Rocky Anderson introduces the Justice Party...

[polichick]

Now on Rachel.

Looks like he's running.


Edited to add Deseret News piece about the new party: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705395124/Rocky-Anderson-forms-Justice-Party-plans-to-run-for-president.html

To be known as the Justice Party, Anderson sees it as a grassroots movement that over the long term will bring about the shift in American politics that he says citizens crave.

"The people are the ones who always bring about major change in this country, and we need to provide that power to people throughout the country," he said Wednesday on KSL Radio's Doug Wright Show.

"They want to see an alternative party. They recognize that these two militarist, corporatist parties have brought us to this disastrous place to where we are today."

[sasha031]

1. he's a real good guy

interesting...

[polichick]

4. It really is interesting - perhaps this will shake up our party in a good way.

[freshwest]

82. I think so too. He will force the Dems to show their values and destroy the arrogant GOP.

He won't win, but third party candidates helped to push the Dems to the left in 1992. It made the Dems think hard about why the GOP was not the answer and why GHB didn't get a second term.

None of the current or foreseeable crop of GOP candidates have the ability to win a debate with either Obama or Anderson. They will be burnt toast. Another progressive on the stage only goes to show the intellectual and moral impoverishment of the ideas that the GOP has been espousing through their corporate mouthpieces on radio and cable networks.

Obama has been busy trying to keep this country out of the kind of disorder that is engulfing other countries. Despite all the hysteria and the cries of his pandering to the financial interests, the ugly fact of the matter is that they own our asses. Don't let anyone be fooled, they have gamed the system so badly that it will take years to repair the damage. FDR did not resolve the problems of the USA in 4 years, which is something people don't seem to know.

It was not just tough talk, but unpopular sacrifices that were made to save the government itself. But Obama came into office with a worse situation than FDR had. Consider the demographics of the USA as compared to those days. People were losing their farms; but now those farms have been lost for generations and the rules of the New Deal that kept them viable have been forgotten.

Imagine if the government shut down for real, with an inverse population to what we had then. The percentage of people who had the ability to grow food is opposite as it was then. Vast amounts of the American forests, minerals and other resources were available for exploitation back then. We had a much smaller population that was healthier then we have now, and was saavy about class warfare, but this generation is afraid of that term.

Obama has had to thread very carefully in a den of lions to save a few lives and make a few reforms. Do any of those who berate him realize how many of FDR's ideas failed? The opposition it took him years to overcome? The fact that we had a manufacturing base and other advantages we no longer have? That Americans could make almost anything in their own communities to start small business? Good grief, we don't even have the factories to make the tools to make things with. It's all been sold off to foreign countries. We are incredibly dependent on the current financial system. And the parasites know it and thave threatened unleashing a Mad Max world on us in the USA.

That FDR, in spite of being hated by the Bush types, did not have to contend with a 24/7 media owned by his opposition that was able to mobilize mobs of tea partiers to disrupt every attempt to explain his ideas for moving the country forward in any way? People were treated with respect in the town halls, the GOP hadn't yet pulled off the coup of 2000 with Tom Delay's office staffers acting like brown shirts going to disrupt the vote in Florida.

I don't think most people know the initiatives Obama tried to put in place and that the Dem majority was not solid. That FDR did not live in an era of stochastic terrorism being acted out on a regular basis against representative of the government, death threats for everything Obama proposed to move this country to the left. This has all been a pattern that has been working much longer than Obama has been in office. It has momentum, it has power. It is wrong to us Dems, but do we have such limited attention spans or have we worn blinders and don't see the nature of the USA we now live in that Obama did not create? Where is our responsibility?

Perhaps people aren't old enough to know the difference now and today and how things have changed, gone so far right that anything we once took for granted has been destroyed. It wasn't destroyed on Obama's watch either, that's a right wing lie. Obama has had the most embattled presidency since Clinton, but worse. And he's had a population born after Reagan who really don't know how different their lives could have been, don't know the basic rules and regulations of the New Deal that made lives better in the past. Most of the population has grown up in red states for a generation.

I believe Mr Anderson can give credence to the kind of message that will illuminate those who seek to change things. That will flesh out our progressive ideas without bringing the current baggage that Obama is being forced to carry under the burden of compromise. I am sure that Obama would do well in the debate to explain why he's done what he's done.

Those who fear him being in a debate don't have much confidence in Obama. He is intelligent and thoughtful and I think he can win the debate. Stifling progressives from debating will guarantee a GOP win. Americans are not going to buy either the Obama or the Gingrich by brand name. They are looking for the person who best understands what they are living with.

I don't fear Anderson getting involved. He will highlight the things that Obama wanted to do, show that progressives are the real majority in this country. I'm for him debating but will vote for Obama. I think this debate will do nothing but strengthen the DP.

[ellisonz]

85. I think he's going to be largely insignificant.

But otherwise great analysis. :thumbsup:

[freshwest]

88. Thank you very much! I agree he won't win. I still want a broad debate field to hash it all out.

[ellisonz]

90. I don't think he'll even get acknowledged by the media really.

This is going to be about the Republicans vs. Obama. They aim to lynch him from the highest branch for threatening their power structure in a substantial way.

[steve2470]

124. great reply, should be an OP ! nt

[polichick]

125. Well said! I agree, this would be a great op.

[Freddie Stubbs]

117. Really good guys don't play the spoiler and help elect a Republican

[jenmito]

122. Exactly. n/t

[jenmito]

2. Get ready for President Romney or Gingrich. n/t

[bigwillq]

3. Or Anderson.

:rofl:

edited to change the smilie

[jenmito]

5. Nope. He'll be a spoiler. n/t

[bigwillq]

6. Yes

The spoiler that claims the White House.

[polichick]

7. That really would spoil things for our two-headed corporate party.

[villager]

8. It sure would! Shut up and accept your "choice!"

And knock off all this "justice" talk!

;-)

[polichick]

10. Interesting that he chose Justice Party - "with liberty and justice for all"...

...have become empty words. Time to give them meaning again.

[MNBrewer]

78. Exactly! Which pro-war party would you prefer?

They are both pro-war. choice is an illusion. sign.

[bigwillq]

13. Yes indeed

;)

[jenmito]

9. I'm glad YOU'RE OK with a President Romney or Gingrich. I'm not. n/t

[bigwillq]

12. We all get one vote.

Some might cancel each other out.

[jenmito]

18. 0 votes is less than 2 votes. n/t

[bigwillq]

19. For you.

I know that's so hard to accept. :rofl:

[bigwillq]

22. Nice edit.

:rofl:

[jenmito]

25. I originally typed the "less than" sign after the 0, but nothing showed up, so I had to write it out

that way. It had nothing to do with your post.

[bigwillq]

28. Sure.....

:eyes:


:rofl:

[jenmito]

32. I couldn't care less whether or not you believe me. n/t

[bigwillq]

34. Sure.....

I believe you.
Sure.
:rofl:

[tblue]

23. And you're OK with Repub-lite?

I mean no snark, nothing personal. But really. Really? You think either party can fix what ails us?

[jenmito]

29. Obama is a Dem. Not Repub-lite. He's done a LOT of good which

a Repub. president will undo.

[midnight]

83. We have a jobless recovery... Lots of hungry people.... This can not be allowed while at the same

time we pay for three wars, allow those with millions of dollars to remain untouched by the hardship their tax breaks of ten plus years have caused this country...

[jamieque]

93. Gripe... Gripe.... GRIPE.... UGH!

MY GOD!!! What will it take to shut up all the idiotic griping. Obviously, you are living in a parallel reality. Jobs are being added slowly but they are still being added. As for the hungry people issue well there is a easy way to fix this problem. Cut the salaries and benefits of the politicians and use that money to fund initiatives and programs that eliminate hunger issue once and for all. And if the little fuckers (politicians) start bitching and complaining then we can remind them that they are expendable employees of the american people aka US. See... problem solved and it was so easy. What is so hard is that people in this country are too weak willed and fall for lies too easily. That is why republicans have been able to deceive so many for so long.

As for the wars... um... that was Bush's fault there not Obama's so please get your facts straight. Obama is trying to end that lie of a war in Iraq that Bush and that weasel of vice president of his Chaney started. Why is it that every fuck up that republicans do Obama gets blamed for?! I think many americans need to turn off their damn tvs and tune out brain cell killing news channels like Fox News and devote their time to more brain stimulating like reading a good book. As for the tax issues... again that is easily solvable problem. Tell the politicians they will raise taxes on the wealth or they can kiss their own jobs goodbye and if they refuse then fire their asses. SEE NOW WAS THAT SO DAMN HARD TO DO! And don't even try to use the voter fraud at the booth excuse with me because I'll just scream BS because that what it is. It is past time that people use the power that our very own constitution gives us to effect change on Washington.

In other words it is my "We put you little bastards in the office and we can take you out" strategy. So instead of wasting your time griping about the problems why not actually deal with the problem makers themselves. Do that and you'll have less things to complain about.

[flamingdem]

56. holy Naderism, nice opportunity to pick up cash from righties

indirectly of course

[msongs]

16. the sky is falling the sky is falling nt

[meow2u3]

21. Not if Anonymous has something to do with the election

TheyThe voters just might get him in.

[CakeGrrl]

42. Ralph Nader II, anyone?

This is music to the GOP's ears:

"The party, he said, could carve out a fraction of those who otherwise vote Democrat and some independents, but not a significant number of Republicans."

And let Diebold do the rest.

And people are happy about this.

[jenmito]

49. Yup. And people haven't seemed to learn anything from that. n/t

[ellisonz]

86. Nope.

I'm about to start screaming from the rooftops :(

[Snotcicles]

11. It would be nice to see actual thought provoking debate for a change. nt

[polichick]

14. The new party will at least change the conversation...

The piece in the Deseret News (just added in the op) explains what he has in mind.

[joshcryer]

95. He picked a good time to do it, imo.

The progressives are highly disenchanted with Obama and they need someone new to fill in the Hero's Journey for them.

I just hope he'll be allowed into the debates, as I doubt it very seriously, unless he builds an epic movement, which is highly unlikely.

[polichick]

109. I agree, it would be great for the debates - maybe if OWS loudly supported the idea...

...behind this new party he'd get enough traction to make it to the debates.

[Autumn]

15. Interesting. Might give some spark to the debate.

Thanks for the link. I like what he says.

[polichick]

17. Yes - OWS began the conversation and this will up the ante.

[tblue]

20. Sure seems the time is right.

I am very, very excited about this announcement. Really! I've got butterflies in my tummy. I think he really struck a chord with me. And he is so plain spoken. Yes, both parties are utter disasters. The only people who don't understand that are those who think things are not really all that bad, that either the Dems or Repubs can fix what ails us. Yeah, I wish.

[polichick]

24. The times they are a-changin'!

[MissDeeds]

101. I agree

I can't wait to see him in the debates.

[Autumn]

26. Yes it does. And it could really change the game.

A human rights activist, imagine that. I liked the picture of his office. Nice pics of Kennedy on the wall.

[polichick]

31. Very cool pics of Kennedy!

[jefferson_dem]

66. You really think both of Rocky's supporters can make that much noise?

:rofl:

Gadfly...

[polichick]

69. Depends on how OWS reacts.

[joshcryer]

100. OWS is apolitical, but a year from now it's very possible they've become disenfranchized...

...to the point that they do make it political. I'm skeptical, though. OWS and politics don't mix.

[frazzled]

74. You don't get into the debate without a certain percentage of support

in the polls. During the 2000 election, the Commission on Presidential Debates stipulated that candidates would only be invited to debate if they had a 15% support level across five national polls.

There are lots of third (and fifth) party candidates out there, and if every one of them were allowed to debate it would be a farce. So don't be looking for Rocky probably next fall duking it out with the President and whatever nutter the Republicans nominate.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. He says he really wants to end the wars of agression.....

and take aggressive action on climate change. He also wants to end corporate control of government.

I like his ideas.

[polichick]

33. Those ideas SHOULD be Dem Party ideas - guess he figured it ain't gonna happen.

[bigdarryl]

30. BAD IDEA this just spoils the election for President Obama and will end up with

Newt or Romney as the President if who ever is on the ballot get more than 5% of the popular vote it spells trouble for the Democrats

[polichick]

35. Maybe he'll just change things up and drop out in the end. Who knows?

[bigwillq]

36. So in a democracy

we must be forced to choose between two candidates to avoid spoiling it for one candidate or another, right?

LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!!11
:rofl:

[jenmito]

37. Most on this thread are obviously OK with that. n/t

[polichick]

39. It was inevitable, since neither party serves the people.

[bigwillq]

40. ....

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

41. You're obviously not paying attention.

[bigwillq]

45. OWS

I guess neither are you.

:rofl:

[polichick]

48. I've been an activist in this party since 1970 - far too many times...

...corporate interests have trumped the people's needs and the future of the planet with the help of Democratic leaders.

A new party really was inevitable.

[jenmito]

50. Good luck with all that.

[polichick]

52. With all what?

[jenmito]

53. All that you're going to have to deal with under President Romney or Gingrich.

[polichick]

54. There's no reason to panic - who knows if he even plans to stay in until the end...

Maybe he plans to grow the party over time, but will drop out rather than allow a Republican to win the WH.

[jenmito]

55. Yeah. Sure. And maybe he'll stay in like Nader did. n/t

[polichick]

57. Yep, he could do that too. It's a free country - sort of.

[bigwillq]

58. They're still blaming Nader.

:rofl:

[polichick]

60. I guess they can't see that neither Nader nor Anderson would be necessary if...

...the Democratic Party acted on its stated principles more often.

[bigwillq]

62. It doesn't matter if they see it or not. Or if we see their point or not.

This is a democracy we live in. I encourage as many options to run as possible. May the best man or woman (of any party, third, fourth or fifth) win.

[joshcryer]

97. I'll worry if he gets on states ballots. CA, for instance, has extremely hard standards:

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

Found this nice site: http://www.ballot-access.org/

Colorado (where I live) is ludicrously easy to do.

[mod mom]

127. or maybe it'll force the party go review their priorities & start working for the principles

they were elected to deliver.

[CakeGrrl]

38. Actions, not words. Right? Let's hear how he plans to BRING change.

[polichick]

43. People will have to look at his record for the first clues.

[jenmito]

44. Exactly. And he'll have to deal with congress just like Obama has to. n/t

[BklnDem75]

46. Who? Third Party?

No thanks

[ProSense]

47. Seems

like he's running against Republicans. From the article linked to in the OP:

<...>

"I just hope we can be involved in the debate, because if we don't we're just going to be hearing a bunch of sound bites from people who between their two parties have colluded in so many ways in serving the interests of their campaign contributors, the wealthy and the powerful," he said.

"If you put passion and organization together, we can overcome any of these candidates who have all the money but really lack ideas."

Anderson said "outrageous, expensive" wars have wasted lives and tax dollars the past decade. The government, he said, has driven up the deficit, while cutting taxes for those most capable of paying them. Also, leaders have failed to provide affordable, essential health care for all Americans.

<...>

Those sound like the typical sound bites.

[polichick]

51. Or running against the political/corporate status quo.

[flamingdem]

59. I love the simplicity of DU thinking

Oh this will help the party, as if this guy will change the votes of any Blue Dogs.

Smells of an opportunist who will be indirectly loaded up with cash and support, some from right wing interests since it's SO HARD to attack Obama

No doubt he will disappear after the election. Not that he's not a "good guy" but he won't get the support one he has served his purpose.

[polichick]

61. Perhaps the "simplicity" comes with thinking you can keep voting for the same...

...corporate parties and get a different outcome.

[jefferson_dem]

63. Get this shit out of here... Take the anti-Dem cheerleading to "JusticeUnderground".

[polichick]

64. As anyone can see, the op is an announcement, plain and simple...

Do you think that this new party won't have an impact on presidential politics?

[jefferson_dem]

70. The anti-Dem cheerleading goes on throughout this thread.

Right. The "Justice Party" is now and will remain a joke...until it's totally relegated to the clownshow dustbin (which won't take long).

[polichick]

72. Time will tell.

[Cali_Democrat]

81. How dare you create an OP saying Rocky Anderson is on Rachel's show

Have you no shame?!?!?!

:sarcasm:

[Autumn]

84. Damn that Rachel for giving that man air time

How dare she do that. :rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

92. Rachel wants Romney or Gingrich to win!

She is eeeeeeeeevil :evilgrin:

[polichick]

108. I'm hanging my head as I post. :)

[dionysus]

129. uh huh...

:rofl:

[bigwillq]

65. Have you hit alert?

You have options.
Alert, hide thread, ignore user.

Have a nice day! :hi:

[jefferson_dem]

71. No, i won't hide thread or ignore.

I would rather know who among us deserves mockery and ridicule.

You have a nice day as well! :hi:

[bigwillq]

73. I will.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

96. Huh? It's not violating any rules.

The prospective Republican nominee has not been chosen. If this guy grows his party big enough then the rules might actually change. But that's highly unlikely and DU will be going into support Obama mode soon enough.

[frazzled]

67. Rocks of Ruck with that

Always looking for the magic fairy dust around here, aren't we.

[polichick]

68. Just passing along the news - no "fairy dust" in that op.

[frazzled]

75. You keep saying that ...

And then piping up in the discussion to suggest what a good idea it'd be.

Maybe you think I'm stupid ? Fine with me. I just turn the page.

[polichick]

110. I'm saying that this could help the Dem Party get its sorry act together...

That's hardly anti-Dem Party; I WANT the party to get it's act together.

(I wouldn't say you're stupid; just not thinking very deeply.)

[frazzled]

It's funny ...

because I was just thinking you were not thinking very deeply.

The argument that 3rd party challengers (like Nader was in 2000) would "help the Democratic Party (then it was "help Al Gore") get its sorry act together" is such a discredited notion. Even Michael Moore rejected it completely and admitted the errors of his thinking at that time.

But I'm not too worried about this Rocky feller (yes, the pun is intentional). The .05 percent support he might garner from anywhere won't even make a visible blip on the screen. It certainly won't get him onto the stage of a presidential debate.

[polichick]

114. Following that thinking, OWS is a big waste of time...

I'm a big Gore fan but if he - and the party - hadn't moved so far to the corporate right, Nader would have been unnecessary. The same thing is happening now - the party has created an opening for someone to champion true democratic principles.

[jefferson_dem]

130. So the "true" Democrat is not the actual "Democrat" but a member of the...

Just-us Party? :rofl:

[polichick]

131. Where did you get "true Democrat?" - I talked about "true democratic principles," small d...

Nice try.

[MNBrewer]

76. Good

[midnight]

77. I like photo no. 2....

[bigwillq]

79. I like all the photos and things on the wall, desk in Pic 4

:bounce:

[burning rain]

80. *fart*

That's my reply to third parties.

*fart*

[ellisonz]

87. +1

[polichick]

111. Okay, stinky one.

[Number23]

89. Who? What? Why?

Rocky Anderson? Justice Party?? Deseret News???!

:wtf:

[ellisonz]

91. Utah.

< offensive joke removed > :spank:

[joshcryer]

94. To everyone freaking out about a spoiler, it took the Green Party 9 years for a potential spoiler.

It's not a big of a deal as it sounds. A lot of high and mighty voters will vote for him out of "conscious" so they can always use it in arguments, but they'll be insignificant. The American voters will not forget the Bush years.

[JoePhilly]

98. Is he part of the Justice League?

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

120. Part of the "Just Us" league...

That is, a tiny handful of :crazy: self-imposed political outcasts.

[JoePhilly]

123. lol

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. Why do half them look as though they've smelled reply #80?

And why is Superman standing on top of Batman's feet? Does he have a complex about being shorter than Bruce Wayne?

[saras]

99. Personally I'm never going to be more than lukewarm for the Dems until ....

...until they take concrete action against the two-party monopoly. There is nothing about the Constitution that requires a two-party system. And the winner-take-all policy responsible for the two-party system is also, at this point, clearly a major part of the vulnerability of our system to the system corruption currently strangling it.

There are LOTS of different ways for legally restructuring American politics, without changing the Constitution, in ways that would make an Anderson campaign purely a BENEFIT to Democrats, not a harm.

[polichick]

112. True - this could help Dems step up their game, just as OWS has helped.

[SidDithers]

102. I look forward to reading posts supportive of Mr. Anderson at justiceunderground...nt

Sid

[polichick]

113. Meantime, we'll just discuss the impact of his run on the Dem Party here at DU.

[SidDithers]

119. Discuss away, as long as you stay within the rules about third party advocacy...

I couldn't care less.

Promotion or expressions of support for third parties will be alerted on.

Sid

[polichick]

121. Oooooh, I'm shakin' in my boots.

[SidDithers]

126. You scare easily...nt

Sid

[joshcryer]

135. Such is not against the rules except in election mode.

Your alerts will be ignored until that time.

[SidDithers]

136. Third party advocacy is most definately against the rules, even right now...

There have plenty of recent threads locked for that very reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x821916#822042

Sid

[jwirr]

103. Yes, Romney light - not electable for the same reasons and just

enough to take the votes.

[BklnDem75]

104. Possible running mate?

He will rule by decree!

[Stuckinthebush]

105. Idiotic name for a party

It sounds like a comic strip.

[JoePhilly]

107. It was a saturday cartoon ...

The Justice League.

[polichick]

118. People's Party might be better, but the other side would change it to...

Socialist or Communist Party - at least Justice Party reminds voters of how this country has gone wrong.

"With liberty and justice for all" is a joke these days.

[treestar]

106. could he be vaguer?

And "changing the conversation" does nothing.

[great white snark]

115. Reminds me of your excitement for Russ Feingold's Progressive United.

That is until he didn't go third party and wholeheartedly supported President Obama LOL!

Good luck supporting Rocky.

[polichick]

116. A new party was inevitable because our party has left a big opening...

...for someone to champion democratic principles that put people, not corporations, first.

Unfortunately, Pres. Obama's entire cabinet shows clearly his corporate leanings, regardless of the rhetoric he uses when campaigning.

I'm interested in democratic movements, no matter where they come from, not in pledging allegiance to a party no matter what.

[secondwind]

128. WE DON'T NEED A THIRD PARTY IN THE 2012 ELECTION!! MIGHT AS WELL WRAP UP THE SUPREME

COURT IN A BIG BOW AND GIVE IT TO THE TEABAGGERS NOW...... just sayin'.

[bvar22]

132. God forbid somebody offer something slightly to the Left of Republican-Lite...

That would destroy the Democratic Party.

[DCBob]

134. Is this guy a practicing Mormon?