The winner of the presidential election this year will probably be a Republican or a Democrat. But widespread disgust with both parties—and with America's whole political establishment—could make a third-party candidate as influential as Ralph Nader was in 2000 or Ross Perot was in 1992.Buddy Roemer hopes to be the chosen china-breaker—and he's got the maverick credentials to pull it off. After graduating from Harvard and Harvard Business School, Roemer served eight years in Congress in the 1980s as a Louisiana Democrat. Then he spent four years as Louisiana's governor. He switched to Republican when running for re-election in 1991, but lost. Since then, Roemer has started two companies and a bank in his home state. Last year, the 68-year-old announced his candidacy for president as a Republican, but after the networks refused to include him in their televised GOP debates, he switched to independent. He's hoping to be the nominee of AmericansElect, a new online platform for third-party candidates. Read more.....
I was a Roemer donor and supporter, but when he switched over to Americans Elect I became suspicious and started doing my homework on the internet.
ReplyDeleteMost of the things he says about his past, when he is not using his insincere self-deprecating humor, is 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
A PPP poll of Louisiana voters, just released, shows that his own home state gives him the worst rating of any politician running for president. Two out of three of the people who know him best have an unfavorable opinion of him. (28% favorable, 56% unfavorable). See http://race42012.com/2012/03/23/poll-watch-ppp-d-louisiana-2012-republican-primary-survey/
His talent as a speaker does not help him to accomplish anything once he has been elected. In fact, 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 campaigning but has no desire or ability 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
As a congressman he was inept. He chaired no committees and authored no significant bills that were passed as legislation. 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 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 claims he had 4% or 5% on national polls and they still would not let him on. The truth is that he never received anything close to 1% on any national poll. He did not meet the standards. If he had 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.
His $100 limit is only hypocrisy to grab attention and appear more honest than the others. He said that is how he ran successfully his entire career. False. In 1987 he reported $5,000 checks, and the book cited above describes his failed 1995 campaign, when he tried again to be re-elected governor, as “lavishly financed.”
He now seeks the nomination of Americans Elect. It is financed by a few secret big money donors. They are not democratic. They are not transparent. They will not nominate him unless they know that he will do their bidding. Those hidden big-money donors want even more than 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.
never heard of him..but he sounds like - the very ones running and already in! lol
ReplyDeleteLOUISIANA'S POLITICAL HISTORY? "I REST MY CASE"!!! PIROGUE-A FLAT BOTTOM BOAT. THX, CAJUN
ReplyDelete