Is a Clinton & Clinton 2008 ticket possible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

progunner1957

member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
831
Location
A wolf living in Sheeple land
With all his tantrum throwing over questions about whether he dropped the ball regarding Osama Bin Laden of late, Bill Clinton is getting major free face time from the media. This has brought two "great" legal minds and Clinton lovers together to speculate about Clinton & Clinton running together in the 2008 election.

It would appear that these two want Clinton to finish what he started - gutting our military, letting our most prized military and technology secrets be carted off to communist China, letting terorists run rampant and use our military as a punching bag with no reprisals and urinating on the Constitution and We The people in general.

While this would be a wet dream come true for the leftists/Democrats/socialists in our nation, how would it play with the rest of America?


How to bring back Bill
A Clinton-Clinton 2008 ticket is constitutionally possible.
By Scott E. Gant and Bruce G. Peabody

WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MADISON, N.J.

Americans are nostalgic for the 1990s. They long for a time when terrorism was perceived as a problem confined to foreign lands and when the stock market's rise seemed unstoppable. And, it turns out, many of them miss former President Bill Clinton.

In a recent poll conducted for CNN, respondents favored Mr. Clinton over President Bush on a variety of issues, including policy areas traditionally viewed as GOP strongholds. By a wide margin, those surveyed indicated that Clinton did a better job managing the economy and handling foreign affairs and taxes.

Clinton's resurgent popularity, and Democrats' difficulties in taking over the White House in recent years, might counsel a bold strategy for 2008. Whoever is selected as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential race should consider William Jefferson Clinton as a candidate for vice president.

While the political advisability of such a move is subject to legitimate debate, the legal issues are more straightforward. The only serious question about the constitutionality of Clinton assuming the vice presidency relates to the interplay of the Constitution's 12th and 22nd Amendments.

The 12th Amendment was ratified following the election of 1800, which produced sustained electoral uncertainty after Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson's designated vice president, received the same number of electoral votes. The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which took 36 ballots to select Jefferson. The 12th Amendment thereafter required that electoral votes be cast separately for president and vice president, and specified that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States."

A century and a half later, the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, largely as a response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four electoral victories. The amendment bars individuals from being "elected to the office of the president more than twice."

The 22nd Amendment is often described as prohibiting an already twice-elected president, such as Clinton, from again serving as president. But the text of the amendment suggests otherwise. In preventing individuals from being elected to the presidency more than twice, the amendment does not preclude a former president from again assuming the presidency by means other than election, including succession from the vice presidency. If this view is correct, then Clinton is not "constitutionally ineligible to the office of president," and is not barred by the 12th Amendment from being elected vice president.

Clinton's public approval at the time he stepped down from the White House was remarkably high given the voter "fatigue" that normally accompanies a second-term president. Now, nearly six years later, his popularity appears considerable and is seemingly increasing.

Of course, Clinton's spouse, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is viewed as a leading Democratic candidate for president. She would surely have reservations about putting her husband on the 2008 ticket. But Bill Clinton might help energize the Democratic base and defuse arguments that Mrs. Clinton is too liberal.

In the event that Senator Clinton elects not to run in 2008, perhaps an alternate Democratic nominee will have enough self-confidence to consider sharing the stage with the charismatic Bill Clinton in the hopes of recapturing the White House. As for Clinton himself, although there are many reasons why he might decline an invitation to run for vice president, the thrill of another campaign and the lure of a return to the West Wing might be too tempting to resist.

• Scott Gant is a partner with Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Washington. Bruce Peabody is an assistant professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, N.J.
Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0613/p09s02-coop.html
 
Just goes to show you how fond a lot of Americans are of having their heads buried in the sand. It is just so amazing to me to listen to people I know, and others who apparently have some education, are completely oblivious to the fact that evil walks the earth and has not and is not shy about expressing what its motives and ambitions are. :banghead:
 
Yep. Eight years of peace and prosperity. At last our long national nightmare is over (Jan 2001). Clinton was a better President than we had any right to expect. And the Greedy Old Plutocrats did everything they could to sandbag him from a campaign of out-and -out slander - The Arkansas Project - to malicious prosecution to tying his hands when he tried to go after OBL.

All we have from the Republicans is fear, insecurity, disappearing jobs, torture and bad health care.
 
Clinton was a better President than we had any right to expect.
Yup, he was the best alright - at banning guns, trashing the Second Amendment, comitting perjury, comitting witness tampering, suborning perjury, exporting classified military secrets and hardware to communist China, sending the best of the best off to Mogadishu with one hand tied behind their backs so they'd be butchered in the streets, overseeing the immolation of unarmed women and children in Texas, fingering his intern while our troops were being killed and doing NOTHING about it, letting Bin Laden go scot free when Jordan offered to hand him over to us...

God, he was good!
 
I can't forgive Clinton for:
-giving the chinese all that ICBM tech in return for a few million in campaign donations
-waco
-reno as attorney general
-lloyd bentsen as treasury director (streetsweeper ban, steel core ban, usas-12 ban)
-the AWB and the brady bill
-antigun research at the NIH through the 90s
-pushing through the FFL restrictions (though blame goes to the gun dealers as well)

I personally dont care about the blowjob. That is between him and his wife. If she doesnt want to do her duties, she has to expect he will outsource them. It wouldnt have been a big deal if teh republicans didnt make it one.
 
I personally dont care about the blowjob.
The issue was not the blowjob, but the perjury (as well as witness tampering and suborning perjury) he comitted in trying to cover it up.

Other people go to prison for comitting perjury - it's called "Criminal Perjury" and it is a felony crime.

Why should Clinton be above the law? Answer: He shouldn't.
 
Oh, Really!

Yep. Eight years of peace...

Pacifiscism

..and prosperity.

The Dot Com bubble, the buildup to the Enron debacle...

At last our long national nightmare is over (Jan 2001).

Amen!

Clinton was a better President than we had any right to expect.

Since we didn't have the right to expect him to be such a failure, I'd have to say "Yes!"

And the Greedy Old Plutocrats did everything they could to sandbag him from a campaign of out-and -out slander - The Arkansas Project - to malicious prosecution to tying his hands when he tried to go after OBL.

We weren't all that old, it ain't slander when he admits to the allegations, the questionable dealings are of his own making, it's not malicious prosecution when he is found guilty and pays settlements and fines and is disbarred, and handing out excuses, passing the buck, and rage are all signs of a self image no one else seems to see.

The rest of the stuff smells like it has been filterd through a bovine sphincter. Sounds like someone changed their opinion once too often - or not often enough. I can't figure out which...

No offence meant, Todd. Please take it as well as you can dish it out and make me proud. After all, it's just opinion, right?

Woody

To be liberal is to live in a cloud of delusion fraught with fantasy, and a disregard for the law and fair play. Alas; clear fact, unambiguous consensus, scrutiny, and researched reason does prevail and keeps me in touch with who is who, what is what, and why I am conservative. B.E.Wood

I hope I don't get in trouble for this.
 
This Cracks Me Up!!

The issue was not the blowjob, but the perjury....he comitted in trying to cover it up.
Followed by:
Never confuse the mere possession of a male urinary organ with being a man, which demands integrity, character, honor and valor to qualify.
And punctuated with:
Hell hath no fury like a woman who has found the invoice for a custom 1911

So, if logic follows, your wife found an invoice for a gun that you were not completely honest with her about. After all, if she knew you were buying it, and how much it cost, how could she be mad about finding the invoice?

So, I deduce that you were willing to tell less than the complete truth to the woman you swore a personal oath to, and judge a president for pejury.

Dictionary.com will help you with the definition of "hypocrisy".

Further, we must--absolutely--agree that all presidents of the 20th century and beyond have lied to the American people. Including the current president.

If you want to bash Clinton for policy (like Beerslurpy), fine. We may disagree, but I will do so respectfully.

If you want to bash Clinton for perjury, well, start defending Nixon and Reagan before you expect me to take you seriously.
 
Ah, poop....now I'm ranting....

The Dot Com bubble, the buildup to the Enron debacle...
This was Clinton's fault?????

REALLY?

The ONLY way I can see that Clinton, or the government he led could have avoided the ".com bubble" or the "Enron debacle" would be more government regulation of business.

Right?

Am I missing something?

Are you really espousing more government regulation of business and calling yourself a Republican?

Really?

Back to the party platform for you, my friend.
 
Let him stand before God, and be judged accordingly.

I may not be a great man, and some would say I'm a bad man, but at least I don't have to explain dead men to my Creator.
 
The fact that anyone would declare the Clintonian period as a "good time" for America is indicates a very shallow view of history on their part.

Peace? Yes, but only because he was too inept to stop Al-Qaeda when they weren't bombing our embassies, the WTC in 1992, and the USS Cole. We weren't at "war" because it didn't fit in with his image as a 'cool' president.

Also, be sure to thank his cultural correctness for portraying criminals as victims. We were also told that gang culture was hopelessly on the rise and there was nothing we could do about it. Assault Weapons were an "epidemic". Global Warming Global Warming Global Warming. Thank (the God that was being legislated out of existence) that we had Al Gore to invent the internet for us so that we could disseminate information to each other.

And children fared MUCH better in school under Clinton. When they weren't being shot up by their classmates they were being indoctrinated by liberal school counselors and told that if they didn't accept the story behind King and King that they were the product of bigoted Christiandom. Maybe you should come and burn my house down while searching for "extremist" paraphernalia.

Yes, declare war on religion while abolishing the war on drugs. (Anyone noticed how pot is no longer taboo?)

I know I know Clintonites, I still latch on to an antiquated, chauvinistic, violent, gun-toting mentality. Yes, I am compensating for something. No, nobody needs more than 10 rounds. And no, I don't go skeet shooting with my AK-47.

Yeah, Clinton was great, except for the fact that he nearly irrecoverably wrecked the country and now wants a second shot at it. And worst of all some of you damn baby boomers want to give it to him.
 
Dear Mr. Snake Eyes...

So, if logic follows, your wife found an invoice for a gun that you were not completely honest with her about. After all, if she knew you were buying it, and how much it cost, how could she be mad about finding the invoice?
It has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with assuming, which is what you are doing. And true to the old axiom, you have made an ass out of yourself by assuming.

My sig line about "Hell hath no fury..." is for entertainment purposes only. The source for this is page 49 of the book, More Tactical Reality, authored by Louis Awerbuck, published in 2004 by Paladin Press, ISBN# 1-58160-444-0. I included it in my sig line because I thought it was humorous - not because it is the story of my life.
So, I deduce that you were willing to tell less than the complete truth to the woman you swore a personal oath to, and judge a president for pejury.
Your so-called deduction is based on nothing more than your weak and lame assumption - which is based on nothing factual - and is further indication of the shallowness of your thinking processes.
Dictionary.com will help you with the definition of "hypocrisy".
Next, based upon your assumption, you proceed to attack my integrity and honor - and you have never met me one time in your life. Your attack is based on nothing more than your anger that I had dared to call out Clinton on his pathetic, slipshod dishonorable and unlawful actions during the foul years of his so-called administration, during which he managed to accomplish nothing more than desecrating and shaming the office of the Presidency, selling out our soldiers, trampling the Constitution and soiling the blue dress of the office slut.

You are beginning to sound every bit as pathetic and intellectually impotent as your holy grail, Bill Clinton - which comes as absolutely no surprise.

In case you have yet to figure it out, I absolutely will not be attacked and disrespected in such a manner by you or anyone else here. And if my response bothers you - not that I care, but you really need to give some thought to addressing others in a civil manner in the first place.
 
Snake Eyes said:
This was Clinton's fault?????

I read it as him saying that some of Clinton's economic success was illusionary due to the tech runup and the fact that a few large corporations were not being completely honest. Not that he caused the crash or Enron's bullcrap, just that the effects of the two made his president look better economically.

Thats just how I saw it, though, we'll have to hear it from him.

I can't comment on any of these matters however, since I was just a dumb middleschooler/highschooler back then. :D
 
I read it as him saying that some of Clinton's economic success was illusionary due to the tech runup and the fact that a few large corporations were not being completely honest. Not that he caused the crash or Enron's bullcrap, just that the effects of the two made his president look better economically.

This is the most oft repeated pro-Clinton BS I hear---about how "great" the economy was when he was President. (And it wasn't so great as many would have us believe, if you get right down to the nitty-gritty)

First and foremost how did he DIRECTLY have anything to to with that. And, if you examine economic ups and downs over time, you'll see that there's generally a "delay" between the factors that cause either. So, just because he happened to be Pres. may (and probably did) have little effect on the economy.

P.S. Strike one: the AWB

Strike two: the Lewinsky thing. I'm sorry but that simply (both the act and the subsequent denial/purjury) show exactly what what knid of morals he had---None. And yes, the leader of the largest superpower on earth, SHOULD have to live up to a higher moral standard. What does it say for his overall morals?

Strike three: Mogadishu. He personally denied requests to have AC-130 gunships loitering in the area. The results were the deaths of some of the bravest US fighting men, ever. He should go down in history as "the" President that was DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of many US soldiers.

There's more, but 3 three strikes and you're out, so I'll stop there.

P.P.S. back to the ORIGINAL topic, if we, as a people, are stupid enough to elect a Clinton-Clinton Presidency, someone please shoot me. Now.
 
If you really do like being able to own guns, especially semi-auotmatic guns along with normal capacity magazines, then there is no way you can be a big Clinton fan and remain intellectually honest with yourself.

But then again, lots of folks have no problem with being intellecutally dishonest with themselves, especially Slick Willy himself.

That being said, here's the problem with the blowjob.

The problem with the blowjob is that Slick Willy was more occupied getting blowjobs from a dumpy, codependent intern than dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Then he became even more occupied with covering up the blowjobs from a dumpy, codependent intern than dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Remember, the FIRST attack on WTC happend in 1993. But nothing real was done about it....subpoenas were issued, search warrants were obtained, etc. etc.

Of course, Slick Willy being nothing if not Slick, no real action was ever taken against the jihadists precisely and exactly because taking real action would hurt Slick in the polls.

And, of course, the polls are the only principle by which Slick acts or doesn't act.

Slick Willy is a totally self-absorbed, poll-driven sociopath who doesn't give a damn about anything except getting his, and making sure his poll numbers stay up.......even almost six years after he quit being president.

hillbilly
 
The problem with the blowjob is that Slick Willy was more occupied getting blowjobs from a dumpy, codependent intern than dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Thats true, but there are benefits of having a president distracted by sex and criminal investigations.

If Bush had been a little bit distracted, maybe we wouldn't have Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, and No Child Left Behind. Maybe he would not have had so much time on his hands to expand the size of federal government, increase bureaucracy, and spend so much tax payer money. If a president is prone to making bad decisions and signing crappy legislation, then I would prefer him to be distracted.

I voted for Bush twice, and have been sorely disappointed. He has done more permanent damage to our country than Bill Clinton ever did. That statement should not be misconstrued as support for Clinton. I voted against him twice, and supported his impeachment. But when you look at lasting legacies, Clinton basically does not have one, thanks to his various distractions, and Bush will be remembered for all the bad legislation and policies I enumerated in the previous paragraph.
 
Yes, declare war on religion while abolishing the war on drugs. (Anyone noticed how pot is no longer taboo?)

Why should it be? Why should we continue to prosecute people for victimless crimes? Its a soft drug and it doesn't matter to me if someone wants to smoke it. I think you would be surprised at the type of people that do it, or use to. But yes, lets continue to pack the prisons with weed dealers/users while letting violent felons out. Sounds great! Besides, its un-american to tell me what I can and can't put in my body, which is just as un-american as an AWB ban.
 
It wasn't that Bill Clinton lied to the American People so much as he lied under oath. Lying under oath for any of us "serfs" is purgery, a felonious offense. Lying under oath for Clinton was "personal life". Don't forget it happened in the oval office. That's like having oral sex in your own workplace. Again, most people would be fired for that, admitting to it or not, if they were your average american. The president should be held to a high standard, he is supposed to provide a good, responsible image of the american people. To keep this firearm related, I can safely bet that either Clinton, if given the chance would be more than happy to forcible disarm all of us. And then cover it up. Remember Waco? Ruby Ridge? I don't trust a Clinton, either of them, when it comes to my gun rights.
 
The logic supplied in the lead article is faulty.

The 12th amendment precludes Clinton from running as V.P. because he is un-electable per the 22nd amendment.

A V.P. candidate must be eligible to be elected as Pres. No amount of word-twisting with the 22nd amendment nullifies the requirements of the office of V.P. as the 12th amendment states.

Bill Clinton can not run for the office of V.P., nor any other elected or appointed office that is in direct line of Presidential assumption.

The two writers can not be said to have read and understood the Constitution, if they truly hold to this misconstrued idea.
 
Well if you don't like what former Pres. Clinton did with China you should be alarmed at what Bush has done but you turn a blind eye to that.

Bush is in his second term and everything is still former Pres.Clinton's fault. Our present president accepts no blame for anything.

This sitting president is the greatest danger this country has ever faced. While some of you support him because of his supposed support for the 2nd Amendment your support is misplaced. If banning the ownership of firearms would guarantee a republican sweep in the '06 and '08 elections then thats what they would do.

You need to understand its all about power and money today. If banning guns give a party more money and power then guns will get banned. It's no more about serving and self scarface, its all about money and power. The day will come again when we will have to make the choice of changing our government as we did in the days of Jefferson and Franklin. Till then look a little deeper into what is really going on then this "Its Clinton's fault" campaign advertisement.
 
There's really no difference between Clinton's China fiasco and what Bush is doing. Bush gives our military technology to Israel who then sells it to China.
Same same...

Biker
 
If a ship hits a reef, it's the fault of the captain currently in command, NOT the one that retired over five years ago.

And if they keep running full speed ahead up onto the reef, well...even moreso.

It's really getting silly, this obsession that anytime someone dares criticize the administration's record or policy of the last five years, someone sputters "But CLINTON...!...blue dress!...Clinton!".

Clinton ain't President no more, and hasn't been for FIVE YEARS. Deal.
 
The 12th amendment precludes Clinton from running as V.P. because he is un-electable per the 22nd amendment.

The 12th Amendment only makes reference to a person being constitutionally ineligible to the office of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office, he is only ineligible to be elected to the office. Clinton is constitutionally eligible to serve two years as an unelected president. I pointed out this fact a couple of years ago.


A V.P. candidate must be eligible to be elected as Pres. No amount of word-twisting with the 22nd amendment nullifies the requirements of the office of V.P. as the 12th amendment states.

You won't find that anywhere in the constitution. What the 12th Amendment DID do was constitutionally prevent Bush and Cheney from running on the same ticket. That's why Cheney is maintaining his charade of being a Wyoming resident, when in reality he was a Texas resident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top