Seabee1973 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 http://www.examiner.com/a-573127~Some_mull_idea_of_Sen__Bill_Clinton.html? How scary is this? WASHINGTON - If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term. “As a senator, he’d be a knockout,” said Harold Ickes, who was once a top White House aide to Bill Clinton and now gives behind-the-scenes advice to Hillary. “He knows issues, he loves public policy and he’s a good politician.” Click link for rest of article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 So he would be the First Man and a Senator? how cool is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Maybe he can get a blowjob in the Capitol. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 chances of this happening are less than 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I'd actually be more comfortable if he were living in the White House and actively involved in Hillary's administration. (that's if she won, of course.) Go figure that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Good Politician is an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Great idea. He'd be a wonderful senator. But would he stand up to the president? I think she might scare him into obedience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 He would make a good chairman for the Ethics committee,lots of experience in the field. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 He would make a good chairman for the Ethics committee,lots of experience in the field. . every time you do something wrong, you learn what not to do. eventually you're bound to figure something out. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 That's pretty funny. Unfortunately for the Repubs though, they no longer can claim ethical superiority whatsoever, far too many of them in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The only way I think that could be reasonable would be if a DIVORCE between the two of them was completed BEFORE she was elected to office. I don't like either of them. I think Mrs. Rodham-Clinton would be as complete a disaster as President as her husband was in the position and would be as a US Senator now. More importantly, I believe that having a sitting US Senator being the husband (or wife) of the President is a horrible idea and goes against the concept if not the exact wording of checks and balances in our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 That's pretty funny. Unfortunately for the Repubs though, they no longer can claim ethical superiority whatsoever, far too many of them in jail. Yeah, unlike the dems that they just re-elect instead. Face it ethics and politicians are incompatible. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Maybe he can get a blowjob in the Capitol. :whoknows: (At least it'd be a female page.) (Yeah, I know. Really bad joke.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 More importantly, I believe that having a sitting US Senator being the husband (or wife) of the President is a horrible idea and goes against the concept if not the exact wording of checks and balances in our government. Um, I'll point out that the words "Separation of White House and Senate" do not appear in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Yeah, unlike the dems that they just re-elect instead. :laugh: Which just proves that the Dems are smarter! I still think we have a lot of House and Senate cleaning to do. I think the scandels had nearly as much to do with the election results as Iraq did. The cumulatie effect I think just disgusted everybody despite our well-earned cyicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Um, I'll point out that the words "Separation of White House and Senate" do not appear in the Constitution. In response, I'll point out that since no man can serve Two Masters, he definitely cannot serve Two Masters and a Mistress (The citizens of New York, the Democrat Leadership in the Senate, and his Wife - the POTUS). As I pointed out, I'm talking about the Spirit of the Constitution as much as the letter of it in this case. I just don't see how he could carry out his duties as US Senator from New York and potentially as a check on the POTUS when she's got his balls firmly clenched in her fist, as she has for the entire time I've known of the two of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 In response, I'll point out that since no man can serve Two Masters, he definitely cannot serve Two Masters and a Mistress (The citizens of New York, the Democrat Leadership in the Senate, and his Wife - the POTUS). As I pointed out, I'm talking about the Spirit of the Constitution as much as the letter of it in this case. I just don't see how he could carry out his duties as US Senator from New York and potentially as a check on the POTUS when she's got his balls firmly clenched in her fist, as she has for the entire time I've known of the two of them. a) There's nothing even within the spirit of the Constitution that would disallow a President to have a Congressman as a spouse. You're assuming that a spouse wouldn't be able to check the other spouse's power. Honestly, do you think that certain senators' blind adherence to the White House is any different from husband/wife? They're already in bed together metaphorically. The only difference is that Bill and Hillary would be in bed together literally. You're friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 He would make a good chairman for the Ethics committee,lots of experience in the field. . How about these 25 republican appointees? http://www.citizensforethics.org/execcorruption/ I find it extremely laughable the amount of corruption in the Bush administration which is NEVER on the front page of the news. For everything Clinton was ACCUSED of doing, Bush has done in SPADES and there is little a pip out of the Right Wing Noise Machine. . .why is nobody surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 In response, I'll point out that since no man can serve Two Masters, he definitely cannot serve Two Masters and a Mistress (The citizens of New York, the Democrat Leadership in the Senate, and his Wife - the POTUS). Mass told a joke! Mass told a joke! I think Hillary should be counted as a "Master" And only one Mistress? As I pointed out, I'm talking about the Spirit of the Constitution as much as the letter of it in this case. I just don't see how he could carry out his duties as US Senator from New York and potentially as a check on the POTUS when she's got his balls firmly clenched in her fist, as she has for the entire time I've known of the two of them. I'm quite aware that you weren't invoking a mythical phrase in the Constitution. OTOH, what I was pointing out is that the Constitution is a lot clearer about using government power to endorse a religion than it is about spousal power-sharing. In short, I was pointing out the hypocrisies of folks who claim that "well, the Constitution doesn't actually say that Congress shall make no law establishing an official prayer", but then invoking "the spirit of the Constitution" to try to block things they don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 a) There's nothing even within the spirit of the Constitution that would disallow a President to have a Congressman as a spouse. You're assuming that a spouse wouldn't be able to check the other spouse's power. Honestly, do you think that certain senators' blind adherence to the White House is any different from husband/wife? They're already in bed together metaphorically. The only difference is that Bill and Hillary would be in bed together literally. You're friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton? As a jr. Senator from within the President's own Party, they don't really check the presidents power. We're lucky if we can get the leadership in the house and senate to do that. Look at Frist and even speaker Hasterit. Those guys are the biggest lap dogs in the history of government. Junior senators aren't supposed to tell the president which way is up. Anyway ruimer back in the 2004 election was if Kerry would have won. Bill was to be put forward as head of the UN. First American to hold that position. He actually had a lot of international backing. As for Hillary being a bad President. Couldn't be worse than George Bush, and while Bill Clinton was a misserable moral leader of the country, Living through Bush II has made everybody appreciate how good Bill was at his other jobs as President; as steward of our foreign policy and economy. Just don't let your teenage daughter intern at the Senate anytime in the next 4=8 years and everybody should be fine. That's probable good advice if Bill is there or not and for your male children too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 In short, I was pointing out the hypocrisies of folks who claim that "well, the Constitution doesn't actually say that Congress shall make no law establishing an official prayer", but then invoking "the spirit of the Constitution" to try to block things they don't like. Well, anyone that looks to the Constitution as an all-encompassing, rigid document with no wiggle room is just blind to reality. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, and the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech." Well hell, there's lots of laws abridging the freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Why are ya'll getting uptight, can't take a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 If Hillary wins then they need to make a reality show for Bill, called the First Man He can be on the south lawn of the WH checking out chicks as they walk bye while drinking a beer, it would be classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 If Hillary wins then they need to make a reality show for Bill, called the First ManHe can be on the south lawn of the WH checking out chicks as they walk bye while drinking a beer, it would be classic There was a movie about that, decades ago. The one scene I caught had the First Man checking out his new official office, whose biggest feature is a collection of paintings of previous First Lady's Inaugural gowns. (Hey, would that mean Bill would be enshrined in the Smithsonian? Can you say "legacy"?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Well, anyone that looks to the Constitution as an all-encompassing, rigid document with no wiggle room is just blind to reality. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, and the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech."Well hell, there's lots of laws abridging the freedom of speech. Yeah but the separation of church and state is covered in the first part of the first amendment of the constitution. "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion." That's before freedom of the press, freedom of assemble, and freedom to bare arms. Yet folks find wiggle room there. And the countless established precident availible which allows spouses to complete the terms of elected officials is to be changed for Bill and Hillary? Anyway its going to be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.