The Christian Science Monitor has invited all three Senate candidates in MA to explain why they are running for Senate. Kennedy’s article appeared in the publication today:
I’m running for US Senate because I am tired of politicians in Washington turning their back on the American public. We have a crisis in this country and it is not healthcare, it is our failing economy. Our citizens are out of work, and small businesses are going under while taxpayer dollars are being siphoned out of the working families of our nation and being spent on big business bailouts; unwinnable, unconstitutional wars; and ill-formed, out-of-control entitlement programs.
I am fed up with government taking money and freedoms, giving us nothing in return. Every day when you go to work to feed your family, Congress goes to work to take more from you. They work as hard to take your money as you worked earning it. That type of behavior from our representatives can not continue. I will not let that continue.
We, as a nation, invade and occupy foreign lands to protect “our interests.” In truth, it is because of oil. Our interests should be the safety of the men and women who have completed their mission and want to come home. I read e-mails daily from disabled veterans thanking me for wanting to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan because they know we cannot win. I understand foreign policy. I have managed corporate teams and negotiated business deals in Germany, England, China, India, and America, and I know we cannot win these wars. I will file legislation to bring our troops home, secure our homeland against threats, and save hundreds of billions of dollars. I must, because no one else seems willing to do it.
Regarding healthcare, it seems inevitable that ObamaCare will pass. Our government does not listen to what citizens say or feel. Politicians act without representing the people. I had to run because everyone else running supports government-run healthcare either on the state or federal level. Massachusetts’ small businesses and college graduates are suffering under a plan they do not want or need. I have done the research and seen the waste. Someone has to go down to Washington and repeal it once it passes. I will repeal ObamaCare one piece at a time and bring every cent back to the tax- payers. Then I will get rid of government deals and antitrust exemptions that truly cause our healthcare to be unaffordable and inaccessible.
Most important, I will file legislation to change government and make it illegal to buy votes as we have seen with the current bill. Regardless of your opinion of healthcare, you must realize that government is no longer listening to the people. Even if you are for healthcare reform, bear in mind that administrations change and will eventually pass bills you disagree with, even if you are in the majority. That is not right. I will not let that happen. I will ensure government by the people and for the people.
Lastly, I will fight the cap-and-trade bill currently working its way through Congress. The government is our nation’s largest polluter and cap and trade is a hypocritical tax that will decimate every business and family. I will go after the real polluter, the government, and ensure it cleans the over 1,000 military and research sites it has contaminated.
This race is about our future, our jobs, and our children. There is only one way out of this recession and that is through spending cuts. I know because my 17 years as a leader in Fortune 500 Financial companies has shown me the truth. The other candidates will not cut spending. State Sen. Scott Brown has a history of increased spending and Attorney General Martha Coakley will do the same five-fold. I will go to Washington with a big eraser and where I find waste I will repeal it and return every dollar to the taxpayer. If you care about our economy, jobs, affordable healthcare, our troops, and 100 percent equality for all, there is only one choice on Jan. 19 and that is Joe Kennedy.
This campaign dramatically shows how powerful Duverger’s law is. Voters are more pressured to chose one of the lesser of 2 evils AND not waste their vote on the sure loser third party/independent candidate. THERE is the problem for third party/independent candidates & parties.
“Taxachussetts voters are already more than 2-1 Democrat”
In this race, it’s a tossup. If Coakley loses, it’s likely to be because of Kennedy.
“and the Kennedy name probably doesn’t hurt him with them either.”
Doesn’t help much with likley voters in thsi election.
“What’s the “etc.”? Those are the only two personal-liberty issues I notice on his site. I haven’t watched his debates yet, but his site and its videos heavily emphasize economic liberty over personal liberty.”
He focuses on issues that are at the top of the public debate right now. And yes, the debates and their coverage, as well as other statements, have focused quite a bit on issues where he disagrees with Brown and is to the “Left” of Coakley. See the NY Times article for just one example of many.
And as an incrementalist libertarian, you of all people should be aware that allowing states like Massachusetts to have their own policy on marijuana is the realistic step we can hope to implement in the short term. Massachusetts marijuana policy is far better than federal and would be even better if there was no federal policy. Same for your state of California.
Since he is running for Senate, talking about what states should do falls outside the purview of the office he is seeking.
And talking about legalizing other drugs would just marginalize him right now, unfortunately.
Rest assured the message is being heard loud and clear among anti-prohibition activists in Massachusetts.
“Note that his site says “After the tragic events of 9/11 we all understood that we had to attack Afghanistan and go after Osama Bin Laden”.
Yeah, I disagree, but that’s in the past. He wants the US to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW.
In the real world of running for political office, that is what matters.
His opponents?
Brown wants endless war and justifies torture.
Coakley will basically do whatever Obama wants, which will end up being the same thing.
One part of ETC is gay marriage. He’s against DOMA. Coakley might be as well, so I didn’t mention it, but he’s the best candidate on gay rights issues.
of voters leaning towards Kennedy, they would go for Democrat Coakley by about 2-1 if he was not in the race.
Taxachussetts voters are already more than 2-1 Democrat, and the Kennedy name probably doesn’t hurt him with them either. I don’t see evidence here of differential appeal.
gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization/legalization, etc.
What’s the “etc.”? Those are the only two personal-liberty issues I notice on his site. I haven’t watched his debates yet, but his site and its videos heavily emphasize economic liberty over personal liberty. And on marijuana, his position is only federal legalization: “remove the Federal Government from what should be a State issue”.
Note that his site says “After the tragic events of 9/11 we all understood that we had to attack Afghanistan and go after Osama Bin Laden”. His suite of issue positions is overall hard for me to distinguish from those of e.g. Wayne Root. Both gentlemen could do a better job of positioning the Libertarian brand as the only one that is neither Left nor Right.
@5 I’m glad we agree.
He’s added “Tea Party” to his campaign site’s front page, but still no mention of the libertarian brand either there or in this editorial.
It’s been mentioned frequently in every type of media imaginable.
To take just one example out of many right now the top google news result for Libertarian is the Ballot Access news piece at
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/01/15/new-york-times-on-libertarian-candidate-for-u-s-senate-is-itself-newsworthy/
Several blogs that cover politics and election law have linked to this New York Times story
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15massachusetts.html
about Joseph Kennedy, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in the January 19, 2010 special election in Massachusetts.
In my memory, the New York Times has never before devoted so much space to any Libertarian candidate for either house of Congress, in the entire history of the Libertarian Party. Libertarian Party candidates for U.S. Senate have held the balance of power in U.S. Senate elections in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2008, but one would never know this from reading the New York Times, which generally never mentions Libertarian Party candidates for office other than President.
These prior Libertarian U.S. Senate candidates were: in 1998, Michael Cloud in Nevada; in 2000, Jeff Jared in Washington; in 2002, Kurt Evans in South Dakota; in 2006, Stan Jones in Montana; and in 2008, Charles Aldrich in Minnesota (the 2008 instance also featured an even larger effect by an Independence Party nominee).
There have been countless TV, radio, newspaper and blog articles that mention “Joe Kennedy, libertarian”.
While the Kennedy campaign has done very well in terms of media exposure, it could easily have been better if it emphasized personal liberty more, and promoted the libertarian brand as the only alternative to Left and Right.
It has, and has succeeded. Kennedy has emphasized his support for gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization/legalization, etc.
that is why polls show that of voters leaning towards Kennedy, they would go for Democrat Coakley by about 2-1 if he was not in the race.
And while you may want to discount war as an issue, it is huge this cycle, ending war and torture has been a top issue in the campaign, Kennedy has used it strongly to distinguish himself from Brown, and that is another big reason for that 2-1
split.
Finally, there is an elephant in the room that libertarians shouldn’t avoid addressing: the Wasted Vote Argument. The Howell/Cloud endorsement does an excellent job of addressing it.
Exactly.
He’s added “Tea Party” to his campaign site’s front page, but still no mention of the libertarian brand either there or in this editorial.
It’s always fun to imagine one will win a race like this, but Kennedy would do very well to break 5%. The way to evaluate his campaign will be: 1) how will the incumbent duopoly interpret the signal sent by his voters?, and 2) how much has his campaign made it easier for future libertarian campaigns to get votes?
A libertarian campaign that doesn’t win is only successful to the extent that it advertises and/or grows the size of the bloc of voters who reject both Left and Right in favor of increasing both personal and economic liberty.
While the Kennedy campaign has done very well in terms of media exposure, it could easily have been better if it emphasized personal liberty more, and promoted the libertarian brand as the only alternative to Left and Right. While I agree with most of what it says, the editorial above could have been written by any Republican looking to ride the bandwagon against unwinnable wars.
Finally, there is an elephant in the room that libertarians shouldn’t avoid addressing: the Wasted Vote Argument. The Howell/Cloud endorsement does an excellent job of addressing it.
It is largely the same, except for the introduction.
Did they just reprint the same Op-Eds as the Boston Globe?
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/joe-kennedy-op-ed-in-the-boston-globe-return-to-government-by-the-people-for-the-people/