Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Schwartzenegger For President!

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:05 PM
Original message
Schwartzenegger For President!
Edited on Thu Oct-09-03 09:24 AM by Skinner
Text Of Schwartzenegger
For Pres Bill In Congress
From Robert Lederman
[email protected]
10-8-3

http://www.rense.com/general42/ldle.htm

110ZF1

Print Request: LEXSEE Time of Request: October 07, 2003 08:57 PM EDT Number of Lines: 19 Job Number: 1822:0:16581724 Client ID/Project Name:

LEXSEE FULL TEXT OF BILLS

108th CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE

S. J. Res. 15 2003 S.J. Res. 15; 108 S.J. Res. 15 Retrieve Bill Tracking Report

SYNOPSIS

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years

DATE OF INTRODUCTION: July 10, 2003

108th CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE

S. J. Res. 15

2003 S.J. Res. 15; 108 S.J. Res. 15

Retrieve Bill Tracking Report

SYNOPSIS: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years

DATE OF INTRODUCTION: July 10, 2003

SPONSOR(S): Sponsor and Cosponsors as of 07/14/2003 HATCH, ORRIN G (R-UT) - Sponsor

TEXT: SJ 15 IS 108th CONGRESS 1st Session S. J. RES. 15

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES July 10, 2003 Mr. Hatch ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"ArticleSec. --

"Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

"Section 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.".

SUBJECT: LEGISLATORS (88%);

LOAD-DATE: July 14, 2003

From "Strongman"

By Hendrik Hertzberg September 29 issue of The New Yorker.

"On October 8, 1993 - a day short of exactly ten years before the originally scheduled date of California's recall election - one of Sylvester Stallone's better movies opened wide at area theatres. In "Demolition Man," Stallone played a Los Angeles cop, cryogenically frozen around the turn of the century as punishment for a bum rap, who is thawed out in the year 2032 to give chase to his similarly thawed-out criminal nemesis. He teams up with Sandra Bullock, a new-style nicey-nice police officer. As she is showing him around the L.A. of the future - where everything is tidy, corporate and bland - he does a double take when she mentions the "Schwarzenegger Presidential Library." Decades before, Bullock explains perkily, Arnold Schwarzenegger became so popular that the American people waived the technicalities and made him their maximum leader.

"This was satire, not prognostication. Either way, though, it appears to be right on schedule. The big technicality, of course, is a clause in Article II, Section I, of the Constitution - the one that states, 'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.' On July 10th, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, quietly introduced what he hopes will become the twenty-eighth amendment:

"A person who has been a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."

-From "Strongman," by Hendrik Hertzberg in the September 29 issue of The New Yorker.




Put Past To Rest, Hatch Says Of Arnold

By Christopher Smith The Salt Lake Tribune 10-4-3

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Orrin Hatch says Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be judged on past improper advances towards women but as the devoted husband he is today, adding that the foreign-born GOP candidate for California governor also should have the opportunity to run for president under a constitutional amendment Hatch is pushing.

"We have to look at people who they are today, not what they may have done wrong in the past," Hatch told the National Press Club Friday. "There isn't a person in this room or anywhere else in the world who is perfect, who has lived perfectly."

The movie-star body builder stumped for Hatch's 1994 re-election campaign when he joined the Utah Republican at an awards ceremony at a Salt Lake City fitness equipment factory and taunted "hasta la vista, baby" to Hatch's Democratic challenger, Pat Shea. Shea said Schwarzenegger's appearance was offensive because of his movies' "terrible treatment of women" and found it "ironic that Hatch, who promotes himself as a true feminist, would bring one of the leading media promoters of misogyny to Utah."

In answer to a question posed by reporters Friday, Hatch noted that Schwarzenegger has said most of the groping allegations detailed between 1975 and 2000 in a Thursday Los Angeles Times story are not true "but he's apologized for acting improperly at times in the past."


EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/oct/10042003/utah/98550.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm all for it, as long as...
it's President of Austria!

Remember, he does hold dual citizenship...

I can't believe I just stole a line from Archie Bunker (who once told "Meathead" he should run for President -- of Poland). Yikes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Isn't it odd that a FOREIGNOR, under this presentation can take office
before a natural born US citizen?

Think about it.

I'm a German, and I'm 23 years old. My parents moved me to the US when I was 1 year old, and I became a citizen by age 2.

Techically, under this presentation of the amendment, I can run for and be elected president of the USA at the age there, of 23 years old.

Whereas, my neighbor, born and raised in the fine state of Ohio, has to wait until she is 35 years old to run for and be elected as President of the USA.

Isn't that strange?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Wrong
"Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

You would still be ineligible by reason of not being old enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Think about it -- who's in line for the GOP in 2008?
This could be the reality. It's not a far-fetched scenario at all.

And it's sickening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Jeb (Fredo Corlione) Bush may have something to say about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrion Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Jebro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Jeb
/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. The day that happens is the day I'm outta here
if not before! Sickening indeed! But hey, let's give Arnie a chance, who knows where it might lead. :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemCam Donating Member (911 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. What can we do about Orrin?
Just how much damage can he do?

And is this seriously being offerd? I fear that it is. The only good thing is that it takes so long...usually...to get an amendment passed.

That said...I can see other minorities supporting it...and can't blame them, really, if they did.

That would finish me...if the Terminator becomes President?

I just want to weep when I think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. With Sly Stallone as VP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Sly is natural born. Try Claude van Damme the Belgian babe batterer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amanda Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
44. Nah, more like Bruce Willis
It'd be an "Hasta la vista/ Yippie-ki-yay" ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. I support this amendment
I'm opposed on principle to denying foreign-born citizens the same rights and opportunities as natural-born citizens. Anyone who believes that discrimination on the basis of national origin is wrong should support this amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. So you support foreign born residents the ability to become president
BEFORE a NATURAL born resident can?

Think about it. This bill says someone not born here can run for president before someone born here can.

Does that make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. No it doesn't
The person has to be "otherwise eligible" to run for president -- meaing they still have the satisfy the age requirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
37. Make the residency requirement 35 years instead of 20
That will take care of the age thing.




rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. There is no "age thing"
Radwriter just doesn't understand the proposed amendment. It ADDS a residency requirement and eliminates the natural-born citizen requirement. It does not eliminate the minimum age requirement for anybody, regardless of how they became citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emboldened Chimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Our FF put this in the Constitution for a reason
They did not want to have people who may be loyal to another nation running our own. Our FF knew their history (particularly Roman history), and knew this inevitably leads to disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxi Driver Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. What about Jews?
Israel's government considers all Jews as citizens of Israel under the Right of Return. Should Jews not be able to become president?

The FF put it there because there was an intense fear of Britain regaining control of the colonies. It's dated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxi Driver Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Kick. I want a reply here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emboldened Chimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Sorry about the delay
I'm at work. Anyway, I don't think it's dated at all. But we'll get to that. As for someone who's Jewish being president, it depends. Someone from Israel? I'd have to say no. Someone born here? Yes, I think so. The right to return is a unique situation, so it's not easily answered. As far as being dated, I don't think it is. Foreign countries have their own interests; always have, always will. Having a president from, say Russia, or, God forbid, France, might not be a good thing for national security. You can never tell where one's loyalties lie. What if our Russian president were former KGB? I sure as hell wouldn't want that.

So why is it dated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. I'm Russian
I was six when I got to the United States. Are you really concerned about all those KGB pre-schoolers?

I'm all for a residency requirement, even for natural-born citizens (If someone was born in the U.S. and lived their whole life in Peru, they have no business being President) and that could take the form of a fixed number of years or a percentage of one's life or a combination of the two. Moreover, ultimately, the person in question has to be chosen by the people of this country over all of the other contenders. It's quite a significant check against potential dual loyalties. However, making a group of citizens second-class by denying them the opportunity to hold the nation's highest office is simply unjust and xenophobic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emboldened Chimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. I don't think it's treating people as second class citizens
Really, how many people actually get to be president? There have been 43 so far. How many millions, if not billions, have lived in this country since it's inception?

Presidents are a class unto themselves, unfortunately. Many times the people who run are products of the powers that be, with exceptions of course. If you allow foreign interests to infiltrate our government (i.e. foreign powers that be), then the interests of foreign business and/or governments will create laws that benefit them, not us or ours.

Let's be practical, not idealistic. I think we get the impression that anybody can grow up to be president. The reality is much different (our current president, born into wealth and power, for example, not someone who worked his way up, like our previous president--an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.)

Sadly, it's a rigged system. Allowing foreign-born presidents into office might allow foreign governments to rig our country into their favor. Personally, I wouldn't want that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Anybody CAN grow up to be President
Well, any natural-born citizen. What money was Clinton born into? Andrew Johnson was born poor, so was Andrew Jackson (he later gained wealth through a rich uncle after being orphaned at 14). Lincoln was middle classed; the son of a carpenter. Jimmy Carter wasn't particularly wealthy.

Many of today's wealthiest people are entirely self-made. Why should an accident of birth dictate how high they can reach or limit the choices of the American voter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emboldened Chimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. How many presidents were NOT white men?
Of course, none. So, not even every natural-born citizen is eligible, at least at a socially accepted level. I believe this will change soon; it better, at any rate. But even with the rules we have now, not everyone has an equal footing in becoming president. Like I said, it's a rigged game.

I believe I wasn't clear above: Clinton was indeed born poor. I was referring to Bush. Sorry that wasn't explicit.

Kennedy wasn't self-made; neither were both Bushes; Jefferson was born into a rich family, too. Well, I guess we can both cite examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. So, because certain groups that are legally eligible
to be president haven't had one of their own in office yet, that's a reason to legally exclude another group from even having the opportunity? Where is the logic in that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxi Driver Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
42. "God forbid, France"?
Why not France? What's wrong with France? Don't tell me that you believe the FAUX propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. What may have been prudent then is sheer bigotry now
Sorry, but I choose not to belong to the "all immigrants are disloyal" camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. How lame. Democrats like you are why Democrats lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. You're way off base here, Jim
Take it from somebody that has a pretty good idea of why Dems lose. It's not because of people like Dolstein. The hatch Amendment will fail. It's like proposing desegregation in 1910. It's the right idea but it's time has not come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxi Driver Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. I sort of agree.
If I ask myself the question, "Would I support it if this Arnold fiasco had never happened," I answer YES. Yeah, the principle is OK; but it's obviously done just so Arnold can run in '08. Who else would run? Jeb Bush? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. I'm right with you.
Good idea generally. But we all know what thier next move is if we let them make this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. There are MANY foreign-born citizens
who, potentially, could run and would be more than acceptable even to DUers. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Arnold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Buck up, Dolstein
I'm with you 100% on this one. I've been arguing for this kind of amendment for decades but, thanks to the xenophobia that you see in this thread and in the poll thread (among supposed "progressives") I fear that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Here's an example for all of you to ponder. Two foreign women are heading to the United States, one by plane and one by ship. Both are pregnant.

The woman in the plane goes into labor just as the plane is landing and winds up giving birth in Boston. As soon as she and her baby are able, they catch a flight and continue on their trip to their final destination of Argentina, where they live.

The woman on the boat goes into labor 200 miles Outside of New York harbor and gives birth in the ship's infirmary. A few hours later she and her child arrive in New York, where they settle as legal immigrants.

In 50 years the first child makes his first trip from Argentina to the United States. He does not speak English and is not familiar with American culture, society, history or government. However, due to the fact that he was born in the United States he is a citizen who is eligible to run for President.

At the same time, the second child, who has lived in the United States his whole life, has raised an American family, has received an American education, has paid taxes in the United States and is in every way an American is also a citizen (naturalized) but is not eligible to be President.

Is this just?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donotpassgo Donating Member (867 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
11. If this happens...I hope we go Watts in D.C.
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 06:22 PM by donotpassgo
riots, not J.C. There are a lot of conservatives that thinks this is ludicrous as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. How unAmerican can Orrin Hatch get?
the man is a looney tune

messing with our Constitution like that

as mentioned, our FF knew exactly what they were doing here

I could get all religious and say: enter the anti-Christ ... but, I don't want to go overboard
:eyes:

hands off Orrin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. Some where in Michoacan, Mexico
the president of the United States year 2035 is being born.

You can't ignore demographics.

Watch the Arnold bill bite them in the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
22. kick
for Presidents Schwarzenegger, Murdoch, and Moon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djg21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
30. I thought that . . .
Dean was the "Manchurian Candidate." No I've seen it all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piperay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
32. That is so RIDICULOUS
what kind of idiot would waste time trying to do something like that, oh yeah, a repukelican would. The groper hasn't even taken office and they have no idea what he will do, they are totally "whacked out"! :freak: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Yes, god forbid anyone waste their time
trying to address bigotry and xenophobia in the Constitution. He must be doing it to score political points. What's that you say? His amendment is likely to be wildly unpopular among his conservative voting base (and the liberals in his constituency as well, apparently)?

Well, then, he must have another agenda. I know! He's doing it so that a pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay rights Austrian who is well to the left of him on nearly every domestic issue can one day be President. Yeah, that's it. That sneaky Republican!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. For that matter, Bu$h was to the left of Hatch on nearly every issue
BEFORE the election.

There is a very good reason why the Republicans wanted all Reps. except Arnold to drop out. The man is dumb and manipulable. It doesn't matter what platitudes he mouths, what matters is how his manipulators move their hands up his butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Do you have any evidence whatsoever
for the proposition that Arnold is "dumb and manipulable" (sic) (I'm no spelling watchdog but I'm always amused when someone accuses a person of being dumb using a word they can't manage to type out)?

I mean outside of thefact that he is a foreigner, has big muscles and speaks with an accent, that is. I wouldn't want to think of you as xenophobic or anything. I mean, you must have a reason for saying that a man who was a millionaire with his own business before his 30th birthday and before he made a single movie is dumb. Right?

Oh, and would you like to tell me what issues Bush was to the left of Hatch on? Was he pro-choice? Anti-death penalty? Pro-gay rights? I'm sure that you can fill me in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
43. Nixon, Reagan ...
yep, we have California to thank for them and now maybe Schwartzenegger, too. Time to move to Canada
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
45. Is this really for Arnold?
This whole deal seems like a bait-and-switch. It's one thing for Arnold to win in California. He was able to take advantage of the unpopularity of Gray Davis, and his fairly liberal views most likely helped him with moderate voters. But does anyone honestly believe that the voters in the south would ever vote for Arnold--a moderate Republican who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights? Never. I think that they have someone else waiting in the wings if this amendment were to actually be ratified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-09-03 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
46. They must be mad.
I hope for California's sake that he won't be too bad, and that he might even do some good (but I doubt it).

But come on - they got all upset and lathered up over Clinton's penis - investigated the hell out it, the damn cocksniffers - what are they going to do when Arnie's films surface? There's already that picture of him all googled-eyed with his face in some woman's titties. Why doesn't this make a difference to them?

I think they're all crazy. C=MI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
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 Sun May 05th 2024, 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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