Joe Walsh did, didn’t he?
Well, I guess. In a way. What I mean is, can you run for VP in such a way as to force the GOP or Democratic nominee to put you on the ticket? If I announce a run for VP and get enough signatures in enough states, can I bind delegates to vote for me for VP at the Party Convention and take the decision out of the candidate’s hands? Can you even qualify for the ballot as a VP candidate in enough states?
You mean that sweet ass-house?
I don’t think any state allows that now. New Hampshire had a vice presidential primary until 2008, but it wasn’t binding and nobody took it seriously. (In 2008, the Republican winner was John Barnes, Jr. and the Democratic winner was Raymond Stebbins, not exactly household names. The former appears to have been a legislator running on a platform of the VP primary being stupid.)
I for one can’t blame the Republican legislators of Oklahoma for assuming that they can legislate themselves into legal invulnerabillty. We’ve all seen the videos of cops committing murder and then read about them getting away with it scot-free. It just stands to reason that sooner or later, lawmakers would want to get in on some of that sweet, sweet legal invulnerability.
Kirk Cameron:
Just to clarify, you meant the guy who was dancing on the table at the end of Blues Brothers, not the Republican asshole who got skunked in 2012 by the girl with no legs.
Jack Sheldon is still with us. Maybe he can explain why that will never become law.
You mean the same girl with no legs who, despite her impediment, is gonna kick Mark Kirk’s ass in November? You do not fuck with Tammy Duckworth. 
As I recall, during that campaign the Real Joe Walsh[sub]TM[/sub] distanced himself from the one who tried to cash in on his name recognition, popularity, and general awesomeness.
Keith Ablow is someone I’ve already mentioned on this board as being one of the most notorious public blowhards in history.
He’s truly a disgrace to mankind.
I know I should read the actual bill for this question, but I’m not up on my legalese: how does this law define “interests” for purposes of enforcements? Does it just require planners to have a really really good excuse on why their moves weren’t only meant to pad their own bottom lines?
Generally, an insurance salesman or stock jock’s only legal duty to their customers is to deliver what they paid for and not commit fraud [/gross oversimplification]
Doctors, lawyers and many professionals have the duty to work for the best interests of their client, a much higher standard. A doctor who simply chooses wrong can be sued.
Some insurance folk (and I say this as an insurance folk) push insurance over all as the be-all end-all planning tool. Many stock jocks say securities should be pushed at all costs.
Well, while it’s true “anybody can be sued,” a doctor cannot be successfully sued simply for being wrong. They must be so wrong that they breached the standard of care. The “medical standard of care” is typically defined as the level and type of care that a reasonably competent and skilled health care professional, with a similar background and in the same medical community, would have provided under the circumstances that led to the alleged malpractice.
I would classify this one as evil rather than stupid. It is just the sort of thing an evil super villain would do.
I understand the standard of care required for professionals.
Basically, before the DOL rules, an insurance agent could’t be held liable for selling a crappy policy, or selling something other than what the clients really needs. They could only be held liable if they committed fraud in selling something to the client.
The only thing I know about Joe Walsh is that he’s an asshole, and that he is (was?) married to Jeri Ryan and tried to get her to have sex in public.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.