Buddy Roemer: The Best Candidate You’ve Never Heard Of

Accepting Mr. Roemer’s diagnosis of the American political system is accepting that American democracy is not only sick, it has stage IV cancer.



[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n the recent history of American Presidential elections, apart from the two major party candidates there’s been a tradition of the scrappy third-party candidate with no shot of winning the race (or even a single electoral vote) but with the ability to shake things up and perhaps add to the conversation. In 1992 Ross Perot, running on the Reform Party ticket, took close to 19% of the popular vote. In 1996 Mr. Perot again made a, much smaller, dent with almost 8.5% of the popular vote. Perhaps most infamously, in the 2000 election Ralph Nader took only 2.7% of the popular vote nationally, but 97,388 votes in Florida. Votes that many contend would have gone to Vice-President Al Gore had Mr Nader not been in the race, changing the outcome of the race in George Bush’s favour. In 2004 and 2008 third party candidates dropped off the map, arguably because of Mr Nader’s 2000 impact, registering miniscule numbers in both elections.

Here we are in 2012, enter Buddy Roemer. Mr. Roemer is a former member of the United States House of Representatives and former Governor of Louisiana. This election cycle he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination, finishing last in the Iowa Caucus (behind ‘No Preference’) and has been denied space at every Republican debate. He is now running independently without the endorsement of a third-party.

Mr. Roemer believes his campaign can find common ground between the two biggest American political movements of the last four years, the Tea Party and Occupy. The overlap, he claims, is the role that money plays in politics. In theory this appeals to the Tea Party because corporations lobby for laws that favour them; this makes government bigger, and it appeals to Occupy because it limits the influence of corporations in politics.

This above all has been his campaign’s main focus and thus far they’ve practiced what they preach. The Roemer campaign accepts no money from PACs, does not have a Super PAC, and does not accept individual donations over $100. He is running on a platform which pushes for full disclosure of every campaign contribution, real-time electronic reporting of campaign contributions, elimination of Super PACs, limiting PAC donations to the same as individual donations, prohibiting lobbyists from participating in fundraising, and criminalizing violations to campaign finance laws.

On other issues Mr. Roemer comes down as center-right. He would support a repeal of Obamacare but keep the coverage for pre-existing conditions. He would have a flat income tax of 17% with a $50,000 exemption and close tax loopholes for corporations. On national security he supports the use of drones and questions the productivity of a cash-based foreign policy. This is not exhaustive and you can view his full platform on his campaign’s website.

The other thing about Mr. Roemer is that he is surprisingly of the ‘establishment’. He holds a BA and an MBA from Harvard and he has held State and national office, as both a Democrat and a Republican. He is in everyway middle of the road, and his major issue, money in politics, is something that would unquestionably benefit the average voter by making government accountable to people, not to special interest. When you hear him speak with his Louisiana twang, you get riled up, you get angry, he brings you in, and he’s speaking directly to you.

So why is he totally and completely unelectable?

Fundamentally I think it’s this, accepting Mr. Roemer’s diagnosis of the American political system is accepting that American democracy, which one is taught to think is exceptional, is not only sick, it has stage IV cancer. You have to accept that under the current circumstances your vote, your advocacy, and your voice are meaningless; you are powerless. The leaders that you ‘elect’, no matter how much they talk about ‘hope’, ‘change’, or their belief in America, are really bought and paid for.

This is a bitter pill to swallow but it’s time America wakes up and gets some treatment.

3 thoughts on “Buddy Roemer: The Best Candidate You’ve Never Heard Of”

  1. Buddy Roemer talks against corruption and argues for transparency, then seeks the AE nomination, effectively using AE’s $20 million financed by unknown donors to launch his campaign. He limits contributions to $100 because he does not need it. AE will provide the funds.

    Roemer did the same thing in the past. In 1991 he was such a bad governor that he could not hope to be re-elected as a Democrat, so he cut a deal with the Republican party to switch to Republican if they would finance his campaign. See this history:

    In 1987 he won election because he could mesmerize the crowd with his preacher-like talk condemning corrupt politics. But once elected, he did not have a clue how to govern. His personality is that of a loner, a curmudgeon, damning the world with such passion and skill using his “Buddy Talk.” See this fascinating history as to how he struggled to try to figure out what to do as governor. The author tried to make a flattering story about Roemer, but you can see as you read it that Roemer is a strange, unbalanced person who has no ability to serve in any high public office. http://www.hamiltonmixon.com/Ballad.pdf

    Raymond D. Strother, a professional political consultant who was hired by Roemer to guide his last successful campaign in 1987 calls Roemer “a misfit.”

    Buddy Roemer turned out to be 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 common sense and ability to pass legislation. He did not work hard and seemed to love the adoration of his campaign followers but had no 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:

    As a congressman he was inept. He chaired no committees and did not author any significant legislation. His only accomplishment in Congress was that he won money at poker. Yes, he was a convincing bluffer.
    A NY Times article from 1987 describes Mr. Roemer’s record as a poker player, his only achievement in his eight years in Congress.

    Mr. Roemer says his primary communication style as President will be to resume his successful poker career. Note his statement in this article, the fourth paragraph from the end, beginning with “If elected,”:
    He says he “would emphasize listening and working in a bipartisan way, through poker games.” Incredible!

    Recently Roemer admitted that when he was a Congressman he hardly did any work. Instead, he spent his time either playing or thinking about Fantasy Baseball (when he was not playing poker). See this video at 1:24 to 1:49

    Americans have been deceived by slick politicians in the past. Let’s try to investigate what candidates have done rather than gullibly accept what they say. Buddy Roemer will not withstand that scrutiny.

  2. Most of the things Buddy says about his past are false. See this web page and the comments showing that he obtained a reputation in Louisiana as a liar who did it because he enjoyed seeing if he could get away with it.

    That reputation continues to today, as shown by this article written by a political journalist on Louisiana’s leading newspaper, who jibes Mr. Roemer for his current exaggerations and falsehoods:

    A recent PPP poll of Louisiana voters shows that here in his own home state, he has the worst rating of any candidate for president. Two out of three of the people who know him best have an unfavorable opinion of him. (28% favorable, 56% unfavorable). Twenty years after he last held office, he is still Louisiana’s UNfavorite son. See http://race42012.com/2012/03/23/poll-watch-ppp-d-louisiana-2012-republican-primary-survey/

    In this election, he claimed to be a solid Republican, but had a pitifully inept and ineffective campaign. He failed in both the polls and the Republican primaries, especially in New Hampshire, where he campaigned personally almost every day for months and spent over $100,000 on TV and radio ads, but could not even win just one-half of one percent in the election. He will not take personal responsibility for this failure, blaming it on evil forces within the Republican party and the political system that excluded him from the debates.

    He has invented a false conspiracy theory for 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). These minimum, totally objective standards have been used since the 1960's. They keep the debates relevant and meaningful by keeping out candidates who have no significant campaign or following and would only detract from the serious candidates. Buddy claims the Republicans intentionally kept him out although he had 4% or 5% on national polls. The truth is that he never had anything close to 4% on any national poll. He did not make the debates because he could not meet the reasonably set minimum standards on the national polls. If he had 4%, as he falsely claims, he would have been on all the debates. For a comprehensive report on all national polls see:

    Roemer says he is an honest politician who cannot be bought. However, his actions speak with greater honesty than his words. After failing in the Republican primaries, he switched to the nomination of Americans Elect because he wants to be bought. AE is a secret organization controlled by unknown big money donors who have an agenda. We do not know who they are or what agenda they intend. They have the control of the Americans Elect from behind the curtain. They can override the public internet “supporters.” They may also control the counting and the reporting of the AE vote. This appears to be a set-up job with Roemer’s mentor, Harvard professor Lessig on the Board. Go to irregulartimes.com and search there for articles on Americans Elect

  3. Buddy Roemer is not the best candidate for president. He is the worst. But he is the best talker in the presidential election campaign. When I heard him speak I was impressed and became a supporter and donated to his campaign. When he switched to Americans Elect after receiving a pathetic 4/10 of 1% vote in the New Hampshire primary, however, I started to do research about him. He is not the wonderful candidate that he appears to be.

    He has adopted a technique often used by political demagogues. He relies on the dissatisfaction of the American public toward politics and politicians. His strategy is to attack everyone in politics and the whole system in order to present himself as someone different — an honest politician.

    Mr. Roemer’s trick is to blame all the faults of American politics on the excessive money that is raised and spent on political campaigns. Although this problem has existed for decades and there are other problems that are even more important now, almost everyone agrees that the huge cost of political campaigns is an issue. It is a political position that is not disputed, so Mr. Roemer can safely use it as his central theme without being challenged. That is like betting the sun will rise tomorrow. He can’t lose. (See the 1987 NY Times article about Buddy, cited below, where he says he uses his poker technique in politics). He claims the system is corrupt and all other politicians are corrupted. He is betting that because he is so effective at stating this problem, the public will assume that he is the one and only solution.

    The real question is not whether there should be campaign finance reform, as Buddy harangues with convincing ferocity. The question is whether Buddy is the man who will fix it. To answer that question, we need to look at his history to learn if he really was as good a congressman and governor as he claims.

    Many people accept everything Buddy says about himself as true (as I did). That is a dangerous assumption when dealing with a politician. Let’s look at the record. Independent, objective, and reliable historians and journalists have shown Buddy Roemer to be an exceptionally effective public speaker who is not averse to fabricating the truth to make his point, but is an incompetent disaster when holding public office. Roemer has to be the worst public official that I have ever studied. I thought I was a critical, intelligent voter, but even I was, for a time, fooled by Roemer's fancy talk.

    If you will read the citations in the other postings I made here [There was not enough room to put it all in one posting.], you will see that I am not making this stuff up.

Leave a Reply