Somebody tell Adam about this

[Nathan Hale]

I was just on Adam's site, looking over his issue positions. One thing jumped out at me: It looks like in the future he's going to have an issue position entitled "the r3VOLution". Can somebody please talk Adam out of doing that? It only stacks the deck against winning.

[Deborah K]

Why, Nathan? What issue do you have with "the r3VOLution"?

[Nathan Hale]

Why, Nathan? What issue do you have with "the r3VOLution"?

My problem with his use of the term has nothing to do with my personal feelings about r3VOLution.

My objection comes from a strategic perspective. Use of the term is counterproductive because Kokesh needs votes in order to win, 99% of which have to come from people who do not self-identify with the idea of having a revolution.

[acptulsa]

Adam seems bound and determined to push the envelope around the edges. I think campaigns are about to change quite a bit--in fact, I think the next two will turn out to be the most voting record-driven in my lifetime--so maybe he's right. Just hope he doesn't go overboard and blow it.

I'm sure someone will see this and give him food for thought.

[Kludge]

Kokesh needs votes in order to win, 99% of which have to come from people who do not self-identify with the idea of having a revolution.

I really doubt Kokesh is going to soften his issue stances by 2010, and they are indeed a revolutionary break from the status quo.

[Nathan Hale]

I really doubt Kokesh is going to soften his issue stances by 2010, and they are indeed a revolutionary break from the status quo.

That's unfortunate, because if that's the case he's going to flush a lot of donation dollars and activist hours down the toilet.

[Deborah K]

He can always change his strategy if there is negative feedback. In other words, if the use of the word "revolution" causes alarm, then he can eliminate the word from his speeches and writings while still relaying the same message, but I don't want to see him second-guessing his objectives unless and until he needs to.

I have a feeling, with all the rumbling beneath the surface that is going on right now, and given that Doc Paul has a book out with the same title, my feeling is that the time is right for the word, and its new meaning: revolt with love

[Pauliana]

Even if he doesn't win the congressional seat, it doesn't mean he won't win anything and it was all a waste of time... Let him be bold.

[Kludge]

That's unfortunate, because if that's the case he's going to flush a lot of donation dollars and activist hours down the toilet.

Maybe.... Donors and volunteers should be able to figure out what purpose Kokesh's run serves. I'll be very surprised if any "liberty candidates" win in 2010, but it'd be nice to have one using all donor money/hours to its best effect educating people.

Now, if you want a serious campaign, check out Pat Toomey (http://www.toomeyforsenate.com/). He doesn't even have an "Issues" page.

[Nathan Hale]

He can always change his strategy if there is negative feedback. In other words, if the use of the word "revolution" causes alarm, then he can eliminate the word from his speeches and writings while still relaying the same message, but I don't want to see him second-guessing his objectives unless and until he needs to.

Unfortunately, this is something that is strategically best settled in advance. Politicians have few opportunities to "take back" something said or written, especially in this age of easy information. I have nothing of him using the term "revolution" occasionally in speeches or writing, but allow the term to characterize his entire campaign, or to use the "Ron Paul-ized" version "r3VOLution", is strategic failure because it alienates the moderates and mainstream voters. They will know that Adam is a different kind of candidate without him calling attention to the fact, what he needs to do better is walk the line between uniqueness and mainstream sensibilities.


I have a feeling, with all the rumbling beneath the surface that is going on right now, and given that Doc Paul has a book out with the same title, my feeling is that the time is right for the word, and its new meaning: revolt with love

I disagree. Even with Ron Paul's book in print for over a year, the term is still not embraced. Will it be embraced in the future? Maybe. But that's not enough of a promise to wager an entire political campaign on.

[Nathan Hale]

Even if he doesn't win the congressional seat, it doesn't mean he won't win anything and it was all a waste of time... Let him be bold.

Few exceptions withstanding, unless you're running for office to win the seat, you're wasting your time and effort, and the time and effort of your supporters, by running for office. There are far better uses of time and money than running for office if you seek to get the message out or "win" something other than the race. Sure, perhaps something good, other than victory, can theoretically come from this race. But it's an awful big wager which, in my opinion, is not strategically viable.

[Nathan Hale]

Maybe.... Donors and volunteers should be able to figure out what purpose Kokesh's run serves. I'll be very surprised if any "liberty candidates" win in 2010, but it'd be nice to have one using all donor money/hours to its best effect educating people.

Now, if you want a serious campaign, check out Pat Toomey (http://www.toomeyforsenate.com/). He doesn't even have an "Issues" page.

And Toomey's decision not to have an issues page is smart at this stage in the campaign. It's too early to polarize voters. Now is the time for the candidate to concentrate on getting pageviews, signups, donations, and click thrus, to build a support base (in their district) so that in the future they can target the best use of more controversial things like an issues page.

[Deborah K]

Unfortunately, this is something that is strategically best settled in advance. Politicians have few opportunities to "take back" something said or written, especially in this age of easy information. I have nothing of him using the term "revolution" occasionally in speeches or writing, but allow the term to characterize his entire campaign, or to use the "Ron Paul-ized" version "r3VOLution", is strategic failure because it alienates the moderates and mainstream voters. They will know that Adam is a different kind of candidate without him calling attention to the fact, what he needs to do better is walk the line between uniqueness and mainstream sensibilities.



I disagree. Even with Ron Paul's book in print for over a year, the term is still not embraced. Will it be embraced in the future? Maybe. But that's not enough of a promise to wager an entire political campaign on.


I don't think he intends to wager his political career on a term, and I don't see him using the term to characterize his campaign. And I disagree that he can't change his strategy when and if it becomes necessary. What specifically is causing your concern? Can you cite a speech or writing?

[Nathan Hale]

I don't think he intends to wager his political career on a term

Heavy use of a term, should it occur, amounts to wagering the race (I don't recall saying his entire career) on a needless risk.


and I don't see him using the term to characterize his campaign.

You're right, he's not.


And I disagree that he can't change his strategy when and if it becomes necessary.

Oh, I don't contest this. He can change his strategy. What he can't change is the past. At the end of the day, changing strategies doesn't matter if one has already done irreparable damage. That is why it's important to try and predict these trends and reactions before they happen.


What specifically is causing your concern? Can you cite a speech or writing?

My concern is his use of the term r3VOLution as an issue position per the issues page on his web site.