Arnold has been shown to be a man who can change his opinions when the situation demands; he is gracious; he is as much or more, it seems, a Democrat than a Republican. But I believe the Republicans would nevertheless turn out a significant vote for the terminator even if he ran on our ticket--he's no girly boy, after all and he does hold some conservative values which have eluded their party, to date.
Objections, anyone? Do I hear that a President must be born in the U.S. of A.? Well, try this on for size. Arnold is a religious fellow, he states. Why not, then, if he believes in the evangelical movement, become born again. If he did so, he would be reborn here, on our soil, thus fulfilling that requirement for a Presidential candidate. If a protest case were made in court, would a judge, dare say that to be reborn is merely symbolic and has no other meaning? I truly doubt they would, for to be reborn means more than that, as we know. It is literal and judges, if pushed to renounce the religious beliefs of at least 30 million citizens, would not do so, in my opinion.
But if a judge did, and the case were appealed up to the Supremes, considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court, I fully believe that at least a 5-4 ruling would occur, and that in religion's favor. And considering further the dislike of much of the populace toward, say, groups like the ACLU, and considering the Christian make-up of the nation, such a ruling on the validity of the born again issue would be very popular.
Finally, why did I bring up the matter of a candidate's age, as mentioned above? That is to refute any argument that the date Arnold is reborn should be viewed as his actual birthdate and he is therefore too young to run for the Presidency.
Let's go and get Arnold, a man we all like, a man who has compassion for all and more muscles than Teddy, Harry Reid, Johns Kerry and Edwards, Obama and even Howard Dean combined.
And despite your machinations, he is not Constitutionally eligible, and I think the vote against him would be 9-0 - The Constitutional requirement is Natural born. Being "born again" would not meet that requirement, and I sincerely doubt that he would abandon his Catholicism, even if it did - He is not the modern day equivalent of Henry of Navarre, who went the other way: Paris is worth a mass.
Thanks for the comic relief. While we're at it, how about we annex Canada so Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who was born in British Columbia, can run for President?
Haha, it's a JOKE, people! LOL
The Nation author Jeremy Scahill says he also has quiet ties to Blackwater, which wants a lucrative disaster response contract and a training camp in So. California. Arnold is, in short, not all he purports to be. So, you can understand why, until the "reborn" part, I started to believe you, at least partly. And , it was a scary thought.
As for KathyinBlacksburg, I am fully satisfied, in my mind at least, that Gray Davis took an unfair hit for the connivances of Enron's criminals. Too bad it was so much later that the news of their activities came out. Davis, if I remember correctly, was totally trashed for spending beaucoup dollars for education and medical bills of illegals who also used California hospitals for emergency visits. In fact, was not Davis forced by law (or a gov't order) to allow this? He could not refuse. Then, when the gov't reimbursed little or no moneys, the Cal. coffers went bust. Am I correct, or is my memory faulty?
Further, and in the spirit of meanness, and this is something I can't prove, but I've often wondered how many of the Enron employees were laughing and trashing Californians as their Enron stock holdings went up and up and their retirement holdings grew under the auspices of their lying guru, "Kenny Boy" Lay. Rush was doing that trash talk ALL the time on radio, badmouthing Davis and the "left- coast pinkos, tree-huggers," and Hollywoodites in general for crying and whining over energy costs. I heard it every time I tuned my car radio to his program. Of course, we didn't know at that time that Enron was manipulating the energy pipeline to drive prices up and up, or totally withholding energy, at times. There was no shortage, as it later turned out, only rampant criminal manipulation. Are they laughing now?
Finally, to speculate a little more. Isn't it odd that the "smartest guys in the room" seemed to achieve success only through criminal means (in Enron). How about through seemingly unconstitutional means or totally immoral means (think Karl Rove). Why couldn't the bright young men in Enron be successful within the law? Why did their success only lie, finally, through criminal manipulation, fraud, cooking the books? Were they really the brightest guys if they had to resort to baseness?
As for Rove's success (at least, up till now), isn't it noteworthy that his so-called brilliantly successful activities also totally depended on superiors willing to allow the dirtiest tricks imaginable (McCain in S.C.), shading the fringe areas of our Constitution, and supporting every immoral activity that no President with any decent instincts would contemplate. Could Rove haave achieved success under Goldwater, Humphrey, Stevenson, or the like? As I've said before in another diary, lucky for this bunch we don't lose a war, because a Nuremburg would surely await them.
I think Arnold would make a fantastic Child Fitness Czar like he was years ago. I'd even give him a patch with the presidential seal to put on his training suit.
He belongs in a gym, not the oval office ;-)