Posted on 08/18/2007 4:06:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mrs. Bill Clinton already would get this vote because she's a woman.
Of course he is.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Bottom line: it would be constitutionally questioned and decided by the courts.
Don't be so sure. There is an uprising building among the Dems.
Putting Obama on the ticket precludes a strong anti-war third-party candidate from siphoning votes away from Clinton.
I don't think a leftist 3rd party candidate will gain any momentum at all. Look at Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004. There were many voters who voted for Nader in 2000 but not in 2004 because they believed that they gave the presidency to Bush.
LOL, anybody who believes that Hillary would choose Obama as a running mate smoking something deadly. Hillary will choose the whitest, most attractive, moderate-to-conservative male Democrat she can find. It will be a candidate who is NOT especially hated by the right, and one who can help with the electoral college, ie. the “purple” states (probably somebody who is from the South or from the midwest “flyover” country).
It will NOT be Obama, not in a million years. Period. That speculation is the most naive I have ever heard.
A court which purported to annul the election of a Vice President on that basis would be on very, VERY shaky ground.
If I were a USSC justice, I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole.
If the time came when Hillary is incapacitated and has to be replaced, then if the VP is not qualified, we go to the next in line, right?
Let's look at the next in line after the VP, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That person doesn't have to be a native born American to hold that office yet they are in direct line of succession.
In other words, does a person have to qualify to be elected president in order to hold an office that is in direct line of succession? I don't think so.
Therefore, I conclude that the succession reason is not in play for disqualifying Bill.
I agree. It will be the Mexican for sure!
It’s ALWAYS been Richardson. She don’t need a black VP anyways... she’ll get the Jackson/Sharpton blacks... the ‘black-majority’ The Hispanic voter is now the MAJOR minority in the USA... and she knows it.
Perhaps Thompson should choose Obama as his running mate, in a gesure of solidarity with him in opposition to Hillary’s devisive campaign. Millions of Blacks suddenly vote R. Bye bye Miss. American Pie for the Witch.
After the Senate passed 2611, the House GOP walked away from the issue. Instead, they went on tour, holding "hearings" at various locations as a way inflame the immigration issue. They held several in AZ.
Both Mitchell's and Hayworth's TV campaign ad on immigration were on You Tube, and are probably still there. My family members living in Scottsdale are also familiar with the campaign. Immigration was a loser for Hayworth and other GOPers.
By some accounts, some GOPers will rely on immigration in 2008. The GOP prez candidates are certainly trying to out-hard-line each other. As in 2006, it won't help, it will only hurt.
Immigration can be a winning issue for the GOP in 2008. Public Opinion Polls on Immigration
For sure, consistantly, without a doubt, enforcement is a winner. The problem for the GOP is, as has been shown, they can't out-enforce the dems.
We will agree to disagree. They can out-enforce the Dems and have the voting record in Congress to prove it. When Hillary gets the nomination, as she surely will, the GOP can play her meetings with illegal demonstrators who carried signs "Today we march, tomorrow we vote" and waved Mexican flags. Kennedy and Moran and other Dems were also out there in the streets with the illegals. That didn't play well with the American people.
If you browse around FR and other right wing websites, you will see that no one believes that the GOP's enforcement efforts are sincere.
This makes it a sword that cuts in both directions.
On one hand, the GOP is using enforcement to attack one wing of the party, driving them to the democrats. On the other hand, the other wing of the GOP, doubting the sincerety of the GOP, is being driven to stay home and not vote.
I prefer conservative to "right wing."
you will see that no one believes that the GOP's enforcement efforts are sincere.
No, they believe that the WH and current GOP Chairman, Mel Martinez, and DHS Secretary Chertoff are not sincere about securing our border and enforcing our current immigration laws, and with good reason. They are out of step with the vast majority of Republicans and the American public.
On one hand, the GOP is using enforcement to attack one wing of the party, driving them to the democrats. On the other hand, the other wing of the GOP, doubting the sincerety of the GOP, is being driven to stay home and not vote.
I just don't agree with your basic premise. The immigration issue cuts across partisan lines. The political and corporate elites are trying to foist something on the American people they don't want. It is why Lindsay Graham is being censured by the SC GOP and Chambliss was booed at the GA GOP convention.
It is a deadly issue within the GOP.
At one time the dems were trying to manuever the GOP into a strident/extreme position on immigration. They stopped when they figured out that all they have to do is atay out of the GOP's way as the GOP self-destructs.
"Old Ted Kennedy bent over backwards trying to work with the GOP on immigration this past year"--------"Senator Reid, even tho he knew the GOP was trying to waste his time, allowed the GOP two shots at trying to draft a bill"
As the article and comments above point out, the dems have many options and they are well funded. Sadly, all the GOP has to rely on is abortion, queers, Mexicans, and the NAU. That's a hell of a platform.
Hillary side-stepped this method as no president would have been comfortable serving his term in full body armor.
No, the Dems have been hiding behind the WH. They know that their position doesn't jibe with the general public's, including many of their own constituents. Why do you think so many of them [16 countinhg Sanders] voted against cloture for the 2007 bill? If the Dems really wanted an immigration bill this year, they could have had one. The only way the GOP destructs is to move away from their basic principles.
Sadly, all the GOP has to rely on is abortion, queers, Mexicans, and the NAU. That's a hell of a platform.
Sounds like the Liberal agenda/constituency. Pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-open borders and legalization of illegals, and protectionism. That is not a winning agenda.
When you point to those dems who didn't vote for cloture, you don't realize that they are holding out for something before they compromise. Or, why the United Farm Workers would support the bill, and the AFL-CIO would oppose it.
Very simply put, the dems are in the driver's seat. And the pivot point of the compromise shifts a little to the left every time the issue comes before the Senate.
This is because the GOP is split. And immigration is not the only issue on which the GOP is split.
If you followed the debate as it was broadcast on C-Span, what were Dorgan and Saunders saying? What else do they want before they allow immigration reform to go forward?
If Bill Gates were to sit down at the table with the Communications Workers of America and make a deal, would he get his 200,000 H1B visas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.