The Arnold Amendment Actually Helps... Mel Martinez

[liberalpragmatist]

I have no doubt that Arnold wants to run for President and that elements of the GOP are itching to let him. However, the religious right will never accept him. I just don't see Arnold Schwarzenegger being nominated by the GOP. In fact, I see Giuliani as having a better chance than Arnold, given that he has taken such a hawkish foreign policy stance.

However, I still believe that Bill Frist will be the Republican nominee in '08. If the amendment passes by then (and it's unlikely to pass by that point, even if it does pass), then the real beneficiary of the amendment is Mel Martinez of Florida. He's Cuban-born, from Florida, just won election - I can easily envision a Frist/Martinez ticket in '08. That's actually more dangerous for us than it appears at first glance. While many polling experts are skeptical that Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote, it does appear that Bush got at least 39% or so - improving his margin. If they nominate a Hispanic on the ticket, even a Cuban Hispanic, they'll likely take a bigger chunk unless we counter by putting Richardson on the ticket.

I dunno - you're obviously free to disagree with me. But this is who I see as the real beneficiary.

[sdfernando]

1. Don't amend!

There is no reason at all for this amendment. Surely there are qualified people amongst the 100s of millions of native born citizens. The framers of the Constitution should not be second guessed in this area, they knew what they were doing. Still, if it turns out that the constitution is amended, then nominate me...a foreign born gay hispanic would do wonders for the ticket....HA HA!

[LiberalFighter]

2. Could it mean that the repugs don't have enough of a selection?

[Telly Savalas]

3. Why not?

If it was our guy that the amendment would benefit, how many people here would still be against it?

If somebody is an American, they should have all of the rights every other American has. Why discrimminate against someone because of their place of birth? The fact that the provisions of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments weren't in the original constitution is proof that the Founding Fathers didn't always exercise sound judgement.

What is it about not being born an American citizen that makes a person inadequate for the presidency?

Anyway what's the problem with Ahnold? Yes, he'd be a really shitty president, but after 8 years of George Walker Bush, a run-of-the-mill shitty president would be a breath of fresh air. If the GOP doesn't nominate him, they'll nominate some total douchebag like Frist. Hell, even if they amend the constitution, it's unlikely the GOP would nominate Ahnold. Given his somewhat liberal views on a number of social issues, the flatearther biblethumper wing of the party won't back him. So what's the big deal?

[tsuki]

5. Me, I would still be against it. Look at Peru and Fujimori. Our

founding fathers knew what they were doing.

[Telly Savalas]

15. I'd have an easier time buying the argument...

if I could conceive of how Ahnold or anybody else could be a worse president than the spoiled bastard we have now.

Anyway Fujimori was born in Peru. If Peru's laws regarding citizenship were identical to the U.S.'s, then that would make him a natural born citizen, and hence eligible for the presidency.

[w4rma]

34. I am opposed to this amendment no matter who it benefits in the short term

I am not only opposed to this amendment, I am opposed to ALL changes to our Constitution. But, back to this amdendment: This amendment was put there initially to help prevent bloodless coups by other countries via the Presidency.

[genius]

4. It's really Rupert Murdock Amendment. Arnold is the frontman.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Disagree... It was a different time

The constitution was framed in a time of great instability. There was a great possibility that the country could loose faith in its government and just elect the Prime Minister of England to the White House. I'd probably support the ammendment if there was something like a 10 or 20 year citizenship requirement.

[JNelson6563]

6. Our secret weapon

Jennifer Granholm. :-)

[liberalpragmatist]

10. I agree

Although I didn't say this in my original post, I actually support the amendment, provided that there are some clear restrictions, including no dual citizenship.

[arcos]

18. You can't lose my country's citizenship...

You can't renounce it either... Once you are a Costa Rican, you will always be one. I don't know if there are any other countries that have this, but you may want to consider it :P

[ShaneGR]

7. I support this Ammendment

Any citizen of this country, provided they have lived here for at least 20 years, should be able to run for President.

Equal rights for all, PERIOD.

BTW, we have Jennifer Granholm to run if this is passed. She's a Governor loved by her state. She's very intelligent. She's successful. She's very attractive.

[Forkboy]

24. I agree with ya!

:thumbsup:

[donheld]

8. It also helps Bandar Bush,,,just what we need

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. It also helps Jennifer Granholm

Anybody ever heard of her? She gets precious little mention her on DU.

[JNelson6563]

11. She's popular in Michigan

The Rethugs are going to be hard pressed to run someone against her next time. One theory is Spence Abraham. We can only hope!

Julie

[Telly Savalas]

16. Exactly...

can an opponent of the amendment explain to me why Gov. Granholm shouldn't have an opportunity to run for president?

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. The only reason that Democrats are opposing it is

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. That's good enough reason for me

We have 2 descendants of NAZIS in the White House right now (Junior and his "brain", Karl Heinz Roveror II.)

We don't need a third.

[Yupster]

12. I agree with the amendment, but

I'd like to see a long waiting period before it takes effect.

Maybe something like "starting on Jan 1, 2030, anyone blah, blah, blah."

That way it can't be perceived as helping one person or another.

[Julien Sorel]

13. Something about Frist feels wrong.

He's the candidate best positioned to hold the current Republican amalgamation together. But he seems to lack charisma. In fact, he looks like an undertaker to me. And it looks like he wears a hairpiece -- that would make him a ripe target for ridicule, and the Republicans love using ridicule, not being the target of it.

Dunno. I can't quite put my finger on it. He reminds me of a glum Al Gore.

By the way, this proposed amendment sucks. I don't want to see the constitution changed for the benefit of one person, and that's basically what's going on here. And if you think Arnold wouldn't get by the religious right, think again. They can be just as starstruck as anyone else, and besides, Arnold can be fixed for their consumption, and the Republican bagmen would have a lot of incentives to see that he is fixed. I keep saying this whenever this topic comes up and people salivate over Granholm: look at an electoral map, imagine a red California, and tell me what Granholm, a woman born in "soft" Canada and representing a blue state, is going to do to counter it. We would get landslided.

[Telly Savalas]

19. The flatearthers will never back a prochoice candidate

[Julien Sorel]

26. Given the choice between pro-choice Arnold,

and pro-choice generic Dem, whom do you think they would choose?

If you were a Republican strategist, do you think you could get them to vote for your guy on a lesser of two evils basis?

[Telly Savalas]

31. They'd stay home...

My point, though, is that the Jesusnazis wouldn't let him get nominated in the first place.

[fujiyama]

21. I think Granholm

would take California. She'd be a stronger candidate than Hillary. In fact, while I know Granholm would win our state in a presidential contest (after all she's won the governorship here), I can't imagine Hillary doing it. That said, I don't see Granholm having any better chance than Kerry in getting elected. I'd have a tough time seeing any female Dem get elected nationwide, including Napolitano. If a woman is elected, my guess is it would be someone like CondaSleazy Rice - basically a conservative, Thatcher like woman.

But this bill is pointless and will go nowhere. I'm indifferent to it myself. I don't view it as a bad idea necessarily. After all if someone came here at an early age, and basically lived here all their life and meets all the requirements (lived here for atleast 35 years), I see no problem though I'd definetely put an age limit (maybe a provision that says they should have been 10-13 years old when they became citizens).

[Julien Sorel]

25. No one would take California against Arnold.

[fujiyama]

27. Ah yeah

in that case, Arnold would probably take the state.

[elsiesummers]

14. I'm against it because of that Kevin Costner movie...

with Sean Young where he's a military officer but really a Russian mole "Yuri". I know that sounds silly and paranoid - like something some nutty Bush supporter who imagines every Middle Eastern college student is a terrorist would think - but I still like the constitution the way it is - with US born citizens only eligable for the presidency.

No, I don't think Jennifer Granholm was secretly planted by the Canadians for an attempted takeover/Canadian coupe of the US, but I still don't like the ammendment.

It seems to me that being born in the US, for better or worse, would give one a more US centric perspective, and that this would mean the candidate, most likely, would be more attuned to the citizenry than a foreign born candidate.

The question should not be "Is it good for Candidate X?" The question should be: "Is this ammendment good for the American people?"

[sdfernando]

17. You've hit the nail on the head!

"The question should not be 'Is it good for Candidate X?' The question should be: 'Is this amendment good for the American people?'"


Ahh...you've hit the nail smack on the head!

This amendment talk didn't seem to get started until after the schwanzengroper became Governor. (We Californians can be a dumb lot sometimes...star struck as everybody else. What has he accomplished...almost NOTHING...certainly not much more than Gray Davis.) So it seems to me that this 's benefit, and that of course would be completely counter to anything our founding fathers had in mind.

Just because someone has lived in and been a citizen for X number of years doesn't mean they don't have some sort of allegiance left for their old country...what about spy's and moles??? The Soviet Union had/has spys and moles in this country probably for long enough to qualify. Other countries, even friendly countries (take Israel for instance), can and do also. Granted even a native born US citizen can be turned, but it is much more likely to happen with a foreign born citizen (especially if they have family in the old country). I don't care how many good candidates the Dems can present because of this, it is a BAD idea.

Heed the founding fathers. They were a LOT smarter than our current pack of leaders. They knew what they were doing.

edited for spelling errors

[rucky]

20. If they run Arnold, we run Bono.

from U2.

just like the Morning Sedition guys said.

:)

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. Now there's a candidate I can fully support.

Bono/Edge 2008!

[Liberty Belle]

22. Arnold as a third party candidate?

Wonkette.com published a rumor that Arnold is thinking of starting a third party. (He must know the fundies would never elect a guy with a history of groping women, doing dope, and if some rumors are to be believed, engaging in orgies while sewing his youthful wild oats.

[AuntPatsy]

29. Your description of Arnie sure sounds like our current Pretender

don't you think? So what makes you think they wouldn't run someone again with the exact same credentials as the above mentioned?

[yellowcanine]

33. No way this amendment gets ratified by 08, imo.

With all of the anti-immigrant bigotry out there it is not going to be ratified in many of the red states - probably won't even pass the House by necessary 2/3 margin for the same reason.