Congratulations to George W. Bush - Time's Person of the Year
- Thread starter Indy_SIG
- Start date
Indy_SIG,
I'm in my late 40s; I've been studying and watching this sort of thing roll over for three decades. The familiar propaganda, patterns and activity here are easy to read when you learn the political language of the change agents. They get temporarily stumped now and then, but they pretty much get their way, one way or the other - sooner or later. Predictably, the mock opposition doesn't put up much of a fight.
gburner,
Merry Christmas to you too. It is going to be an interesting four years I am sure.
I'm in my late 40s; I've been studying and watching this sort of thing roll over for three decades. The familiar propaganda, patterns and activity here are easy to read when you learn the political language of the change agents. They get temporarily stumped now and then, but they pretty much get their way, one way or the other - sooner or later. Predictably, the mock opposition doesn't put up much of a fight.
gburner,
Merry Christmas to you too. It is going to be an interesting four years I am sure.
gburner, that was one hell of an analysis. Amendments to the Constitution don't happen over a matter of years, but decades.
Arnold gave a great speech at the Republican convention.
I think that some country-club Republican's reaction to that speech was knee-jerk: let's amend the Constitution so Ahrnuld can run.
But try running Ahrnuld in the Bible Belt states, or the heavily pro-gun states. He'd flame out faster than John McCain.
Schwarzenegger may have left a socialist country, but you can't take the socialist out of the boy.
He's a RINO, a socialist at heart, and has demonstrated that he's a gun-grabber.
Bear in mind all the news media talk when Clint Eastwood ran for mayor in his town, and won. He showed the world that he was concerned about a single issue: Clint Eastwood.
Arnold gave a great speech at the Republican convention.
I think that some country-club Republican's reaction to that speech was knee-jerk: let's amend the Constitution so Ahrnuld can run.
But try running Ahrnuld in the Bible Belt states, or the heavily pro-gun states. He'd flame out faster than John McCain.
Schwarzenegger may have left a socialist country, but you can't take the socialist out of the boy.
He's a RINO, a socialist at heart, and has demonstrated that he's a gun-grabber.
Bear in mind all the news media talk when Clint Eastwood ran for mayor in his town, and won. He showed the world that he was concerned about a single issue: Clint Eastwood.
freedumblover
Inactive
well said, LAK
IZinterrogator
New member
I fear the day that they amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run for President. Can anyone imagine George Soros as president? 
He would try to buy another election, but this time it would be his own. :barf:
As for Arnold's political prowess, he had two real competitors. Both were to blame for the problems in California. It wasn't much of a choice.
BTW, if I was still registered to vote in CA, I would have voted for Gallagher.
He would try to buy another election, but this time it would be his own. :barf: As for Arnold's political prowess, he had two real competitors. Both were to blame for the problems in California. It wasn't much of a choice.
BTW, if I was still registered to vote in CA, I would have voted for Gallagher.
rolling thunder
New member
Kudos for W!
Some past winners:
1927 Charles Lindberg
1930 Mohandas Gandhi
1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek
1940, 1949 Winston Churchill
1943 George C Marshall
1944 Dwight Eisenhower
1950 American Fighting-Man
1962 Pope John XXIII
1963 Martin Luther King Jr.
1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell
1969 The Middle Americans
1980 Ronald Reagan
1981 Lech Walesa
2003 The American Soldier
You forgot one. In 1945 Hitler graced the cover as man of the year. Gulliani (SP?) Osama and Saddam were the runners up for this one. It was clearly a political/business decision. Had they put saddam or osama's mug on the cover in this day and age people would stop reading Time, and they knew that. Same as nominating the American soldier. Purely taking advantage of the current climate to up the sales of their rag. hardly much of an honor so much as making a PC decision.
Some past winners:
1927 Charles Lindberg
1930 Mohandas Gandhi
1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek
1940, 1949 Winston Churchill
1943 George C Marshall
1944 Dwight Eisenhower
1950 American Fighting-Man
1962 Pope John XXIII
1963 Martin Luther King Jr.
1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell
1969 The Middle Americans
1980 Ronald Reagan
1981 Lech Walesa
2003 The American Soldier
You forgot one. In 1945 Hitler graced the cover as man of the year. Gulliani (SP?) Osama and Saddam were the runners up for this one. It was clearly a political/business decision. Had they put saddam or osama's mug on the cover in this day and age people would stop reading Time, and they knew that. Same as nominating the American soldier. Purely taking advantage of the current climate to up the sales of their rag. hardly much of an honor so much as making a PC decision.
MeekAndMild
New member
No Rolling, I didn't forget anything. Hkmp5sd already listed that one and a couple of others. I'll post my posts and you post yours, OK?
The confidence of those who think that an amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to hold the Office of the President is not very convincing in the light of the first term of George W Bush, and times (like now) when the "republican" party has held majority in Congress.
If you asked many who call themselves conservatives why George didn't put the brakes on cross-border traffic, illegal aliens and immigration right after the infamous September 11 when it was an imperative, the stock excuse was on the lines of "He doesn't want to upset the hispanic vote". He was "playing his cards" for election to a second term.
The same stock answer was applied to every major issue where a conservative approach would have been the immediate and decisive demolition of much of the socialist programs and spending that the "democrats" firmly support, and key areas that blatantly compromized national security in the light of our vulnerabilities. But; "We don't want to upset the moderates" or "appear partisan". Those "undecided voters" are at stake.
Same excuse has been fielded for action to dismantle unconstitutional firearms legislation at Federal level.
To be "partisan" - accompanied by action - might "alienate" many voters. Compromize is "the way to go".
The last election came and went, and the "republicans" once more hold the WH and a majority in the Legislature. Action? Oh yes; plenty. More spending, the creation of more huge bureacracies, budgets, and a continuation of where we have been driven as before. No change, and the focus of attention is on the so-called "war on terror". And of course that wonderful "Patriot" Act, and a second, which were passed with "republican" and "democrat" votes in Congress. The sort of stuff Bill Clinton's dreams were made of.
This is how it works.
In light of this, I'd like to know just how many "conservatives" are going to "see through" a measure to allow people such as Arnold to hold the Office of the President. And even if a majority do - just what is going to suddenly motivate the "republicans" in Congress and George Bush to block it when they have been impotent on everything else that matters?
If those geldings in Congress, and George Bush (who can not be called "conservative" in any true sense of the word), continue to ride this agenda, are they going to suddenly "alienate the moderates"? "Upset the immigrant votes"? Risk being called "partisan"? When the chance comes to "put another republican in the WH" at the next election" in 2008?
Certainly. When pigs fly.
If you asked many who call themselves conservatives why George didn't put the brakes on cross-border traffic, illegal aliens and immigration right after the infamous September 11 when it was an imperative, the stock excuse was on the lines of "He doesn't want to upset the hispanic vote". He was "playing his cards" for election to a second term.
The same stock answer was applied to every major issue where a conservative approach would have been the immediate and decisive demolition of much of the socialist programs and spending that the "democrats" firmly support, and key areas that blatantly compromized national security in the light of our vulnerabilities. But; "We don't want to upset the moderates" or "appear partisan". Those "undecided voters" are at stake.
Same excuse has been fielded for action to dismantle unconstitutional firearms legislation at Federal level.
To be "partisan" - accompanied by action - might "alienate" many voters. Compromize is "the way to go".
The last election came and went, and the "republicans" once more hold the WH and a majority in the Legislature. Action? Oh yes; plenty. More spending, the creation of more huge bureacracies, budgets, and a continuation of where we have been driven as before. No change, and the focus of attention is on the so-called "war on terror". And of course that wonderful "Patriot" Act, and a second, which were passed with "republican" and "democrat" votes in Congress. The sort of stuff Bill Clinton's dreams were made of.
This is how it works.
In light of this, I'd like to know just how many "conservatives" are going to "see through" a measure to allow people such as Arnold to hold the Office of the President. And even if a majority do - just what is going to suddenly motivate the "republicans" in Congress and George Bush to block it when they have been impotent on everything else that matters?
If those geldings in Congress, and George Bush (who can not be called "conservative" in any true sense of the word), continue to ride this agenda, are they going to suddenly "alienate the moderates"? "Upset the immigrant votes"? Risk being called "partisan"? When the chance comes to "put another republican in the WH" at the next election" in 2008?
Certainly. When pigs fly.
All of what you say has little, if anything, to do with the original proposition. The prospect of allowing a naturalized American to run for President will not be considered in the light of the relative success or failure of the current administration. If we follow your 'logic' re. your allegations of both parties ignoring national security, playing to special interests, voting blocs, etc. then there isn't a dimes worth of difference between what we have now and what we would have with Ahnuld, who would surely be in the pocket of those who bankrolled the amendment to allow him to run. Americans will see through it? You're damned right they will. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and even I can tell that it smells of BS.
Again, you are completely ignoring the fact that that there is no overwhelming historical, social or moral driving force to make this happen; just a couple of rich folk who want to steal the govenment to do their bidding. Naturalized citizens can't run for the Presidency? So what? Too bad! Does that make them 'second class' citizens? Nope. Its a stipulation that the FF's found important enough to codify and that's all I need to know. This is as transparent as FDR trying to 'stack the court' in order to get his political way and will be treated as such.
If you are looking for a change agent to massively impact the way that things are done in Washington, that person or those people can be readily found within the ranks of the citizenry who are already eligible to run for office. That fact, combined with the need to return this country to operating under the Constitution as written by the FF's, would do more to benefit us all than any ill considered, ego driven amendment ever would.
Ahnuld is a clown, the punchline to a joke no one told, the answer to a question that no one asked. He was USED by the republicans at their convention strictly to increase ratings; because of his star power, not because he was, is or will be a serious player. If he had delivered California for Bush then it might be a different story...but he couldn't even do that. He is less than marginal and the folks pushing this proposed amendment are delusional.
Again, you are completely ignoring the fact that that there is no overwhelming historical, social or moral driving force to make this happen; just a couple of rich folk who want to steal the govenment to do their bidding. Naturalized citizens can't run for the Presidency? So what? Too bad! Does that make them 'second class' citizens? Nope. Its a stipulation that the FF's found important enough to codify and that's all I need to know. This is as transparent as FDR trying to 'stack the court' in order to get his political way and will be treated as such.
If you are looking for a change agent to massively impact the way that things are done in Washington, that person or those people can be readily found within the ranks of the citizenry who are already eligible to run for office. That fact, combined with the need to return this country to operating under the Constitution as written by the FF's, would do more to benefit us all than any ill considered, ego driven amendment ever would.
Ahnuld is a clown, the punchline to a joke no one told, the answer to a question that no one asked. He was USED by the republicans at their convention strictly to increase ratings; because of his star power, not because he was, is or will be a serious player. If he had delivered California for Bush then it might be a different story...but he couldn't even do that. He is less than marginal and the folks pushing this proposed amendment are delusional.
rolling thunder
New member
I'll post my posts and you post yours, OK?
OOOOps. My clumsy apoligies. I should not have tried to play catch up. I was making the point that much of it is commercial PC.
OOOOps. My clumsy apoligies. I should not have tried to play catch up. I was making the point that much of it is commercial PC.
gburner
The point is, most "republicans" have swallowed whole things like open borders. It is the broad acceptence of such things that is significant. Not subjective arguements as to whether they are "failures" weighed against "successes" of the Bush administration. It is fitting therefore that George Bush was selected by Time magazine to grace their cover; he truly is their man. And those who have accepted all these things with hardly a whimper are not going to start stomping their feet if a "republican" dominated Congress were to pass an amendment allowing people such as Arnold to enter the WH a couple of years down the road. After all, they'll say; "Well, Bush isn't perfect, but I think he's doing a good job on the "war on terror" - that is the important thing."
Right; there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Arnold and what we have now. And even if a great many conservative people "see through it" - exactly what are they going to do about it? Vote for a "democrat" instead of a "republic" in '08? "Write letters to their Congressmen"?
"Steal the government"? They already own it. And your view of "too bad" is not likely going to be the popular view.
Important enough for the FFs to codify - you mean like the 2nd Amendment?
Superfluous. And again, not likely to be the popular view on the subject.
Ah; so Arnold does not hold significant influence - yet the "republicans" needed him to increase ratings and for his star power - to get a "republican" like George Bush into the WH for a second term. And people vote in presidents in this country only if they are "serious contenders" as opposed to popular appeal, and ratings affected by such charismatic qualities as star power. But star appeal and the things that influence ratings are needed to get the "serious contenders" in there. Gotcha
The point is, most "republicans" have swallowed whole things like open borders. It is the broad acceptence of such things that is significant. Not subjective arguements as to whether they are "failures" weighed against "successes" of the Bush administration. It is fitting therefore that George Bush was selected by Time magazine to grace their cover; he truly is their man. And those who have accepted all these things with hardly a whimper are not going to start stomping their feet if a "republican" dominated Congress were to pass an amendment allowing people such as Arnold to enter the WH a couple of years down the road. After all, they'll say; "Well, Bush isn't perfect, but I think he's doing a good job on the "war on terror" - that is the important thing."
Right; there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Arnold and what we have now. And even if a great many conservative people "see through it" - exactly what are they going to do about it? Vote for a "democrat" instead of a "republic" in '08? "Write letters to their Congressmen"?
"Steal the government"? They already own it. And your view of "too bad" is not likely going to be the popular view.
Important enough for the FFs to codify - you mean like the 2nd Amendment?
Superfluous. And again, not likely to be the popular view on the subject.
Ah; so Arnold does not hold significant influence - yet the "republicans" needed him to increase ratings and for his star power - to get a "republican" like George Bush into the WH for a second term. And people vote in presidents in this country only if they are "serious contenders" as opposed to popular appeal, and ratings affected by such charismatic qualities as star power. But star appeal and the things that influence ratings are needed to get the "serious contenders" in there. Gotcha
LAK...
I've tried to be gracious in my discourse with you but there is no need for you to twist my words around to suit your argument unless your point was invalid to begin with. I'm not here to play 'gotcha'. I'm attempting to illustrate the foolishness of the proposal and your arguements in favor of it..
The bottom line is that for any proposal to be approved for ratification it has to be passed by two thirds vote of the House and the Senate or two thirds vote of states through a convention process.
Ratification of approved proposals for amendments takes place only with a three fourths vote of the House and Senate or three fourths vote of states through a convention process.
That's a BIG hurdle, even for serious proposals wrought from social and moral issues. This is not a popularity
contest. The House and Senate have their hands full with legislation on health care, prescription meds, the war, homeland security, social security, reforming the tax code, education and immigration...just to name a few issues. The individual states don't have the extra funds needed to support conventions. NO politcian wih presidential aspirations is wiling to expand the pool of potential rivals for the top spot and they are the elite party leaders.
Do you REALLY think that something as transparent as this can or will pass this type of scrutiny? The American voter is not an idiot. Voting trends nationally are turning decidedly more conservative, moreso than either party represents. You make sweeping statements that are your opinion, not based in fact. You heap scorn on the American voter, the political process and the seriousness of Constitutional debate yet those are the very things which determine whether proposals such as this one pass muster. Ahnuld is a socialist masquerading as a republican. He has no home in either party. If the fat cats already own the government, why would they squander their money to bankroll a proposed amendment that had little chance of passing to put someone in office that they didn't need there in the first place.
Your arguments, like this proposal, are not based in reality.
I've tried to be gracious in my discourse with you but there is no need for you to twist my words around to suit your argument unless your point was invalid to begin with. I'm not here to play 'gotcha'. I'm attempting to illustrate the foolishness of the proposal and your arguements in favor of it..
The bottom line is that for any proposal to be approved for ratification it has to be passed by two thirds vote of the House and the Senate or two thirds vote of states through a convention process.
Ratification of approved proposals for amendments takes place only with a three fourths vote of the House and Senate or three fourths vote of states through a convention process.
That's a BIG hurdle, even for serious proposals wrought from social and moral issues. This is not a popularity
contest. The House and Senate have their hands full with legislation on health care, prescription meds, the war, homeland security, social security, reforming the tax code, education and immigration...just to name a few issues. The individual states don't have the extra funds needed to support conventions. NO politcian wih presidential aspirations is wiling to expand the pool of potential rivals for the top spot and they are the elite party leaders.
Do you REALLY think that something as transparent as this can or will pass this type of scrutiny? The American voter is not an idiot. Voting trends nationally are turning decidedly more conservative, moreso than either party represents. You make sweeping statements that are your opinion, not based in fact. You heap scorn on the American voter, the political process and the seriousness of Constitutional debate yet those are the very things which determine whether proposals such as this one pass muster. Ahnuld is a socialist masquerading as a republican. He has no home in either party. If the fat cats already own the government, why would they squander their money to bankroll a proposed amendment that had little chance of passing to put someone in office that they didn't need there in the first place.
Your arguments, like this proposal, are not based in reality.
LAK...
Do a Google search on 'proposed Constitutional Amendments'. You will find that, since 1990, almost 1,000 proposals have been offered for approval for ratification. Look through the list...there's some pretty subtantive proposals being forwarded.
Now, insert into that list the proposal...'to amend the Constitution for the purpose of altering the qualifications for President such that Arnold Shwarzenegger may be allowed to run for that office...'
That should be sufficiently illustrative of how lame and vacuous such a proposal is.
It ain't gonna happen.
Do a Google search on 'proposed Constitutional Amendments'. You will find that, since 1990, almost 1,000 proposals have been offered for approval for ratification. Look through the list...there's some pretty subtantive proposals being forwarded.
Now, insert into that list the proposal...'to amend the Constitution for the purpose of altering the qualifications for President such that Arnold Shwarzenegger may be allowed to run for that office...'
That should be sufficiently illustrative of how lame and vacuous such a proposal is.
It ain't gonna happen.
gburner
No need to attempt to condescend. I have challenged you on each individual point. I have not "twisted" your words. For example, if you stated why you feel the RNC "used" Arnold in a particular manner, you said it - not me - and in clear context. You can't have it both ways. Arnold wasn't handpicked for his appearence and speech there as a joke, or to just humor him.
During the RNC I do not recall any of those people snickering when he made his speech. You seem convinced that enough people "see thru" Arnold; and yet his presence swept the crowd at the RNC.
Again you refer to his "transparency". If this is so significant, do YOU think that the "republican" party would have used him in such an important role as in the RNC to keep George Bush in the WH?
The average American voter is quite capable of voting for anyone they are led to believe is the right man at the time. Two terms of Bill Clinton after Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr prove that - unless you are going to tell me that all conservatives were vacationing in the far east or had flu for those two elections. Arnold is certainly not any more transparent than Bill Clinton. This is not to heap scorn on the American voter, this is to recognize the power of mass propaganda. This is why the word "democracy" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution, and the reason we have the Electoral College. The former has no part in our system of government, and the latter is to make sure that the mass vote is not effective in sanctioning disaster - as a safeguard. It is just a fact that significant numbers of people can be influenced by political propaganda as opposed to what is right versus what is wrong. What is constructive and what is destructive to a nation. This is painful for some to accept, but should not be to anyone who has studied and understands history.
Saying voting trends are turning decidedly "more conservative", "more so than either party represents" is not reflected in this last election. And the acceptence of many aspects of our current socialist state (like having a "Department of Education" at all) by many who seem to still see themselves as "conservatives" clearly demonstrates that this is not so. There are former bones of ideological contention that go back almost a century in this country - many of which have morphed into so-called "conservative" acceptence.
Arnold is a socialist alright. But then so is most of the "republican" party, including the same people that would debate such an amendment - the Congress.
No need to attempt to condescend. I have challenged you on each individual point. I have not "twisted" your words. For example, if you stated why you feel the RNC "used" Arnold in a particular manner, you said it - not me - and in clear context. You can't have it both ways. Arnold wasn't handpicked for his appearence and speech there as a joke, or to just humor him.
During the RNC I do not recall any of those people snickering when he made his speech. You seem convinced that enough people "see thru" Arnold; and yet his presence swept the crowd at the RNC.
Again you refer to his "transparency". If this is so significant, do YOU think that the "republican" party would have used him in such an important role as in the RNC to keep George Bush in the WH?
The average American voter is quite capable of voting for anyone they are led to believe is the right man at the time. Two terms of Bill Clinton after Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr prove that - unless you are going to tell me that all conservatives were vacationing in the far east or had flu for those two elections. Arnold is certainly not any more transparent than Bill Clinton. This is not to heap scorn on the American voter, this is to recognize the power of mass propaganda. This is why the word "democracy" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution, and the reason we have the Electoral College. The former has no part in our system of government, and the latter is to make sure that the mass vote is not effective in sanctioning disaster - as a safeguard. It is just a fact that significant numbers of people can be influenced by political propaganda as opposed to what is right versus what is wrong. What is constructive and what is destructive to a nation. This is painful for some to accept, but should not be to anyone who has studied and understands history.
Saying voting trends are turning decidedly "more conservative", "more so than either party represents" is not reflected in this last election. And the acceptence of many aspects of our current socialist state (like having a "Department of Education" at all) by many who seem to still see themselves as "conservatives" clearly demonstrates that this is not so. There are former bones of ideological contention that go back almost a century in this country - many of which have morphed into so-called "conservative" acceptence.
Arnold is a socialist alright. But then so is most of the "republican" party, including the same people that would debate such an amendment - the Congress.
Some final thoughts...
The 'star power' I spoke of re. Ahnuld is based on his movie career, not because he is a poltical heavyweight. There is a vast difference in buying a movie ticket and voting for a candidate. Reagan was able to bridge the gap because he embodieded the conservative ideology of this country. Ahnuld has no such ideological base. I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference.
I have studied and understand history. I have provided a thorough historical perspective re. amending the constitution. You're the one who states that this historical perspective has no bearing on the success of this proposal. Did you even perform the Google search, as I suggested? Perhaps in your world of both overt and subliminal propaganda intertwined with labyrinth like conspiracy theories the possibility of ratifying this 'amendment' seems like reality to you. Not in the real world. I have amply illustrated that it has no chance, period. It won't even come up for debate. I am not surprised that you don't understand that as well.
The last election showed a significant swing to the right in this country, from the centrist/left positions of Bill Clinton. The dems chose to run far left of center, the repubs. got the center and the right. Is Bush a true conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination. He is far more palatable to the right than the Kerry/Kennedy wing of the dems. I'm not surprised that you don't understand that. Staunch conservative values on gun rights, right to life, traditional marriage and support of the military while engaged with the enemy won the day for Bush, not some dumb assed actor on the podium at the RNC.
Re. being condescending...winky smilies followed by the word 'gotcha' aren't exactly the tools of serious debate. I gave you my two cents worth and now I'm weary of talkin' sense to the senseless. much later.
The 'star power' I spoke of re. Ahnuld is based on his movie career, not because he is a poltical heavyweight. There is a vast difference in buying a movie ticket and voting for a candidate. Reagan was able to bridge the gap because he embodieded the conservative ideology of this country. Ahnuld has no such ideological base. I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference.
I have studied and understand history. I have provided a thorough historical perspective re. amending the constitution. You're the one who states that this historical perspective has no bearing on the success of this proposal. Did you even perform the Google search, as I suggested? Perhaps in your world of both overt and subliminal propaganda intertwined with labyrinth like conspiracy theories the possibility of ratifying this 'amendment' seems like reality to you. Not in the real world. I have amply illustrated that it has no chance, period. It won't even come up for debate. I am not surprised that you don't understand that as well.
The last election showed a significant swing to the right in this country, from the centrist/left positions of Bill Clinton. The dems chose to run far left of center, the repubs. got the center and the right. Is Bush a true conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination. He is far more palatable to the right than the Kerry/Kennedy wing of the dems. I'm not surprised that you don't understand that. Staunch conservative values on gun rights, right to life, traditional marriage and support of the military while engaged with the enemy won the day for Bush, not some dumb assed actor on the podium at the RNC.
Re. being condescending...winky smilies followed by the word 'gotcha' aren't exactly the tools of serious debate. I gave you my two cents worth and now I'm weary of talkin' sense to the senseless. much later.
George H W Bush was and is certainly a political "heavyweight", but the same could not be said for George W. Were it not for his family political history I doubt that he would ever had become governor of Texas. He has done very little beyond pay lipservice to important conservative issues.
A great many people had never even heard of Bill Clinton (nor John Kerry for that matter) when he was fielded and elected for two terms. Clinton basically came out of nowhere for many people who never the less voted for him anyway, as many did for Kerry.
Enough people apparently voted for Arnold in California - depite the fact that he no experience whatsoever in any public office or adminstration, and the state of California being in the midst of an openly admitted financial crisis. And these were not just California "liberals"; it was "republicans" that endorsed Arnold as opposed to McClintock - even though it was clear that Bustamante was a nonstarter.
Like it or not, it is basically sophisticated propaganda and carefully managed campaigns that put people in the WH. If you had any clear grasp and understanding of world political history you would not have injected that silly comment about casting "scorn on the American voter". The average person in this country are no less easily led by sophisticated propaganda than any other civilized country.
I sincerely hope that Congress would block any effort to allow such a thing; but given the writing on the wall (and some of the heavyweights behind it), the history of the "republican" party in doing what is right as opposed to the opposite, I am not holding my breath. When the time comes for one of your "shifts" to the left in Congress, it is about a done deal. You can take that to the bank.
Incidently, "gotcha" is an abreviated form of "Ah, now I understand what you mean." Do a forum search on the word and you will see that I am not the only person that uses it as such.
A great many people had never even heard of Bill Clinton (nor John Kerry for that matter) when he was fielded and elected for two terms. Clinton basically came out of nowhere for many people who never the less voted for him anyway, as many did for Kerry.
Enough people apparently voted for Arnold in California - depite the fact that he no experience whatsoever in any public office or adminstration, and the state of California being in the midst of an openly admitted financial crisis. And these were not just California "liberals"; it was "republicans" that endorsed Arnold as opposed to McClintock - even though it was clear that Bustamante was a nonstarter.
Like it or not, it is basically sophisticated propaganda and carefully managed campaigns that put people in the WH. If you had any clear grasp and understanding of world political history you would not have injected that silly comment about casting "scorn on the American voter". The average person in this country are no less easily led by sophisticated propaganda than any other civilized country.
I sincerely hope that Congress would block any effort to allow such a thing; but given the writing on the wall (and some of the heavyweights behind it), the history of the "republican" party in doing what is right as opposed to the opposite, I am not holding my breath. When the time comes for one of your "shifts" to the left in Congress, it is about a done deal. You can take that to the bank.
Incidently, "gotcha" is an abreviated form of "Ah, now I understand what you mean." Do a forum search on the word and you will see that I am not the only person that uses it as such.