The previous comment I left did not format well and is difficult to read. This is better.Buddy Roemer is excellent as a guest because there is no one in politics today who can match him in clever, pithy one-liners. But your admiration reveals a lack of knowledge of his history in politics. You believe that what he says is true. He is not what he appears to be.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.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 hates 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=falseAs 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/Most of the things he says about his past 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.htmlHe lied when he said he built a "billion dollar bank." It is $650 million: http://banktracker.investigativereportingworkshop.org/banks/louisiana/baton-rouge/business-first-bank/He lies about the reason he was not invited to any debate. The networks, not the Republican party, required the candidates to receive 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, meeting voters face-to-face 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 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, not transparent, and will not likely 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.
Post a Comment