Teh gUbbern4t0rzFollow

He's doing a pretty good job. Reminds me of Reagan, a bit, in that he says mind bendingly stupid things and gets forgiveness for it - no surprise there, actors and charisma and teflon personalities.

It's possible that all he does is charm the people who need to sit across the table and talk to each other, into doing that. Maybe that's all he needs to do.

/shrug

As to whether the Constitution will be amended so that he can run for President, no idea. It's probably time for that particular requirement to go away, regardless.

When it does happen - and it will, someday - it'll be for one guy. May as well start the dialog now.

I do think it'd have a better chance if the person in question runs as a (nominal) Republican.

Lol! Well. As amusing as it might be, I also doubt that the constitution will be ammended any time soon on that particular issue. Seems reasonable to require that the president actually be a native born citizen of the nation.

As to why he's successful? A good part is that he's strong on exactly the areas where California desperately needs strength (education, fiscal responsiblity, immigration), and soft (from a Conservative perspective) on social issues where Californians have been traditionally wanted more flexibility. It also helps that he's honest about where he stands on issues. You know what issues are on the table so to speak and which ones he's not going to budge on. Voters like that.


Heh. Speaking of which (and a decent reason why he won this election) I flipped on Air America about a month or so ago. Didn't know at first who they were talking with, but it was some politician. Among several issues, one stuck in my head. They asked him whether he'd raise taxes to pursue his agenda (and he had a list of things he seemed to want to do). His answer? "Of course I wouldn't! I would simply ask Californians who've done well for themselves to give back to the people so that we can all be better off".

I was like: WTF!? Did he just contradict himself? What exactly does he mean by "asking" people to give back? Sounds a heck of a lot like raising taxes to me...

Sure enough, the guy they were interviewing was Phil Angelides. Totally disengenous nutjob pseudo-politician IMO. Look. If you're running on a far left platform, at least be honest enough to say "Yup. I'm going to try to raise taxes on all the people who can afford it, so I can pay for all the social/environmental programs I'm going to create". I'd at least respect the guy for doing that. But lying about it? And not even being good at lying about it?


Not surprised at all he got kicked to the curb...

Hehe, I like you. You make me feel good in my funny place.

What about the ones who arrived just last week?

I can play that game too... You have to draw a line somewhere, and being born as a US citizen is as reasonable a place to put that line as any.

And what's with the constant fear mongering about fear? It doesn't have anything to do with fear. It has to do with the basic idea that the highest political office in the country, with the complete executive power of the country, should be filled by someone who has been a citizen of the country his/her entire life. It has to do with the president being the "head of state" for the nation as a whole, so that person should be entirely "of" that nation.

Sure. But "fear" is a pretty strong word. Concern maybe seems more appropriate:




I really don't think it was so much based on "fear", as common sense and prudence. They didn't want a vocal and popular foreign demogague to be able to walk in and take power. While the specifics have changed over time, I don't think the basic concept is flawed. It's a component of the checks and balances system that the office of president be more restrictive then that of other offices. And I don't particularly think it's inapplicable today at all. There's a pretty strong "anti-border" movement throughout the world right now (an offshoot of "true" socialism actually). The idea of removing the restriction on the office of president would appear to me to be a part of that general ideology (or at least playing into it).

That barrier to the office exists specifically so that only someone who'd lived his entire life as a citizen of the US could serve as the president. Obviously, someone who embraces the idea of open borders is going to see that as a hinderance, but to those who *don't* agree with that agenda it's a very logical break to ensure that the US head of state has primarily US interests in mind.

See...where my line was reasonable, yours is just down right ridiculous.

So what is so wrong with having a time limit on it? Say 20 years of citizenship. You need to be at least 35 years of age for the presidency anyway.
It's pretty ridiculous that anyone can come here, from any country, and sit in congress, or the senate but not hold the presidency.

I'm fine with that as well. But to say "never" is a bit much IMO.

We make exceptions for children born out of country but born to American citizen parents (Military and the like), so I find little difference.

Which is the exception isn't it? Natural born citizens imply you be born on US soil. Inside the borders. So for children born abroad the "except" of Naturalization Act of 1790 reads

Granted, when we are talking about acts that old, it's fluff. But the point remains, it's an, IMO, exception. So why can't we update it? Bring it up to speed with our times? Is it such a scary prospect?

Edit: History > Me



Edited, Nov 16th 2006 at 8:40am PST by Kaelesh

I'll begin planning my exploratory committee.

Or Nobby for King! ROFL