Running for Congress in 2010

[nickcoons]

I put out the announcement today that I'll be running for the US Congress in 2010 for Arizona's 5th district:

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/press/view.php?id=2

The main campaign site can be found here:

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com

I'm not asking for any contributions at this point in time.. just getting the ball rolling in order to have some good momentum when the time comes.

 

[nate895]

Why not Republican?

 

[nickcoons]

Why not Republican?

I've been involved at the local level with the Republican party for a bit (primarily in my efforts to get Ron Paul nominated), and the general attitude is the success of the party no matter what; "pick the candidate most likely to win, not necessarily the best, because Democrats are evil and our party must win." It's a big part of what's wrong with politics in this country, and I don't want to play their game.

When Ron Paul entered Congress in the 70s, the Republicans were much closer to Libertarians than they are today, so running as a Republican was a prudent move. But the mainstream Republicans disagree with us on so many issues, like following the Constitution, that it would be a stretch for me to enter the arena calling myself a Republican and not agreeing with the majority of them.

I admire Ron Paul for his efforts to fix the party, but I have no interest in fixing a party. My goal is to get the federal government back to following the Constitution and getting out of our lives. Any time spent climbing the ranks of the Republican party (which would be necessary at this point in order to get their "blessing") would be a hindrance. I align myself with the Libertarian Party because my beliefs most closely match theirs, and they understand that it's about freedom, not about the party.

 

[robertwerden]

Im running in 2010 as well. You got a big jump already with the site up. Good luck. See you in congress.

 

[Nathan Hale]

But in order to win as a Libertarian, you need to do a lot of fixing, because as it stands the LP is incapable of winning a Congressional seat.

I've been involved at the local level with the Republican party for a bit (primarily in my efforts to get Ron Paul nominated), and the general attitude is the success of the party no matter what; "pick the candidate most likely to win, not necessarily the best, because Democrats are evil and our party must win." It's a big part of what's wrong with politics in this country, and I don't want to play their game.

When Ron Paul entered Congress in the 70s, the Republicans were much closer to Libertarians than they are today, so running as a Republican was a prudent move. But the mainstream Republicans disagree with us on so many issues, like following the Constitution, that it would be a stretch for me to enter the arena calling myself a Republican and not agreeing with the majority of them.

I admire Ron Paul for his efforts to fix the party, but I have no interest in fixing a party. My goal is to get the federal government back to following the Constitution and getting out of our lives. Any time spent climbing the ranks of the Republican party (which would be necessary at this point in order to get their "blessing") would be a hindrance. I align myself with the Libertarian Party because my beliefs most closely match theirs, and they understand that it's about freedom, not about the party.

 

[nickcoons]

But in order to win as a Libertarian, you need to do a lot of fixing, because as it stands the LP is incapable of winning a Congressional seat.

But that's a different kind of "fixing" altogether. The Republican Party is in need of philosophical fixing, in that much of the base no longer believes in what that party once stood for.

The Libertarian Party's "fixing needs" are not philosophical and probably much simpler, especially when running for Congress vs. running for the Presidency. Though being elected as a Libertarian does present its own challenges, there are two Independents in the Senate, so it's not impossible for a non-Republican/non-Democrat to be elected to the legislature.

I know that in many congressional races there are Libertarians on the ticket, but I don't know of any that campaign as seriously as the Republicans and Democrats. Most of them just put their names on the ballots so they can show that the party exists. Perhaps the lack of effort is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that they believe a Libertarian doesn't truly have a chance. So in this sense, I don't need to fix the Libertarian Party, I just need to campaign on my ideas and not on my party. I'm campaigning to 660,000 people, not hundreds of millions.

 

[yongrel]

good luck

 

[brianewart]

I'm considering a run in 2010 as well, but I'll probably make that decision in 2010.

 

[nate895]

I'm considering a run in 2010 as well, but I'll probably make that decision in 2010.

Make that decision, at the latest, late 2009. You need to launch fund raising and name awareness ASAP.

 

[Nathan Hale]

But that's a different kind of "fixing" altogether. The Republican Party is in need of philosophical fixing, in that much of the base no longer believes in what that party once stood for.

The LP has platform problems as well.

The Libertarian Party's "fixing needs" are not philosophical and probably much simpler, especially when running for Congress vs. running for the Presidency. Though being elected as a Libertarian does present its own challenges, there are two Independents in the Senate, so it's not impossible for a non-Republican/non-Democrat to be elected to the legislature.

I don't claim that it's impossible, only that it's highly unlikely. Let's remember that these two independents in the Senate aren't exactly typical cases. Lieberman is only an independent because he lost his party's primary, and Sanders was Vermont's only Representative for a long, long time, before he was anointed to the Senate in 06. So neither is an example of how an independent without a long history of popularity as a politician can win.

I know that in many congressional races there are Libertarians on the ticket, but I don't know of any that campaign as seriously as the Republicans and Democrats. Most of them just put their names on the ballots so they can show that the party exists. Perhaps the lack of effort is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that they believe a Libertarian doesn't truly have a chance. So in this sense, I don't need to fix the Libertarian Party, I just need to campaign on my ideas and not on my party. I'm campaigning to 660,000 people, not hundreds of millions.

I agree with the first part of your statement, most libertarians do waste their candidacy pushing the party or the "message". Few libertarian candidates are seriously running to win in the office, and as such their loss tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (though there are numerous other, larger factors that make their campaigns non-starters).

Where we disagree is where you say that you don't need to change the libertarian party, especially "in this sense". The Libertarian Party has an internal culture that supports the kind of campaigning that we see today. My advice? Join the Libertarian Reform Caucus (www.reformthelp.org).

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'm considering a run in 2010 as well, but I'll probably make that decision in 2010.

Have you held office yet? If not, you should consider running for local office first. It gives you the credibility that you'll need to build a base when you run for the US House.

 

[Tdcci]

The LP has platform problems as well.

You mean the only part of the platform conservative pundits talk about, legalized drugs and prostitution? Spare me

 

[Nathan Hale]

You mean the only part of the platform conservative pundits talk about, legalized drugs and prostitution? Spare me

No, I'm talking about libertarian positions on nearly every issue. Political platforms are not supposed to be wild dreams of idealistic faraway lands, they are supposed to be legislative agendas for the coming term of office. What is said in a platform needs to be realistic and attainable in the coming term of office. Legal drugs, not so much. Harm reducation? Possibly. Decriminalizing marijuana? Longshot, but perhaps. An outright end to the drug war and the legalization of all drugs? Not a chance.

The libertarian problem is the outright extremism we put forth as credible political dialogue. It's great for attracting extremists - counterproductive when used to attract moderates, even sympathetic moderates. If we want to create a credible libertarian political party, it needs to be a party that understands politics and compromise, because the entire concept of a political party is based around compromise, between individuals, to elect other likeminded individuals to office. They don't agree on everything, but they like their guy better than the other guys.

 

[Tdcci]

If the Libertarian party would start pandering to the moderates, it would be no different than the Republican Party, which has no distinguishable platform.

 

[nate895]

No, I'm talking about libertarian positions on nearly every issue. Political platforms are not supposed to be wild dreams of idealistic faraway lands, they are supposed to be legislative agendas for the coming term of office. What is said in a platform needs to be realistic and attainable in the coming term of office. Legal drugs, not so much. Harm reducation? Possibly. Decriminalizing marijuana? Longshot, but perhaps. An outright end to the drug war and the legalization of all drugs? Not a chance.

The libertarian problem is the outright extremism we put forth as credible political dialogue. It's great for attracting extremists - counterproductive when used to attract moderates, even sympathetic moderates. If we want to create a credible libertarian political party, it needs to be a party that understands politics and compromise, because the entire concept of a political party is based around compromise, between individuals, to elect other likeminded individuals to office. They don't agree on everything, but they like their guy better than the other guys.

The platform is your statement of principles. Otherwise, almost every party's platform (yes, even Republicans', Democrats', McCain's, Obama's, Clinton's) is totally insane and irrational by your definition.

 

[brianewart]

Have you held office yet? If not, you should consider running for local office first. It gives you the credibility that you'll need to build a base when you run for the US House.

No, and I won't likely get that opportunity. If I decide to run, I would likely have to overcome that.

 

[nickcoons]

The LP has platform problems as well.

Based on a later message you wrote in this thread, I don't think we're referring tot he same thing. You appear to be talking about the extremist positions that Libertarians take, while I'm referring to the fact that Republicans and Democrats have no consistency among their base; that they just want their "party" to win regardless of the ideas their candidates have.

I don't claim that it's impossible, only that it's highly unlikely.

I think it's more unlikely that someone like me would win as a Republican. Ron Paul started in the 70s when the two parties (Republican and Libertarian) weren't as different as they are now, and I don't have that same advantage. In my district, there are five Republicans running for this office this year, one of which will emerge from the primaries to run against the Democratic incumbent. As a Republican, I'd have the additional challenge of running against the established party members before making it to a general election.

Where we disagree is where you say that you don't need to change the libertarian party, especially "in this sense". The Libertarian Party has an internal culture that supports the kind of campaigning that we see today. My advice? Join the Libertarian Reform Caucus (www.reformthelp.org).

I understand that the party has that sort of culture. But why would I need to fix it?

 

[nickcoons]

I'm in AZ 5th district, if you want to win run as a Republican, and it seems you could win, just by the overall look of your website, you as a politician. I highly concider changing your party you still have 1-2 years to do so.

Hopefully you can understand, after reading my posts in this thread and on my site, why I won't be running as a Republican.

 

[Nathan Hale]

If the Libertarian party would start pandering to the moderates, it would be no different than the Republican Party, which has no distinguishable platform.

Not true. There's a whole lot of grey area between the black of absolutism and the white of having no platform at all.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The platform is your statement of principles.

No, your statement of principles is your statement of principles. Your platform is your platform. Big difference.

Otherwise, almost every party's platform (yes, even Republicans', Democrats', McCain's, Obama's, Clinton's) is totally insane and irrational by your definition.

The proposals McCain, Obama, and Clinton put forth are all "doable", in theory. What matters is that they put their ideology within the context of the coming term of office.