a) the natural born citizen law is at this point worthless and arguably holding back individuals who had no choice in not being born here yet are arguably better at leading this country than the career politicians who have been takning it down the tubes for the past 16 years.
And, again, in
principle I would agree-- but Arnold has yet to show himself TO BE that "better leader".
That's my point. Given that
he's the one spearheading this initiative (along with the Repubs), I think that he should be judged on HIS MERITS as a viable/non-viable candidate
before we go about amending our core political document. Like I said, if there was a legitimate, viable foreign-born candidate out there who earnestly desired the presidency, then I'd say we'd have to at the very least give a Constitutional amendment serious consideration. Hell, even if Arnold wasn't in the picture AT ALL, and this issue were just raised as an issue of fairness and non-discrimination IN GENERAL, I'd likely get behin it (think:
why wasn't it raised prior to Ahnuld's bitching if it's so "unjust"? Think there aren't other capable, foreign-born public servants who have put YEARS into the system who wouldn't have liked that opportunity? But no, let's change it for Ahnuld since he's now a lock for the candidacy due to his celebrity).
For this point, the change that is being proposed is considerably more important than why the change is being proposed
I disagree; I actually believe the opposite. If we were doing it for the right reasons, then fine. But we wouldn't be. We'd be doing it to serve the short-sighted interests of the Republican party, who know full well that Ahnuld would be a shoe-in, or at least the strongest candidate they can throw out there-- and that's SOLELY DUE TO HIS STATUS. Not his abilities...not his policies...not his dedication (
none of which could have been proven in < 2 years)-- just his fame. I mean, seriously, what do you think, the Republicans just
happened to have an epiphany about discriminating against foreign-born citizens at the same time that a monstrously famous person is kvetching about it? :lol It's all about expediency, dude, not "principles".
Hell, I would be satisfied if as some are saying in this thread, the ammedment pass but given a mandatory 25 year waiting period before going into effect.
So would I, after a candid and open public discussion on the issues. I take no issue with the
principle of it at all, though one can quibble. But at least then, with a 25 year delay, we would be eliminating the self-serving nature of it (both Ahnuld and the Repubs are using this issue for selfish gain). And make no mistake, it takes a
bold and presumptuous man to assert that we should amend the freaking CONSTITUTION so that he-- a man of less than 2 years political experience-- can run for president. A decent man-- a sensible man-- knows his limits, and realizes his place; like I said, if he had been governor for 2 terms I'd think about it, but as it stands, it alternately amuses and saddens me. Arnold's lack of propriety amuses me, while the fact that about half our population would buy into it if he ran for office saddens me.
b) You said it yourself, you have no basis to speak on of Arnold's actual policies or record. You are just as guilty for bashing him without knowledge of his short political career as those who elected him based on his popularity. You are doing the same thing they did.
False. I am "bashing" the situation, not Arnold (or his policies). I am only bashing Arnold insofar as he is using his status to effect self-serving change at the expense of the good of the nation. A proper and sane person would say to themselves, "hey, you know what? I have less than two years TOTAL political experience, and even THAT was won based on my fame; I'd better put my time in, at least for a while-- I sure as shit don't know how to run a nation-- I'm the Terminator, after all." But Ahnuld isn't saying that-- he's being selfish and has found a willing ally in the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, who realize that it'd be a perfect fit for them in '08, so they can further their agenda.
I mean, Jesus Christ-- do we hear any OTHER first-time governors (governors for whom the governorship is the FIRST political experience they have, which is quite rare) talking about running for office before they complete their second year as governor? No, we don't. Let me know why you think that is and then we'll talk.
Yes, but not because I necessarily want Arnold as president but because no one ever brought it up before and just left status quo.
If Ahnuld was still just "The Terminator", and didn't have designs on the presidency, then I'd be applauding him for taking a principled stand on a contentious issue. It's very likely that such an amendment is long overdue. But he's clearly
not taking a principled stand, merely one of self-interest. And the people using his push for an amendment (Repubs) in order to maintain their party's power are no better. It's myopic and foolish of all of them to be pursuing this so vigorously.
I also think you need to lay off attacking him as a politician if you have nothing to contribute to conversation on his political career.
I'm not attacking him as a politican AT ALL, though. Like I said, I have NO IDEA about his policies. All I'm saying is that A) his "policies" (or general political acumen-- however you'd like to frame it) had
no bearing on his election. He was an insubstantial candidate, and nearly every publication panned him because of it. Yet he got elected; why do you think that is? He could very well be a GREAT politician who institutes GREAT policy-- doesn't mean he should be so presumptuous as to suggest that he wants to be president of the US
right now, though. Pay your dues, learn the system, learn how to
use the system effectively and how to work with people on both sides of the aisle to effect positive change-- THESE are the skills a politician needs to learn
prior to attaining office, not
while they're in office. The last person to try to learn these skills while "on the job" was...well, he's in the White House now, and look where it's gotten us. We should be searching for great statesmen to lead us, not hollow, glamorized celebrities who don't seem to know their place. Foreign-born or not.
I mean, you're attacking me for saying these things, while the lack of political experience for John Edwards (< 12 years, iirc, but still oodles more than the Governator) was a CONSTANT focal point during the campaigns-- and he was seeking only the VICE presidency. So
that was a big issue, and yet all of a sudden we're not supposed to bat an eye when a person who got elected SOLELY due to their status and has less than 2 years of political experience under their belt intimates their desire to run for the most powerful office in the world? Further, we're supposed to HELP THIS PERSON ALONG by amending our core governing document, which is something we are not currently considering on
principle, but merely due to expediency, and which is something that was not done (or even proposed) for numerous other MORE WORTHY foreign-born politicians in the past. Nonsense.
at this point you are sounding as naive as the "sheep" you accuse of voting for him. the difference is they voted for him because he was a star and you choose to baselessly criticize him because he was a star.
I'm far from naive. And I'm not criticizing him "because he's a star"-- I'm criticizing him because he has the gall to NOT REALIZE HIS PLACE; that is, to not recognize the fact that he was catapulted into the governorship solely due to his celebrity status, and realize that he should learn the business of politics and serve his nation
before he goes shooting his mouth off about amending the Constitution for a run (and a
guaranteed RNC nomination) in '08. Nobody else has the balls to suggest such things, and that's because other people are sensible. Sensible men know their place. Like I said, if this were midway through his
second term as governor, I would not be as vocal in my criticism. But it's not, so I am. I don't think that insolence, recklessness, and a callous disregard for the time-tested (and necessary, due to the realities of the job) process of becoming a presidential candidate (hint: it's never been "2 years of total political experience and start talking candidacy") are really the sort of qualities we should be looking for in a person we are considering either amending the Constitution for, or voting for for president. Sorry.
I have exams this week, so that's the last post I'll be making. I'll let my opinions on this matter stand.
