Former LA governor Buddy Roemer likely to run for President

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

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

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

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

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

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Insula Dei]

I can personally testify that some random idiots I knew, knew who was Obama back in 2006.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparision is debatable as well.

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

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln? Those were diffrent times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparision is debatable as well.

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

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

[Mr. Morden]

"Name recognition" as such isn't important this far out.  But you have to be able to make the case to party elites that you're a serious contender, and raise lots of money, hire top people in the party to work on the campaign, attract the support of some state legislators in Iowa and NH, get Politico to write more than one story about you, etc.

A Mitch Daniels or a John Thune could potentially do all of that.  Party elites treat them as serious.  The fact that they currently have low national name recognition doesn't matter.

But a former governor who's been completely off the political radar for 20 years, and has done absolutely nothing in the last year to lay the groundwork for a national campaign?  What is he going to say to party elites to get them to take him seriously?  I don't see it.

[California8429]

I can personally testify that some random idiots I knew, knew who was Obama back in 2006.

he did give the keynote address in 2004

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[feeblepizza]

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

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

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

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

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

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

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

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

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

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

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

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

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

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

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

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

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

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

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

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

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

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

[feeblepizza]

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

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

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

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

Best accurate comparision you can find is Harold Stassen.

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

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

Seriously, most idiotic comparision of Atlas history.

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

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

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

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

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A TIME cover in 2006:

[feeblepizza]

A TIME cover in 2006:

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[Yelnoc]

A TIME cover in 2006:

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

Remind me, in what world do you live in?

[feeblepizza]

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

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

[feeblepizza]

A TIME cover in 2006:

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

Remind me, in what world do you live in?

The logical one.