BuddyRoemer.com
@BuddyRoemer
FreetoLead.com
Youtube.com/BuddyRoemer
Youtube.com/BuddyRoemervids
http://www.americanselect.org/profile-candidate/234993/topic-answer
"Those that dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their mind, wake in the day to find that all was vanity, but the dreamers of the day, are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams and make them real."
I was a Buddy Roemer donor and supporter but I now see that he is an old windbag politician who makes up big lies and appears to believe them himself. I am upset that he played me and others for a sucker and I believed him.
ReplyDeleteHe 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. Look at this article: "The White House hopeful who lost to the Klansman" http://www.salon.com/2011/03/03/roemer_duke_president/. He did it because he had such as "rocky" term as governor that he could not raise enough money or votes from the Democrats who were going to back Edwards "the crook," so he switched to Republican in the hope that President Bush would give him large sums of money and support. 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.
He lied when he said he only lost two elections. He lost the first time he ran for Congress. He lost a second time when he ran for re-election as governor. He ran for governor again in 1995 and lost again, for the third time.
He lied when he said he built a "billion dollar bank." Just last week he said it was $650 million. 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.
He lies about the reason he was not invited to any debate. He says the Republican party excluded him. Not true. 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 was not in any debates because they do not allow candidates who are not serious contenders to crowd the podium and detract from the real contenders. He did not meet the standards. If he had 4%, as he falsely claims, he would have been on all the debates.
Buddy has a terrible record as a politician. Search the internet for Louisiana articles about him when he was governor. They are not laudatory. As a congressman he chaired no committees, and did not author or lead the floor debate on any bills. His only accomplishment in Congress was that he won money at poker games because he was a convincing bluffer.
We need a president who is able to turn the economy around. We need a president who can work with other politicians to get things done. Since I began to support him, I searched the internet and studied his past. In Congress and as governor, he did not get along with anybody. The leader of Roemer's own party in Congress nailed his personality many years ago. He said, "Buddy Roemer--often wrong, but never in doubt." He exaggerates his imagined successes, but upon a close look, you will find that he was simply ineffective and ignored. He is brilliant as a speaker and comes up with great one-line zingers, like "Washington is not broken, it is bought." This talent does not, however, help him to accomplish anything once he has been elected.
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. That did not work. He is now jumping to seek 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. So in the final analysis, Roemer is just selling himself out for the big money, big check donors. He sure fooled me.
Governor Roemer lost a jungle primary by only 5% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_gubernatorial_election,_1991)
ReplyDeleteAnd even this quote from the article you cited suggests it was a matter of his switching party, not a matter of his lack of ability as Governor: "...but Louisiana Republicans reacted with resentment. Clyde Holloway, a staunchly pro-life Republican congressman, ignored the White House’s threats and entered the race — and promptly won the state party’s official endorsement. And Duke, defying predictions that Roemer’s party switch might make him think twice about running, plowed ahead and watched his support grow."
You provide a lot of information with little citation. In that Salon article, there was a mention of Bush Sr. raising money for Governor Roemer, but there was no amount named and no link provided.
None of AE's money is going to go to the Governor, and if you are right and they won't nominate him unless he capitulates, then my guess is he won't go through the AE nomination.
And while he may not have had 4%, he did have 3%: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ppp-nh-poll-romney-35-paul-18-huntsman-16-gingrich-12-santorum-11_616202.html
I suppose I'll close with the fact that I've talked to at least a handful of people who loved Buddy as Governor and are supporting him now.
No. You are incorrect. The reason he switched parties is that he had alienated the legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, and had not lived up to his promises. His only term as governor was a failure. He knew he could not win as a Democrat against Edwards, so he hoped to use President Bush (the father) to gain votes, and that was the reason he switched parties. Pure political opportunism. It had nothing at all to do with making Louisiana a two party state, which is the falsehood he now tells.
DeleteThe 3% that you mentioned is in a small poll of New Hampshire only. He received a measly 53 votes in that single poll. The standard for being on a network debate required 1% on a nationwide poll. He never received anything close to that.
From Roemer's talk now of his successful accomplishments as governor, would you ever guess that he had so little respect and support among the public in Louisiana that he, an incumbent governor seeking re-election, would receive 5% less than David Duke, the Nazi?
You are entitled to your guess that Roemer will not capitulate to the secret big money donors of Americans Elect. My educated guess, based upon his history, is that he will do anything to win.
Mr. Fisher, we're in the same boat. I love what Buddy says and he is undoubtedly the best public speaker of all the candidates. Unfortunately, I can see that it is only a facade. He does not tell the truth. He will be a bad and ineffective president, just as he was a bad congressman and a bad governor. But most importantly, the best information available (you can find it on the internet) is that the Americans Elect is an undemocratic, secret, attempt by big money donors to grab the discontented voters and keep them from voting for a Republican. They want to use Buddy and he wants to be used if it will give him ego glory.
Of course he wasn't the favorite of the legislature. He was a reform Governor, he went against the status quo. People who go against the status quo often face unfavoritism.
Delete"Roemer increased teacher pay, strengthened the Department of Environmental Quality to enforce environmental laws, and toughened the laws on campaign finance."
"Despite a scandal-free administration, he failed to increase the support he received in the 1987 election."
http://www.sos.la.gov/tabid/409/Default.aspx
The funniest thing about the polls, especially at the national level is that they won't even let him onto them. There are personal testimonies where people have said they tried to pick him when called by pollsters and the pollsters refused to, even then, let his progress show.
I could believe that in a corrupt state he would lose by five percent to a corrupt man in a Jungle Primary.
Let's look at how 'unliked' he was in Louisiana:
"Boosted by his endorsement as the ‘good government candidate’ by nearly every newspaper in the state.."
"Roemer called a special session of the legislature to push an ambitious tax and fiscal reform program for state and local governments. He vowed to slash spending, abolish programs, and close state-run institutions. Voters rejected his proposals in a statewide constitutional referendum." He was unpopular then, as he is now, only because he is a reform-minded, no nonsense person.
"Roemer was also the first governor in state history to make a real effort to address environmental deficiencies. The legislature, dominated by supporters of Edwards, repeatedly opposed Roemer’s initiatives." This goes back to where you pointed out he alienated the legislature, a reform Governor is going to alienate the supporters of a convicted felon.
Maybe it was his record and not this: "One of the contributing factors to Roemer’s defeat in the 1991 runoff election was a last-minute advertising barrage by Marine Shale owner Jack Kent. Marine Shale had been targeted by the Roemer administration as a polluter. Kent spent $500,000 of his own money in the closing days of the campaign to purchase anti-Roemer commercials." that contributed to his losing race for reelection.
So, all in all, I appreciate you encouraging me to research some more : ) I've found out some really interesting things, including Governor Roemer's consistent uphill battle against money and corruption.
Thank you for explaining your basis for believing in Mr. Roemer. I note that you are relying entirely on one website--the official statement of the Louisiana Secretary of State defining the Roemer governorship. It was written by Roemer himself, or a staff member under his direction. Would you not expect self-promoting bias?
DeleteWhy not go to independent, and therefore more reliable assessments? There are books written (e.g. John Maginnis) and historical articles by LSU professors, as well as many private indiduals recalling the Roemer years.
Here are some that appear to be reasonable with no particular axe to grind:
1.
http://lawrencechehardy.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=10&blogId=1
Promised reforms by the Roemer administration included “fiscal reform,” a nice sounding phrase for higher taxes and a shifting of the tax burden away from industry and big business to homeowners, small businesses, and individual taxpayers. The “reform” plan failed in the legislature and a modified, scaled down plan proposed several months later was defeated by voters. That was the beginning of the end of the “Roemer Revolution.”
Buddy Roemer is fondly remembered for wearing a rubber band as a way to cancel negative thoughts by popping the rubber band on his wrist. The media had a great time with this escapade that made the Roemer administration look out of touch, somewhere out in space, and just plain weird.
2.
http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/06/buddy-roemer-2012-presidential-profile/
His Reputation
Ron Gomez, a veteran journalist, author and former Louisiana State Representative said of Buddy Roemer:
“[he] could have been one of Louisiana’s great governors. The state’s horrible financial condition when he took office, his dependence on an inexperienced and sometimes rashly immature staff in his first year or so, an overly-ambitious legislative agenda and his own unpredictable dealings with individual legislators all contributed to the failures he suffered. Ultimately, all of these factors led to his running third, as the incumbent, in the 1991 gubernatorial election.”
Mr. Gomez went on to describe Buddy Roemer as:
“a dynamic orator who could light up an audience with his first two sentences. When he got wound up it was truly evangelical and, he made sense. His wiry, five foot seven, one-hundred thirty-five pound frame would seem to uncoil and grow as he outlined his vision as a fighter against crime, corruption and waste in government, poor education, taxes and industrial pollution.”
There are some that have maintained that Governor Roemer’s effectiveness as governor was inconsistent and his performance in office was inconsistent. Others have said his relationship with state legislators was lacking as well.
Governor Roemer has been described as very eloquent in his speech, talking clearly and concisely of being a reformer. However his record of true accomplishments during his governorship left constituents a bit riled up. Two of these hot-button issues/accomplishments are the Louisiana state lottery and riverboat gambling, both of which were legalized under Governor Roemer.
Governor Roemer earned a reputation for being difficult to work with, which was consistent with the reputation he earned as a member of the House as well.
3.
http://www.first-draft.com/2011/09/rubberband-man.html
I have a political consultant friend who knew Roemer quite well in the '80's. He compared Roemer to his predecessor/successor as Governor, Edwin Edwards, as follows: "Edwin would steal you blind but never lie to you. Buddy wouldn't steal BUT he was a consumate liar. The kind of guy who would lie just for the hell of it to see if he could get away with it." I'm not sure if he's still like that but it's the reason he failed in dealing with the lege: politicians don't care if you lie to the people but lie to their faces and you're dead meat.
4.
http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2012/01/roemer-has-chance-to-confirm-thesis-or.html
Actually half of the information i used was from an independent source: http://whitehouse12.com/the-candidates/roy-buddy-roemer/
DeleteLet's look at how 'unliked' he was in Louisiana:
"Boosted by his endorsement as the ‘good government candidate’ by nearly every newspaper in the state.."
"Roemer called a special session of the legislature to push an ambitious tax and fiscal reform program for state and local governments. He vowed to slash spending, abolish programs, and close state-run institutions. Voters rejected his proposals in a statewide constitutional referendum." He was unpopular then, as he is now, only because he is a reform-minded, no nonsense person.
"Roemer was also the first governor in state history to make a real effort to address environmental deficiencies. The legislature, dominated by supporters of Edwards, repeatedly opposed Roemer’s initiatives." This goes back to where you pointed out he alienated the legislature, a reform Governor is going to alienate the supporters of a convicted felon.
Maybe it was his record and not this: "One of the contributing factors to Roemer’s defeat in the 1991 runoff election was a last-minute advertising barrage by Marine Shale owner Jack Kent. Marine Shale had been targeted by the Roemer administration as a polluter. Kent spent $500,000 of his own money in the closing days of the campaign to purchase anti-Roemer commercials." that contributed to his losing race for reelection.
So, all in all, I appreciate you encouraging me to research some more : ) I've found out some really interesting things, including Governor Roemer's consistent uphill battle against money and corruption.
But, if that doesn't satisfy you:
He served as the Governor of Louisiana, from 1988 to 1992. During his tenure in the Governor’s office,
unemployment in the state dropped by approximately half, the state budget was balanced all years
despite inheriting a huge deficit, teacher pay was linked to performance, education accountability
standards were enacted, government unions were challenged, and sweeping campaign finance reform
legislation was passed. That means that he was a very good Governor who wasn't afraid of offending
people to get the job done. (http://www.amoroden.com/whyhidebuddy.html)
Look at this source: (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19890501&id=QzseAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ur4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=5351,12368) Which state, "Voter's rejection of Governor Buddy Roemer's tax plan will mean the likely closure of hospitals and universities and the layoffs of thousands of state employees."
And while I'm never a fan of raising taxes on the people, the highest the tax rate ever got in Louisiana in the 1980s was 6% and at it's lowest in that decade it was at 2%. (http://eparc.missouri.edu/Publication/TaxRef/Appendix/A/A-02-StateTaxRates(1-4).pdf)
And according to this independent source (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-04-30/news/8904305230_1_tax-base-tax-system-taxes-and-giving) one of these 'hefty' tax increases he proposed was a four cent increase on gasoline, which I don't think is unreasonable. Especially since, "The plan also included a $1.4 billion program to improve highways, airports and shipping ports."
As far as my basis for believing in Governor Roemer. I believe in him because he doesn't have a PAC or a Super PAC. I believe in him because he believes in Fair Trade over Free Trade, I believe in him because he believes in Capitalism and not Corporatism. The difference between his financial institutions and the ones he talks against are his doesn't hedge, there is no venture capitalism occurring out of his bank, his bank never accepted any bailout money and never foreclosed on a single home. I've met the man and I've shook his hand. I have no shame for or about Gov. Roemer, and as I continue to do, I've done my homework, not just on Governor Roemer, but on all the candidates.
It seems you do not understand what an independent source means. Your independent sources are quoting Buddy Roemer's statements and the statements of his administration, e.g. hospitals will close, etc. The claims as to what he did as governor are his claims, unsupported by any real facts. That does not show the statements are true; it only shows they were made by Buddy.
DeleteHe was boosted by the newspapers in the 1988 election, as the good government candidate, based upon what he said he would do. But in the campaign for re-election after his failed term as governor, the majority of the newspapers boosted him no more.
The general thrust of your blog presents Roemer's grandiose proposals while he was governor. As your sources confirm, his proposals were not adopted. They were rejected not only by the legislature but by the voters. This confirms what I stated about his record: he was ineffective and ignored. He alienated almost everyone and was unable to accomplish much of anything. Roemer's rosy statements about his success as a governor are false.
As a talker, he has no equal. As a failure to perform, he is the leader.
Your sources confirm that as a congressman for 8 years he accomplished nothing of any significance.
In my way of looking at things, talk is easy. Accomplishing something is what counts. Big talk inspires. Lies deceive.
Buddy does not believe in corporatism (your word) except when the corporations are giving him the money. His tax proposals, as described in the sources you used, were rejected by the voters because they gave tax loopholes and reductions to big corporations while increasing taxes on small businesses and individuals.
Believe the facts, not Buddy.
One of your independent sources even says it:
DeleteUnder Governor Roemer Louisiana saw some marked improvements from the previous years of well-known corruption under Governor Edwin Edwards.
During his time in the governors mansion:
Unemployment in Louisiana dropped to nearly half what it was when Governor Roemer took office.
Although he inherited a large deficit, Louisiana’s budget was balanced every year under Governor Roemer.
Governor Roemer brought accountability to the education system by enacting accountability for teacher’s pay according to their performance.
As governor, he challenged the government unions and passed campaign finance reform legislation.
(http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/06/buddy-roemer-2012-presidential-profile/)
It seems even his detractors have to respect what he accomplished, even though you say it was very little.
Do you have any facts, hard evidence, that any corporations has ever given any money to the Governor as a politician, and that he took it?
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
DeleteI have shown you that Buddy is a repeated liar and that his terms as congressman and governor were insignificant, contrary to his self-aggrandizing claims of glory.
You ignore my statements and the independent factual support I provide, simply countering with statements made by Mr. Roemer himself, as if they were reliable.
You are, I believe, working for Buddy's campaign, so that explains it.
I was never working for Buddy's campaign, but I was a strong advocate among my friends and family, until I realized that I had been suckered by great talk. May you also see the light some day.
Buddy Roemer's campaign for the Governor of Louisiana was the first campaign I ever worked on. I was in high school at the time, not even old enough to vote. Edwin Edwards was governor at the time and his openly smarmy and crooked ways made me crazy. Buddy was a breath of fresh air in a desolate political situation.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way now as I did back in 1988. I feel so beaten down by the incessant partisan bickering that dominates our politics. The majority of Americans want "their side" to win--not to be right or in accordance with American ideas...but to WIN. I would LOVE to have a person transcend the craziness and actually work for the American people and not to fatten his own pocketbook. If Buddy stands by what he says and works to get the influence of money out of politics, he is the 99%'s dream candidate.
"Buddy Roemer's campaign for the Governor of Louisiana was the first campaign I ever worked on. I was in high school at the time, not even old enough to vote. Edwin Edwards was governor at the time and his openly smarmy and crooked ways made me crazy. Buddy was a breath of fresh air in a desolate political situation.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way now as I did back in 1988. I feel so beaten down by the incessant partisan bickering that dominates our politics. The majority of Americans want "their side" to win--not to be right or in accordance with American ideas...but to WIN. I would LOVE to have a person transcend the craziness and actually work for the American people and not to fatten his own pocketbook. If Buddy stands by what he says and works to get the influence of money out of politics, he is the 99%'s dream candidate."
Thank you for your comment and personal testimony, I appreciate what it brings to this debate.
To the first Anonymous poster.
ReplyDeleteIt takes a real brave soul such as yourself to continually copy and paste the exact same factless filled statement on every blog and article you see containing Buddy Roemer's name! You are a true upstanding troll in every sense of the word!
I suggest that if you actually care about the country we now live in and want to engage in serious debate, that you start by taking off the vale of Anonymous!
What are you afraid of?
If you have no hidden agenda and believe that what you say is true reveal yourself and your location oh great copy and paster and lets get it on!
By the way just in case this post does not include my name at the top I will include it here:
Vince Lisanti
NY State
Proud Supporter of Buddy Roemer
I tend to favor consensus reality. Your anonymous poster friend is only talking about political viability for reelection. Roemer's only seeking a single term as President. And he'll get his HB-1 passed, guaranteed. America needs Buddy.
DeleteMac,
DeleteBuddy will not get his HB-1 passed because he will never be elected president. History has shown that a new third party candidate for president cannot win, but he can possibly spoil the election by taking votes away from the most favored candidate, thereby allowing the less-favored candidate to win. That may have been how Wilson won in 1912, Clinton won in 1988, and George H.W. Bush won in 2000.
Americans Elect is a secret organization that has brought together a group of political people to front as advisers or directors. They are aligned generally with the Democrat party with only one or two who have sometimes been employed by a Republican candidate. They should know an Americans Elect candidate cannot win. Why are they doing this? It has all the signs of being a political trick often used--find and support a candidate who will split the vote of the frontrunner and allow the second place candidate to win. If Roemer is nominated by Americans Elect, he will be nothing more than a shill for Obama's re-election.