Former LA governor Buddy Roemer likely to run for President

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

This idiot managed to come third in his re-election bid; behind an open fascist who used to be the head of the KKK. You probably didn't know that because your parents hadn't been born when it happened.

Yes, I did know that. And other Presidents have had just as embarrassing electoral losses (Obama coming in behind a radical socialist in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional District, anyone?).

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

This idiot managed to come third in his re-election bid; behind an open fascist who used to be the head of the KKK. You probably didn't know that because your parents hadn't been born when it happened.

Yes, I did know that. And other Presidents have had just as embarrassing electoral losses (Obama coming in behind a radical socialist in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional District, anyone?).

Unlike Obama, who was elected Senator in 2004, Roemer failed every single comeback attempt after 1991.

Plus, tell me, who the hell hears about some random dude, who served as Governor of Louisiana almost 20 years ago?

Other Presidents have been just as unknown - in 2007, how many people who didn't watch the Democratic National Convention on television had heard of Barack Obama? in 1991, how many people had heard of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, besides those who had seen his terrible failure of a keynote at the '88 Democratic Convention? in 1860, how many outside of Illinois had heard of former State Legislater and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln?

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

This idiot managed to come third in his re-election bid; behind an open fascist who used to be the head of the KKK. You probably didn't know that because your parents hadn't been born when it happened.

Yes, I did know that. And other Presidents have had just as embarrassing electoral losses (Obama coming in behind a radical socialist in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional District, anyone?).

Unlike Obama, who was elected Senator in 2004, Roemer failed every single comeback attempt after 1991.

Plus, tell me, who the hell hears about some random dude, who served as Governor of Louisiana almost 20 years ago?

Other Presidents have been just as unknown - in 2007, how many people who didn't watch the Democratic National Convention on television had heard of Barack Obama? in 1991, how many people had heard of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, besides those who had seen his terrible failure of a keynote at the '88 Democratic Convention? in 1860, how many outside of Illinois had heard of former State Legislater and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln?

I don't know how you can compare incumbent Senator, who won a nationwide publicity (not among those who just watched, I remember coverage about him in Poland in 2004 as well, and that's foreign soil, mind you) before being elected, and a longtime incumbent Governor, to a man, who acheived nothing but failures since 1991. And the dude, who is hardly remembered.

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

Is there not always coverage of American presidential elections in other nations? And it still doesn't matter if Clinton was a longtime incumbent Governor -  nobody knew who the hell the man even was until the New Hampshire primary. And Lincoln was unknown by probably about 95% of the population, yet he became President of the United States and is now remember as one of the best.

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

This idiot managed to come third in his re-election bid; behind an open fascist who used to be the head of the KKK. You probably didn't know that because your parents hadn't been born when it happened.

Yes, I did know that. And other Presidents have had just as embarrassing electoral losses (Obama coming in behind a radical socialist in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional District, anyone?).

Unlike Obama, who was elected Senator in 2004, Roemer failed every single comeback attempt after 1991.

Plus, tell me, who the hell hears about some random dude, who served as Governor of Louisiana almost 20 years ago?

Other Presidents have been just as unknown - in 2007, how many people who didn't watch the Democratic National Convention on television had heard of Barack Obama? in 1991, how many people had heard of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, besides those who had seen his terrible failure of a keynote at the '88 Democratic Convention? in 1860, how many outside of Illinois had heard of former State Legislater and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln?

I don't know how you can compare incumbent Senator, who won a nationwide publicity (not among those who just watched, I remember coverage about him in Poland in 2004 as well, and that's foreign soil, mind you) before being elected, and a longtime incumbent Governor, to a man, who acheived nothing but failures since 1991. And the dude, who is hardly remembered.

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

Is there not always coverage of American presidential elections in other nations? And it still doesn't matter if Clinton was a longtime incumbent Governor -  nobody knew who the hell the man even was until the New Hampshire primary. And Lincoln was unknown by probably about 95% of the population, yet he became President of the United States and is now remember as one of the best.

Back in Lincoln days there was no such a thing as "publicity" in a modern sense. There were no primaries, all you needed to do was to win over delegates, which Lincoln did very well, and he was known among Republican machine. There were no mass medias etc.

Returning to Roemer. Again, imagine the reaction, very brief and low key, to his candidacy. "Dude who lost to David Duke, he's a joke".

If Roemer was successfull in his comeback attempt in 1995, or in successives ones, then he might be considered. 

The mass media (Internet, TV, etc.) of 2011 are the printed newspapers of Lincoln's day. And you forgot about winning over the public in the general election after winning the nomination .

And stranger things have happened. An unknown Harvard educated liberal from Chicago, Illinois beating the Clinton machine in the 2008 Democratic primaries and eventually becoming President of the United States, for example.

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

This idiot managed to come third in his re-election bid; behind an open fascist who used to be the head of the KKK. You probably didn't know that because your parents hadn't been born when it happened.

Yes, I did know that. And other Presidents have had just as embarrassing electoral losses (Obama coming in behind a radical socialist in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional District, anyone?).

Unlike Obama, who was elected Senator in 2004, Roemer failed every single comeback attempt after 1991.

Plus, tell me, who the hell hears about some random dude, who served as Governor of Louisiana almost 20 years ago?

Other Presidents have been just as unknown - in 2007, how many people who didn't watch the Democratic National Convention on television had heard of Barack Obama? in 1991, how many people had heard of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, besides those who had seen his terrible failure of a keynote at the '88 Democratic Convention? in 1860, how many outside of Illinois had heard of former State Legislater and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln?

I don't know how you can compare incumbent Senator, who won a nationwide publicity (not among those who just watched, I remember coverage about him in Poland in 2004 as well, and that's foreign soil, mind you) before being elected, and a longtime incumbent Governor, to a man, who acheived nothing but failures since 1991. And the dude, who is hardly remembered.

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

Is there not always coverage of American presidential elections in other nations? And it still doesn't matter if Clinton was a longtime incumbent Governor -  nobody knew who the hell the man even was until the New Hampshire primary. And Lincoln was unknown by probably about 95% of the population, yet he became President of the United States and is now remember as one of the best.

Back in Lincoln days there was no such a thing as "publicity" in a modern sense. There were no primaries, all you needed to do was to win over delegates, which Lincoln did very well, and he was known among Republican machine. There were no mass medias etc.

Returning to Roemer. Again, imagine the reaction, very brief and low key, to his candidacy. "Dude who lost to David Duke, he's a joke".

If Roemer was successfull in his comeback attempt in 1995, or in successives ones, then he might be considered. 

The mass media (Internet, TV, etc.) of 2011 are the printed newspapers of Lincoln's day. And you forgot about winning over the public in the general election after winning the nomination .

And stranger things have happened. An unknown Harvard educated liberal from Chicago, Illinois beating the Clinton machine in the 2008 Democratic primaries and eventually becoming President of the United States, for example.

Still, hard to compare to Roemer, a really failed candidate with very laughable record.

Still, hard to compare medias in 1860s to 2010s.

Obama is a failed President as far as I'm concerned. So what if Roemer is a failure, as well? They should be easy to compare.

And how so? The nation was very divided in the 1860s and is very divided today. The nation's leaders were utter failures then, and utter failures now. The nation was on the brink of total and utter destruction then, as it is now.

[feeblepizza]

2012 will be a weird year. Who would expect that this unknown former Governor of Louisiana would run for President? Who knows, Buddy Roemer may be the next President of the United States!

This idiot managed to come third in his re-election bid; behind an open fascist who used to be the head of the KKK. You probably didn't know that because your parents hadn't been born when it happened.

Yes, I did know that. And other Presidents have had just as embarrassing electoral losses (Obama coming in behind a radical socialist in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional District, anyone?).

Unlike Obama, who was elected Senator in 2004, Roemer failed every single comeback attempt after 1991.

Plus, tell me, who the hell hears about some random dude, who served as Governor of Louisiana almost 20 years ago?

Other Presidents have been just as unknown - in 2007, how many people who didn't watch the Democratic National Convention on television had heard of Barack Obama? in 1991, how many people had heard of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, besides those who had seen his terrible failure of a keynote at the '88 Democratic Convention? in 1860, how many outside of Illinois had heard of former State Legislater and failed Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln?

I don't know how you can compare incumbent Senator, who won a nationwide publicity (not among those who just watched, I remember coverage about him in Poland in 2004 as well, and that's foreign soil, mind you) before being elected, and a longtime incumbent Governor, to a man, who acheived nothing but failures since 1991. And the dude, who is hardly remembered.

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

Is there not always coverage of American presidential elections in other nations? And it still doesn't matter if Clinton was a longtime incumbent Governor -  nobody knew who the hell the man even was until the New Hampshire primary. And Lincoln was unknown by probably about 95% of the population, yet he became President of the United States and is now remember as one of the best.

Back in Lincoln days there was no such a thing as "publicity" in a modern sense. There were no primaries, all you needed to do was to win over delegates, which Lincoln did very well, and he was known among Republican machine. There were no mass medias etc.

Returning to Roemer. Again, imagine the reaction, very brief and low key, to his candidacy. "Dude who lost to David Duke, he's a joke".

If Roemer was successfull in his comeback attempt in 1995, or in successives ones, then he might be considered. 

The mass media (Internet, TV, etc.) of 2011 are the printed newspapers of Lincoln's day. And you forgot about winning over the public in the general election after winning the nomination .

And stranger things have happened. An unknown Harvard educated liberal from Chicago, Illinois beating the Clinton machine in the 2008 Democratic primaries and eventually becoming President of the United States, for example.

Still, hard to compare to Roemer, a really failed candidate with very laughable record.

Still, hard to compare medias in 1860s to 2010s.

Obama is a failed President as far as I'm concerned. So what if Roemer is a failure, as well? They should be easy to compare.

And how so? The nation was very divided in the 1860s and is very divided today. The nation's leaders were utter failures then, and utter failures now. The nation was on the brink of total and utter destruction then, as it is now.

Comparision is debatable as well.

And electability is going to be huge issue in 2012. Doesn't work for Roemer very well.

True, but a lot of people make stunning comebacks, don't they?

[feeblepizza]

Obama and Clinton, since we're beating those two examples to death, were an active politicians with working machines and ties. Roemer is, well, nobody now. No influence, no real possibilities.

Obama was a nobody as well. He had no major legislative achievements during his time in the U.S. Senate and basically warmed a seat in the Illinois State Legislature for about eight years.

[feeblepizza]

Obama and Clinton, since we're beating those two examples to death, were an active politicians with working machines and ties. Roemer is, well, nobody now. No influence, no real possibilities.

Obama was a nobody as well. He had no major legislative achievements during his time in the U.S. Senate and basically warmed a seat in the Illinois State Legislature for about eight years.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about acheivements or lack of thereof and you seems very obsessive about Obama at the moment

What the point is: Buddy Roemer have no platform to launch any reasonable bid. Obama had, Clinton had, Romney had, Huckabee had etc. etc. etc...

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

I'm not talking about achievements. I'm talking about obscurity - Obama was obscure in 2007, Roemer is equally as obscure nowadays. Stassen was a well known leader among the liberal wing of the GOP during the 40s and 50s.

[feeblepizza]

Obama and Clinton, since we're beating those two examples to death, were an active politicians with working machines and ties. Roemer is, well, nobody now. No influence, no real possibilities.

Obama was a nobody as well. He had no major legislative achievements during his time in the U.S. Senate and basically warmed a seat in the Illinois State Legislature for about eight years.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about acheivements or lack of thereof and you seems very obsessive about Obama at the moment

What the point is: Buddy Roemer have no platform to launch any reasonable bid. Obama had, Clinton had, Romney had, Huckabee had etc. etc. etc...

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

I'm not talking about achievements. I'm talking about obscurity - Obama was obscure in 2007, Roemer is equally as obscure nowadays. Stassen was a well known leader among the liberal wing of the GOP during the 40s and 50s.

Just because you were painting with your fingers in 2007 doesn't mean Obama was "obscure" then as some randon former Governor and big time loser from 20 years ago is now.

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

I'd say that the most idiot comparison of Atlas history is when a certain forum member who's name is unimportant asked us all to compare President Obama to Harry Truman.

[feeblepizza]

Obama and Clinton, since we're beating those two examples to death, were an active politicians with working machines and ties. Roemer is, well, nobody now. No influence, no real possibilities.

Obama was a nobody as well. He had no major legislative achievements during his time in the U.S. Senate and basically warmed a seat in the Illinois State Legislature for about eight years.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about acheivements or lack of thereof and you seems very obsessive about Obama at the moment

What the point is: Buddy Roemer have no platform to launch any reasonable bid. Obama had, Clinton had, Romney had, Huckabee had etc. etc. etc...

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

I'm not talking about achievements. I'm talking about obscurity - Obama was obscure in 2007, Roemer is equally as obscure nowadays. Stassen was a well known leader among the liberal wing of the GOP during the 40s and 50s.

Just because you were painting with your fingers in 2007 doesn't mean Obama was "obscure" then as some randon former Governor and big time loser from 20 years ago is now.

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

I'd say that the most idiot comparison of Atlas history is when a certain forum member who's name is unimportant asked us all to compare President Obama to Harry Truman.

Actually, Harry and Barack have something in common: they use the same office.

I know I'll probably get infracted, but: stop being such a ing smartass. The user was asking us to compare their presidencies. Truman was a phenomenal leader, Obama is a scumbag who doesn't deserve a dime for all he's worth.

[feeblepizza]

Obama and Clinton, since we're beating those two examples to death, were an active politicians with working machines and ties. Roemer is, well, nobody now. No influence, no real possibilities.

Obama was a nobody as well. He had no major legislative achievements during his time in the U.S. Senate and basically warmed a seat in the Illinois State Legislature for about eight years.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about acheivements or lack of thereof and you seems very obsessive about Obama at the moment

What the point is: Buddy Roemer have no platform to launch any reasonable bid. Obama had, Clinton had, Romney had, Huckabee had etc. etc. etc...

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

I'm not talking about achievements. I'm talking about obscurity - Obama was obscure in 2007, Roemer is equally as obscure nowadays. Stassen was a well known leader among the liberal wing of the GOP during the 40s and 50s.

Just because you were painting with your fingers in 2007 doesn't mean Obama was "obscure" then as some randon former Governor and big time loser from 20 years ago is now.

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

I'd say that the most idiot comparison of Atlas history is when a certain forum member who's name is unimportant asked us all to compare President Obama to Harry Truman.

Actually, Harry and Barack have something in common: they use the same office.

I know I'll probably get infracted, but: stop being such a ing smartass. The user was asking us to compare their presidencies. Truman was a phenomenal leader, Obama is a scumbag who doesn't deserve a dime for all he's worth.

Oh, oh, no, I'm losing an argument, right?

You are indeed. All of your arguments are completely preposterous.

[feeblepizza]

A TIME cover in 2006:

Joe Klein = leftist weirdo. Nobody reads TIME and nobody pays attention to Klein.

[feeblepizza]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

[feeblepizza]

A TIME cover in 2006:

Joe Klein = leftist weirdo. Nobody reads TIME and nobody pays attention to Klein.

Remind me, in what world do you live in?

The logical one.

[feeblepizza]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

TIME is mostly found in waiting rooms and the like, so multiple people read one issue. And obviously not a single person who didn't read knew who Barack Obama was.

Most TIME magazines in waiting rooms are multiple months old and speak of the urgency of climate change/why we need to maintain ObamaCare/and the like. And the people who watched the 04 Democratic Convention and read his books had a brief recollection of who he was.

[feeblepizza]

Uh, TIME has a circulation of about 4 million weekly.

Which means that there are almost 100 million people who don't read it.

TIME is mostly found in waiting rooms and the like, so multiple people read one issue. And obviously not a single person who didn't read knew who Barack Obama was.

Most TIME magazines in waiting rooms are multiple months old and speak of the urgency of climate change/why we need to maintain ObamaCare/and the like. And the people who watched the 04 Democratic Convention and read his books knew who he was.

Well, a good number are articles about how the childrens must be protected from dope and "sexting."

Exactly. Mainstream government propaganda and liberal garbage. Nothing important whatsoever comes from TIME Magazine.

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

[feeblepizza]

Obama appeared on Meet The Press in October 2006, and indicated that he might be interested in running for president in 2008 after all, and that he'd decide within a few months.  That made a big splash in the media, and he instantly jumped to 2nd place (after Clinton) in all the Democratic primary polls.

Today, Roemer indicates that he might run for president, and it gets essentially no coverage.  Here's Google News on "Buddy Roemer":

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=buddy+roemer

Pretty pathetic.  I highly doubt that Roemer is going to be invited on Meet the Press any time soon.  And no one is bothering to include him in any 2012 primary polls, and I doubt they're going to start doing so in the near future.

Feeblepizza does not like facts, dude.

I appreciate facts much more than any of you, thanks very much.

[feeblepizza]

The article in question would be relevant several months after it was put out. But the most important thing is that the cover obviously assumes one already knows who Obama is. Would TIME ever do a cover with Roemer and say why he might be the next President?

No, because they refuse to have an open mind about possible non-Communist Party candidate, as you seem to have.

Anybody who is calling the Democrats a "communist" our of demagogy is a fool who is also offending a victims of a real communism.

Kid, grow up.

The Democratic Party of today supports socialist/communist ideologies. Our Commander-in-Chief and the loons we voted out of Congress are proof of that. I suggest that you and other whiners grow up, pull your heads out of your leftist asses, and decided to fight for freedom instead of ruin.

Obama "socialism" is a very moderate thing in a comparision to a programs of mainstream European leftist parties.

I think it's about as bad. Try living in America and see how you like it.

[feeblepizza]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary. The crisis, I'll admit, was the fault of too little regulation on Fannie and Freddie and the repeal of the Wall Street Up-Tick Rule and other necessary safeguards.

[feeblepizza]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary.

How Iraw was necessary?

Saddam (who did not have WMD) had the capability to produce WMD and was gearing up to do so. Bush acted preemptively and removed the threat before it even became a threat.

[feeblepizza]

Obviously, it was no one else than socialist Barack Obama who landed U.S. in two wars and under whose watch global crisis started.

The wars are necessary.

How Iraw was necessary?

Saddam (who did not have WMD) had the capability to produce WMD and was gearing up to do so. Bush acted preemptively and removed the threat before it even became a threat.

You know, Germany posess a capability to produce WMD as well. Should US strike?

There you go again, being a smartass...Germany is an ally. Iraq was an enemy. It is better to attack an enemy so that they will not pose a threat than to pose dumbass hypothetical question about attacking an ally with a questionable history just because they can produce WMD.

[feeblepizza]

Little boys your age should not use such language.

Ever hear of the First Amendment? I'm pretty sure it still applies to the Internet, as well.