Rocky Anderson running in 2012?

[j_b]

Disgusted with what he calls the corrupting influence of corporate money and militarism in politics, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is launching a new national political party and will likely be its presidential nominee.

 

“The end game is changing public policy in the interest of the people of this country. It’s changing our government,” Anderson said. “This is about taking on the two corporatist, militarist parties and in the process bringing the people of this country together so they can see that their interests, by and large, are really aligned.”

 

Anderson said he will likely be a candidate for the presidential nomination for the new party — which is yet to be named. He said the formation of the party will be announced next week “and shortly thereafter, I’ll be announcing my candidacy.” He has already started filling out paperwork for a presidential exploratory committee.

[...]

More: Justice Party

[sobo]

You have to admit, it'd be kinda cool to have a president named Rocky...

[ivan]

i'm sure he'll succeed where others have failed for 150 years

[G-spotter]

Is the Mayan Rapture before or after the election?

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm always curious about these desperate, doomed-to-fail quests by folks who seem reasonably talented and generally decent. Why waste those talents on such projects? Such 'statements' last all of the two weeks it takes for the news cycle to get bored with them.

 

It's often posited that the Democratic party cannot be reformed. I don't believe that for two reasons.

 

One: the other side successfully 'reformed' their party through years of grass roots organizing - running for school boards, state legislative positions, etc...turning it to the rabid party of anti-reason, anti equal rights, anti-women, and anti compassion, all in Jeeee-sus' name.

 

I've been working with Country democrat chapters to get their endorsements for I502. Initially, I thought: Wow, useless party. After a couple of months of seeing folks change their mind and act on a substantive issue that was initially alien and frightening to them, I've changed my mind regarding what is possible.

 

The problem is this: Reforming the Democratic party (which is happening now in some areas) will take years and millions of hours of advocacy across the country, from the bottom up. That's a lot of organizing, a lot of fund raising, a lot of work, and a lot of belief in what's possible.

 

No one (or two, or three) cult charisma candidate is going to change the tide. Magically turn Obama into Ralph Nader and you don't get a sea change in politics...you get a lame duck Ralph Nader sporting an American Flag Lapel Pin.

 

Reforming the Democratic Party - the only realistic path towards true social justice and environmental stewardship in this country, and a much, much easier one than rebuilding thousands of county, state and federal LD party chapters and their electoral engines. Why start from scratch when, through good old fashion civil discourse, focus, long term commitment, and perseverance, you can change the direction of such an unwieldy ship from within?

 

 

[j_b]

i'm sure he'll succeed where others have failed for 150 years

 

3rd parties have influenced national politics over most of that period.

[tvashtarkatena]

"Influencing politics" is not a quantifiable accomplishment, nor should it be any movement's goal.

 

Political movements that seek substantive change should have the goals of winning elections (not merely participating in them), implementing policies, and passing legislation.

 

Always play to win.

Edited December 13, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

i'm sure he'll succeed where others have failed for 150 years

 

3rd parties have influenced national politics over most of that period.

but how often in the way they wanted? nader seemed to have more in common w/ gore than bush...

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, by every analysis I've read, Nader's run unquestionably caused Bush to be elected where he otherwise would not have been.

 

Not an outcome I'd be proud of, personally.

[j_b]

Reforming the Democratic Party - the only realistic path towards true social justice and environmental stewardship in this country, and a much, much easier one than rebuilding thousands of county, state and federal LD party chapters and their electoral engines. Why start from scratch when, through good old fashion civil discourse, focus, long term commitment, and perseverance, you can change the direction of such an unwieldy ship from within?

 

Right now, without primary challenge of Obama, there is no changing of the Democratic party. Field a progressive candidate and hold Obama accountable and then we may be able to negotiate something.

[j_b]

Yes, by every analysis I've read, Nader's run unquestionably caused Bush to be elected where he otherwise would not have been.

 

Not an outcome I'd be proud of, personally.

 

More demonizing of Nader by the usual suspects. Gore won. It was a judicial coup based on electoral fraud (cue Catherine Harris and the disenfranchising of 10k's of voters). Democrats caved in and instantly proved that Nader was right about them.

[tvashtarkatena]

You're still operating in 'charismatic leader' mode.

 

Given the massive dysfunction of the federal government, it seems like reform is going to have to happen from the ground up - local and state level first. That's a continual process that never ends, actually.

 

Reform does not require a messiah. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They're winning elections like crazy...without a charismatic leader. Why? Thousands of nameless, faceless, but nonetheless effective organizers.

 

You don't wait for a president to 'come around'...you show them the way. Why is DOMA and DADT dead now? Because Obama thought it was a great idea? No. Because the president's administration was beaten in court by it's citizens. We showed them the way forward.

 

Politicos at the local and state level are no different. They are mired in administrative minutiae and despair, its up to focused citizens to show them the way foward, too.

 

Substantive change takes decades. Bummer, but that's the nature of human affairs. For ex: Ending the War on Drugs will take decades. It takes a group of focused citizens to take the first concrete step down that long road.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, by every analysis I've read, Nader's run unquestionably caused Bush to be elected where he otherwise would not have been.

 

Not an outcome I'd be proud of, personally.

 

More demonizing of Nader by the usual suspects. Gore won. It was a judicial coup based on electoral fraud (cue Catherine Harris and the disenfranchising of 10k's of voters). Democrats caved in and instantly proved that Nader was right about them.

 

I'm not gonna get into the usual tit for tat about the obvious: Had Nader not skimmed two out of every three of his votes (public record and indesputable, sorry) from Gore rather than Bush, the SCOTUS thing would never have happened because there would have been no question as to who won the election. You've got KKK for that kind of bickering.

 

Let's fast forward to today's reality, no?

[ivan]

no perot in '92 and clinton loses too

[tvashtarkatena]

I'd respect the opinion that 'The Nader Effect' was worth 8 years of Bush because of the way it changed the national debate.

 

I do not respect denial of simple numerical outcomes and their basic causes that are clearly documented by the public record.

Edited December 13, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

You brought up Nader and nobody knows how his votes would have fallen or whether these people would have voted without him on the ballot.

[tvashtarkatena]

We're done on that.

[j_b]

Socio-political change is non-linear. Changes occur fast when there are popular movements, so claiming that we only can hope for decades of rebuilding Democrats is ignorant at best.

[tvashtarkatena]

Spare me the lecture.

[j_b]

I was not lecturing you, I was merely stating facts that go counter to your mantra about our only choice being slow change within the Democratic party.