Buddy Roemer: 'Goldman Friggin Sachs- Governor Buddy Roemer on MSNBC's Morning Joe'

Source:Buddy Roemer- Reform Party presidential candidate Governor Buddy Roemer, talking to MSNBC.

"2012 Presidential Candidate. Fair Trade. No Tax Loopholes. No Special Interests. Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit." 

From Buddy Roemer

Buddy Roemer is one of the few if only real Republicans (as I would put it), people who are Classical Conservatives, running for President in the Republican Party right now. The only other person I would consider would be Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul I would classify as a Classical Libertarian, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman I would classify as Liberal Libertarians. Who I believe as a Liberal Democrat myself would both make solid Democrats in an Old School sense. 

Actually, I would put Rick Perry in the same class as Newt Gingrich, but the rest of that field are Neoconservatives, except for Mitt Romney who if I had to guess by judging his track record looks like George H.W. Bush or Gerry Ford. But politically he's where ever he feels he needs to be to suit him politically. But the rest of them, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann are all Tea Party Neo-Cons. Basically trying to install round three of the George W. Bush Administration.

Running for President in an era where neoconservatism and Christian-Conservatism is out of style in most of the country. If it's a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan Republican you're looking for President, look at the Buddy Roemer and take a look at John Huntsman, because they are the closest people that the Republican Party has right now. Which to me is just more evidence that both Goldwater and Reagan couldn't get the Republican nomination for President right now. Because they wouldn't kiss up to the Religious and Neo-Right, because they wouldn't give a damn about those people. 

Because of Governor  Roemer's politics and character and the fact that he can't get the Republican nomination for President right now, because of how far-right the GOP has moved in the last ten years or so, is just more evidence that Governor Roemer shouldn't give up his presidential campaign, just not run as a Republican. What American politics needs right now is another major political party. A party that could take votes away from Democrats and Republicans.

Time to force the two big parties to speak to broader audiences other than their fringe bases. And court votes from people other than their fringe bases. We need an Independence Party, something that George Wallace tried to start in the late 1960s and what Ross Perot tried to start in the 1990s. A party thats made up of both Classical Liberals and Classical Conservatives, people who aren't on the Far-Left or Far-Right. That can appeal to American voters who aren't on these fringes and give the two parties a hell of a run for their money. To encourage them to move away from their fringes whether they win or lose. 

And Buddy Roemer, Bob Barr, Evan Baygh, Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg, Lincoln Chaffey and others, would all make excellent presidential candidates for an Independence Party. Because they are the real things on the left and right not extremists. 

Buddy Roemer represents what the Republican Party used to be and what they have moved away from. Even with the Tea Party movement, because some of them have gotten in bed with Christian-Conservatives. Buddy Roemer hasn't left the Republican Party, but they've left him politically. Which is why he should leave the GOP and work to build a real Independence movement in American politics. That can build America's third major political party.

Associated Press: 'Libertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As Nominee'

Source:Associated Press- Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R, GA) and now 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee.

"Libertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As NomineeLibertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As NomineeThe Associated PressThe Libertarian Party on Sunday picked former Republican Rep. Bob Barr to be its presidential candidate after six rounds of balloting.  Barr left the GOP in 2006."

From the Associated Press

Bob Barr in some ways fits in perfectly with the Libertarian Party on economic and foreign policy. Similar to Pat Buchanan ,but on social issues, I would figure at least with Bob Barr's record in the House of Representatives, that he wouldn't be liberal to libertarian enough on social issues to fit in well with that party. Which is why Pat Buchanan run for President for the Reform Party in 2000 not the Libertarian Party. 

Until I heard about Representative Barr's opposition to the Patriot Act and War on Drugs, two things that I'm against as well. So to me Bob Barr would be a better fit with the Tea Party thats not in bed yet with the Religious-Right. Thats also against things like the Patriot Act and a neoconservative foreign policy and of course shares Representative Barr's views on economic policy. As well and also why I believe that Bob Barr would be an excellent fit in an independence movement that would lead to an Independence Party.

An Independence Party that Governor George Wallace tried to start in the late 1960s and Ross Perot tried to start in the 1990s. Which is a movement and party thats not exactly about centrism or splitting the difference, that does have clear positions on the issues. More conservative on economic policy, more liberal or at least neutral on social issues and more isolationist on foreign policy. 

A political party like this I believe would do very well in America right now with the right leadership. Because the largest voting block in America are registered Independents. People not registered with a political party. There is an independent political movement in America right now, but they don't have a major political party. The Reform Party is the closest thing they have right now but they've been around since 1995-96.

And the Reformers are still a fairly small political party, which is one reason why Mike Bloomberg has flirted with running for president. There are people in Congress that have flirted with leaving the Democratic and Republican parties and becoming Independents. Like Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Lisa Murkowski, Ron Paul and others. These people would make good leaders in an independence movement. To go along with people like Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan, Mike Bloomberg, David Walker who used to run Government Accountability Office. Evan Baygh who used to be a Senator and Governor from Indiana, independent commentator Lou Dobbs, the No Labels Movement and other people. Independents have the talent and personal to build their own party, that could blow up our two-party system.

A real Independence Party could  finally give America a political system that could represent our huge and diverse nation. Thats basically stuffed into two political parties. Bob Barr represents what independent politics could be in America and an avenue to blow up our two-party system. And give us a political system that has five strong parties that can represent the whole country. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist and independent and force Democrats and Republicans to compete for voters. Across the political spectrum instead of just running to their fringes for their support.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Governor George Wallace (1968)

Source:The Art of Alabama Politics- Governor George C. Wallace (Independent, Alabama) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

"Shortly before announcing his third-party presidential candidacy in January of 1968, former Alabama Gov. George Wallace engaged in an hour-long debate of various topics with conservative icon William F. Buckley on his “Firing Line” television program.

The debate between the two men proved to be both very combative and quite entertaining.

In this clip, Gov. Wallace responds when Buckley questions his conservative credentials while serving in office. It is likely the only occasion during the entirety of the 1968 campaign in which any interviewer accused Wallace of being a liberal.

[Note: The full, hour-long "Firing Line" episode is available for purchase on Amazon and is worthy viewing for devoted connoisseurs of Alabama political history." 

From the Art of Alabama Politics

George Wallace because he didn't fit in very well with either the Democratic Party because of his anti-civil rights views and he didn't fit in very well with the Republican Party because of the GOP's emerging conservative-libertarian faction (that William F. Buckley was part of) and Governor Wallace's progressive views on economic policy was right to form the Independence Party and run with them for President. 

An Independence Party back then over forty years, had relevance then and I believe has relevance today. Because there were plenty of people in both parties that didn't fit in very well with either party. As well as Independents that didn't fit in very well with either party. Because they were moderate to liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic policy. Sort of the way the Republican Party used to be before the Religious-Right took it over. 

And there were people who were progressive on economic policy but conservative on social issues like George Wallace. And some of the members of the Southern Caucus in Congress, which is how George Wallace was able to form the Independence Party and why it could've worked then if it was run right. Why it could've worked in the 1990s with the Ross Perot Movement. And why it could work today with Mike Bloomberg and other people but it has to be about an independence movement. 

An independence movement can't be about one individual or a small group of individuals, like in the late 1960s with George Wallace. Or in the 1990s with Ross Perot, but about the broader movement as a whole. To recruit enough independent minded people to make the movement powerful enough to at least influence the Democratic and Republican parties for the good and get them to act responsible. 

Or form a political party big enough to take on both parties and at least be a factor in elections. George Wallace had an opportunity to build an independence movement in 1967-68 and up till 1976 or so. Even after being shot in the back in 1972. But what he did instead was try to make the Independence Party about electing him President instead of building a party that could've been a major factor in American politics, that could nominate him for President, but could also recruit enough candidates for Governor, state legislature, Congress, and other public offices. Instead of trying to make this new party about electing him President of the United States. And screwing the Democratic and Republican parties.

As soon as George Wallace was elected and then reelected Governor of Alabama, his whole mission became about being elected President of the United States. Thats exactly what his part in the states rights movement became about. Whether he believed in forced segregation or not, I believe it was all about politics, but thats debatable. Instead of building a major third party that could take on both Democrats and Republicans for high office.

Carole Robinson: State of The Union (1948) Starring Spencer Tracy & Katharine Hepburn

Source:Carole Robinson- From 1948, with an all-star, Hollywood Hall of Fame cast.

"Entertainment Purposes Only. Frank Capra and Van Johnson - Need I say more? Oh, yes - Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Angela Landsbury...enjoy the scene with tow plane in midair playing bumper cars. Claudette Colbert was originally cast in the Hepburn role."

From Carole Robinson

The State of the Union from 1948 is a very entertaining and very funny movie with an excellent cast. Spencer Tracy as the presidential candidate, Katharine Hepburn as his wife, who’s somewhat reluctant to get into politics. But who’s more than capable of taking care of herself. Van Johnson as the political strategist, Angela Lansbury as Washington political insider. A leader in I’m guessing the Republican Party. And some other great people as well and the Spencer Tracy character a private businessman from New York.

The Tracy character who basically up till this point never considered running for any public office gets recruited by these party insiders. To be their presidential candidate, because he’s a very successful and wealthy outsider. Who does seem to have an interest in current affairs and has an independent streak, but never gets around to running for public office. The Tracy character reminds me a little of Ross Perot and Tom Dewey. But charming and likable and someone who these insiders believe can beat the incumbent President.

Harry Truman gets mentioned as the President in the move, that the Republicans want to beat. This movie came out in 1948 the year of that famous election between President Truman and Governor Tom Dewey of New York. And the Tracy character reminds me of Tom Dewey, even though Governor Dewey had some experience in public service at this point as a prosecutor as well as Governor of New York, but politically the Tracy character reminds me of Dewey: Progressive on social issues and foreign policy and a believer in fiscal responsibility as well.

Spencer Tracy plays the outsider of outsiders running for President of the United States. Not just because of the fact he lived outside of Washington, never served in public office or public service. Never even active in politics or current affairs, but also someone who was an outsider with his politics as well. He was farther to the left than Woodrow Wilson on foreign policy, calling for a world government. That would go past the United Nations. But someone who was also an anti-Communist and believed America should be tough with Russia.

In that sense this character reminds me a little of Tom Dewey. This character was a strong Progressive on economic policy. In favor of very high tax rates. Even as a very wealthy businessman, to be used to pay for social insurance programs and public services: like health care, health insurance, education and other things. But also a strong believer in fiscal responsibility as well. That tax revenue shouldn’t be wasted and spent very wisely as well. Again reminding me of Tom Dewey and Ross Perot. And a presidential candidate like this today I believe could be very successful in appealing to Independent voters as an Independent. Because of their broad reach.

State of the Union was a great political movie back in 1948. And is still a great movie today over sixty years later. Because it’s very relevant to the politics back then. Third-party candidates like Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party and Strom Thurmond of the Dixiecrat Party. Candidates who could actually have an affect on the presidential election. And that the Democratic Party and Republican Party actually had to take seriously. And try to appeal to some of their supporters in order to get elected or reelected. And it would be nice if these third-parties were more of a force today. And give American voters more choices in who they can vote for. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

TNT Films: George Wallace (1997) Gary Sinise as Governor George C. Wallace

Source:TNT Films- Gary Sinise, as Governor George C. Wallace. 

"Teaser for George Wallace (1997) captured from the Contact (1997) VHS tape."

From TNT Films

Source:Wikipedia - Gary Sinise as George C. Wallace 

From what I’ve heard and seen, read about George Wallace the former long time Governor of Alabama, as well as multiple time presidential candidate as a Democrat, as well as an Independent, the 1997 TNT movie about him naturally called George Wallace, is a pretty accurate movie about him. George Wallace started off as a Progressive on economic policy. Things like infrastructure investment, public education, as well as higher education, housing. And was a moderate on social issues. Including civil rights, until he lost the 1958 election for Governor of Alabama.

And then George Wallace calculated politically that in order to become Governor of Alabama and have a future in national politics, especially as a Southerner, he could get by with being for economic progressivism, even tax hikes. As long as that money was doing some good for the State. With schools, roads and so forth. But that he had to run to the Right or Far-Right even on Civil Rights. That he couldn’t support integration, in order to get elected Governor of Alabama.

Even as someone who up to that point was basically a Progressive Democrat and had to been favor of states rights especially on civil rights. In order to get elected Governor of Alabama and reelected and have a future in national politics, or with another party. Which is what he did in 1968 running for President in the Independence Party and there was such a thing back then. The movie George Wallace I believe does a very good job of portraying the man George Wallace. Who was very different in public than in private.

Which is how Gary Sinise plays Governor Wallace in the movie. Someone who didn’t believe in integration in public. Even though in private got along very well with African-Americans and even managed to win some of their votes. Because he was a Progressive on economic policy. And built schools, roads, hospitals and other public infrastructure in their communities. Something that Alabama Governor’s apparently didn’t do much of in the past. And these African-American voters voted with their wallets when it came to Governor Wallace.

And thats what you see in this movie as well. Someone whose public persona was different from his private persona. And without the assassination attempt in 1972 in Laurel, Maryland, when Governor Wallace was campaigning for president in the Maryland Democratic primary, getting shot I believe in the back, maybe we have an Independence Party today. A clear third choice for Independent voters. And a party of their own that George Wallace could’ve continued to build. Along with John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in the 1990s.

The TNT George Wallace movie I believe was very good. As well as the PBS documentary film about him. Setting the Woods on Fire from 2003. Because both films did their research on him and interviewed people who knew him and worked for Governor Wallace. And didn’t try to portray George Wallace as a devil or as a saint. But someone who was a lot more complicated than that, as he was. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Conservative Journal: Sean Hannity- 'Sarah Palin Opens Door To Possible Third Party Run'

Source: Conservative Journal- Talk about reality TV stars: except Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin aren't acting. 

Source:The Daily Times

"In a June 3, 2011 interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News , former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressed frustration over the Republican Party and hinted of a possible third party run in 2012.

"You know what, a year ago I would have said please don't even consider third party," Palin told Hannity. "I think conditions have changed in this last year...if they're not careful in the GOP there will be a third party rise up just like back in the day when the Whigs finally went away and Republicans rose up."

Please proceed to The New Conservative Journal for the full transcript of this portion of Gov. Palin's interview."

From the Conservative Journal

It would be a great day for the Republican Party and a bad day for comedians, pundits and bloggers if Sarah Palin left the GOP to run for President. Probably for some Far-Right third-party.

She doesn’t have a blizzard’s chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination for president in 2012 and perhaps ever. Because the GOP establishment has essentially told her, perhaps even to her face that she won’t win it. Because they are looking for a presidential nominee that can beat the President and win the White House in 2012.

Which is why Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty look so good to them right now. And why Mitch Daniels had he decided to run for President for 2012, would’ve look so good to them as well.

The GOP establishment wants to win in 2012. While the GOP base is looking for a presidential nominee that’s perfect in their mind ideologically. Especially on social issues where Sarah Palin fits in so well with them: anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc, where they don’t trust Mitt Romney.

 Sarah Palin doesn’t belong in a major political party like the GOP. But at the head of a fringe Far-Right party. And the GOP would be better off if she left them for good.

History Channel: 39- President Jimmy Carter and the Late 1970s

Source:The White House- President James E. Carter: 39th President of the United States.

Source:The Daily Times

“From The History Channel Series, “The Presidents”.
Copyright held by The History Channel – for educational use only!” Originally from Coach Strusky, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

This might be putting it simplistically, but Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the late 1970s might be able to be summed up in what was dubbed as his malaise speech. Even though it was a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Despite President Carter’s brilliant ability to examine issues and problems, this speech however you want to define it, sounded like a lecture on what was wrong with the American people.

Seeming to blame the problems that the country was facing on themselves. That what the center of our problems, the reason for our economic problems was materialism that we wanted too much. Instead of the fact that it’s not that the country wanted too much. But the fact that a lot of middle class Americans and low-income people were fighting just to survive, to make ends meet. Which was very difficult because of the high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation and the energy shortage.

The bad economy was the center of America’s problems and that was bad enough. And then throw in the foreign policy issues of late 1978 into 1979 and 1980, with the Monarchy in Iran collapsing in early 79, the Iran hostage crisis of November, 1979, where Americans at our Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage and held for fourteen months, with Russia invading Afghanistan in 1980. It was a lot on any President’s plate, even for a President as intelligent as Jimmy Carter.

I’ve said this before, but Jimmy Carter as President had a brilliant ability to examine issues for what they were for and understand them. But lacked the ability to figure out how to solve the problems. The economic crisis on 1978-90 and the malaise speech is a perfect example of this. He knew what the issues of the bad economy of that era were, but didn’t have a prescription to fix the problems.

He saw the economic crisis as something to do with the budget deficit. Even though compared with GDP the deficit was very small back then. Thanks to President Nixon, Ford and yes Carter limiting federal spending. The main issues with the economic crisis had to with high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation. And the way to solve economic problems is putting people back to work, even if that means running a short-term deficit. Or increasing the deficit, because once you establish solid job growth, you get the economy running again and you can address whatever budget deficit you had run up.

President Carter not only miss-diagnosed the economic crisis from a policy point of view, but from a political point of view. Because with a decent economy, President Carter gets reelected. I believe even with the hostage crisis, because President Carter actually scored decent ratings for the way he handled that situation. That election still would’ve been close I believe. But if he handled the economy properly, President Carter gets reelected and Ronald Reagan perhaps never becomes President of the United States.