iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Buddy Roemer Throws In His Lot With Americans Elect -- Which Is A Huge Mistake

Buddy Roemer

First Posted: 12/01/11 03:50 PM ET Updated: 12/02/11 08:37 AM ET

Yesterday, while helping the media to divine the truth as to whether or not Jon Huntsman intends to mount an independent run for the presidency (he does not), I noted that outsider candidate Buddy Roemer -- who's been shut out of the GOP debates and thus the discussion -- was flirting with using Americans Elect as his path to getting on the ballot. Not long after, I got a press release from the Roemer campaign making this official: "Today I officially announce that I will seek the Americans Elect nomination as a proud Republican but as an even prouder American."

Perhaps there's no better option available to a guy who's resolutely standing by his principles and refusing donations larger than $100 to make a splash in the 2012 campaign. And it's certainly unfortunate that the vagaries of debate rules have prevented him from having the opportunity to make his case and challenge the rest of the GOP field. But that said, Roemer is making a mistake. In the first place, one can't actually "seek" the Americans Elect nomination because Americans Elect is not a political party -- it's a pop-sociological experiment. But the real problem with Roemer tying his fortunes to Americans Elect is that Roemer has a clear, specific message, and Americans Elect has only a clear specific gimmick. In the resulting marriage, the latter completely neuters the former.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Americans Elect, here's the basic story. The organization, if we can call it that, purports to be the first political effort to create a "non-partisan" presidential ticket. Founded and advised by a Who's Who of Ivory Tower political thought-havers, the organization has reimagined the process of choosing a political candidate as something akin to online dating. Users sign up, assign priorities to broad issue portfolios, and then answer a seemingly endless series of questions about how they feel about various things. From there, it generates a profile that's supposed to help you match yourself with a candidate. Somehow, this whole she-bang is supposed to eventually spit out a consensus candidate and an agreed-upon platter of policy priorities, packaged as an official "Americans Elect" nominee that will actually appear on the ballot on Election Day.

And there are pages and pages of candidates to choose from! Including many people who are already running for president. In fact, the best way of describing the candidate roster that Americans Elect has assembled is that it mostly combines the people who are already running for president (Herman Cain! Ron Paul! Jon Huntsman! Barack Obama!) with people who would either be shocked to learn they'd been nominated for president (Can I interest you in some Scott DesJarlais?) or displeased to find themselves on a November ballot (Marco Rubio, Barney Frank).

But the fact that there are 50-plus pages of potential nominees is just one of the preposterous things about this project, which is trying to sell you the notion that if enough Americans contribute enough information about their political and personal views, then the country is just a step away from being set up on a four-year date with the Candidate Of Its Dreams. Politics does not work like eHarmony, I'm afraid. If your large priority is, say, protecting the environment, and you end up getting stuck with James Inhofe as your consensus nominee, you'll likely want to disavow the whole process. But in the eyes of Americans Elect, you are one of the "signatures" that says, "Yes. I want this guy I don't like and whose policies I don't support to be on the ballot, for some reason."

And when you dig into the way Americans Elect treats complicated issues, things get stupid in a hurry. When American Elect inquires into your foreign policy positions, it poses questions like this: "When you think about the US pursuing its interests abroad, which of the following is closest to your opinion?" And then you are forced to answer the question with one of the following responses:

The US should always act in its own interest regardless of what other countries think

The US should rarely listen to other countries

The US should listen to other countries more often than not

The US should always listen to other countries before pursuing its own interests

Unsure

Those are your choices? Where's the nuance? Where's the respect for voters' basic intelligence? Where's the acknowledgment that the world is complicated place? To say that this is an infantile way of answering the question is insulting to the cognitive abilities of infants, but it's probably the best word we can use to describe this.

At this point, you're probably wondering what problem this project even intends to solve, since it surely isn't American foreign policy! The answer, of course, is that like the similarly minded "No Labels," Americans Elect proceeds from the premise that America's problems are all caused by the fact that our lawmakers aren't nicer to one another, and there's too much "partisanship." That's why this is touted as an amazing innovation by people like Thomas Friedman, who's convinced that our government's major failing is the nonexistence of a "Grand Bargain." Mind you, to Friedman, the actual terms of that "Grand Bargain" and its policy impact on the lives of ordinary Americans are subordinate concerns to whether or not Barack Obama and John Boehner will become friends and inspire America to buy itself a Coke.

Americans Elect gets downright comical about this. For example, they use Barney Frank's recent decision to retire as evidence that the need to rid the public square of partisanship is now so keenly understandable as the problem that grips America that even Barney Frank, superpartisan, knows this to be true. They cite an article in the Atlantic as support for their claims, leaving in all the Frank quotes that bolster their concept, while leaving aside stuff like this sentence from the original: "But, as one might expect with Frank, there was a bit more scorn heaped on Republicans." Barney Frank, partisan to the end!

And here's where we consider the curious case of Buddy Roemer. See, Roemer has a very clear vision of what ails America, and it's not "partisanship." Rather, it's the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is the whole point of the Buddy Roemer candidacy. But if you visit Buddy Roemer's page at Americans Elect, you would be led to believe that his "highest priority" was education, and while his "core question answers" aren't out of step with his generic positions, there's not a blessed word about the issue that defines his candidacy. The essential political thought that pulses daily from his Twitter account, and which forms the basis of his entire run for the presidency, is nowhere to be found on Americans Elect, no matter how deep you go.

And that makes sense when you start to consider the people that Roemer is getting into bed with. Because while Americans Elect may nominally accommodate a candidate who won't take PAC money and limits his donations to amounts that normal people can afford, it is critical to point out that Americans Elect does not agree in any way shape or form with Buddy Roemer. On the matter of money in politics, Buddy Roemer and Americans Elect are at cross-purposes.

Let's recall that Buddy Roemer has been adamant in his support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, and smash cut to the people who are behind Americans Elect, who are essentially a bunch of hedge fund managers and lobbyists:

The group was started by Peter Ackerman, the chief of Rockport Capital, a wealth management firm. He put in at least $1.55 million of his own money to start the organization. (It was originally a 527 organization, which is required to disclose donors. It is now a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which isn’t required to disclose.)

According to various reports, Americans Elect has raised between $20 million and $30 million so far for its efforts. Other known funders are hedge fund manager Kirk Rostron and Melvin Andrews, president of Lakeside Capital Partners.

Another known funder is Jim Holbrook, president of Promotion Marketing Association, which is a trade association that does lobbying for the PR and marketing industry.

John Avlon, the founder of the corporate-backed "No Labels" group, wrote in the Daily Beast that Americans Elect has raised $20 million from just 50 people. That's an average of $400,000 per donor.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was invited to tour the Americans Elect offices in DC, which he described as "swank offices, financed with some serious hedge-fund money, a stone's throw from the White House."

According to its website, Americans Elect's "leadership team" is composed largely of hedge fund operators and wealth managers, including Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who is married into the notorious Rothschild family.

In August, Americans Elect added five new names to its "Leadership" list (something like a board of advisors) -- all five are wealth managers.

Pretty much a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool one percenters. But we've only begun to examine the extent to which Americans Elect stifles Roemer's advocacy of Occupy Wall Street. Our own Dan Froomkin went to the organization's kick-off event at the National Press Club last month, and their disingenuous support for the "99 percent" was evident:

The group is clearly positioning itself to harness and channel the intense dissatisfaction voters currently have with the candidates the political parties have been offering them. But the goal seems to be more a centrist mash-up of the two parties than a dramatic alternative. The group's bylaws, for instance, appear to allow its leaders to veto any ticket they don't consider "balanced."

And while the group used pictures from the Occupy protests in its presentation on Tuesday, its chief strategist is Douglas Schoen, a pollster and Fox News political analyst who just a few weeks ago penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he asserted that the Occupy Wall Street protesters supported "radical left-wing policies" that "are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people."

And the co-chairs of Americans Elect's Rules Committee? Meet Tom Sansonetti and Chris Arterton. The former is a coal industry/casino lobbyist and the latter is a funder of Joe Lieberman's Reuniting Our Country PAC. Per the Roemer campaign, these are the sorts of people who are destroying the country.

On November 1, the Roemer campaign approvingly tweeted this quote from former Research Director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Keith Ashdown: "Transparency is the best disinfectant." Roemer should probably have a conversation with good-government watchdog Fred Wertheimer, who wrote the following about Americans Elect on these pages:

Americans Elect was registered as a federal political committee until last October, when it switched and claimed it was a "social welfare" organization under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. The reason for the switch appears quite clear: to keep secret from the American people the donors supporting its political activities.

Americans Elect correctly states on its website that "Americans are tired of politics as usual."

However, attempting to claim that a "political organization" is a "social welfare" organization for the apparent purpose of keeping secret from the American people the donors financing its political activities is classic "politics as usual."

I couldn't be more sympathetic to the uphill climb Buddy Roemer faces in this election. At every turn, he's been shut out, excluded and pushed from the stage -- all of which has only seemingly fueled his passion. Americans Elect dangles the intriguing possibility that Roemer might be able to circumvent a vicious process and get on the ballot. But in terms of Roemer's political identity, using Americans Elect as a solution to his problem is like prescribing pancreatic cancer to cure the flu. They don't share his values and they won't support his positions. They will neuter his message and diminish his credibility.

This is a big mistake.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Yesterday, while helping the media to divine the truth as to whether or not Jon Huntsman intends to mount an independent run for the presidency (he does not), I noted that outsider candidate Buddy Roe...
Yesterday, while helping the media to divine the truth as to whether or not Jon Huntsman intends to mount an independent run for the presidency (he does not), I noted that outsider candidate Buddy Roe...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 48
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:44 AM on 12/03/2011
I think people are forgetting if Buddy Roemer got the GOP nomination. He would be allying himself with an even more corrupt political entity...the Republican Party. President Obama is also allying himself with a corrupt political entity...the Democrat Party. I do not think Buddy is making a mistake. It actually would get his name out there and break the stigma of being on the GOP ticket. He will bring more people from the left towards him. At least Americans Elect is using their secret donations to give Americans a better way to nominate a candidate. If he does not get the GOP nomination, I will fully support Buddy on the Americans Elect Ticket.
07:39 PM on 12/03/2011
Politics makes strange bedfellows? By somebody?
01:58 AM on 12/05/2011
And which candidate, chosen by "The People", will actually be on the ballots? How might they make it to the ballots in every state, even if they choose to be there themselves? Is "Americans Elect" a political party? The Green Party and Libertarian Party are on most states' tickets.
03:34 AM on 12/03/2011
This is too be expected from entities such as Chris Matthews or HuffPo, who are stalwart Democrats and by extension very interested in keeping the 2-Party System in power.

As the Election draws nearer, expect the Wall-St. funded talking heads to diss the notion of a 3rd party or Alternative Candidate. Expect them to bring up Perot or "The Nader excuse" ad infinitum over the course of several months. Got to slap everyone back into line.

Even if it throws the next election to Congress to decide, this would be a good thing in that it would serve to highlight the basic problem: Our country has been hijacked by the Two-party Oligarchy and we want more choices! Even if it means getting rid of the current system for a Parliamentary one (and saying "good-riddance" to the Electoral College!)

Personally, I'm willing to ride the storm our and see deadlock after deadlock until real change takes place.

How many of you are willing to Occupy The Electoral Process?

I know I'm down!
08:56 PM on 12/03/2011
Ditto, I've considered writing in None of The Above, on every ballot. Voting either way just perpetuates the myth that we want any of these lying buttheads! We would be better served by a lottery system like jury duty. It's like a 2 shell, shell game, with no pea. No Choices. George Washington warned against POLITICAL PARTIES in his farewell address. Thomas Jefferson warned against the undo influence of Companies, hard to imagine The Founders being as peaceful as OWS! Organizations of all stripes should be barred from the political process, Corps, Unions, PACs, super and otherwise, and the badly named "Parties".
03:23 PM on 12/02/2011
I agree, I would rather see Buddy Roemer run on a genuine third party ticket and not the "non-partisan party" Amerians Elect. However, money and partisanship are part and parcel of the same problem in government. Besides corporations, unions, and trade groups, a big source of funding for candidates is issue advocacy groups like pro-choice or pro-life groups. They force candidates to extreme positions in order to get money, and this divides the electorate. Yes, when they finally get in office, unless they have a safe seat, they're forced to abandon extreme positions on those issues, since it's a non-starter to actually get anything done. They still end up pandering to those groups with token legislation, so they can get good voting records with those groups.

I'm sure Roemer --- a Reagan Democrat who sided with the Republican Congress many times and became a Republican --- would not disagree. Barney Frank is such a partisan, yes, although it is questionable to say he's leaving office because of people being tired of partisanship, when the enthusiasm among his opponents is due to partisanship also.
01:20 PM on 12/02/2011
Buddy is not now and will not be taking any money from Americans Elect. Americans Elect has also said that beyond the nominating process, they will not play a role in the election. The point is to shake up the rigged nominating process to get a third candidate on the ballot. Americans Elect may nt be perfect, but no money is changing hands between them and the candidates, so I don't see the inherent conflict of interest. If it gets Buddy on the ballot, and gets his message a wider audience, great. He's not changing his $100 max contribution policy. GO BUDDY!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Adam of CA
Independent Information Hunter
11:27 AM on 12/02/2011
The polls indicate that both the White House Candidate and the Republicans are to be buried in the Nov. 2012 Election.
Such a vacuum will allow room for the birth of Americans Elect. Nov. 2012 cannot arrive soon enough!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p47nandmosquito
09:01 AM on 12/02/2011
This is a great pity. Roemer had a good message, one that needs to be heard, and now it never will be, at least from him. Even if Americans Elect gets him on the ballot without making him give up his goals, all we'll ever hear about is his hypocrisy in signing up with them. And everyone will be disgusted with "business as usual," which is "business as usual."
03:28 AM on 12/03/2011
I don't think so. I think those who are dissing this have an interest in keeping the status quo of the two-party oligarchy intact. HuffPo is def one of those entities that are.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p47nandmosquito
03:16 PM on 12/03/2011
Do you really think that someone can win a campaign in which the question they get asked most is, "So how do you reconcile those beliefs with the fact that the only reason you're on the ballot is...?" You know that's what everyone is going to ask him, and whatever he answers, all most people will see is a hypocrite, and they'll tune the rest out. I'm sure you know that it's perceptions that matter these days, not truth, and that's what the perception will be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neuron Flash
Your Micro Brew Is Empty
10:12 PM on 12/01/2011
It will be interesting to see how Buddy reconciles his views with the secret billionaires backing Americans Elect.

It is too easy for us to view this move with the eyes of a cynic.

Buddy has positioned himself as a reformer in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt.

Are his backers in Americans Elect also of the same mind set?

It is hard to buy into that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luvcats13
I Think I'm Turning Democrat?
09:34 PM on 12/01/2011
My disgust with the SuperCommittee's failure did cause me to look at Americans Elect, but just a little bit of research revealed the fact they were now concealing donor information. I sent them an email explaining I would not be participating in a completely new way to get a presidential candidate on ballots unless complete transparency of funding sources was part of deal. They politely wrote back that they understood my skepticism and said "know that none of our money comes from corporations, lobbyists, special interests, or PACs, only individuals.". And I emailed back - "forgive me if that doesn't reassure me". First of all - how do I know, when they won't tell us who their donors are and, even if it is true that donors are only individuals - whoopty
03:20 AM on 12/03/2011
Donor information should be a right to privacy, the possibility of harassment is certainly there. That is a very punitive complaint to make, when the alternative of more of the same choices from the Two-Party Oligarchy from now until eternity looms large.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luvcats13
I Think I'm Turning Democrat?
07:44 PM on 12/03/2011
UM . . . NO, donors to political organizations and campaigns DO NOT have a right to privacy. It would be ILLEGAL to hide funding sources. Federal campaigns are required by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to report donors and the amounts they give - only individuals may contribute and in limited amounts. PACS can accept corporate money and donations from organizations, again - MUST be reported and amounts are limited although limits are higher. SuperPacs can raise unlimited amounts as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidate and they also have to reveal donors. However, SuperPacs have opened up more ways for corruption in elections and reversing the Supreme Court Ruling that allows these unlimited donations and/ or getting a constitutional amendment through to make corporate and unlimited federal campaign funding unconstitutional is a crucial issue.

HOWEVER, since Americans Elect is not a third party, they were able to change from a 527 organization, which is legally required to disclose donors; AE changed their organization to a 501(c)(4) which does not have to disclose donors. When I wrote them about my concerns regarding hidden financing - they assured me "no special interests, lobbyists or corporations" funded AE. Well forgive me if I am not gonna take their word - especially since credible evidence is out there that original backers are wealthy hedge fund managers.

Americans have got to start DEMANDING that elections stop being bought and sold, either by Dems and GOP or by any "new" process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luvcats13
I Think I'm Turning Democrat?
09:22 PM on 12/01/2011
I agree with you on Americans Elect - the deeper you dig on their "movement", the more it becomes obvious they want to dupe Americans with a hidden agenda funded from hidden sources. Stopping SuperPacs with a constitutional amendment is vitally important to prevent even more corruption in politics, so why would any American concerned with changing the way we elect Presidents be OK with supporting Americans Elect - which has yet more hidden funding sources?

I listened to Buddy Roemer the other day and he embraced the OWS movement in a way that radiated good sense, leadership and respect for all fellow Americans who feel something is just "not right" with the stranglehold just a few wealthy, powerful individuals have on public policy and the direction of our country. Without sounding condescending, he was able to describe how his views of solutions differ from many OWS activists, but he completely agreed with them on what is causing the crisis. As I also believe, Mr. Roemer strongly condemned the corrupting influence of money in of politics and pointed out a need to limit donors to only individuals, with complete transparency.

Sadly, Buddy has now cast his lot in with a group who has invented yet another way for hidden money to influence politics.
03:47 AM on 12/03/2011
Wouldn't Buddy be casting his lot if he was on the GOP or DNC ticket? At least AE is trying to give Americans a third choice. I think we can all agree we really need that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luvcats13
I Think I'm Turning Democrat?
08:00 PM on 12/03/2011
I do agree and I so wanted Americans Elect to be a credible choice. But I am not gonna support any movement that purposefully hides its funding sources. There is no way to know whether or not a "hidden" agenda is driving Americans Elect. Literally, there could be money from a foreign government in the Americans Elect 501(c)(4) funding and we wouldn't know it.

If this is truly a "better" way and if Americans Elect has truly been established to provide Americans with a better way to get a candidate on the ballots of ALL 50 states in order to elect the President of the United States, in order for me to support it and feel comfortable doing so, the FUNDING CANNOT BE HIDDEN.

Other people will obviously feel confident enough with Americans Elects's "promise". I don't.

Obviously, SuperPacs are allowing for a new level of corruption in politics involving Dems and GOP which is why I strongly support the GetMoneyOut movement.

But I was SO disappointed when I researched Americans Elect because the idea sounded bold and refreshing. But NOT if they refuse to reveal their funding sources. That's just more of the same, BUT worse.
09:14 PM on 12/03/2011
True, trust but verify. If you can't verify you've got to wonder. The other thing, sounds like you have to undergo political/physiological testing...like maybe they're try to figure out how to fool all the people all the time, no?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa SpomerKrasnoff
09:18 PM on 12/01/2011
@Glen113. You heard it right: Roemer did say he would pick hawkish Joe Lieberman for VP. And Donald Trump thinks OBAMA wants to get us in a war with Iran!?
09:20 PM on 12/03/2011
Joe the Jewish Warmonger and famous Independent? OMG. Cheney'll be back in power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa SpomerKrasnoff
09:14 PM on 12/01/2011
Please let it be so. Roemer running third party might just give Louisiana to Obama!
03:51 AM on 12/03/2011
That is sad you still support Obama after all that money he took from Wall Street.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa SpomerKrasnoff
01:26 PM on 12/03/2011
As a woman, I can't vote for today's anti-woman GOP. Get it? Good.
08:17 PM on 12/01/2011
Wow, ok, I'm convinced, I'm convinced!! Great article, especially the deeper you get into it!

Ah, poor Buddy.

Thank you Mr. Linkens, useful article.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
07:41 PM on 12/01/2011
I could never vote for anyone who calls himself "Buddy".
03:49 AM on 12/03/2011
I can never vote for anyone that takes contributions from Wall Street..I rather have a Buddy in the White House than a corporate stooge...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
04:17 AM on 12/03/2011
I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, but Buddy's not going to the White House. Personally, I think he's a fraud.
06:48 PM on 12/01/2011
Buddy has a little problem with the Lady's! Too bad! If we can overlook it we might have a bright fellow. But we hold these folks to an altruistic standard only to topple them later and put in buffoons who get caught doing the very same thing.
06:42 PM on 12/01/2011
I watched Buddy Roemer being enterviewed on MSNBC by, I believe, Chris Hayes several weeks ago. I don't know what his stand is on earned benifits or entitelments, but I like very much everything else that I heard ... Go Buddy!