©2012 jbjd

I like Buddy Roemer. In fact, I like him so much that for the first time in this general election cycle I donated money to a candidate’s campaign. His campaign. The “American Needs Buddy for President 2012” campaign. Twice. Well, almost twice. Actually, not at all.

See, I had sat on the fence long enough to lose the excuse, none of the current candidates for President who had reached my radar; merited my vote solely on the basis of ‘anything but Obama.’ Now, I was resigned to having to choose from among the least of all evils. And when I say, ‘evil,’ I do not mean, espousing views with which I disagree, because I am not primarily an issues voter. Everyone has issues; who’s to say, mine should take priority over everyone else’s? (Or theirs over mine.) Besides, who can accurately predict those issues which are yet to occur? That’s why I tend to look first for smart candidates able to think on their feet.

(This is why, as a teacher, I prefer open book tests. That is, for example, memorizing information can enable a user to operate a computerized industrial pneumatic drill. But without the ability to understand how this machine works, and how its work fits into the overall manufacture process; or to read and apply the operation manual; workers confronted with ‘glitches’ in operations, or documentation of software updates that will cure these ‘glitches’ will be  unable to implement these fixes without retraining.)

Then, just when I rationalized, I had to pick someone, anyone for President; Governor Roemer showed up on my screen. And I picked him. Not just because, he is the ‘best of the worst.’  And not because, theoretically, he is this smart comprehensive thinker. He actually has the track record that establishes, it’s true. (That points to another trait that attracts my attention: experience.)

But there is more that elevates Buddy Roemer above the rest of the political pack. Watch this.

Having done my homework with my new best candidate; I then decided to donate to his campaign, just one of the millions of small money donors he will need to offset the windfall contributions from big money contributors he has rejected. So, I went to the donation page on his campaign web site, and filled out the form. I pressed “Submit.” The form reappeared with instructions in bright red letters: ‘You made a mistake; check your information.’ So, I checked and re-checked the information and, again, pressed “Submit.” Same thing happened.

Just in case, I checked my bank account; and both contributions had been debited to my account! Now, I was guardedly upset. My chosen candidate, guilty of a campaign contribution scam? Say it ain’t so! I began searching for an email address and a phone number to the campaign so that I could advise them of the glitch on the campaign web site and, hopefully, reverse the double debit. I left messages explaining what had gone wrong.

That was 2 days ago, Saturday, New Year’s eve. Well, I just received a call back from a very pleasant man identifying himself as the FEC compliance officer for Mr. Roemer’s campaign. He explained, my message about the contribution glitch had been passed on to him; and he was eager to resolve my concerns. While we were on the phone, I pulled up my bank account on the computer. Sure enough, the debits no longer showed; and not because the double debit had been removed but because I hadn’t actually been double debited at all. Or even once.

See, the information relayed by pressing the “Submit” button on Roehmer’s site; appeared on my account moments before it was subsequently erased by the information relayed from Roemer’s site saying, ‘There is a problem with this form.’ And if I had checked the account again minutes later, I would have seen, my donationt had not been recorded at all. (Knowing what I know now, I can hypothesize that the reason my billing information was rejected likely originated at my bank, and was intended to protect the account from unauthorized withdrawals.)

In other words, I hadn’t actually donated at all to Mr. Roemer’s Presidential campaign. But I want to; the man gave me their mailing address so that I can make my contribution via the old-fashioned way.

This incident proved my point. That is, by endorsing Buddy Roemer for President, I had chosen the best candidate for the job. (Actually liking that choice came as a most pleasant surprise!)


  1. Besides one point about Mr. Schatz’s criminal liability, you are doing a fantastically marvelous work with the utmost reliability, jbjd. I have an extensive discussion of Mr. Schatz’s culpability in this matter which I would like to email to you, rather than “gut a pig” in an open forum, with other readers watching the unpleasantness.

    I attempted to email you at your “contactjbjd” address, but my email bounced. I will look forward to your reply so I can email you the discussion I mentioned.

    minutemancdsc: I understand that you would rather go over the critique privately, but, please understand, my goal here is not to blindly change minds but to persuade people to accept the validity of the argument based on reason and fact.

    I would re-print your comment on the blog; along with my evaluation of your critique, for all to see. (In the interest of full disclosure, I read your critique related to Mr. Schatz. And, let me explain in advance, you appear to have missed the most salient point of my original argument, which was the basis for your opposition.)

    For argument’s sake, let’s say Brian Schatz signed the 2008 HI Certification of Obama’s nomination before or after the DNC signed theirs; or at the same time. Let’s further say, Mr. Schatz submitted his CoN to HI election officials before or after or contemporaneous with the DNC. Why am I conceding to so many variables? Because the timing of these events, either alone or in relation to each other, has absolutely no bearing on the wording in those respective CoN’s.

    So, what does account for the changes in wording not only between the DNC wording in 2008; and the HI state wording that same year; AND between HI state wording in 2006 versus HI state wording in 2008? THE DNC MODEL STATE DELEGATE SELECTION PLANS. As I explained, based on evidence I had acquired, I knew that the DNC sent their CoN to Brian Schatz, who forwarded both their CoN and his CoN to HI state election officials simultaneously. I only looked into the matter further when several internet pundits began charging fraud and collusion, evidence of which, according to them, could be inferred from an alternative timing, along with these differences in CoN language between the DNC and the HI state party; AND between previous and current HI state party CoN’s. Thus, both personally believing there was no such fraud; and, on the other hand, observing the furor in the blogosphere that such fraud could be established by these various differences in the CoN’s; I thought about what other reason could explain these seeming discrepancies.

    I had already done research on the issue of vote binding states, that is, those states which enacted laws requiring, delegates awarded to a candidate through voting in a state Presidential primary, must vote for the candidates they are elected to represent on the floor of the party’s Presidential nominating convention. Not all states have these laws. Other states have similarly ‘peculiar’ laws related to the nominating process. For example, another one of these non-universal laws enacted in the states is this: the party candidate whose name appears on our ballot must be qualified for the job. State parties submitting their state delegate selection plans to the RBC for the 2008 election had to include an addendum spelling out these peculiar state laws, a rule which was included in the 2006 DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan. Thus, for the 2008 election cycle, the DNC assumed responsibility for ensuring, the CoN submitted to state election officials in each state complied with the individual state laws.

    Being familiar with the 2006 DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan; my first instinct on seeing Schatz’ 2008 CoN was different from the CoN he submitted in 2004; was that the 2002 DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan must not have included the additional requirement that, state parties had to submit any idiosyncratic state laws along with their plans, to the RBC. And, when I checked, I saw, I was right.

    In other words, according to the 2002 DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan; in 2004, the HI state D party was responsible for inserting into its CoN the words found in the HI state law. According to the 2004 plan; in the 2008 election, that responsibility had shifted to the DNC.


  2. LoneStar says:

    Just curious if you have seen this yet. The DNC is being sued and the “lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election.” Looks like someone has been paying attention.

    • jbjd says:

      LoneStar: No, hadn’t seen this yet. Thanks.

      Garbage. Oh, yeah, someone was obviously paying attention to my blog, all right; just not enough. As you so cleverly recognized, the LLF has given us a ‘variation on a theme.’ Yes, as I have written extensively, in TX, certain individuals, for example, candidates in a primary contest; have standing to enjoin the TDP (TX D Party) from placing a particular name on the ballot. But no one has the right to keep Obama off the ballot by making up a definition of NBC; and then claiming he fails to satisfy this definition. (Their conduct here is additionally suspect because they claim on the one hand, they are not addressing whether Obama is a NBC; and then, insist he is not a NBC because both of his parents were not U.S. citizens. (HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT, ANYWAY!)

      But the LLF are wrong about several laws. Just for example, there is no such thing as a federal ballot. There is no singular requirement for getting on the ballot in each of the several states. No ‘class’ which could otherwise be certified as such by any court; has the right to tell the DNC how to run its political club.

      These people – LLF – are also in NH, notwithstanding NH has no ballot eligibility law. They are in GA, which has such a law AND PROVIDES FOR CITIZENS TO CONTEST BALLOT ELIGIBILITY WITH THE SoS! Why aren’t they in SC, where primary candidates must go through the party to get on the ballot? That means, the Democratic party in SC has already registered Obama with the election commission. And SC is a ballot eligibility state!

      These people sound like charlatans. Given that, under TX law, a candidate in TX who wants to get on the TX primary ballot arguably has standing to ask the court to enjoin Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP, from submitting Obama’s name on the Presidential ballot; why aren’t they focusing on TX? After all, I spelled out years ago now, exactly how this could be done.

      No; if they wanted to ‘get it right’; given that they stole my idea, they could have asked me ‘how to do it.’ (But then, I might have demanded a share of their ‘take.’)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: