Posted on 05/29/2016 1:44:33 PM PDT by Dalberg-Acton
Did you ever wonder why unsuccessful candidates merely “suspend” their campaigns after losing a key primary, instead of terminating them? Surely all those candidates knew that it’s impossible to restart a presidential campaign once it’s been suspended. In the famous words of Theodore Roosevelt’s daughter Alice Longworth, “You can’t make a soufflé rise twice.”
(Excerpt) Read more at eagleforum.org ...
Well, there once was a governor from California who lost an election or two..........Who whipped up pretty good souffles'.
Ping
Phyllis Schlafly's op-ed. Thanks Dalberg-Acton.
While Ms. Schlafley’s concerns are legitimate (remember that the original Constitutional Convention was had the limited authorization to amend the Articles of Confederation), I don’t really see how that ties to a presidential candidate who “suspends” his campaign. My general rule is that if you don’t understand something, it is all about money. A candidate “suspends” his campaign instead of ending it so that he can continue to raise money — often to pay off campaign debts.
In the famous words of Theodore Roosevelt’s daughter Alice Longworth, “You can’t make a soufflé rise twice.”
I thought that was Dorothy Parker.
Two weeks ago I wrote a post: The John Birch Society vs. Article V
That’s different...restarting a campaign in the same election.
I suppose Ross Perot is the closest thing to a success in that regard.
“Did you ever wonder why unsuccessful candidates merely “suspend” their campaigns after losing a key primary, instead of terminating them? “
Yup.
From the referenced article …
"Since only Congress can “call” the convention, it means that states have no control over who can be a delegate [emphasis added], who makes the rules, who sets the agenda, or who wields the gavel."
Regarding the states having no control over a con-con, the states arguably did have some control over a con-con before they unthinkingly ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment imo.
Jacquerie ... your article is severely flawed. Just because someone doesn’t think it is a good idea to call a con-con doesn’t mean he denies the people’s right to call one.
Interesting read. As always Mrs Schlafly makes me rethink. Her explanation of the call requires me to rethink my support for article V efforts
Interesting read. As always Mrs Schlafly makes me rethink. Her explanation of the call requires me to rethink my support for article V efforts
So?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.