is that you would rather lose and do nothing than win and fix the problem. Thats not 'snide' thats just stating the logical conclusion to the position you described.

I am pointedly suggesting that bold, brave, right-thinking, straight-talking candidates can absolutely be winsome as Independent candidates at this critical juncture of American history. Correctly packaged and sold, of course, sorta like Free Agents. I elsewhere suggest that a 50-state SLATE of candidates might be the vehicle for Name Brand Recognition . . . THESE people whose names are followed by THIS insignia hold THESE Liberty-tested, Constitution-approved principles and positions (I urge a 10-point platform).

It may not be the right approach for YOU, but not all rookie candidates have quite your confidence about the shoe-in nature of your candidacy. America buys Innovation. Independence is IN.

I envision a big Madison Avenue grade sell of INDEPENDENT. Name brand recognition will be, IN MY OPINION, way more exciting and WAY MORE MANAGEABLE that everyone trying to figure out which are the New & Improved Republicans and which are the Old Guard Republicans.




If you, as you say /understand/ what I said, but would still rather we did not run big two, then the only way those two positions coincide is if you'd simply rather not win an election.

If A, then R?





If you don't run big two, in the current regulatory climate, you can't win.

Defeatist.



If you don't win, you can't change the regulatory climate.


Self-fulfilling prophecy.




And I'm sorry,

Baloney.





but if you'd rather just wait another 10 years tilting at windmills


It is YOU following the thirty-plus year plan, not me. I am pointedly objecting to your willingness for others WHO ARE NOT WELL PAID AS LAWMAKERS to have change doled out at a painstaking bureaucratic within-the-system pace.



while the people you scorn actually do the work

Lemme get this straight, you contend that only "your" kind of people have been working?




and endure the CRAP spewing from the party establishment

Shoot The Messenger has been a blood sport ever since Barack Obama's Excellent Adventure in Iowa. There are people wearing bigger targets than me, but you aren't one of them.

I would again ask the obvious question, WHY TRY TO JOIN AND CHANGE A PARTY THAT REVILES YOU RATHER THAN COMMIT TO A THIRD PARTY, WHICH WE SORELY NEED?




to open up the process so you CAN make a difference third party,

You best pick up the pace, 'cuz I'm feelin' the heat.




then I am quite right to get annoyed when you bitch about the fellow swimming through elephant dung to make a way for you so you don't have to get your damn Italian loafers dirty.

First off, your boots aren't muddy anymore. As a Work Within The System proponent, pro-Republican no less, you are ABSOLUTELY goin' the Suit Route.

Second, since I am ALSO not only swimming-more-like-drowning in elephant dung -- in order to make a way not for YOU to be a politician but for POSTERITY to be free -- and since I AM TIED TO THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE SWIMMING-MORE-LIKE-DROWNING-IN-ELEPHANT-DUNG, I am WELL WITHIN REASON to bitch at the know-it-alls who keep telling the hapless herd that we should go THE LONG WAY AROUND.