Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How To Defeat The "Arnold" Constitutional Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:32 PM
Original message
How To Defeat The "Arnold" Constitutional Amendment
We have to learn to play as mean and dirty as the other side if we want to win.

What is needed, immediately (as soon as this amendment is proposed in Congress) is a hard hitting commercial to hit the airwaves nationally that has eery, frightening music, a grainy, dark shot of Bin Laden or other Arab terrorists and the somber voice over:

"Some in Congress are trying to change the American constitution. They want to let people born in foreign lands become the leader of the United States and the Free World. In troubled times, is that really the right idea to keep us safe?"

Hit them with their own game. Hit them hard. And kill the amendment before it even has a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think we just need to remind them that somebody from France
could become president. O'Reilly would be immediately against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt Violet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Or even a Canadian.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohioan Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
75. Tell them a Haitian immigrant could end up president . . .
That'll shut them up but quick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hey! I like it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxudargo Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Let me ask you something
What exactly would that accomplish? I mean, even assuming it worked?

The problem here, it seems to me, is that the American voter has become so pathetically shallow and foolish that he is excited by the prospect of action-movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger running for president. Preventing that by appealing to his xenophobia (and adding another level of irrationality to it by implying al Queda could end up running the country if we allow the foreign-born to run for president), doesn't seem to me to address the issue at all.

The issue is this: how much stupidity and irresponsibility can this republic endure? If we don't address that issue, we can't possibly "win" in any but the most superficial sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I, for one, am sick and tired
of taking the "high road" and losing.

If it means, tactically, that we have to make a xenophobic commercial to prevent this man from becoming President, I'm all for it.

If we could have played Lee Atwater style politics against Shrub and defeated him, it would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

I think it's time we grow up as tacticians. And if America responds to this crap, and we have to feed it to them to get the right outcome, then let's out-Lee Atwater them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxudargo Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Well, I guess if it's just a game to you
then winning the game is all that matters.

But if you are truly concerned about the deep problems coming to the surface in this country, there are larger battles to be won.

Your "plan," it seems to me, would just exacerbate the problem. But it would also obviously make you feel better if it worked. You could do high-fives and shit. So, hey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Nope
it's called learning to be smart tacticians. If we never win, we never get power, and if we never get power, we can't implement the right policies to correct those deep problems you're referring to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxudargo Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. No
The issue we're discussing isn't a policy issue. You're not going to be able to legislate civic responsibility. You can't outlaw anti-rationalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
66. The GOP has about a 40 year head start on influencing voters.
They set up numerous "think tanks" whose sole purpose was to develop a language that would influence the way voters think and then to get this language out to the "liberal media." They've been very successful.

We need to use this against them by developing our own lexicon to describe the GOP and their tactics. That is what all the "reframing" and George Lakoff threads are about.

We can take the high road, we can hit them with facts and refutations to the lies that the GOP tells, but unless we frame the discussion in terms that are meaningful to people and that stick in their minds, we will lose.

I'm not above taking the low road and will do it if I can back it up with facts so that I don't get sued by GOP "trial lawyers." On the other hand, I would love to be able to get our message out in a way that people will appreciate and that may have a chance of influencing their opinions.

For more about reframing and Lakoff, check out http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org .

As for Schwarzenegger, much was made about the fact that he is the son of a nazi, a man who has repeatedly sexually harrassed women, and, for conservatives, pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Yet people still voted for him. Lakoff contends that facts are over-written by people's values every time. They see Ahnold as a strong, strict-father image and they value that. That's why he used the term "girlie-man" to describe Democrats. He wants to project the strict father image so that people feel that he will protect them and punish the bad guys, in this case Dems. That's what we need to work on. Language is the way to do it.

Check out some of the threads on reframing the debate and on Lakoff. I'm convinced that this is the way to fight the Right, but we are 40 years behind them and will have to work doubly hard to catch up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
60. Exactly....
the dems who want to take the high road are noble, but they are also hamsters in a wheel. You can't get any of your agenda completed if you're not willing to do what it takes to regain power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankly_fedup2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. I'm there. I cannot allow this to happen. This country has been . . .
through so much BS the last four years and now this BS about AHNALD. Puhleaz!!!

We are going to have to start doing something and stop talking about doing something.

We each have a state board. We need to frequent them more and then try to brainstorm some ideas. We have to stop this. State by state we can do it. I cannot help someone in California no more than they can help me in Virginia.

However, if we do the state-by-state at least one day a week, maybe we can finally get our voices heard.

They ignored me during Clinton's impeachment. They ignored me during the stolen election of 2000. They ignored me during the tragedy of 9/11. They have ignored me during the election of 2004.

THEY WILL NOT IGNORE ME ANYMORE. That Amendment should not be changed . . . ever.

We have four years. Are we going to stay with the Democratic party that is doing absolutely nothing about THIS ELECTION? I'm fed up with it all. I will not break the law but now I understand why people do and how they can get so passionate about their beliefs.

This will divide this country more. Can't those idiots see it. They steal elections. They could steal an election for someone from a terrorist country. Don't think it could happen? Did you think Bush would ever be in the White House?

I'm tired of being laughed at. This country is the greatest country on this Earth and will continue to be. However, we have leadership that the world laughs at more than us. I don't like them putting their two cents in like the article in England, "HOW STUPID CAN 59 MILLION AMERICANS BE?" Yeah, we got some stupid ones, but they are ours to judge . . . not Englands with a Queen and King still sitting on a throne, pay no taxes, tax the people to death, and the queen is the richest woman in the world. Now who is stupid??? I think we both have some stupidity in our countries.

Anyone interested in the state-by-state get together for Virginia to stop this stupid idea of changing this amendment, please email me. If others in other states are getting together, let those of us in Virginia know who is with us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
70. The Founders put that in the Constitution for a good reason.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 08:35 AM by trogdor
It helps ensure you know where your candidate's loyalties lie. I tend to be WAY conservative (small 'c') when it comes to qualification for our head of state, and since the State Department's criteria for becoming a citizen are lots looser than my comfort-level qualifications for the office of President, I would say xenophobia has nothing at all to do with it.

Think about it. Should Rupert Murdoch be eligible to run for President? Are YOU comfortable with that? Rupery Murdoch became an American for the sole purpose of owning a larger chunk of the American media. That's it. He has no real allegiance to ANY nation, including the one in which he was born. Would YOU elect such a person President of the United States? I wouldn't.

Arnold might be sincere, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there are too many people out there, like Rupert Murdoch, for whom being a naturalized American is a marriage of convenience, so to speak.

*edited for clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
82. You can always try appealing to the
...Constitutional conservatives. You know, the old "don't tamper with the Constitution in a frivolous fashion" argument. Remember the temperance movement, and that wonderful amendment?

The argument is really a CONSERVATIVE one--it's just that Ah-nuld is such a prick that people who would vote FOR it if it were Nelson Mandela under consideration for the job would vote against it just because of that jerk.

My problems with the amendment stem from this arguably conservative argument, but also because it is UNFAIR to those of us who were born here. We have to be citizens for THIRTY FIVE years, while immigrants only have to be citizens for TWENTY, according to this proposed law. Sounds unfair to me!!!

American born citizens conceivably have to be paying taxes and FICA into the treasury coffers from their first after-school job as teenagers, but some clown can waltz in at age 35, pay taxes for twenty scant years, and run for President? Bullshit--I think they need to be citizens for at LEAST 35 years, just like the poor slobs who were born here! Let's see some real, money-where-your-mouth-is contribution before you expect any return. By then most of the ones who are insincere in the first place will be too old to run, and those who DO run will be part of, familiar with and assimilated into our rich cultures, all of which are uniquely American.

But I still oppose the amendment. Divided loyalties....we have enough trouble without tossing that into the mix. People who are "ethnic" (though born here) catch that crap a bit anyway, and sometimes have to "prove" their loyalty. It will be ten times worse with someone who is a newer citizen. Besides, I think the Constitutional framers just made a good call on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Everyone on DU is very concerned about where our nation
is going. We may not agree on the way to change the course, but we love the country.

Wait until you've been here awhile and see if you don't change your POV a bit.

The Right plays down and dirty (read Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant") and the public eats their lies like ice cream.

Being ethically strong has gotten us nowhere, and we are nearing a freaking crisis.

It's time to fight back--HARD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obviousman Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. lol, i love it
beat them at their own game
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sporadicus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. George Soros for President!
The RW would be hard-pressed to eliminate George Soros from contention, given that he's been living in this country almost 20 years longer than the Groppenfuehrer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. Perfect. Dead solid perfect.
Not to mention, he's largely responsible for getting Gropenfuhrer elected in the first place.

I'm all for the elimination of 527s.

AFTER that ad is run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuskerDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
81. Soros for PRESIDENT! and let HIM star in HIS OWN ADS
That would send them scurrying back into the slime, wouldn't it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ducks In A Row Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. We start a George Soros for Prez campaign.
remind them it goes both ways
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. I heard that pro amendment ads will be starting tomorrow
Yesterday, on Air america Radio, the news reported that Monday 11/15, we'll see some ads promoting this amendment. So, this is timely.

I don't know if the ads will be tv, radio or print.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retrograde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. doesn't arnold have dual citizenship? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. citizenship is not the requirement
a president must be born here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Put in a provision that requires
The individual have held only US citizenship for at least 35 years or who came to the US before the age of five and who have never held dual citizenship. That squelches Arnie and allows people like Jennifer Granthom(spelling?) in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
71. That makes way more sense.
I would even go so far as to say you're OK if you came here before age ten, and did not hold dual citizenship past one's eighteenth birthday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #23
73. You just say any naturalized citizen
'Cause that would allow someone to come here, live here five years and run for president. There have to be some restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yup, Let A 527 Do A "Swarthy Raghead For Prez" Commercial
totally with you on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Or just an ad asking if we want Arnold for prez
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 05:03 PM by eleny
He's the object of all this, so why dance around it? I say hit the nail on the head and talk about Arnold directly.

Edit: In fact - we can start calling it the "Arnold Amendment". So, I will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt Remarque Donating Member (709 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. i nominate eddie izzard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dem2theMax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
61. He knows more about our history than most Americans.
I love that man. God, he's so funny. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. Some of us are in favor of such an amendment.
I'm a naturalized citizen, and I've always considered that provision of the Constitution an affront and a scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. Paint a smallish moustache on his face..and let him talk...fascism
incarnate...with a swatztica which his father loved so dearly...this is a no brainer...but we need to get OUT IN FRONT WITH THIS.....NOW..IMMEDIATELY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. I think the amendment is targeted at George P Bush*
not Ahnold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Why George P?
He is a naturalized citizen???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
34. I just looked it up
George P was born in Texas. The only thing against him running right now is his age, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #34
62. Thank you
I thought he was born out of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #62
79. Wouldn't had many any difference if he was born in another country...
because his parents are citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberteToujours Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
20. Personally I'm in favour of the amendment
And I think it's just hilarious that the right-wing is doing our job for us out of some pipe dream of making Arnold president. Remember, THEY'RE the ones that hate foreigners, not us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
48. I'd like to see the amendment modified
I think only foreign-born persons who were raised in the United States as children, and have been US citizens since age 18, along with the other requirements that one must be 38 years of age (instead of 35) if foreign-born and American-raised, and having been residing in the country for 14 years.
Under my proposal, the Gropenfuhrer would be ineligible for the Presidency because he was not a citizen at age 18. I don't know about Granholm, but Madeline Albright might be eligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
21. Is there really an effort underway to amend the constitution?
Or is it all talk at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt Violet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. It's true.
What amendment to the constitution don't they want to amend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. They'd rather just do away with the whole pesky thing, but...
I think even they know that might be going a bit too far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
80. Yet they want a strict interpretation of the Constitution
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. There's runours that ads proposing such an amendment may start
running TOMORROW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. Just run some clips from Pumping Iron
He talks with to much of a potty mouth for the right. Once they see the man before he cleaned up his act, he is finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
31. How would this message be received by the Hispanic community?
I am not sure this is the message we want to promote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
33. I don't wish to defeat it
I think it's a ridiculous, anachronistic provision that SHOULD be done away with.

I also don't think Arnold would do terribly well as a national candidate. But even so, if Americans want to vote for him, they should be able to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Yea, then Bush Co can put in the real king of US -Saudi Crown Prince Abdul
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #38
58. Actually
I'm not very concerned that Crown Prince Abdul will become President of the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
35. I see nothing wrong with this ammendment if it's what people want
The more democracy the better, I say!

Let the people chose whoever the hell the want for president, come hell or high water!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coreystone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
36. Is there really an Amendment being considered that would allow...
"BARNEY THE DINOSAUR" to be eligible in 2008????

Reach for the "Star"!

Inquiring minds want to know!!!!



:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. YES
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 07:18 PM by sparosnare
Frist introduced it. Hold on and I'll find a link...

On edit, it wasn't Frist, it was Hatch. Here -

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2004/11/01/Arts/s...

Scary stuff. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coreystone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Only if you tremble! :-)
This is the correct link:

http://pbskids.org/barney /


:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Laugh now
you won't be in 4 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coreystone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. I haven't laughed since before Kennedy was asasinated...but, I really do
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 08:30 PM by coreystone
feel that this notion of an Amendment can be easily quashed without insult to the "immigrants". In my opinion, Orin Hatch is too far out of reality for him to be able to muster enough support, even on the Senate Republican side. I realize that others have been talking about it, but, I can't get into a fluster every time some misguided soul has a need to go back and read the "Book Of Mormon"!

It is something that I will not spin my wheels upon until it is broken out of committee, if, and when that happens. Until then, I only see it as burning a lot of tread of the 'TIRES'!

There are more immediate concerns of the 2004 election which I feel more energy needs to be addressed.

:-)



:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zaj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. "The Radical Regressives Republicans in Congress..."
Just one change:

"The Radical Regressives Republicans in Congress are trying to change the American constitution. They want to let people born in foreign lands become the leader of the United States and the Free World. In troubled times, is that really the right idea to keep us safe?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
40. Ain't gonna happen.
The Prez is the exclusive preserve of native born citizens of the US. It will never pass the congress to be sent to the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I disagree
it's being pushed and unless we stop it, will happen. Remember - these people think in the long term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #41
72. You need 2/3 vote in both houses...
...to send an amendment to the states. Given the current party breakdown of Congress, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get ANY amendment passed. That goes for the anti-gay marriage amendment, the anti-flag burning amendment, and any other ridiculous thing the Republicans might want to bring up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
restorefreedom Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
42. It won't happen.
Just the like the s-s marriage amendment won't pass, this one won't either. Especially because everyone knows it's targeted for Arnold.

Not gonna happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
45. This one's going to be easy..
... because there is no compelling need for it and nobody is going to give a rats ass.

This amendment will never even get close to happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tibbiit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
47. I know how it could be nipped in the bud
make part of the law that one must have been living in america for at least the same number of years as the age requirement for president. I think that is 45 years old.
Therefore arnold would have to be about 67 years old if he came to america at 20. This would be fare i think.
tib
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalequestrian Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
49. That's great
Maybe we can get the same person with that same scary voice that did the "John Kerry and his liberal allies in Congress..." ad-

Maybe something circulating with Bin Ladin as the president... standing in front of the podium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
50. Isn't Arnold Pro Choice?
This just goes to show how hypocritical the Repub. leadership is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
51. Just call it the Arnold Amendment and say
do you really think the founding fathers designed out government with it's amendment process to just benifit one man?

Come on people, let's just call it like it is...

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game......

For one person we would amend the contistution...

What could happen is they call for a constitutional Convention that would opena pandora's box as each sate would have to conviene a convention and select delgates to meet and perhaps rewrite the whole constitution.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bacchant Donating Member (747 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
52. I can't even tell you how much this shit pisses me off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Imagine the repuke response to democrats trying to change the constitution to let a mega-celebrity be the next PR president. GOD I HATE FUCKING REPUBLICANS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
53. Even if it makes it to the states, it won't be ratified.
Any 13 states can block it. We had well more than 13 blues states. It won't fly, the Reps know that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
54. It should be stopped if only because the thugs want it
If progressive politicians ever have power again, we can change it
then; dot the i's and cross the t's on citizen since 18 or whatever.Dithering around about what the bill contains is for much later. Just don't give it to the thugs NOW. The Murdoch angle should scare everyone more than the Groper (tho' he's bad enough).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
55. Jingoistic! I would like to see Jennifer Granholm run for President
Governor Granholm was born in Canada and by repealing the archaic natural born provision in the Constitution we would open the door to many qualified candidates.

This is not an Arnold issue, this is an issue of making all Americans equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Yup, I agree
Besides, Arnold would never get out of a Republican Primary anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. You are right, the GOP will never nominate a pro-choice candidate
Arnold is pro-choice and supports gay rights but doesn't support gay marriage, but then, only Dennis Kucinich supported gay marriage.

As to the GOP, they will never nominate a pro-choice candidate. That would eliminate Arnold, and that will also eliminate a highly qualified candidate like Rudy Giuliani.

Some people here are getting hung on Arnold and are unable to see the issue beyond the personalities involved.

Think about! Which woman would you rather have win the nomination, a natural born citizen like Hillary Clinton, or a Canadian-born American citizen like Jennifer Granholm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. why take the chance? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitSileya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
59. Or, we could let the amendment pass,
so that I can become President of the United States!


I'll see you in 2024!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
63. Wonderful!!! This is how I want ALL DEMOCRATS TO THINK and DO!!!
Fight Dirty! It Works!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geekgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
64. HELLO doesn't fighting this make us look like monsters??????!!!
I mean, I'm all for fighting against repugs but dems have always been for immigrants rights (healthcare, work rights etc...) whereas the repugs are the ones who want to close the borders, send them home etc...

SO how exactly are we going to fight this ammendment without looking like total hypocritical monsters? How are we going to explain this to other immigrant communities we have traditionally fought for- "oh- you've been working here for 40 years but you can't be president"??

I am also slightly disgusted by Ruggerson's suggestion that we use Arabs and fear of terrorists to fight this ammendment. Should we really stoop to repug level? Are we, as liberal, progressives, really about fear of foreigners and of immigrants who come to this country for a better life?

Let the friggin' ammendment pass. We tell our kids, immigrant or otherwise, that "anyone can do anything in the US" (the American dream- no matter how unattainable still motivates people). Fighting this is just going to seem really terrible- it is a no-win situation. Not to mention the fact I don't like Arnold either- but his social policies are at least slightly nicer than Bush's.

I understand trying to fight fire with fire- but come on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abburdlen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
65. Why fight it?
it will take much longer than four years to get it ratified and in truth the requiremrnt that Presidents need to US born is outdated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Michael_UK Donating Member (285 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
67. Opposing the amenment is contrary to liberal and progressive ideals
I can see no reason to oppose this. The entire clause is xenophobic in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
68. I am opposed to ANY constiutional amendments-
I'm sure that makes me a member of some wacko group like constitutional fundamentalists or something-
but if it happens, we have to run Jennifer Granholm for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bones_7672 Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
69. I don't think that even red-staters will support Arnold. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
76. Republicans want Bin Laden to be allowed to run for President
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 10:16 PM by Democat
That's what some have been saying for months and it should be the line that Democrats use to stop any change to the constitution on this issue.

We should not be thinking about ammending the constitution when the right wing controls the government. Any changes can only be bad for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuskerDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
77. Whatever tests well in the small red states, we should go with
37? states must ratify so hit the little cheap ones like here in NE and IA, WY, KS, ND, SD, MT, ID, UT, OK, AZ, AK, AR, MO................

shouldn't be too hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
78. They Will NEVER Pass The "Arnold Amendment"
I just don't see it happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Be Brave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. This elections have taught me never to underestimate Republicans.
I didn't see Bush winning either, and yet here I am, stunned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
83. The easiest way to fight this is to present several very popular
possible candidates who would qualify, but large segments of the population wouldn't want. Arnold of course is one of them because he has a lot of supporters, but a whole lot of opposers too! Since Arnold is a declared Pug, we need to come up with several others who are pub & Dem, but VERY controversial!

People like Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, etc.

I've also heard that it takes sooo long to get a constitutional ammendment actually passed, it's almost a mute point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
85. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
86. 100 Senators

Who all wake up thinking they should be President will not vote to allow more people to be able to run for the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
88. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
89. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC