Follow-ups: on Buddy Roemer's campaign for "a clean election," and cell-phone robocalls

by Ken

Last night I raised the question: "Is Buddy Roemer any worse a candidate than "Brokeback Rick" Perry? (Probably not, but is he any BETTER?)" This was in response to Eli Saslow's Washington Post Style-section piece "Buddy Roemer among those struggling for a slot in GOP presidential race," about the really marginal GOP presidential candidates, including the former one-term governor of Louisiana, who last held public office in 1991, when he was defeated for reelection running as a Republican. (He had been elected as a Democrat.)

Now I don't really enjoy kicking a guy when he's down, unless he asked for it. But in Buddy's case, well, it all seemed so pathetic.

He had been out of politics for almost 20 years, but he still felt confident that his opinions would resonate. Repeal health-care reform. Raise the eligibility age for Social Security. Seal the border and enforce immigration laws.

Worst of all, "he thought an audience would be waiting for him," and it apparently came as news to him "that becoming president is not always about experience and ideas. It’s also about money, fame and momentum.”

As I wrote Howie back when he passed along the above tweets: "as if we needed any more proof of how pathetic his 'campaign' is?" I mean, really now, a guy who's paying attention to what I write here?

I'd be surprised if there's any DWT reader who wouldn't love to see elections where the determining factors weren't money, fame, and momentum. And who wouldn't like to see what Buddy calls "a clean election." (The Post article points out that "had never accepted political donations of more than $100." However, that's running in no larger election venue than the state of Louisiana, and it was also 20 years ago. My guess is that these days even statewide elections in Louisiana -- even Governor Booby's recent cakewalk reelection -- are more expensive to buy than that.) But really, does the degree of cluelessness on display in the Post story offer any hope for improvement in our electoral system?

Let's take Buddy at his word:

I want nothing more than to prove that a candidate can run a clean campaign. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe in my message.

If he really still believes his message, doesn't that go beyond "naive" to "totally out of touch"? Because hasn't he in fact proved that he can't run "a clean campaign" and get enough attention to raise himself above the grade of electoral laughingstock?

You'd think it would at least be a source of some comfort to him that his current party (as of the last time I checked, anyway) isn't lacking for candidates committed to repealing health-care reform, raising the eligibility age for Social Security, and sealing the border and enforcing immigration laws.


AND SPEAKING OF THOSE CELL-PHONE ROBOCALLS
JUST AROUND THE CORNER . . .

On Thursday I wrote about the business community's aggressive drive to wipe out the existing legal ban to robocalls to cell phones without the recipient's express approval. Really, my interest wasn't so much the particular issue as the way it demonstrates the 21st-century tactics of the hard-driving Hard Right, as it seeks to mop up the few areas of the economic and social order not currently under its control. In particular, I was set off by the pathetic stoogery of the woeful ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Brooklyn's Ed Towns, who let then-ranking member Darrell "Not Presently Under Idictment fer Nuttin'" Issa walk all over him in his brief stint as the committee chairman, and is now the only Democratic congressman signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill to strip cell-phone users of this modest protection.

What I found hilarious, or at least would if it were the least bit funny, was the congressman's statement in which he simply parroted the propaganda presumably furnished by his friendly telecom lobbyists:

During the hearing, I thought it was especially interesting to hear how this 20-year old law prevents consumers from getting useful information about their accounts using technology that did not exist when the law was originally passed. Do we really want to stop FedEx or UPS using modern technology to deliver your holiday gifts on time? Of course not, but that is what we heard at the hearing is one consequence of this 20-year old law. Other consequences we heard were about how the law limits notifications about threats such as fraud alerts, data breaches, and product recalls.

My larger concern was this example of why it has been so important to the lease-holders on the American Right for decades now to accomplish the moronification of the American electorate. In the process I had to provide some background on the robocall issue, and under deadline pressure I simply blanked. The place I should have directed you is our own Noah's recent post "Congress Launches New Attack On The Quality Of Life."

#