President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles

The Whitehouse ^ | March 15, 2001 (One year ago) | George W. Bush

[Uncle Bill]

Sure he's a liar. You can't read.

[terilyn]

Actually, most states have what's called a "Loser Law". A candidate that runs in the primary cannot run in the general under a third party mainly because they would just be a spoiler. Prime example of this would be in California right now. Condit lost in the primary. There was a lot of speculation that he would go Independent and run for his seat in the general but that was shown here on FR by somebody smarter than me to be impossible because of California's Loser Law. Therefore, Condit is toast. (Good riddance BTW)!

[TLBSHOW]

March 20th Press Briefing

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-16.html

[rdb3]

You may want to direct your comments to me since I was the one quoted in the post you are referring to here.

[My back yard]

Rant on! You said a lot, and said it well.

[terilyn]

Thank you, it felt good!

[Scholastic]

BUMP!

[Scholastic]

Uncle Bill, you are principle personified.

[Scholastic]

You gotta vote for the liberal commie Republican, otherwize you will get a liberal commie Democrat! DOnt you see the logic!?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I understand the logic, but am disgusted by it. Many here just love situation ethics, for we all know that if it was Bill Clinton proposing amnesty and signing CFR into law, they would be just as intolerant of this as we are now. But because George W. Bush is in office, suddenly these actions become part of a big and elaborate plan that is way too deep for us to understand.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I will sincerely remember you advice, but will most likely be glad that I stuck to my beliefs and principles. If Pat O'Malley decides to run, I am going to help him out to the best of my ability. What I would really like to do is get his name out to college campuses all around Illinois; I think that young people will really like what he has to say about the corruption in Illinois and sticking to one's principles. The reason that teens and young people are so disillusioned with politics is because so many of our political leaders have let us down, whether it is through broken campaign promises, ignoring corruption, or through their own personal lives. Things have got to change in Illinois and it won't be through either Ryan or Blagovich--it has to be through a person that sticks to their guns and that is Pat O'Malley completely.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Actually, most states have what's called a "Loser Law". A candidate that runs in the primary cannot run in the general under a third party mainly because they would just be a spoiler. Prime example of this would be in California right now. Condit lost in the primary. There was a lot of speculation that he would go Independent and run for his seat in the general but that was shown here on FR by somebody smarter than me to be impossible because of California's Loser Law. Therefore, Condit is toast. (Good riddance BTW)!"

Those loser laws should really be declared unconstitutional and I am surprised that people haven't challenged these laws in court. Denying an individual the right to run for public office because they lost a primary, is really denying them equal protection of the laws and violating their civil rights, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which has aleady been applied to the states because it is implicit to the concept of ordered liberty.

[TLBSHOW]

You were?

[TLBSHOW]

lets hope he vetoes it. BUt I hear he traded this for the education bill. Do you know?

[rdb3]

Yep.

[RamsNo1]

Repeat after me---there wouldn't be any strategy needed for overturning anything if the President would veto an unconstitutional bill in the first place. This argument on numerous threads has more to do about the disgusting action of the President signing this bill more than the SCOTUS overturning it. The journey is often more important than the destination.

[Texasforever]

Repeat after me---there wouldn't be any strategy needed for overturning anything if the President would veto an unconstitutional bill in the first place

So it is your understanding of the law that once a president unilaterally declares a law unconstitutional and then vetoes it that bill is dead forever?

[RamsNo1]

He still did not get "paycheck protection" and "full disclosure" incorporated into the final bill. In fact, there will be more "undisclosed" money flowing around out there than ever before. Don't you see that politicians want the more secretive avenue to obtain campaign contributions while trying to look so noble about this "reform" bill?

[RamsNo1]

You keep implying that everything will be "honky-dorey" once the SCOTUS overturns this thing. As much as I hope for this, there is nothing in life that's a guarantee. Can you imagine the horror if everything goes wrong? What will people look at then? Maybe perhaps, that Bush signed it in the first place? Don't you see that the most important part of this whole issue is the bill signing? This seems to be the part of the discussion you keep avoiding which leads me to believe that you are just as troubled about this part as alot of the rest of us. Join the party, friend.