Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing?

[Nym90]

I doubt that it would pass. Most Dems would probably not go along with it, since it would primarily benefit the Republicans at this point in time. However, long term, the effects would probably balance out, so this is not really a good reason to oppose it. As I said on another thread, it would open the door for Gov. Granholm to be on a future Dem ticket. I personally believe that she would be a great candidate.
That being said, I would support the Amendment. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to vote for anyone they want to for President or for Congress. There should be no law barring anyone from running, whether on the basis of where they were born, their age, or their citizenship status. I think that the American people are smart enough to decide for themselves whether or not someone is worthy of being elected. I oppose term limits for the President or the Congress on the same principle.

[Nym90]

I doubt that Schwarzenegger could get the GOP nomination for president though. I think his liberal positions on social issues would hurt him. His governorship would have to be viewed as an absolute smashing success in order for him to have any kind of a realistic chance. Otherwise I think there would be a lot of conservative opposition to him. I think that even in California, where the religious right does not really have all that much power compared to most of the rest of the country, he would have had a hard time winning the nomination over McClintock in a GOP primary.

[Nym90]

I disagree that most Republicans are moderate. I think that over time the conservative wing of the GOP, especially the "Neocons" or New Right, have been steadily taking over the party. But, surely there are still enough moderates left in the party to make a key constituency in a GOP primary. It just doesn't seem to me that the Neocons would be willing to tolerate a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action, pro-gun control nominee. I think many in the GOP base would only would be willing to consider Arnold or someone like him if they thought he was their only possible chance to win the White House.

[Nym90]

I agree that if the only purpose of amending the Constitution is to allow Arnold to run, that's obviously a very bad reason to mess around with it. However, I personally agree with the basic principles of the amendment, and one never knows how the political implications will ultimately play out. Term limits for the President were pushed mainly by Republicans after Franklin Roosevelt won 4 terms, but then it ended up hurting them with Eisenhower and Reagan, and not until Clinton did it finally play to the GOP's favor. Likewise, the idea of term limits for members of Congress is a lot less attractive to Republicans now that they are in the majority then they were in 1994 when they were the minority.

[Nym90]

I agree that there could be potential conflicts with the President's original country of origin, but I would trust that the American people could decide for themselves if this would be enough of a problem to stop the person from being elected. The same objections were raised when Kennedy ran for President, the fear that perhaps he would have more loyalty to the Catholic church than he would to America, and that the Pope would effectively be wielding the power of the Presidency and be commanding Kennedy. As I see it, the bottom line is that we should trust the people to elect whomever they want. Also, I agree with Migrendel that it is discriminatory against immigrants to not allow them to be elected President.

[Nym90]

Yeah, I agree that removing term limits on the President would be a better idea. Of course, you'd have the same problem trying to pass that, as Dems would probably oppose it right now, and Republicans would have opposed it when Clinton was in office.
It is fun, though, to speculate about what would have happened if Presidents had been allowed to run for 3rd terms. Would the 3rd term have been an issue? It was a big issue against FDR in 1940, even with the War going on. Now, once the sacred tradition of "No 3rd term" had been broken, maybe it wouldn't have been so much of an issue for Eisenhower or anyone else. It's hard to say how much of an impact that would have had. But, assuming it wasn't a huge factor, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton probably all would have been reelected. Although perhaps Reagan wouldn't have run anyway in 1988 since he was 77 years old. Eisenhower vs. Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton vs. Bush in 2000, though, both would have been great matchups.

[Nym90]

All good points Ryan, and well stated. However, I disagree that Dean would be DEFINITELY (the caps were yours there, not mine) be viewed as a weak and not "tough". In my view, diplomacy, coalition-building, and respect for the views of our allies are signs of strength, not weakness. However, that is an entirely different thread, of course, and I realize you disagree with my views of what is considered strong or weak...but I just felt it necessary to quibble with your view that he would definitely be perceived as weak. It is definitely a matter of debate as to what international perception of Dean would be, not at all a certainty.

[Nym90]

Apology accepted. Fortunately we are all educated, intelligent, civil people here, and while we have very different views hopefully we can all respect each other's viewpoints and try to restrict our arguments to those of logic and reason.
I wasn't trying to be nitpicky, nor did I even have a problem with interjecting your personal views into the debate, I was merely trying to point out what I saw as a potentially factual error regarding how Dean would be perceived.