🚀 go-pugleaf

>} But since the requirement, vis a vis President/VP, is specifically
>} mentioned twice in the US Constitution and no similar mention for
>} senator one has to conclude any comparison is metaphorical at best,
>} and apples and oranges at worst.
>
>I don't know what you're talking about. The word "inhabitant" is used in
>the language for the electoral college, and the word "inhabitant" is
>used in the language for senate candidacy. As for the intent of the
>framers, that's a matter of conjecture.

So you're saying Cheney didn't have to change his residency to Wyoming
and could have kept it in Texas. I've never heard anyone say that
before but it'd be interesting to hear what you base that theory on.

>they would lose votes in the other states. It's hard to even really
>see why the requirement is a big deal, from a "what were they thinking
>standpoint".

I agree I don't know off-hand why they added the requirement that the
president and vp be from different states, only that this is the
stated requirement.

But there's also a big difference between the base question, did
Cheney properly change residency from Texas to Wyoming soas to fulfill
the constitutional requirements, and whether those requirements exist
at all.

I think if I were Cheney et al I'd try to argue they fulfilled
generally accepted requirements for establishing residency rather than
try to find wiggle-room in the constitutional requirement.

But no doubt if the former doesn't work the latter would be tried.

>} In contrast, Cheney had to change his residency from Texas to Wyoming
>} at the last minute to fulfill a constitutional requirement for
>} president/vp.
>
>Hillary Clinton did the same thing, only a year sooner. Who cares?

I thought we already agreed that there's no constitutional requirement
imposed on a Senator, it's left up to the state. But there's a
specific constitutional requirement vis a vis vice president.

So it's not the same thing, only perhaps as an analogy.

Or perhaps you're talking about some spiritual level rather than legal
requirements, it's hard to tell.

>Cheney was raised in Wyoming and represented the state in Congress for
>over a decade. Hillary Clinton is a carpetbagger who walked into New
>York State for the sole reason of wanting a senate seat. If New Yorkers
>were sufficiently clueless that they didn't care about this, then that
>was their choice, and they will live with the consequences, if there are
>any. 

I don't know what you mean "clueless", if they knew only one thing
about Hillary Clinton other than her name and she was the first lady
it'd be that she'd only recently moved to NY.

You seem to think that's incredibly important, many people don't,
obviously, she won.

A carpetbagger is a derogatory term referring to northeners who were
sent down south in the aftermath of the Civil War to fill various
ministerial and bureaucratic positions. It was a bitter symbol of the
south's defeat.

Except for the out of state analogy it's hard to see where something
as voluntary and popularly supported as happened with Hillary in NY as
being much of a carpetbagging.

You're resorting to vague and deprecatory language where reasoning and
information might be more persuasive.

>Do you think the Clintons would have hung around in Chappaqua if she had
>lost? I'd bet the movers would have been there within the month.

Actually they probably do have a strong attraction to NY and in
particular NYC, they were recently seen looking at pied a terres
(small apartments) in Manhattan.

So even if it doesn't serve the point you wish to make they may have a
very strong attraction to NY which led them to the idea of Hillary
running rather than vice-versa.

NYC is NYC after all, not too many other places in the world like it
for the successful.

>} Dumb enough? I guess we're all lucky no one died and made you king,
>} always nice when someone tries to underscore their mere disagreement
>} by resorting to insults.
>
>Yes, I think New Yorkers were dumb to vote in Hillary Clinton, a carpetbagger
>with no real political experience, dubious ethics, a trail of scandals,
>a great number of enemies in Congress and IMO no interest whatsoever
>in their state.

Oh boy here we go again with the recitation of the Republican Catechism.

What scandals were these exactly?

You know what I think? I think you're dumb.

You're dumb because you fall for the outrageous bullshit that
republicans pump out and repeat it like it's the truth rather than the
completely unproven propaganda it is.

Hillary had a helluva lot of more political experience than Libby Dole
and I remember a lot of Republicans cheering her on to run for
president last Spring. She was in the primaries, right? What political
offices has she ever held? (none.)

I daresay Hillary has had a helluva lot more political experience than
George W Bush whose credentials amount to sobering up at 40 and
crawling into the Texas governor's office, one of the weakest
do-nothing governor's position in the country by design (it's
literally a part-time job and mostly symbolic), a few years ago on his
daddy's coattails.

Anyhow, it's clear your practical concern with Hillary is about zero,
she's not your senator and no doubt some of the other 99 senators
should be of more concern to you, but this is the usual Clinton
bashing exercise.

I'm glad that Hillary is so charismatic that she can attract the
spotlight even of unreasoned bashers like yourself.

As to the rest of your attacks on me, whoo-hoo, not surprising you
choose to retell my words rather than quote them because I never said
any of the things you claim.

Take a deep breath, when you start attacking me personally rather than
discussing the issues you're going straight off the deep end and only
marginalizing yourself.

>} Lazio was a very weak candidate pulled out only when Giuliani dropped
>} out due to his personal and health problems.
>
>Agreed. That the Republicans didn't have a "name" is a big part of why
>Clinton won. Which of course, is likely part of why she ran.

Didn't have a name? There's an understatement.

Look, NY is arguably the most complex and economically pivotal state
in the union, with the only likely contender being California.

Lazio was a lightweight, you can't have that kind of lightweight
representing a state like NY in the Senate if you can help it.

The voters of NY knew exactly what they were doing when they elected
an experienced, sophisticated, intelligent individual whose opinions
they can mostly agree with (it's rarely 100% in any election) over a
kid which is how a number of voters described Lazio when they'd first
see him walk in at some state fair or whatever.

Giuliani may've beat her, I may not agree with everything Giuliani
stands for but none of the above would apply to him, he's an
experienced in-fighter and politician with national recognition, the
kind of guy who can represent NY.

But Lazio was a lightweight and the voters of NY saw that, and they
liked what they saw in Hillary as their votes indicated.

>} It's not "dumb" that the voters of NY voted for Hillary, she was the
>} more attractive candidate for representing their interests.
>
>Doubtful. She won in part because Lazio ran a poor campaign, but more
>because elections these days boil down to popularity contests, and she
>was a "name". That she shares her husband's penchant for well-executed 
>dishonesty, and that she ran in a heavily Democratic state, certainly also
>played a big role.

By now even you should be able to see the sour grapes above.

A "name" is good, the Senator from NY should be a name, particularly
when Lazio has been a political hack for several years and before
stepping into this particular race was an unknown.

There's nothing wrong with being a name. It's only because of
Clinton's name that you can even name Lazio. He was riding on
Hillary's coattails too.

If you don't believe that tell me who Corzine beat for senator in New
Jersey or a few other senatorial races.

That's what you want in a senator of a major state, a person who knows
how to get the limelight, who can manage celebrity, and who can also
do the job.

People who can only do the job probably will never get a chance
because they'll be lost in the crowd down in Washington.

>If she was such an attractive candidate, I wonder why she didn't run in
>her own state, Arkansas? I think we all know the answer to that
>question.

That's a stupid question only intended for rhetorical effect.

You do realize she's not from Arkansas either? Her husband whom she
met at Yale, Bill Clinton, is from Arkansas. Hillary was born in
Chicago and grew up in Illinois before going to Wellesley College and
Yale Law School.

At any rate you're just trying to obscure the legal residency
requirements of the president/vice-president as set down in the
constitution by making some kind of personal emotional, sentimental
residency pitch.

We're way past that, maybe that would have been interesting before
election day but now we're talking about who is legally qualified for
office and what the various issues are.

Hillary is the Senator-elect from NY, get over it, she doesn't need
your permission.

Bush/Cheney still have a long way to go, so those issues are still
interesting and in play.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*