Reform Party Releases Official Statement on Presidential Nominee

The following is from the Reform Party website:

The Reform Party has chosen Roque “Rocky” de la Fuente as its presidential contender. Between Rocky’s campaign and party efforts, Roque de la Fuente and the Reform Party have successful put together approximately twenty five ballot lines, but hope to establish ballot access in up to forty-two states. With this effort, the Reform Party has returned to form and is once again an organized political force.

Roque de le Fuente is a first generation American born at Mercy Hospital in San Diego, California. He was educated in both Mexico and the United States. He obtained Bachelor of Science Degrees in both Physics and Mathematics.  He furthered his education by taking accounting and business classes at Anahuac University near Mexico City.

Following in his father’s footsteps, he became a successful entrepreneur by acquiring twenty eight car dealerships in the United States and Mexico. He has experience in banking, and also owns commercial properties located in both the United States and Latin America.

Roque de la Fuente decided to run for President when he saw Donald Trump alienate large segments of the population. Formerly running as a Democrat for President, Roque de la Fuente joined the Reform Party because the Democratic Establishment stacked the nomination against him in favor of Hillary Clinton.

“Roque de la Fuente is a good addition to the Reform Party, and I have no problem backing his campaign,” said Reform Party Secretary Nicholas Hensley. “If we can obtain presidential ballot access in forty two states, the Reform Party will return to form, and once again stand proud in opposition to the political establishment”.

As the leading moderate, centrist and populist political party, the Reform Party of the United States represents the sixty percent of moderate voters ignored by the Democratic and Republican incumbents. It stands against the special interests, and seeks to end their grasp on American government by electing principled leaders and promoting social change.

For more information about the Reform Party or Roque de la Fuente, it is possible to learn more at

13 thoughts on “Reform Party Releases Official Statement on Presidential Nominee

  1. Austin Cassidy

    “With this effort, the Reform Party has returned to form…”

    Indeed. Back into to the grave.

  2. Richard Winger

    In 2012 the Reform Party presidential nominee, Andre Barnett, received 820 votes in the entire U.S. In 2008 the Reform Party nominee, Ted Weill, received 481 votes in the entire U.S.

  3. Protecting the "Big Three"

    Poor old Ted was expected to be on the ballot in Kansas that year, but fell victim to the same guy who apparently encouraged Rocky De La Fuente to seek the Reform Party’s nomination this time around.

    Oh, the web some spiders weave.

  4. Karl T. Knight

    Congrats to Rocky. Good Luck.
    BTW: Are they ever going to get the “State Parties” list up on the Reform Party website?

  5. Richard Winger

    The Kansas Reform Party in 2008 put Chuck Baldwin on the ballot. The Kansas Reform Party did not want to run Ted Weill for president. The Kansas Secretary of State at first took the position that it doesn’t matter what the state party wants; the national convention choice is all that matter. I persuaded the Kansas Secretary of State that Kansas precedents, as well as precedents from around the country, showed he was wrong. The Kansas precedent was the American Party in 1980. The American Party of Kansas nominated Frank Shelton, but the national convention of the American Party in 1980 chose Percy Greaves.

    Since Kansas in 1980 had ruled that the state party, not the national convention, controls, that set a Kansas precedent. The 1980 precedent was correct. The Republican Party of California and of South Dakota in 1912 had nominated Theodore Roosevelt, and their names appeared on the ballot instead of the national convention choice of William Howard Taft. The Alabama Democratic Party put George Wallace on the November 1968 ballot instead of Hubert Humphrey. The Arizona Libertarian Party in 2000 put L. Neil Smith on the ballot instead of the national convention choice, Harry Browne. Under the US Constitution, it is the state parties that have all the power because they choose the presidential elector candidates. The national conventions have no legal power at all. So I was sticking up for precedent. I wasn’t trying to injure Ted Weill. Although, in retrospect, Chuck Baldwin had a far stronger campaign in 2008 than Ted Weill, so I think the Kansas Reform Party made the right choice.

  6. Austin Cassidy


    Weren’t there 3 different Reform Party candidates in 2012?

    Have you had any contact with Rocky? Does he keep filing for all these elections because he likes to see his name on the ballot or is there some coherent reason for all this? He’s just pouring money into these bids at an amazing rate.

    He has a mini-blimp and has developed a raft of nonsensical iPhone games… what is the point of all this?

  7. Peter B. Gemma

    Curious that in this news release and the interview with the Reform party Sec’y, not a word about “Rocky strongly supports ____” or “the Reform Party has among its core principles ____ and ____, and Rocky has also made those issues the cornerstone of his campaign,” etc etc.
    I can’t find anything that says de la Fuente is a big proponent of this or that or the Reform Party is best known as advocating/opposing whatever.

  8. Thomas Knapp


    One of the Reform Party’s problems is that its platform and “core principles” have pretty much had the kitchen sink thrown in over the years. Once Perot was gone, the party lost any real ideological center and has pretty much spent its time since then chasing 1) celebrity candidates and 2) silver bullet ideas.

    It seems to me that Rocky might actually be a force for change vis a vis that problem. If I was 1) his campaign manager and 2) interested in roughly equal measure in his campaign and the Reform Party’s future, I would recommend that he:

    1) Narrow his platform down to an intersection of Perot-like and Sanders-like values (on the Perot side, balanced budget; on the Sanders side, cooling down the stock market’s casino aspect with a Richardson-like “sales tax;” at the intersection, “trade agreement” skepticism);

    2) Focus media money and campaign time on states where it’s possible to rack up enough votes for a fifth-place finish to displace the Constitution Party as “America’s third third party.”

    If he can knock down 100,000 votes or so campaigning on some kind of coherent platform and not just as a personality, he’ll put the Reform Party in pretty good position to start rebuilding itself into a real force. Whether or not they’ll take advantage of that is an open question, but they’d at least have the opportunity.

  9. RedPhillips Post author

    One problem Tom is that budget hawkishness doesn’t sell well. Everyone who looks at the issue even superficially knows the deficit is unsustainable, but actually doing much about it is politically toxic. People support a balanced budget in the abstract, but don’t support the measures necessary to do anything about it, and often support things contrary to it. This is arguably one of the perils of mass democracy. Soberness about the deficit and a willingness to actually endure hardship to do anything about it is a sober minded position that is generally held by less ideological people who aren’t necessarily drawn to third parties. That Perot was able to pull it off is, I believe, fairly unique to his celebrity. There was a period when catastrophizing about the deficit was a thing on the far right, but that coincided with a broader agenda of radically shrinking the government. I don’t even see much right-wing deficit catastrophizing these days.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp


    I’m more optimistic than you on budget hawkishness.

    In recent years non-trivial numbers of Republican congresscritters — with the support of non-trivial percentages of voters — have tried to mount resistance to moves to increase the debt ceiling.

    The current GOP presidential nominee has publicly mused about “renegotiating” the national debt — and “renegotiation” is in practice a variant of “repudiation.”

    At least one of the (briefly) “top-tier” contestants for the GOP nomination, Carly Fiorina, made “zero-based budgeting” a centerpiece of her campaign platform. I’ve heard that Fiorina may be a contender for the position of RNC chair, although I haven’t read up on the rumors I’ve seen to that effect.

    Obviously that doesn’t get us to a balanced budget, but the fact that rumblings about the debt have finally reached the point of pointed (rather than pro forma) rhetoric, and even action (unsuccessful but action nonetheless) within the political class itself — and that those things have provoked a panicked response from “we can borrow forever and ever” wing of that class (one big pundit, I forget who, called Fiorina’s zero-based budgeting proposal “crazy,” even though it is used by many large companies and by at least some states)– says to me that the issue’s time is in fact coming.

    In the context of Fuente’s campaign, we’re talking about a guy who has some money to spend and whose up side no matter how much he spends is likely at most in the range of 100k votes. That very well could be the issue that GETS him those votes. And if it is, the Reform Party has a long-term issue to build itself around once Fuente’s campaign is over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *