Rocky Anderson likely to run for president of the United States

[Freddie Stubbs]

SALT LAKE CITY — Rocky Anderson says he is 99 percent sure he will run for president of the United States — and starting a new political party.

The outspoken former Salt Lake City mayor announced his likely bid for president Tuesday night on his Facebook page. He also asked for suggestions on what to name a new political party, asking readers to vote before Wednesday morning.

According to that Facebook account, Anderson said the party will stand for "greater economic equality, an end to wars of aggression, aggressive action on climate protection, and an end to corporate control of government."

Anderson says he plans on using social media and other Internet tools to help get his message out and compete against candidates who are spending millions of dollars.

more: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=18292518

[polichick]

1. Interesting. I don't participate in Facebook - is there a "People's Party" choice?

[freshwest]

6. There is something like that.. They've gotten some progressives elected in some places.

The Progressive Party, I thought it's called. You might try googling it under several names.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Who? Really?

[stellanoir]

3. Rocky Anderson had been purported to be a progressive

who bucked the * administration, especially about the Iraq debacle.

I've been saying for a while that the stage is perfectly set for a spoiler to enter the race.

Gary Johnson is making noise about running as an Independent.

Buddy Roemer is pretty disgusted with his party also.

Caribou Barbie is probably attention starved at this point.

So who knows. . .?

Betchya there will be a third party candidate though.

I can feel it in my bones.

[Schema Thing]

4. That's great so long as he doesn't put his ego ahead of country

and end up installing Newt fucking Gingrich or Mitt fucking Romney as our next president.


IOW, if your campaign does not catch fire, bow the fuck out in time to keep us from having another decade like 2000-2010.

[freshwest]

5. Well, I like the platform. but I think he's got the chance of a snowball in hell. From Utah?

My apologies to all the DUers in Utah.

I know they have some good progressives there, but they haven't even be able to oust Hatch, generic GOP and Lee, Tea Party brand GOP.

In principle, he'd be a great candidate. I liked him during the Bush years. He was a Democrat, and I'd have preferred him to stay in the party and kick some blue dogs out, but he may have been turned off by the DINOs, the DP's worse enemy.

I wish there was an OWS contingent in the DP. The only one who consistently supports them openly is Dennis Kucinich. He has taken terrible abuse for supporting what OWS stands for. I've met him and listened to him up close defending the Commons. He is the real deal, and is doing what he can to achieve the goals of OWS.

From what I'm reading now, some of them would tell him to get lost.

I want to see an shift in governance to ALL of the OWS principles and don't want this nascent group to be co-opted by those in any party. The problem will be in pretending to be anti-political, anti-government when the movement is ALL about those two things.

The end result of that fallacy or attempt to escape the system will be the continuing drive for fascism as defined by FDR and Mussolini. Crony capitalism taken to the level of a religious fanaticism, with no opposition allowed. Communities and people's lives are being shredded to make it happen. That's the GOP, all the way and it's happening across this country. DINOs are a large part of that.

I love the Declaration of OWS; it speaks of the true intent, not just the trappings or interpretations of the Founders. The concept of the equality and respect due ALL living things, is not just confined to the Founders, imperfect as they were. Many past governmental leaders left leave room for 'perfecting' this country; revolution is a process, a journey, and not an end.

That is what OWS is, in my mind.

If they reject out of hand anyone that they call 'establishment,' they are not going to represent the 99%, they are going to try to foist a cadre on the country that will not be accepted. I remember when I was in the SWP. I left when meetings the leaders claimed would be the elite to rule the country when the revolution they wanted was accomplished. Why would anyone want that?

I saw the egotism and disdain and I hope this is not being repeated. I left them and got involved with union building and other civil rights groups to make a diffence, and we did.

If OWS rejects anyone they think is 'old school' despite the honest intent of those offering to help, they will inadvertently feed fascism. There is never a vacuum in politics that is not filled. Either fill the gap or stand by and complain while the other side takes over, as they did in 2010.

That being said, I can't condemn these awkward moments. All of the OWS people are carrying my heart.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. I like what he stands for.

"greater economic equality, an end to wars of aggression, aggressive action on climate protection, and an end to corporate control of government."

[CakeGrrl]

10. Sounds great. What's his plan to make it actually HAPPEN?

[joshcryer]

16. If he's a realist he'll be focusing long term.

If he just wants to make a statement I truly hope the American people don't fall for it.

[madinmaryland]

8. Is that Lee L. Mercer's brother??

:shrug:

[frylock]

9. r2z

[Jim Lane]

11. Idiocy. Sheer idiocy. I despair.

I used to have a high opinion of Anderson, from what little I knew of him.

Wasn't he around in 2000? Can't people learn anything when harsh reality contradicts their fond fantasies?

The only practical effect of such a third-party run would be to increase the likelihood of a Republican becoming President.

If he runs in the Democratic primaries, I'll vote for him. Given that he has no chance of becoming President either as a primary challenger or as a third-party candidate, why can't he run in the primaries, where he'll generate more attention for his views, receive more votes, and not risk helping the Republicans?

[CakeGrrl]

12. The article points out that he'll siphon DEM and INDEPENDENT votes.

And still people are happy.

That's how much some of them simply want a "real progressive" to put the screws to the POTUS on a debate stage. Apparently that will make him all squirmy and contrite about what a disgusting Corporatist he's been.

I ain't on that train.

[Jim Lane]

13. They're even kidding themselves about the "debate stage" confrontation.

Anderson won't qualify for the presidential debates. The best he could hope for (shades of 2000) would be the occasional sound bite when he's interviewed in the parking lot outside the debate, decrying his exclusion.

[joshcryer]

15. Nothing wrong with making the Democratic Party become introspective.

A good third party would do that (and it would either result in a split or an evolution and merger of the parties).

The timing is debatable, but I don't see 2012 being a threat. The green party took 5 years to put a decent candidate on the ballot and a total of 9 to have someone who was a spoiler candidate.

[Jim Lane]

Nothing wrong with using primaries instead of splitting the November vote.

How about, instead of a Justice Party, something called a Justice Caucus or Justice Coalition? It would support the same principles and present the same progressive candidates. The difference would be that, instead of trying to get ballot access for the general election, it would get its candidates onto the Democratic primary ballot (generally easier) and get them elected as Democrats.

You say the Party establishment would block you? News flash, we now have primaries that nominate candidates -- sometimes nominating candidates that the Party bosses don't like.

If you have enough votes to get someone elected as a Justice Party candidate, then you have enough votes to get that person nominated and elected as a Democrat. It doesn't work the other way, though. Because millions of voters have an established loyalty to the Democratic Party, and won't readily change even if they might like the third-party candidate somewhat more, there are plenty of circumstances in which the progressive could win office as a Democrat but could not win if an opponent had the Democratic Party line.

[joshcryer]

33. I agree with you, I believe the caucus is the best way to achieve these goals.

That's why I believe it can go either way. If the Democratic Party evolves, then the Justice Party would be merged and become a caucus of sorts. If it doesn't (and the Republican Party continues its decline), then the Justice Party would just replace the Democratic Party as the progressive party.

[Jim Lane]

21. dupe

[mikekohr]

18. Nader's ego gave us Bush. How'd that work out?

When will we ever learn?

[JHB]

22. A lot of things gave us Bush besides Ralphie-boy's ego...

Corrupt practices in electoral oversight, allowing purges of Democratic-leaning voters from the voting rolls;
The most politically-activist Supreme Court decision in our history, spearheaded by "originalist" justices;
Non-confrontation with obviously grasping Republicans in key areas of the recount (thanks Joe Lieberman);
Several fringe socialist parties with even less chance of winning than Nader, any one of which could have turned the count;
Mainstream campaign media that actively fluffed Bush while scorching Gore;
And last but not least "third way" "pro-business" policies of the Clinton administration and "centrist" Democrats in Congress which allowed or encouraged corporate and media consolidation, financial deregulation, and offshoring of jobs, which is what gave Nader traction with his "no difference" line.

How did those work out? And how much have any of those have seen much (or even any) improvement?

[Raster]

23. Scapegoat Alert!

Nader, in no shape or form, gave us bush*. There were many reasons the unlawfully elected, SCOTUS-selected bush* was inaugurated. Many. And Ralph Nader was not one of them.

[polichick]

24. Or maybe what gave us Bush was our party's move to the right that left an opening...

...for a third party candidate who wanted to stand for democratic principles.

All in the eye of the beholder.

As a big Gore fan, I was disappointed that he surrounded himself with corporate hacks during that run. And then those same corporate hacks told him not to fight the stolen election. Lesson: stick to Democratic principles and FIGHT for those principles, regardless of what the corporate party bosses want.

[Raster]

26. Amen!

Thank you!:hi:

[polichick]

27. My pleasure! :)

[mikekohr]

29. "You don't have to be smart to be successful in politics, but you do need to be able to count." -RFK...

Gore "lost" Florida by 537 votes. Nader tallied +97,000 votes in that state. Assuming for the sake of argument the validity of all the above claims, if Nader is removed from the equation Gore would have carried Florida by +90,000 votes.

That's the simple math. That's what gave us the Texas Tool and the unmatched Fubar, failure and "F" up that will forever be the hallmark of that clown.

Everybody that voted for Nader, because Gore was not liberal enough for them, also carries responsibility for the consequences of their vote.
+5,000 KIA in Iraq.
+100,000 Iraqi dead.
$6 trillion of debt.
8 million lost jobs.
and a decade of slow recovery from the economic train wreck of the 2nd greatest downturn in American history.

I'm a pragmatic progressive. Liberal self identification in America hovers at 18%, conservative identification is double that. Without the middle we lose. Every time. Big time. That's the simple mathematics of the equation. Until we change the base numbers that's reality. Face it. Ignoring reality has consequences. Big ones.

[polichick]

30. "Liberal self identification" is not the same as support for liberal positions...

Dems who fail to proudly support those positions leave a vacuum for third party candidates to fill.

Plain and simple. THAT'S what this party needs to face.

[mikekohr]

36. Split our vote against a monolithic opposition and we lose, THAT'S what we have to face

Democratic base 47-49%
Republican base 44-46%
True swing voters 5-7%

Say what you want about the right-wing, they turn out higher percentages of their base consistantly. Shave a few percentage points from our column on a fringe candidate and we better run the table on the swingers or we lose. That's why campaign's like Nader's are called spoilers.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Corporate hacks or not there would've been no Iraq War under President Gore

Nor would he have sat idly by while New Orleans drowned. Assuming simply for argument's sake that Ralph Nader is 100% correct that there's little difference in how both parties are controlled by their corporate masters, there's still a myriad of reasons to pick one corporate party over the other corporate party.

[polichick]

34. I agree that it's important to vote for the lesser of evils...

But I'd like to see this party be what it could and should be, making it completely unnecessary for people like Nader and Anderson to run.

[mikekohr]

37. Here are a myriad of reasons, -links, graphs-

9 of last 10 recessions occured under Republican leadership: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

Job Creation sucks ass under Republican leadership: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html

National Debt:
?

Democrats outperform Republicans on EVERY economic standard: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/economic-record.html

[joshcryer]

14. I don't have a problem with it.

If he wants to run, he should run. The Republican party is going out the door, if this "Justice Party" is more progressive than the Democratic party, then the Democratic party will either have to evolve (and adopt more progressives; or simply just have new candidates that aren't status quo) or become the new Republican Party (as it stands now many progressives view the Democrats that way).

As far as the 2012 elections, 1 year is not enough time to form a Justice Party and make it have an impact, and if the American people have learned anything, they will not stand for 4 years of Republicans in power again. edit: on the hopes that the Justice Party will win 2016.

[DCBob]

17. Its more likely a significant 3rd party candidate from a repub/libertarian type will emerge.

for example.. Bloomberg, Trump, Paul, etc.

[bigwillq]

19. K and R

Long Live Democracy.

[Greybnk48]

20. Three Mormons running for U.S. Prez in the same year.

What are the odds? *This observation is not offered in a perjorative sense, just an observation.

[bigdarryl]

25. HE WILL TAKE VOTES FROM OBAMA NOT GOOD NOT GOOD!!!!!

[great white snark]

28. Republicans will crank up Ted Nugent and dance in the streets over this.

:bounce: Tactic #1: Divide the Democrats. :bounce:

[MjolnirTime]

31. Ralph Nader would be proud

[RBInMaine]

35. It's needless, useless, dumb, numb, and I could piss you a better chance to win. It's Obama or a

RePUKE. Take your pick, and don't waste breath with the insane idea that Obama is like a Republican. Anyone could also piss more sense than that. Obama will win.