Is This Buddy Roemer-Americans Elect Business On The Up And Up?
Is This Buddy Roemer-Americans Elect Business On The Up And Up? – Lafayette Advertiser
The Writer
This post was written by MacAoidh on Tuesday, December 27, 2011, 11:14. MacAoidh has written 8079 posts on this blog.
Recent Articles
- STRAIN: An Open Letter To The People Of Louisiana
- THE CHOOM GANG: A User’s Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama (And Why Didn’t We Know This In 2008?)
- INTERVIEW: How Brett Kimberlin Chased Robert Stacy McCain Out Of His Home
- VIDEO: Glenn Beck On Air With Patrick Frey And Aaron Walker
- THE FLAMEOUT: SC Dem Congressional Candidate Quits Race After Getting DWI With Coed In The Car
- STANDARDS: Miami’s Temple Israel Cancels Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Event Due To Controversy Among Congregation
- GREAT MOMENTS IN CAPITALIST HISTORY: SpaceX Completes Historic Docking With Int’l Space Station
- ALREADY GONE: LSU Chancellor Martin Formally Offered Job By Colorado State
- Hayride Cartoon: Maybe Just A Little Bit On Monday…
- Evaluating New Options Requires Savvy Educational Consumers
- Westboro Baptist Church Goes To Mississippi - And Loses discussed 1948 times
- The French Quarter Fracas: D-Bloc (Updated, 8:45 a.m, 4-21-10) discussed 340 times
- Back By Popular Demand: The Donkey Whisperer discussed 332 times
- (UPDATED) Ron Paul's Unnecessary Black Eye In the Louisiana Caucus discussed 199 times
- Super Tuesday (June 8) Election Night Results Thread discussed 184 times
- From Dennis Miller's HBO Special, Brilliance discussed 152 times
- Meet Benjamin Haas, Flag Burner discussed 95 times
- He Wimped Out (UPDATED) discussed 93 times
- So Much For The Kinder, Gentler Downer Campaign discussed 78 times
- Useful Idiots? discussed 68 times
Quote of the day
Quote Of The Day, May 25, 2012
“What happened here was the accumulated karmic backlash of forty years’ worth of Establishment Democrats telling the Activist Left that they were the vanguard of, and spokesmen for, a broad American populist movement. For the longest time, such lies were simply an accepted part of the public policy debate; mostly because the country had no yardstick by which to judge the Left’s turnout and activities.“But then came the Tea Parties — which showed people what a real American populist movement looks like, and what it can do — and its success stung the Activist Left at the exact moment that Scott Walker came along and not unreasonably decided that if he was elected on a platform of doing certain things, he had best start doing them. This infuriated the Left, but not as much as the refusal of Walker and the WI GOP to go weak-kneed at the first sign of push-back. So… the recall movement was born!
“And… fizzled. The Left should have cut their losses when Prosser demonstrated that drum circles and illegal indoor camping in the Rotunda didn’t translate into votes… and they definitely should have cut their losses when the first wave of recalls didn’t live up to the hype. But they didn’t, and now the people of Wisconsin are increasingly demonstrating that they’re tired of all of this – and they’re not blaming the Republicans, either. Such a shame, but that’s what you get whe- hey! The bacon’s fully cooked.”
- Moe Lane
[...] 2011-12-27 Is This Buddy Roemer-Americans Elect Business On The Up And Up? [...]
I dont think Roemer has it, vote Craig Ennis the Americans Elect Nominee.
BUDDY ROEMER GOING ROGUE WITH AMERICANS ELECT?
I have been watching the Roemer campaign and was thoroughly impressed at the beginning. I eagerly gave my hundred buck donation. I guess I have been a political sucker, because I also was a believer in Obama in 2008 and avidly supported him. Now I see that Roemer is trying to pull off the same kind of phony game.
He says that he will take no PAC money and no donation over $100. He says that all the other candidates are not free to lead because they accept the big checks and therefore cannot truly be free of that special interest influence. His issues and promises, however, do not seem to be different from the other candidates in any significant way. If he is free to lead and the others are not, why is he following the same route as they are?
Now we find he will eagerly accept the big checks and the secret special interest money. That is precisely what American Elect is all about. It is simply BIG MONEY INFLUENCE PEDLARS WHO NOT ONLY WANT TO INFLUENCE THE CANDIDATE, THEY WANT TO PICK THE CANDIDATE! The so-called internet vote is just a method to poll the public to find out which potential candidates have a reasonable chance to win. It also gives some false cover to make their process look like democracy. It is false, because in the end, the vote is only advisory–the decision is made by the few who are actually controlling AE.
Roemer turns out to be nothing more than a super-hypocrite. He does not believe in his own message for better government. He is only for himself. All of this holy morality about not accepting any money except from the little guys like me is just a bunch of deceptive crap. He is already having private “secret” meetings with AE donors and is trying to have them anoint him as their personally owned Chosen One.
Of course they will not back Roemer. He spent months in New Hampshire, one-on-one with the voters there. It was a stupid political strategy because he sacrificed all potential votes in Iowa, SC, and FL and put all of his eggs in one basket. Both politicians and bankers (which he is supposed to be) know that kind of investing is reckless gambling. So what did those New Hampshire voters who met Roemer personally think about him? He could not even get 1/2 of 1%. The AE money oligarchs do not want to buy a lame horse. They will put their money on a candidate who has a chance to win. Not Roemer.
I am a Buddy Roemer donor and was a strong supporter. He speaks with such passion, confidence, common sense, and humorous wit that he appears to be better than any other candidate.
But when he decided to seek the Americans Elect nomination, something was suspiciously wrong. For a well-informed analysis of AE, go to this web page irregulartimes.com and search "Americans Elect" in the search box at the top right corner of the page. Read the articles by Mr. Cook and Mr. Lumea, and read the comments.
AE is set up by secret big-money donors who are controlling everything behind the curtain. We do not know what their motive is, but it would be naive to think they put up $20+ million with no control over who the nominee is or what he stands for. The popular internet vote for the nominee will not be final because the rules allow the final decision to be made by the insiders of American Elect. Of course, there is no suitable protection established that the public internet vote will be legitimately counted or reported.
For Roemer to use AE and its website to promote his candidacy and.
to spend millions to place his name on the ballot violates the essential principle of his campaign for full disclosure, transparency, and no big donations. When questioned how he could accept a nomination from an organization that operates against his values, he says that before he accepts the nomination from AE, it must come clean and disclose everything. This cannot be true. Buddy must think the public has no brains. How could he drop the GOP, align with AE, and encourage all supporters to join AE if he does not know who AE is and what it expects of him? Could anyone really believe that he would tell his supporters, "Sorry, you and I worked long and hard and you gave me the highest vote in AE but I will not accept their nomination because I just found out we are not compatible."
I spent considerable time researching Buddy Roemer. This is what I found.
Most of the things he says about himself and his past are grossly exaggerated or just false. See this web page where he obtained a reputation in Louisiana as a "consummate liar." http://www.first-draft.com/2011/09/rubberband-man.html.
As a congressman he was inept. He chaired no committees and authored no bills. His only accomplishment was that he won money at poker games. Yes, he was a convincing bluffer. See page 12 at http://www.hamiltonmixon.com/Ballad.pdf Incredibly, when asked recently how he would open up communication in Washington as president, he answered that he "would emphasize listening and working in a bipartisan way, through poker games." http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/nov/01/roemer-attacks-political-corruption/.
He was one of the worst governors in Louisiana history. He could not get along with people. He could not put together a competent staff. He lacked the political ability to pass legislation. He loves the action and the adoration he gets from campaigning, but does not know how to govern. To see Buddy's ineffective record as governor and congressman look at this excellent history of Louisiana's governors, pages 259-268:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y-0-kmu4vk0C&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=%22Often+wrong,+but+never+in+doubt%22+Roemer&source=bl&ots=GXt38E_jVv&sig=poXJMn9QbCUESjDIP2-foOb3YLY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n-xjT7CXDOORiQL8n_SiDw&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Often%20wrong%2C%20but%20never%20in%20doubt%22%20Roemer&f=false
He lies about the reason he was not invited to any debate. The debates were run by the networks and they set the rules, not the Republican party. The networks announced that the candidates must have received only 1% at least on several national polls (as the debates went on, they increased the thresholds). Buddy sometimes claims he had 4% or 5% on national polls and at other times he will say 2%, but they still would not let him on. I spent hours trying to find where Buddy was even mentioned on a national poll outside of “Others.” The truth is that he never received anything close to 1% on any national poll. He did not meet the standards. If he had 1% or 2% or 4%, he would have been on all the debates.
He claims that he did not do well in polls because he was not on any debate. Not true. In New Hampshire he received only 4 votes out of a 1000. He campaigned exclusively in NH for over 3 months, face-to-face in long personal talks to the voters all around the state. That is better than a debate. It is the most powerful "retail politics." He spent over $100K on ads. He appeared on radio and TV interviews. His showing was a politician's worst disgrace, at the very bottom of the pack, lower than others who were not even running.
He often says that in 1991 he switched from Democrat to Republican because he wanted to make Louisiana a two-party state. He claims he did it for the good of the people. This is a lie. It was already a two-party state and previously had a Republican governor (Treen 1980-1984). He did it because he had such a "rocky" term as governor that he could not raise enough money or votes from the Democrats who were so disgusted with him that they were going to back Edwards "the crook." He switched to the Republican Party because they offered him large sums of money and support of President Bush if he would run as a Republican to beat David Duke, the Nazi, who would have possibly embarrassed the Republican party nationally. But he had such a bad record as governor that he lost both to Edwards and David Duke, the Nazi Klansman. For an incumbent governor to be beaten by those two, he obviously did not have a record "to be proud of," as he says in many interviews. Look at this article: "The White House hopeful who lost to the Klansman" http://www.salon.com/2011/03/03/roemer_duke_president/.
He lies when he claims he built a "billion dollar bank." Sometimes he says $750 million. Sometimes he says "almost a billion." Sometimes he says "billion." He says whatever pops into his head that sounds good. It is $650 million in total assets and its ratio of "troubled assets" is above the national median in banks: http://banktracker.investigativereportingworkshop.org/banks/louisiana/baton-rouge/business-first-bank/.
Buddy's alignment with Americans Elect now shows that his $100 limit is only a hypocritical trick to grab attention and pretend he is more "free to lead" and more honest than the others. He said that is how he ran successfully his entire career. False. In 1988 he reported $5,000 checks, and the book about the history of Louisiana's governors cited above describes his 1995 campaign for re-election as governor as “lavishly financed.” It would be a reasonable supposition that the big-money donors behind AE will not nominate him unless they know that he will do their bidding. It appears that those hidden big-money donors are not satisfied to influence the President. They want to select him. So in the final analysis, Roemer is just selling himself out for the big money, big check donors. He sure fooled me.