Nan for President ’08!
Just kidding. It turns out I’m short about 300 million dollars, a career in politics, an on-camera personality, the skills and knowledge needed for international diplomacy, and a Karl Rove-like mastermind at my side (so is President Bush–well, he has Karl Rove and 300 million bucks, but that’s not the point).
Also stopping me–and The Terminator–is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. How is this ban still in place? Even if there is a major push to amend the Constitution, do you honestly think it could pass with the required two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states?
I want justice (and power).
posted by The Decider @ 1:46 PM
12 Comments:
I'm all for the amendment. And I don't have anything against immigrants. But I find it suspicious that it comes to us when it does (this is the part where Alex posts and tells me that, actually, it was proposed before in 2001 by a Democrat) conveniently serving the purposes of the Republican party, which is already masterminding a hold of the White House beyond 2008. I just can't understand why a party, which otherwise enjoys stripping rights from people who are different from them (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-07-rove-interview_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA), would support something like this unless it was so they could put up one very particular candidate who could win them the next election.
I know that this is a highly cynical perspective--that I should remember that Republicans are human and realize it would just be "unamerican" to continue with this requirement--but I just can't figure them out: are they for giving us freedoms or taking away civil liberties? I'm going to go with "they're for whatever serves their purposes best during whichever minute of the day they're in." Something tells me that if it were the Democrats who had a foreign-born stunner set to run away with some red states in 2008 we'd be hearing from Orrin Hatch that we need to preserve the integrity of the office and the constitution by keeping America's leader an American.
I should at least be happy that, regardless of the reason, it looks like progress is on the horizon.
First let me say that I'd heartily endorse you for high office in 2020. I'm only three letters removed from "the architect" as it is, so maybe the mojo's there. We can work on the rest in the meantime.
Now let me introduce another foreign-born reason I'd support an end to the ban: Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. Having heard her speak back when she was the attorney general and having lived in Michigan during her rise to the governorship, it's clear to me that she has what it takes for the big job, if she were ever eligible to hold it.
I don't know about her...she is Canadian. An Argentinian would be ok, but you can't trust those Canucks. Before you know it, hockey would become our national pasttime with her in charge. At least the only implications of an Argentine president would be more steak at state dinners.
...and soccer (fulbo!) as the national sport...and mate as the national drink, and looooong vacations...and a revolution every couple of years...and lots of hugz & kizzez...
and deep financial crises, upswings, extreme wealth and then poverty, all in one day, and ...my son would be PRESIDENT!! SO cool...
GB
I'm for all of the things Guille listed (except futbol as the national pasttime).
As far as adding laws, changing the constitution and other variations of making “legal” what otherwise would never be, the Republicans are experts at changing the rules when the rules do not accommodate their intent. See their attempt to changing the rules for filibustering trying to prevent the Democrats' opposition to their proposed appointments.
Regarding who could be sitting in the Oval Office, I fully endorse the idea of Jennifer Granholm for president. Though I never had the chance to judge her campaigning and as governor, I saw her a couple of times on talk shows and she impressed me quite a bit. In my opinion however, we have a long way before we elect a woman as president. Somehow, I see a Constitution amendment allowing foreigners to run, sooner than letting a woman be named Commander in Chief. - Though I’m sure you wander who can possibly not support C. J. Craig for president!
So for now, unless Condoleezza decides to do it, Hillary should just sit tight and not hold her breath.
Oops! That was Mom/Nora who forgot to sign the previous comment.
Last night I watched The Daily Show and Stewart showed a commercial promoting a website, I think it was arnoldforpresident.com or something like that, saying that the constitution should be ammended to allow naturalized citizens to run for president. The commercial said something like 'Arnold and 12 millions Americans' should have that right (Americans was underlined). The woman also said that the constitution was ammended every eight years in the past century, so Stewart said that it should be ammended because..it's about time. Having failed to ammend it to ban gay marriage and flag burning, maybe this one will have a chance to pass. Go for it, Nan!
I, for one, hate Ohio....isn't that what we're talking about?
oh yeah, I also hate man-love because this election taught me to hate everyone different from me. I give up...I am now part of the conservative right...I'm going to punch the first sinner I see....
btw, I think we should allow non-US born citizens to run for president...who would be dumb enough to elect an actor from California....hahahaha...oh wait....
Oh no! A Canadian as a US president?!?! We might see such crazy things as a prodcutive health care system (gasp) or even equal rights for all people, regardless of race, gender or sexuality (yikes!).
If you're going to make jokes about my homeland (and all are welcome), they should at least be original and educated. Can you name 4 provinces? The capital of Canada? The PM (do you know what a PM is?)? Or sing the national anthem? It's amazing what isn't taught in the US - has anyone noticed that on many weather maps shown on TV, the weather suddenly stops at the Canadian border (if they even show there is a country up there)?
Don't get me wrong, I love the US - for many reasons. But my heart belongs to those crazy canucks.
I will say, though, that I miss my huskies and igloo. That and you can't get a good piece of whale blubber anywhere!
Amy
Yes, the weather ends at the US border and that is a shame: if they showed the whole continent in the weather maps, it would be almost trivial to figure out the weather forecast in the US. Like one weatherman said once on TV, it's good to know what happens in Canada because ultimately whatever weather they have comes down to US because of gravity.
The GB
I don't know where to post this, but I think this thread is as good as any...the Oberlin News-Tribune reports that there were 5112 ballots cast in Oberlin. Of those, 81.1% went to Kerry. Issue 1 only got 19.2% for yes. However, Oberlin is still in Ohio, and the numbers turned around substantially in New Russia township.
Post a Comment
<< Home