HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Former Salt Lake City may...

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:29 PM

 

Former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson running for President. A progressive alternative to Obama



Rocky Anderson a progressive alternative to Obama
Former Salt Lake mayor says Democrats, Republicans sustain corrupt system
by Steven Higgs
December 14, 2011


Americans who feel betrayed by timid, capitulatory leadership from Democrats like President Barack Obama and Indiana Senate candidate Joe Donnelly now have a candidate to consider at the presidential level. On Dec. 12, 2011, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson announced his candidacy on the Justice Party ticket and the next day laid out a cogent progressive agenda on Democracy Now!

"There is clearly a convergence of interests regarding the concerns we have and the concerns of Occupy Wall Street," he told The Guardian. "There's little I've heard from the Occupy movement that I would disagree with, and I think there's little we support that they would disagree with."

Obama's Kansas speech on income inequality last week was "total hypocrisy," Anderson said. The president has accepted more Wall Street money than any other candidate in history, and he is surrounded by alumni from Goldman Sachs.

"All any of us have to do is look at our pension plans, our 401(k) accounts, and we can see the direct impacts of this economic disaster, brought to us through, by and large, these criminal acts committed by these Wall Street firms and their employees," he said. "And not one of them has been brought to justice under the Obama administration." "Just follow the money, and you’ll see why Congress and the White House are pursuing these policies that are so inimical to the interest of the American people."

Read the full article at:

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/10879



Rocky Anderson speaking at anti-war rally in Salt Lake City in 2006

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Ex-Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson, Former Democrat, Launches Third Party Presidential Bid Against Obama, GOP
Amy Goodman interview with Rocky Anderson
December 13, 2011



ROCKY ANDERSON: We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt. It’s so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it.

AMY GOODMAN: Third party, what does that mean now? How exactly will you run for president?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, actually, I consider this a second party. The Republican-Democratic parties have—although they’re at an impasse, much to the detriment of the American people, on some issues, they really, through their collusion, have brought this country to its knees economically. Without the Democrats colluding with the Republicans, we would not have engaged in an illegal, aggressive war against Iraq. We’ve seen Democrats and Republicans together granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. Then-Senator Obama promised this nation, before the primary, before he won the Democratic primary for the presidency, that he would join a filibuster against telecom company immunity. And then, as soon as he won the nomination, of course, he not only didn’t—he didn’t back off—only back off on his promise to join a filibuster, he voted for the legislation. Who in this country gets Congress to grant them retroactive immunity for committing clearly felonious acts?

And then, now we see the same thing. He comes into office, and he says, "Let’s look forward, not backwards," when it comes to war criminals, people who have engaged in torture, clearly in violation not only of international law, but domestic law. So, we have this two-tiered system of government. Not only a two-tiered system in terms of our economy, with very few privileged people cleaning up while the rest of us are suffering in so many dramatic ways because of the economic upheaval, but we have this special class of people who aren’t even held accountable under the law. And all three branches of government are part of this. The courts allow the executive branch to come in, and they dismiss cases on the basis of the subversive state secrets doctrine, where the executive branch gets to determine whether these cases go forward—victims of torture, people who are challenging illegal surveillance programs by the government. Amy, this is unprecedented in this nation and so completely contrary to the notion of an equal justice system.

See the full interview or read the Democracy Now interview transcript at:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/13/ex_salt_lake_mayor_rocky_anderson


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Rocky Anderson's radical third way
US history is littered with failed third parties, but the progressive populism of Salt Lake City's ex-mayor might just break the mould
by Gary Younge
December 12, 2011


As a progressive former Democrat in Utah, the most reliably conservative state in the country, Rocky Anderson is no stranger to long odds or short shrift. Among other things, Anderson has been a fierce opponent of the Iraq invasion, supports gay marriage and is an ardent environmentalist. (Think former London mayor Ken Livingstone surrounded by conservative Mormons.)

His agenda is a familiar one on the left. Broadly speaking, he wants to break the hold of corrupting corporate influence on the two main parties and give a voice to ordinary working people. It also chimes with the general thrust of the Occupy movement, even though the latter has steered clear of engagement with electoral politics.

"The more time has gone on, the more it has become clear that we're not going see change in this country with these two parties," he says. "There are lots of good individuals in the Democratic party, [but] without Democrats voting the way they did in Congress, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. We wouldn't have suffered as a nation because of these Bush tax cuts.

"Obama received more money from Wall Street than any presidential candidate ever. And they got a great return on their investment."

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/12/rocky-anderson-radical-third-way?newsfeed=true

I don't support Anderson's presidential campaign but I think progressives need to pay attention to what he is saying and doing. Perhaps some Utah DU'ers can shed more light on Anderson's political career in Utah and how someone as liberal or progressive as Anderson can be elected the mayor of Utah's biggest city in the heart of right-wing Republican dominated Utah. I'm looking forward to reading your input. BBI










180 replies, 54617 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 182 replies Author Time Post
Reply Former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson running for President. A progressive alternative to Obama (Original post)
Better Believe It Dec 2011 OP
limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #1
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #3
limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #11
MADem Dec 2011 #48
totodeinhere Dec 2011 #67
ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #92
WillyT Dec 2011 #114
MADem Dec 2011 #143
Maraya1969 Dec 2011 #182
Javaman Dec 2011 #87
MADem Dec 2011 #106
ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #110
MADem Dec 2011 #141
totodeinhere Dec 2011 #121
Javaman Dec 2011 #134
MADem Dec 2011 #142
Javaman Dec 2011 #164
MADem Dec 2011 #165
Javaman Dec 2011 #166
MADem Dec 2011 #167
Javaman Dec 2011 #170
MADem Dec 2011 #171
Javaman Dec 2011 #173
MADem Dec 2011 #176
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #4
brooklynite Dec 2011 #34
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #35
leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #91
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #94
whistler162 Dec 2011 #180
karynnj Dec 2011 #46
ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #66
ProSense Dec 2011 #2
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #6
ProSense Dec 2011 #13
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #20
sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #120
Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #181
ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #69
magical thyme Dec 2011 #62
snooper2 Dec 2011 #82
Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #5
eridani Dec 2011 #7
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #19
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #123
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #135
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #149
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #152
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #179
eridani Dec 2011 #146
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #147
eridani Dec 2011 #148
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #150
NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #83
eridani Dec 2011 #86
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #8
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #9
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #16
Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #18
Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #26
Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #29
joshcryer Dec 2011 #38
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #90
ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #64
mmonk Dec 2011 #15
opihimoimoi Dec 2011 #10
Scurrilous Dec 2011 #12
great white snark Dec 2011 #43
T S Justly Dec 2011 #14
bluestate10 Dec 2011 #17
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #21
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #22
aquart Dec 2011 #27
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #28
ProSense Dec 2011 #23
NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #84
newspeak Dec 2011 #57
alittlelark Dec 2011 #24
FreeState Dec 2011 #37
CanSocDem Dec 2011 #168
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2011 #25
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #31
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #41
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #96
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #100
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #104
Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #124
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #161
Ineeda Dec 2011 #109
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #30
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #32
joshcryer Dec 2011 #39
klook Dec 2011 #79
Hugabear Dec 2011 #33
RFKHumphreyObama Dec 2011 #36
Irishonly Dec 2011 #55
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #40
Freddie Stubbs Dec 2011 #42
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #49
newspeak Dec 2011 #58
Freddie Stubbs Dec 2011 #63
ProSense Dec 2011 #44
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #162
spanone Dec 2011 #45
agentS Dec 2011 #47
WI_DEM Dec 2011 #50
SidDithers Dec 2011 #51
bigtree Dec 2011 #52
newspeak Dec 2011 #60
dems_rightnow Dec 2011 #145
CanonRay Dec 2011 #53
BlueToTheBone Dec 2011 #56
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2011 #54
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #136
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #59
MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #71
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #81
sufrommich Dec 2011 #131
EC Dec 2011 #61
ecoalex2 Dec 2011 #65
greenman3610 Dec 2011 #68
uponit7771 Dec 2011 #76
MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #70
Post removed Dec 2011 #72
patrice Dec 2011 #73
patrice Dec 2011 #74
ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #89
ecstatic Dec 2011 #75
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #77
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #85
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #99
dionysus Dec 2011 #139
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #88
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #101
dionysus Dec 2011 #140
SidDithers Dec 2011 #97
siligut Dec 2011 #78
Martin Eden Dec 2011 #80
OregonBlue Dec 2011 #93
JohnnyRingo Dec 2011 #95
McCamy Taylor Dec 2011 #98
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #102
jtrockville Dec 2011 #108
SidDithers Dec 2011 #126
JohnnyRingo Dec 2011 #138
grantcart Dec 2011 #103
stevenleser Dec 2011 #105
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #111
grantcart Dec 2011 #117
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #133
Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #118
frazzled Dec 2011 #107
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #113
dionysus Dec 2011 #112
SidDithers Dec 2011 #127
dionysus Dec 2011 #132
Turbineguy Dec 2011 #115
WonderGrunion Dec 2011 #116
calimary Dec 2011 #119
bertman Dec 2011 #122
dionysus Dec 2011 #129
LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #125
sufrommich Dec 2011 #128
dionysus Dec 2011 #130
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #137
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2011 #163
joshcryer Dec 2011 #144
RZM Dec 2011 #151
joshcryer Dec 2011 #154
RZM Dec 2011 #155
joshcryer Dec 2011 #156
RZM Dec 2011 #157
MADem Dec 2011 #159
REP Dec 2011 #153
Dewey Finn Dec 2011 #158
Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #160
MADem Dec 2011 #169
Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #174
MADem Dec 2011 #175
Better Believe It Dec 2011 #172
Dewey Finn Dec 2011 #178
paulk Dec 2011 #177

Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:37 PM

1. Better think twice. I think Rocky Anderson is a pal of Mitt Romney.

I would not put it past Romney to ask Anderson to run as a third-party challenger to take votes from Obama.

I don't have any evidence, so I don't know if maybe I should take this to the UFO/Bigfoot conspiracy forum.

But hey I'm just sayin, it could be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:44 PM

3. They sure aren't "pals" anymore! Read what Anderson had to say about Romney in the interview.

 


Here's an excerpt from the Democracy Now interview:

AMY GOODMAN: I asked you about the Democrat, President Obama. What about the Republicans? For example, you’d be squaring off against a former political backer, in Republican hopeful Mitt Romney. You both worked together on the 2002 Winter Olympics. You recorded then a campaign ad backing Romney’s gubernatorial run in Massachusetts. He returned the favor the following year when you sought re-election as Salt Lake City mayor.

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, that was that Mitt Romney. It’s a very different Mitt Romney, of course, who’s running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. He’s changed his position on so many issues. You and I have talked about that in the past. I was very fond of Mitt and his wife, and we did great work together through the Olympics. I have a lot of regard for the man’s abilities. But you really have to wonder when somebody is willing to change his views on so many things and then pretend as if that didn’t happen, because the fact is, he is—he’s gone far, far to the right on so many of these issues. I mean, Mitt Romney, last time he ran for president, talked about doubling the size of Guantánamo? That is not the Mitt Romney I knew. And then, of course, you get to the issues like choice, stem cell research, rights for gays and lesbians. It’s a completely different Mitt Romney running for president now than ran for the governorship of Massachusetts—

AMY GOODMAN: Rocky, explain on the issue of abortion.

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, Mitt Romney, when he was running for governor, said that he thought that Roe v. Wade was basically the right result, and that ought to be the end of the discussion. He told me that privately. And that was how—you’re not going to run—you’re not going to win a race for governor of Massachusetts unless you take stands like that, and that’s how he won that office. And now, of course, he’s anti-choice, to please, I think, the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:52 PM

11. I'm still not buying that. It seems really fishy to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:31 AM

48. If this idiot managed to siphon off enough votes, combined with vote theft, voter suppression,

'gaming the machines,' and the other tactics the GOP uses 'con brio,' he'd probably get his pick of ambassadorships, and he'd have even MORE 'regard for the man's abilities.' No matter what he says today to Amy Goodman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:39 PM

67. Rocky Anderson is not an idiot.

He is a very thoughtful caring person who proved that a bona fide progressive can get elected even in a place like Utah. And he ran a good progressive administration in Salt Lake City. Of course, in fairness, Salt Lake City itself is surprisingly liberal. It's the rest of the state that's in the Stone Age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:45 PM

92. +1 at the very least. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:42 PM

114. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

 

Ignore the people that tend to... protect the fortunes of the fortunate.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:54 PM

143. Will his old boss Mitt give him the "Token Dem" slot in the Cabinet, I wonder? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:29 PM

182. Tell him to run for Congress or Senate or State legislator

Right now all I hear is Ralph Nader. He has to be a part of the solution and if kicking a republipig in because he pulls votes out of a Democrat's ticket then that's not the solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:24 PM

87. You really don't have any idea who Rocky Anderson is or his politican standing is

do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:24 PM

106. In my personal view, he's not the brightest bulb if he is running a third party

presidential candidacy against an incumbent Democrat.

YMMV, but that's my judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:19 PM

110. Speaking of dim bulbs...nwat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ooglymoogly (Reply #110)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:51 PM

141. Do elucidate--don't be vague, now. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:41 PM

121. I'm sure he realizes the long odds. But he is used to defying the odds.

They said that someone as progressive as he is could never be elected mayor of Salt Lake City, but he proved them wrong.

And yes, I understand where you are coming from. I share your concern about a third party candidate siphoning off votes from Obama and giving the election to the GOP. I definitely don't want to see that happen. It's just that I know Rocky is a good guy and I don't want to see him disparaged. He has been at the forefront of climate protection and LGBT rights among other issues for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:26 AM

134. so in other words, you know nothing about him.

brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:53 PM

142. And so, instead of assisting in my understanding, you instead choose to snark.

Brilliant, indeed.

I put forth my logic why I felt his 3rd party effort wasn't a good idea. You come back at me with nothing of substance.

Heckuvajob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #142)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 11:10 AM

164. So instead of doing it yourself you get mad at me. LOL



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #164)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 12:38 PM

165. You're the one who's telling me I need a lesson, yet not giving it.

You can laugh all you want, but it's not terribly funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #165)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:03 PM

166. And now you resort to the Peewee Herman defense!

I know you are but what am I?



here's a shovel, it might help. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:13 PM

167. Naaah. You may think you're being cute, but you're not.

Don't expect me to know everything about a minor politician running for President from a fringe party.

Don't expect me to care enough to run around "Googling" this guy no one I know has even heard of.

If you want to impart information, do so.

If you want to be a jerk, keep doing what you're doing--hang on to that shovel, you may need it yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #167)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:00 PM

170. I have never in my entire life seen someone turn a mole hill into a mountain.

This is the subthread to make yourself all crazy? I minor nothing subthread that matters to maybe a total of a dozen people total.

Wow.

in all the time you have taken to reply to me, you could have used it more productively and just googled Rocky Anderson's platform.

But instead you chose to take this whole really bizarre and useless back forth to try and get a dig in. That's called a complete and utter waste of time and energy.

It appears as if it's more important to you to be right (regardless of the weight of the argument) than it is to educate yourself on a topic you knew nothing about.

You, are truly one remarkable individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #170)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:19 PM

171. Javaman, you have one of those nice days, OK?

I really don't care that you don't agree with me. I don't care about your PeeWee Herman, your dramatic "WOW" comments, and all the fake outrage you're trying to generate over a guy I don't even know, who will not win the Presidential election, and if he even rises to notice by the MSM, will do so on the back of a Rove PAC frantically attempting to divide the progressive vote.

Yes indeed--I am a remarkable individual--most of us in this world are, in one way, or another.

You keep your shovels, and you keep you digs, and perhaps try to be happy for a change, rather than trying to piss people off with manufactured arguments and drama--it just won't work with me. See, I have to care about an issue, and just I don't care about this guy and his silly little Not-On-Most-Ballots Justice Party, and you--by yelling, snarking and pouting at me instead of offering any substantive information--have made damn sure I never will.

Don't tell me that I have to do the work, when YOU are the one trying to make the point--it simply doesn't work that way.

Not in school, not in life, and not on these here "internets."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #171)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:39 PM

173. you just can't let it go...

Wow. (I know you enjoy that so much)

just walk away.

if you don't want to do the footwork, but choose instead make uninformed claims about a candidate you know nothing about, well, then, I can't help you.

I told you knew nothing about Rocky Anderson and you responded with a very bizarre string of replies about how it was my job to educate you.

That is really sad.

Since we no longer have the block function, I will just trash this thread, because this whole exchange between you and I is nothing a more than a sad comedic disaster. Much like a clown car getting hit by a train carrying fake dog doo.

ta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #173)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 08:13 PM

176. Ciao, Javaman!

I walked...and you're still not happy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:46 PM

4. Interesting. There will be a well funded 3rd party candidate to run to Obama's left.

Vote Rocky, settle for Mitt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:23 AM

34. On what basis do you see this campaign as "well funded"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:44 AM

35. Not saying it is...just saying there will be one .

There's going to be a lot of money available to get an Independent Party to run on a platform to Obama's left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:42 PM

91. he might even get kkkarl rove money. try to spilt dem vote

 

why announce now? let him shoot for 2016. is he the new ralph nader?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:25 PM

94. Citizen's United aka "Corporations are People, too!"

will make a lot of money available to 3rd Party campaigns. They can attack Obama from the Left and from the Right. Isn't Republican Free Speech grand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:29 PM

180. I am quite sure the Koch brothers will pony up some donations for the "progressive" candidate!

again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:18 AM

46. It would be interesting to see if any of the money Anderson raises is from Romney donors

It was common knowledge that much of the money Nader had - at least in 2004 - was from the Republicans. http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-10/news/17433544_1_ralph-nader-howard-dean-mcauliffe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:38 PM

66. - a bunch...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:38 PM

2. Why?

I don't support Anderson's presidential campaign but I think progressives need to pay attention to what he is saying and doing. Perhaps some Utah DU'ers can shed more light on Anderson's political career in Utah and how someone as liberal or progressive as Anderson can be elected the mayor of Utah's biggest city in the heart of right-wing Republican dominated Utah. I'm looking forward to reading your input. BBI


Why don't you support him? Will you be posting information on the person you do support?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:48 PM

6. I opposed anyone running a primary campaign against Obama. Did you conveniently forget that?

 

Now do you have any information on Anderson's career in Utah or do you prefer drive-by personal attacks on DU'ers you disagree with?

I believe I had to put you on my ignore list for several such personal attacks on the old DU2.

I'll be putting you on my ignore list again if you're incapable of civil debate as soon as that feature becomes available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:54 PM

13. How

"I opposed anyone running a primary campaign against Obama. Did you conveniently forget that?"

...could I forget something only you know? I don't see that statement in your OP comment:

I don't support Anderson's presidential campaign but I think progressives need to pay attention to what he is saying and doing. Perhaps some Utah DU'ers can shed more light on Anderson's political career in Utah and how someone as liberal or progressive as Anderson can be elected the mayor of Utah's biggest city in the heart of right-wing Republican dominated Utah. I'm looking forward to reading your input. BBI


Still, good to know. FYI: Laughing at something that seems humorous doesn't equal "drive-by personal attacks on DU'ers you disagree with"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:05 AM

20. November 8, 2011 Better Believe It: "I actually don't favor a primary campaign" against Obama.

 

Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-08-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #12

I actually don't favor a primary campaign. I think it would be a distraction from building independent mass movements with an active base among millions of ordinary working class folks.

I agree with "The Progressive" magazine view on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2263074&mesg_id=2265640


Why a Primary Challenge to Obama Is a Bad Idea
By Matthew Rothschild
Editor of The Progressive
December 9, 2010

I’m as unhappy with Obama as the next progressive, but I don’t think it’d be a good idea to mount a primary challenge to him, and here’s why.

First of all, it would be extremely divisive within the Democratic Party, and it would drive a wedge between the largely white left and the overwhelming majority of African Americans at the grassroots, who constitute the party’s most loyal constituency. The last thing we need is to incite racial animosity on the left.

Secondly, there’s no obvious, credible challenger to Obama, and even if there were, any candidate would be likely to lose, so what’s the point?

Thirdly, the divisiveness would only serve to help the Republicans and their rightist forces gain even more power, as the Ted Kennedy challenge to Jimmy Carter illustrated back in 1980.

But most importantly of all, the boomlet for challenging Obama reiterates the fallacy that Presidential politics is the crucial arena for political activism. We, on the progressive side, have been investing way too much time and energy here.

Please read the full article at:


http://www.progressive.org/wx120910.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:29 PM

120. I'm sure an apology will be forth-coming!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:12 PM

181. So conveniently bookmarked.



I'll alert the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:47 PM

69. Confucius say, the mutterings

of simpletons and sycophants are irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:53 AM

62. the feature is available now

 

go to the individual's profile and the option to put on ignore is there. Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:43 PM

82. Being able to see the edit history is badass isn't it BBI

 

LOL

Oh, and-


I oppose anyone buying a subway sandwich while putting buy 1 6" get 1 free coupons on all the cars in my work parking lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:48 PM

5. Any vote that does not help defeat the conservatives is a mistake

 


This guy won't get my vote no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:48 PM

7. Great. No voter contact plan with national scope

Yes, he's raising issues that need to be raised, but OWS is doing much better at that than any "alternative" presidential candidate could. I think that progressives are better served by putting more progressive people into the pipeline at lower levels of government. Which we should have been doing since the 70s, but didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:05 AM

19. Couldn't agree more.

So Rocky gets elected. What changes? Nothing. Why? He'll still have to deal with Congress. I don't think Republicans will be any more willing to move his progressive legislation. And what's the Democrat's motivation to want the Rocky Party to succeed? Actually, he'll be totally sidelined and completely ineffectual. He'll have zippo influence on the Hill.

Not that he has a snowball's chance in getting elected. But his 5-10% will be enough to throw the Presidency to the Republican. Great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:59 PM

123. You honestly don't think if a third party candidate beat an incumbent President that nothing would

change? I can imagine brown bricks in the pants of most representatives and senators if that were to happen. You think congress would still be as conservative as they are now? In the first place if Anderson were to win I think a lot of new faces would also appear in the Capitol building. There would be no Republican majority to do anything. The old faces would be doing a lot of reassessing their positions. I can think of no larger wake up call for congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:57 AM

135. Yes, nothing would change.

You can imagine whatever you like, of course, but the reality is, a messiah type 3rd party President comes into town with his own agenda - built on trashing the evil Republican and Republican-Lite Parties. The Inauguration comes and goes...then what? Assuming this Party-less President has some grand legislative agenda to fix all of the political and social problems of our society - it's going to be an impressive body of legislation (who writes that?) - who's going to stage manage it through Congress? If Republicans are in control of the House...game over. He gets to wait 2 years to see if the electorate decides to put the RLs in charge while he spends his time vetoing that agenda.. But what if the RLs have control of the House? Are they going to move this guy's legislation? Nope. They could give a rat's ass about rubber stamping his legislation They'll write their own, reflecting their vision and priorities. If it passes, he can sign it or veto it. But in no case is it going to be in any way his legislation. Talk about compromising principles, he'll be horsetrading everything to get anything.

Now you're including "new faces" magically appearing in Congress with the magic 3rs Party President? Lots of wonderful conjecture and hypotheticals...but they won't fare any better in reality than your 3rd Party President.

No, you want a 3rd way? You're gonna have to build a foundation for it to sit on. That means creating a Party and organizing at the precinct level. Running slates of candidates locally...building accomplishments that can translate into state offices...then run candidates for national office. And you're going to have to do it in all 50 states, concurrently. If you start now, you should be realizing your goal of national significance in about 20 years. Look at the Green Party for inspiration. They've been at if for 40 years....look what they've accomplished. And along the way, to succeed, you'll have to be willing to compromise on just about every facet of your agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:58 PM

149. I will still maintain that if Anderson could beat President Obama

that there would be a sea change in Congress. An electorate that rejected both major presidential candidates would not stop at the Presidency. Those that survived the slaughter would have much fear in their hearts.

Of course it will not happen unless the both major candidates get caught at the same time in bed with dead hooker and a live boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #149)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 12:35 AM

152. As I said, you can believe anything you want.

I explained to you why it wouldn't work. I see nothing in this post that explains why I'm wrong.

I have no idea why you'd think there would be a sea change, simply because we have elected someone with no political infrastructure in place to accomplish anything. The lesson we should have learned in 2008 is you can't elect a president and assume the hard work is over. The Republicans didn't roll over and sign on to Obama's vision of change. They certainly won't with a 3rd Party President. So we need to elect a bullet-proof progressive Congress that will deliver the legislation that will bring the change that Obama represented in 2008. The message was "Yes, we[ can", not "Yes I can"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #152)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:08 PM

179. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I still maintain that voters that would reject an incumbent President and the candidate from the other major party would not reelect incumbent representatives and senators that have favorable ratings hovering near 10%. There would be a lot of new faces in congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 09:48 PM

146. The notion that a 3rd party candidate could beat an incumbent without --

--a voter contact plan is just plain silly. An actual political party is by definition one that runs candidates at all levels and has a large, constantly maintained, voter database.

Lefty policy wonks need to give up the notion that the general public consists of policy wonks just like them who vote on issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #146)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:51 PM

147. Just five words for you.

Hy-po-the-ti-cal that's all this was, a what if scenario. I doubt if anyone actually believes he could win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #147)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:54 PM

148. If you don't want to win, why run?

Although some other well-defined and measurable goal would be acceptable. What would that be for Anderson?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 12:24 AM

150. I'm sure he does want to win.

If he does indeed have a goal other than to win, it would probably be to move President Obama to the left. Anderson is probably the first person to know what his chances of winning are. My discussion with Old and In the Way was just a what if scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:58 PM

83. You don't think OWS would get behind his candidacy?

 

I'm thinking a large percentage of OWS would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:21 PM

86. I'm thinking that they are totally blowing off electoral politics for the time being n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:50 PM

8. Is he a Democrat? Is so, why isn't running a primary challenge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:51 PM

9. He answers your question in the articles. Read them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:00 AM

16. Is he a Democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:05 AM

18. He is a former Democrat but has now joined the newly formed Justice Party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:12 AM

26. How mnay states has the Justice Party attained the qualifications to

get on the ballot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:59 AM

29. I am not sure, they just announced the formation of the party last week so they may not be on any.

I expect they will probably be on the ballot in several states by the time of the election, but they are probably not on any of them yet as they just formed a week ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:53 AM

38. They won't be able to get on CA's ballot.

There are some other states who also have extremely high bar to get on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:41 PM

90. The California Peace and Freedom Party could vote to put Anderson as their candidate on the ballot.

 


I believe they have automatic ballot status. They used that in 2008 to put two non-PFP candidates on the presidential ballot in 2008, Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:17 PM

64. Perhaps not.

Since elected officials form the two major parties write the rules for placement on the ballot on the state level, it is often very difficult for third parties to get any representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:59 PM

15. Darcy Richardson is running a primary campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:51 PM

10. Nope...tiny odds on the Rock....unknown and tiny $$ ain't shit in this Realm of the Oval...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:53 PM

12. He's a shoe-in.

Seriesly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:04 AM

43. He's eschewin' reality.

No chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:55 PM

14. Cool! I'll remember the name ...

 

When I go vote next year. Hope things have changed by then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:05 AM

17. Seems like a good choice for 2016 if he re-registers as a democrat. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:18 AM

21. Why the Anderson campaign for President will not be like Nader's campaign in 2000.

 

An excerpt from the Guardian article on Anderson's campaign. Read the full article which explores this question in more detail. BBI:

Anderson: "As long as the fear of being a spoiler prevents people from moving in a direction that will change the corrupt system that's in place, then we'll never see change in this country," he says. "At least, we'll never see changes move in a positive direction. The choice people have now is to either support a very different way that would signal a revolution and vast correction of the systemic problems in our government – or they can carry on going in the same direction they have been going all these years that's resulted in so much tragedy for people in this country and the world."

There are a couple of reasons why it would be a mistake to expect a re-run of 2000.

First, Anderson is nothing like Nader. He has held elected office and won re-election by a seven-point margin during a particularly reactionary period. Also, he is a charismatic figure. I have seen passengers cheer after a pilot announced that he was travelling on a plane from Salt Lake to DC (and he was in coach!). I've seen people ask to have their picture taken with him while he's out for a drink in Salt Lake.

Second, 2012 is nothing like 2000. Approval of the work of Congress is at an all time low and Americans are deeply disaffected with both parties. A recent Gallup poll showed that only 13% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling its work. And even though a narrow majority would keep not vote out their own representatives, 76% say most representatives do not deserve to be re-elected. Many Democrats feel disappointed by Obama; many Republicans despair of their primary choice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/12/rocky-anderson-radical-third-way?newsfeed=true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:46 AM

22. Ever wonder why they only poll Congress as if it were a monolythic body?

You never, ever see polling that attempt to analyze and track by Party. It's like they want the voter to conclude, they're all bad. If I'm asked my opinion, what do you think of Congress's performance...how do I answer? IT SUCKS! But there's never a follow-up question - Who do you blame? No, they get the answer they want. Congress sucks...then leave it up to the uniformed voter to conclude, "there's not a dimes worth of difference between republicans and Democrats".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:30 AM

27. Actually, that is only one way they poll Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:53 AM

28. True, but it's the only polling that seems to get discussed in the mainstream media.

Maybe MSNBC will get into polling crosstabs and there are sites like DKos, 538, and DU that have the breakout results but broadcast media seems to always run with the "People think Congress sucks and we have the polls to prove it!". It's a negative feedback loop that helps to carry the CW that both are equally bad. Clearly, both Parties aren't voting the same way in Congress...the votes couldn't be more clearly contrasted. Polling the Congress questions tells us nothing, at best, and, at worst, helps to mislead uninformed voters to conclude both parties must suck equally since both are in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:51 AM

23. That's hilarious

There are a couple of reasons why it would be a mistake to expect a re-run of 2000.

First, Anderson is nothing like Nader. He has held elected office and won re-election by a seven-point margin during a particularly reactionary period. Also, he is a charismatic figure. I have seen passengers cheer after a pilot announced that he was travelling on a plane from Salt Lake to DC (and he was in coach!). I've seen people ask to have their picture taken with him while he's out for a drink in Salt Lake.

<...>




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:00 PM

84. Hilarious?

 

Be careful, you may just end up with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:22 AM

57. I resided in Utah when Rocky was mayor

I remember him protesting against little boot's iraq war plans. He fully supported the protesters. I admire the guy, he's a workaholic; however, the timing is not right. I think if you're going to promote a new party from the ground, it will take some time.

approximately one hundred years ago, both parties were in bed together and people became disgusted with the corruption. California and wisconsin, both, led in the progressive movement, especially in labor and education. What a strong third party can do is change the direction of one of the established parties.

I admire Rocky-like I said he is a workaholic and he has chutzpah. why doesn't he run as a democrat? Well, if you're a progressive, you may not get that DNC support, especially from the third way democrats. However, it would be nice if he did challenge as a democrat and help change the direction of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:55 AM

24. A mormon running against a mormon for president?

Are we sure we are not reading 'The Onion'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alittlelark (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:51 AM

37. I wouldn't call Rocky Anderson a Mormon

If only all Mormons were like him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson

Anderson was raised as a Mormon, and was a practicing member of that predominant religion in Logan,[20] but he has described his disagreement with certain doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, particularly the denial, before 1978, of the priesthood and temple ceremonies for African-Americans, whose dark skin, according to the Mormon Church, was "the mark of Cain,"[21] and the teachings of Brigham Young that "a white person who 'mixed his seed' with a 'Negro' should be killed."[22] Anderson has described his belief, from a young age, that the L.D.S. teaching of personal moral abdication through obedience to people in positions of authority was dangerous and counter to the principle of personal moral responsibility,[23] in which Anderson deeply believes.[24]

Anderson studied ethics, political philosophy, and religious philosophy[25] in college. He also explored theological issues in depth[26], including the unique doctrine of the Mormon Church that worthy men and women can become gods and goddesses[27], and determined that the best course for him was to intensely consider ethical choices, then set certain moral guideposts for his life, and focus on trying to live accordingly, without regard to the doctrines of any organized religion.[28]

While expressing the importance of some fundamental moral lessons he learned as a young member of the Mormon Church, and while describing the value he places on his Mormon heritage,[29] Anderson has spoken out about the L.D.S. Church's discrimination against gays and lesbians,[30] comparing its public campaigns against equality for members of the GLBT community with its history of racial discrimination. Anderson has written about his views on this issue[31] and appeared in the documentary film, "8: A Mormon Proposition."[32]
During high school, Rocky played lead guitar in a rock and roll band, The Viscounts, and worked at a cabinet and roof truss plant. He also shingled roofs during his high school years.

Snip...

Anderson received a bachelor's degree in Philosophy, graduating magna cum laude.[35] After reading existentialist literature and several works on ethics, religious philosophy, and political philosophy, he had a "powerful epiphany. We can't escape responsibility, there's no sitting out moral decisions, and whenever we refuse to stand up against wrongdoing we're actually supporting the status quo."[36]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:15 PM

168. I was wondering...

 



...how he reconciled his progressive views with a job at the head of the nations only functioning 'theocracy'. Thanks to your post, I am comfortable with the knowledge that he came to them, naturally.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:04 AM

25. Here's an idea ...

 

How about "progressive alternatives" work hard to build a base and national recogition/identification ... starting the 1st Wednesday in November, 2012? That gives them 4 years to build legitimacy as a viable alternative for Democrats without jeopardizing our (Democrats and America's) immediate future.

Any other efforts taunting "a progressive alternative" will be seen as suspect to me and will earn my vocal disappoval.

Not that it matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:05 AM

31. That's too much work. Independent progressives want a political messiah to fix everything.

And they would be bitterly disappointed to realize that this person would be completely ineffectual in getting anything done without selecting sides. Assuming he'd want to work with Democrats (he's a progressive after all)....he'd be a weaker version of Obama.

If they want real change now, they ought to be working to elect more progressive independents like Bernie Sanders to Congress instead of helping to get Republicans elected to the Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:50 AM

41. So you think Rocky Anderson would be "a weaker version" of the Great Compromiser President Obama?

 


mmmmmmm ..... not sure if that's even possible.

You're joking .... right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:29 PM

96. Silly question. Follow the Messiah - he'll lead you to the Promised Land!

Just like Ralph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:23 PM

100. We tried Obama. How has that worked out for ya?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:48 PM

104. Silly question. Follow the Messiah - he'll lead you to the Promised Land!

Just like Ralph!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:05 PM

124. Stealing phrases from Sarah Palin doesn't help your case, also too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #124)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:50 AM

161. "Stealing phrases from Sarah Palin doesn't help your case, also too."

You caught that too, huh? The lines are so blurred now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:33 PM

109. +1 for this^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:02 AM

30. Besides the Democrats and GOPers there are FOURTEEN other folks running

for President in 2012.

I think that NONE of them are worth even talking about.

Here's a link to EVERYONE that has announced they are running: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
Here's a direct link to the section that names the 14 folks that no one has ever heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Third_party_and_independent

p.s. Except Rosanne Barr, we've all heard of her


Obama 2012 - all the way!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:08 AM

32. I think running for POTUS might be the new financial con.

Anyone can run and, with a creative accountant, you can probably earn a comfortable living. Anyone can run for national office, just look at Christine O'Donnell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:55 AM

39. Correct, I hope DU doesn't get caught up in Anderson hysteria...

...as the trolls keep referencing him over and over closer to election time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:59 PM

79. Personally, I'm pretty concerned about

Vermin Supreme. A vote for V. S. is a vote for whatever supreme varmint the Republicans put up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:12 AM

33. Ron Paul has a better chance of being elected President than this guy

Fair or not, if you don't have a (D) or (R) after your name on the ballot, you're not getting elected. Plain and simple. It just will not happen. Ross Perot, who spent billions of his own money in a highly publicized third-party run in 1992, couldn't even get a single electoral vote. Neither did Ralph Nader in 2000. If neither of those guys could even make a tiny dent in the electoral college, why should anyone think this guy would have a chance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:09 AM

36. The last Anderson who ran as a progressive third party candidate helped get us Reagan

Who will this one get us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RFKHumphreyObama (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:11 AM

55. I will never forget it

People I knew thought Carter would win anyway and voted for Anderson as a protest vote. I remember walking into work the day after the election and seeing everyone dressed in black. I wore black that day and it was a quiet, mournful day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:38 AM

40. Is this a suicide by cop thread?

 

You do know they'll ban you from DU for this.

I guess you're so angry about the "More 'jury' nonsense. A 'jury' voted 4 to 2 against Manning" thread you don't care.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124013092

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:53 AM

42. He's got as many ex-wives as Newt Gingrich

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:32 AM

49. Do you have any evidence he "cheated" on his two ex-wives? Links please.

 


Anderson divorced twice and is single.

Tell us why you think divorce is immoral or perhaps should not be permitted in a civil society if that's your position.

This sounds more like a low level personal attack from someone who can't present an effective rebuttal against Anderson's campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:25 AM

58. actually his marriages probably ended in divorce

because he is a workaholic. As mayor in salt lake, he was very committed to his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:57 AM

63. He couldn't handle marriage and he couldn't handle working to change the Democratic party

He got to where he is in his career thanks to the Democratic party. As soon as it is becomes convenient, he abandons the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:15 AM

44. Keep

hope alive!

CNN poll: Renominate Obama 81%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100242021

That leaves between zero and 19 percent who maybe open to supporting third party. Actually, that range is closer to zero to 11 percent, since roughly 8 percent of Democrats sometimes vote for the Republican.

My guess is that among the 11 percent, there are about 2 percent to 3 percent who will consider it.

Keep hope alive!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:56 AM

162. I wish I could rec this. I think Clinton's re-elect numbers were about 20 pts. lower. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:17 AM

45. unrecc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:29 AM

47. Sounds like a great guy! He should run for Senate

God knows we more people like him in Congress.
I can't stand Coburn or Vitter or McConnell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:33 AM

50. Yeah! vote for Rocky and let a republican win

just like 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:34 AM

51. Mr. Anderson, Ralph Nader on line 2...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:36 AM

52. he worked with Romney in the 2002 Winter Olympics

How fricking desperate can you get? How the fuck is this a progressive alternative? So, he's to the left of Romney. Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:42 AM

60. of course he worked with romney

he was mayor of SLC and romney was head of the olympic planning. He had to work with romney to coordinate the olympics.

I'm not going to shite on rocky, he stood up to little boots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:02 PM

145. What would a REAL Democrat have said?

"Sorry. I've changed my mind. You can't have your Olympics here."????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:41 AM

53. I had dealings with this guy when he was Mayor of Salt Lake

He talks a good game, but I think he's phony as a $3 bill. Similar to Mitt. Just MHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:12 AM

56. I had a feeling that was what it was.

Amy loves to promote Democratic vote splitters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:44 AM

54. Excellent Republican strategy

Get a liberal to run as a third-party candidate. This will siphon votes from the Democratic ticket. Shades of Ralph Nader.

I wonder who would fund Anderson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 02:55 AM

136. Some front group funded by the Kochs and/or Rove's anonymous donors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:41 AM

59. Good. Having choices is what democracy is about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:51 PM

71. Actually, making choices collectively is what Democracy is all about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:39 PM

81. Which means that more choices are a plus.

 

Unfortunately, in our 2 party system controlled by money, it dilutes the choices enough to make democracy impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:18 PM

131. DU is about electing Democrats. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:50 AM

61. I'm beginning to think that there are a lot of

fake candidates being brought in by the repubs like they did here in WI. during the first round of recalls. Put in Dems that they con into running to divide the Dem vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:37 PM

65. Justice Party

 

Justice is at the core of why America is what it is today.sadly Obama has kept the bush justice dept. and continues to torture,spy on all of us,and now accepts the unlimited detention of Americans in America by the US military,which is clearly illegal.

Until justice is restored we cannot have the guarantees of the Constitution.

A Republic of,by,for the corporations not the people is our reality now.

This is why as far as I know if Rocky Anderson is on the ballot I will vote for him,and the party of Justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:40 PM

68. Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between George Bush and Al Gore...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greenman3610 (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:22 PM

76. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:49 PM

70. He's running with the "Throw your vote right in the Trashcan" Party.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:58 PM

73. Fuck Hr 676. Fuck EFCA 2.0 but some will get their self-righteous buzz on anyway & lie down with

those who will double-cross us to do it, just so everyone can put shit on their PROFESSIONAL "Leftist" resumes and brag about being part of a "revolution" that ONLY screws those who are already screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:59 PM

74. And if you think I can't back that up with empirical support, you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:29 PM

89. I have followed Rocky for a long time.

He has solid democratic principals and has stood proud for those principals in a very red state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:04 PM

75. I thought you weren't coming to the new DU?

What happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:37 PM

77. OP found out as long as he posts anti-material with a disclaimer at the bottom, he is within

the 'rules'.

Awesome.

Door is wide open now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:21 PM

85. You're now on ignore for personal attacks.

 


I see you were on my ignore list on DU2 for engaging in personal attacks against DU'ers you disagreed with.

You haven't changed.

Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:18 PM

99. Oh my stars and garters! Whatever shall I do? I...I feel faint!

Nope.

I haven't changed, you are correct on that score.


I am a Democrat.


Proud to be on your fingers in the ears list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 02:56 PM

139. merciful heavens!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:29 PM

88. Pretty slick, huh?

 

Careful Ikonoklast or you'll be on double secret ignore. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:26 PM

101. (cough) Everything's getting so cold...(cough) so dark, so cold...(gasp)....

...I see a light now...so bright...(hack)(gasp)....such a cold, bright white light..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 02:57 PM

140. are you sure you'll be okay? you seem broken up about it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:35 PM

97. +1...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:40 PM

78. How convenient for the repugs

Much too convenient. I sure hope we don't see support for this guy on DU, it goes directly against the DU TOS: "Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:35 PM

80. I'll vote for a Third Party candidate ...

... when Instant Runoff Voting is in place.

Our nation has not recovered from Florida in 2000.

If a Repuke takes the White House, we are in d e e p s h i t .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:18 PM

93. Not this silliness again. Obama approval was at 84% among Dems last week and it's going up.

Why waste everyone's time with this when we should all be out opposing the Teahadists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:29 PM

95. People who think a vote splitting third choice is a good idea should bet the rent money on it.

I think the maximum donation is something like $2200, and he most certainly needs it. Liberal idealists don't want him tainted by corporate cash, so that leaves only one source of campaign money.

Throwing away one's vote as a protest to get a Republican in the White House is an innefficient tactic. If people really think this guy would do a good job, put a month's pay on it or quit pretending he has a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:04 PM

98. Amen. But there is no maximum contribution. The Kochs could bankroll this guy 100%---

and keep themselves secret while doing it.

Any politician who wants to be catapulted to the national stage can get funding from a major corporate donor of the GOP and see his name on every ballot in every contested state in the union. The e-vote fraud folks will then see that he gets 4% of the vote---peeled straight from the Democratic votes. Just like Nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:27 PM

102. Republicans and Wall Street could also give millions to Obama. They gave a lot to Kerry and Obama

 


Isn't that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:30 PM

108. Anderson won't accept the maximum donation amount. Not even close.

 

He'll only accept a maximum of $100 from anyone. At least that's what his donation page said when I kicked in some $ to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtrockville (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:09 PM

126. Wait. You donated to someone running against...

Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2011, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

the Democratic candidate in the General Election?

Edit: looks like that donation to Rocky cost you your posting privileges at DU3. Oh, well.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtrockville (Reply #108)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 04:02 AM

138. I heard about that $100 maximum, now that you mention it.

That means he'll run a lot of commercials in the Posti-Vac time slot.
Phone bank calls will end with a request to stay on the line for an important message about your credit cards.
Bumper stickers can have JD Byrider crossed out and his name penciled in.
Campaign rallies will be held immediately after the Zumba class ends.

I could go on, but it's ludicrous to think we'll hear anymore from this guy. He has no money and an underground base of supporters that couldn't fill an amusement park. But hey, if all 65 million democrats send him $100 each he'll have almost enough to print some flyers and sandwich boards.

Maybe I'm wrong though. Perhaps he'll become a household name like Stewart Alexander who's also running from the left side of the ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:37 PM

103. My input is that someone who makes repeated anti Obama posts and then puts


"I don't really believe this crap but I want your opinion"

is intellectually dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:18 PM

105. I think that is a version of concern trolling. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:32 PM

111. Is your comment directed at me or someone else?

 


I hope it's someone else because I never wrote the comment you quoted.

Did you just make that quote up or are you quoting some other DU'er?

Well?

You have the floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:13 PM

117. It's my charachterization of the repeated anti Obama posts that you make and then add some


disingenuous line like;


"John MacArthur proposes a Democratic primary challenge against President Obama which I'm opposed to. BBI"

or

"I don't support Anderson's presidential campaign but I think progressives need to pay attention to what he is saying and doing."


You are an absolute fountain of postings that you say that you don't agree with.

There are a couple dozen obscure third party candidates but you choose to focus not on the ones that would run and hurt the Republican nominee but the one that didn't support Obama in 2008, doesn't "trust Obama", and is the Republican wet dream if he could draw off 3-4 % of the Democrats.

You find it 'interesting' and you want to get it widely distributed and publicized but you seem to always post these types of things without explaining why you find it interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:31 PM

133. Your misrepresentation of my views may fit your Obama talking points nicely but I tell the truth.

 


And if the truth and honest criticism of Obama and the economic interests he serves disturbs you that's too bad.

I'm not a parrot for Anderson nor any presidential candidate, including President Obama!

If you demonstrate as much independence you won't appear like a political apologist on every issue involving President Obama. Echoing White House talking points in defense of Obama's less than liberal/progressive policies and blasting anyone who expresses less than slavish adulation and/or uncritical support for all of President Obama's policies won't win you much respect or attention from people you might call "the professional left".

If you actually monitor my posts you should know that I indicated some time ago that I agreed with the position of "The Progressive" editor on a primary challenge against Obama. They are opposed to such a challenge and so am I.

Are you familiar with The Progressive and other liberal/progressive websites and the writers that don't function as mere White House public relations outfits that simply repeat Obama election campaign talking points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:20 PM

118. It's called a paraphrase

I'm relatively sure the comment was directed to you. Since you're such a copy/paste fan, take a look:



Paraphrase ( /&#712;pær&#601;fre&#618;z/) is restatement of a text or passages, using other words. The term "paraphrase" derives via the Latin "paraphrasis" from the Greek <<&#960;&#945;&#961;&#940;&#966;&#961;&#945;&#963;&#951;>>, meaning "additional manner of expression". The act of paraphrasing is also called "paraphrasis."

A paraphrase typically explains or clarifies the text that is being paraphrased. For example, "The signal was red" might be paraphrased as "The train was not allowed to proceed." When accompanying the original statement, a paraphrase is usually introduced with a verbum dicendi — a declaratory expression to signal the transition to the paraphrase. For example, in "The signal was red, that is, the train was not allowed to proceed," the "that is" signals the paraphrase that follows.

A paraphrase does not need to accompany a direct quotation, but when this is so, the paraphrase typically serves to put the source's statement into perspective or to clarify the context in which it appeared. A paraphrase is typically more detailed than a summary. One should add the source at the end of the sentence, for example: When the light was red trains could not go (Wikipedia).

Paraphrase may attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased. Thus, the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as "original research," and not as paraphrase.

Unlike a metaphrase, which represents a "formal equivalent" of the source, a paraphrase represents a "dynamic equivalent" thereof. While a metaphrase attempts to translate a text literally, a paraphrase conveys the essential thought expressed in a source text — if necessary, at the expense of literality. For details, see "Dynamic and formal equivalence."

For the full citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase

Hope that helps!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:27 PM

107. He should win because he puts his fist in the air

and looks angry. We likes us some guys who puts their fists in the air and get red and angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:37 PM

113. I of course prefer someone who seems to be delivering a lecture to the uneducated masses.

 


You know the type .... someone who sounds like a professor and ivory tower academic when a speech prepared by professional handlers has not been written for him or her.

Real emotion and passion sucks!

Is that also your preference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:34 PM

112. "I don't support Anderson's presidential campaign" ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:12 PM

127. Really, eh?...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:26 PM

132. why Sid, we should start a kickboxin' club.

<-- kickboxin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:51 PM

115. Very interesting idea.

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

We should vote for this guy so we can get the repubs back into the White House. It worked for Bush and we all know how happy we were about how that turned out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:01 PM

116. Fuck Rocky Anderson and Fuck the Justice Party

When this gets an inevitable alert to the jury, I would like to point out that Rocky Anderson and the Justice party are not DUers, they are not members of the Democratic Party and they have no chance of keeping any Republicans out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:24 PM

119. Oh great. Siphon off enough votes from Obama to a guy who seriously has no realistic chance against

a well-funded republi-CON.

Look, Obama's not perfect. But we do NOT need ANY diversion of votes away from him. Can you say Nader in 2000???????????? Do you REALLY want that????????

PLEASE, guys. Think about it before you cut off your nose to spite all our faces. Last time we thought we had a serious progressive shot at it, or wanted to "send a message" or some such fairy-tale crap, we got dubya for two terms.

I don't care how wonderful this guy is. And yeah, I know about him and there are lots of things I like about him. But he doesn't have a prayer - except to peel away enough votes from Obama that we get a republi-CON in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:52 PM

122. REC. Excellent topic of discussion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bertman (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:15 PM

129. excellent indeed, especially if you want a GOP president, bert. or one embarrased rocky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:09 PM

125. He left office before I moved to Salt Lake

but most here seem to have liked him as mayor. I met him at a rally when I was visiting in 2008- seems like a nice enough guy.

Re how he got elected in Utah: Salt Lake City is the liberal island in a sea of Mormon locksteppers. Ralph Becker, the current mayor, is also a (D), as is SL county mayor Pete Corroon.

ETA: I'd like to see him run in 2016, on the Democratic ticket. I really would. Now would not be a good time though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:13 PM

128. Why is this 3rd party shit allowed on DU3?

It certainly is against the TOS and yet I've seen this crap all over DU lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #128)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:16 PM

130. yeah, and strangely this type of bullshit is allowed to stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 03:10 AM

137. Some posters seem to be bullet proof

no matter how transparent they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #137)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 03:41 AM

163. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:55 PM

144. We'll see if ToS volations are enforced come nomination time.

Otherwise I think the new DU3 is more free form and less censoring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #144)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 12:35 AM

151. My prediction

 

It will be enforced once the Republicans settle on somebody.

They'll start with locks accompanied by messages with stern warnings to cease and desist. Those who don't heed them will dine on granite, DU2 style

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #151)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:20 AM

154. I really don't see it, to be honest.

The detractors are too much revenue at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #154)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:27 AM

155. There's going to have to be a do or die moment in 2012

 

Where the admins have to commit to one path or another. Either this is a site where loyalty to the Democratic Party is enforced, or it isn't. This is the first time in DU history that a sitting Democratic president faces a re-election campaign. It will most likely call for either new policies, or more rigid enforcement of longstanding policies. I find it hard to believe that they will allow posters to disparage the Democratic candidate with impunity in the middle of a hard-fought election campaign that could go either way.

It's either going to be rigid enforcement, or some sort of policy shift. A year ago I would have predicted a policy shift. Now I'm leaning towards rigid enforcement.

Going to be interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #155)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:37 AM

156. Definitely going to be interesting.

There'd be a view bump as people watch the fallout of such an enforcement, but it could result, long term, in a viewer crash, and that would eat into ad revenue. I figure as long as Obama has a 5 point lead it will not happen. And I don't think Obama is really in much trouble in that vein.

Most of his supporters will be out GOTV or directly campaigning. I know I likely will be (depends on my moving situation).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #156)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:39 AM

157. You're right, assuming a constant 5 point lead

 

I'm not so sure, frankly. I'd be surprised if Obama could maintain that. I think it's going to be closer than that.

That's assuming of course that Newt's not the nominee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #155)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:13 AM

159. Isn't that a statement of principle within the ToS? That we're here to get Dems elected?

I don't think that will change, unless the site gets sold and there's a new paradigm overlaid on this lovely new software!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #128)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:03 AM

153. Disingenuous weasel-worded disclaimers

Not that I have any feelings on it one way or the other, of course, but those are words that could be used by some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 01:50 AM

158. Please share when you have further info.

 

I'm sure you're breathless with anticipation to learn more about "someone as liberal or progressive as Anderson," you being so darned "liberal or progressive" yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #158)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:43 AM

160. You SO obviously don't realize -

- that BBI has been a great champion of liberal/ progressive causes all along.

You also don't realize (DUH!) that his only concern is getting a "true progressive" in the WH - because Rocky A, once elected (no doubt about that) is going to change everything - overnight!

Yep - everything.

Welcome to my IGNORE list, Dewey. You apparently don't recognize pure progessives/liberals when you see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #160)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 03:10 PM

169. You've been here for a week, and you act like you've known BBI for years.

"All along?" A long-time lurker, were you?

Forgive me if I look askance.



Member since: Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:28 PM
Number of posts: 68

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #169)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 08:01 PM

174. Long time lurker -

- here and elsewhere. (Had personal reasons for not signing up and participating on message boards, which I'd rather not go into.)

Feel free to look askance if you want to. Surely someone posting on a Dem site about an independent running for the presidency couldn't possibly be construed as hoping to siphon off Dem votes, or split the party so as to help the GOP.

That would just be so obviously wrong, wouldn't it? And surely not allowed here on a site that "supports" Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #174)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 08:12 PM

175. He has his own issues, and they're coming to the fore.

And that's a good thing.

I do like this transparency--it lays it all out there for all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #158)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:23 PM

172. In response to your request for more information here's a link to his interview with Cenk Uygur

 



Presidential Candidate Rocky Anderson - on tonight's 'The Young Turks' (VIDEOS)
By April MacIntyre
Dec 23, 2011


On the December 22nd episode of Current TV’s “The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur” host Cenk Uygur interviewed Rocky Anderson, the former Mayor of Salt Lake City, and progressive 3rd party presidential candidate.

The Power Panel discussed whether a third party candidate should get progressives votes and “The Young Turks” own Jayar Jackson reacts to the $335 million Countrywide settlement.

Cenk interviews Rocky Anderson, the former mayor of Salt Lake City who is running for president as a candidate with the newly formed Justice Party. "The Republicans and the Democrats are completely in bed with the same folks, these corporate interests who are in control of our government," Anderson says. "The reason I'm doing this and the reason the Justice Party was formed is so that we can take the reins of our government and make sure that those in Washington are doing what's in the public interest." Cenk says, "Rocky, the problem here is I agree with you 100 percent and disagree with you zero percent," though he acknowledges that it would take an actual miracle for Anderson to win the presidency.

You can see the TV interview at this link:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1682560.php/Presidential-Candidate-Rocky-Anderson-on-tonight-s-The-Young-Turks-VIDEOS

Anything else I can do for ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #172)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:56 AM

178. That's more than sufficient.

 

Thanks, comrade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 08:23 PM

177. Personally, I would like to see a third party that would challenge the rightward drift

of the Democratic Party. But, once again, it's being done backwards...

A party needs to start at the bottom - school boards, city councils - state reps, then on to the Fed level.

Starting with the Presidency, like Nader and the Greens did, amounts to little more than a vanity campaign and can have disastrous results, like the 2000 election.

I think that this guy has some things worth hearing, but I hope he doesn't become a serious contender for next years election. We can't afford as a nation to have a Republican in the White House - no matter how disappointed we are in the current resident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread