Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush for President in 2008

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:12 AM
Original message
Bush for President in 2008
WASHINGTON One thing is certain about the 2008 presidential election campaign that begins in one year: It won't involve George W. Bush as a candidate.

But bipartisan legislation to repeal the 22nd Amendment restriction of two terms for U.S. presidents could change that certainty for future presidents.

Two of the most passionate congressional advocates of such a move Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI have teamed up to sponsor a resolution that would represent the first step toward that change in the U.S. political system.

"The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics," explained Hoyer. "While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result."

Until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term during World War II, there was no such restriction in American law. A tradition of presidents serving two terms only began with George Washington.

"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52246

Yes, that's right people. After winning the popular majority in 2000 and then an uncontested election in 2004, it is now time for us to change the law so we can vote this guy into office again. Don't worry because the Republican-controlled Congress and the Supreme Court will protect "our country from tyranny" just like they have been doing from the USA PATRIOT Act and the new detainee bill that theoretically also applies to US citizens. Even Steny Hoyer and Jim Kill-the-Patriot-Act-Opposition Sensenbrenner are saying it will be okay, so it must be, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's easy to be cocky about "winning" when Diebold is on your team!
Ask them if this change should also apply to Bill and/or Hillary, and you'll see them change their tune real fast.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertha katzenengel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Remove * from the picture for a minute. Now: Do you agree that
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 08:17 AM by bertha katzenengel
the 22nd Amendment should be repealed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. No.
I think we need term limits in the Senate, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. And on the Supreme Court
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertha katzenengel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
35. I disagree.
We have three branches. There has to be one that can remain constant - stable. SC Justices are supposed to be beyond partisanship. We know that's impossible, but still we need the consistency that lifetime appointments give.

I wish I knew better how to articulate what I'm trying to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. No. Someone else will just come along and abuse it.
And next time, it will be worse than what Bush did because they will have learned from his mistakes, whereas the American people will follow blindly.

IMO, it is definitely not a good idea. I think there should be term limits on the Senate and House also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertha katzenengel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #14
34. "the American people will follow blindly" -- we haven't always.
Did we (i.e., the American voters in general) follow FDR blindly? He was re-elected three times. Most DUers would say we Americans voted wisely in the 30s and 40s.

Did we follow WJC blindly?

Yet we DUers say we followed Bush blindly. And Reagan.

Is it not all just a matter of political perspective?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. I agree with part of what you say.
I agree with the first two words: "Remove Bush."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusEarl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. Another stupid ass plan from repugs,
but the upside would be that Big Dog could run again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. This would require a Constitutional Amendment
No way the States would ratify such a stupid idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They probably do not have much of a chance right now for it...
even though there are some Dems who are also for it. Like Steny Hoyer and the guy in post#2. Did you look at post#2? The thing is, though, that if there is some kind of other terrorist attack, it will have legs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
26. Yep, I saw that post.
We don't need to help people build dynasties, regardless of the party to which they belong. I did notice some Democrats who are for it. Count me as one who is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. Exactly.I don't think all 38 States would ratify this......
..and even if they would, I doubt it would be in time for the 08 Election.
But let's say it would happen - Bill Clinton could run again, andmost likely beat the pants of George......... :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. Yes and GWB is required to follow the law. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. All in due time, my friend.
You make a good point but things are going to be different, starting in January.

All in due time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. I wonder if the SCOTUS agrees with you. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. Well of course SCOTUS would agree with him
The 22nd amendment is very clear cut in that it sets a limit on how many terms can be served as president.

There is absolutely no way, short of a constitutional amendment to change this fact.

Regardless of what one may think of some SC decisions, this is 100% not open to interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Everything is open to interpretation. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. This gets posted once or twice a week
Can we please find something else to worry about.

This can not happen fast enough to matter for 08.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. Really?
I come here a lot and have never seen such a thread? Can you point to two threads from the last 2 weeks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. here's one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
8. "Bipartisan" legislation?
Who the (bad language) are the Democrats in favor repealing the 22nd Amendment, and why the (really, REALLY bad language) are they still allowed to call themselves "Democrats?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Steny Hoyer
and he's the guy that said this stuff...

"We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. What an ignorant f-t!
Am I allowed to call him a (link), or are Democrats still immune from criticism no matter how well deserved?

But one person happy to set up a dictatorship does not bipartisanship make. Who are the other Democrats? Does anyone know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
28. Wonder if Stenny's checked to see how well that's working right now?
What a knothead! And if sufficient power does exist without the 22nd Amendment, it is provided by "rigid" constitutional standards. You would hope he could go for longer than 2 sentences without contradicting himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
29. I hear Zell Miller's endorsed it. (EOM)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think the term-limit amendment is a really good thing about your system
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 08:22 AM by LeftishBrit
A check on unfettered presidential power. After Maggie and Tony, I really wish that the UK would introduce something similar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Yeah.
We need more term limits in our system, like in the Senate, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
11. "Sufficient power (cong. courts) to protect our country from tyranny"
Yeah, that works very well UNTIL it faces an ACTUAL tyrant in the executive.
Then it doesn't work at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. right.
it is a completely insane argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
19. Go ahead. Bill Clinton can run and kick his ass then.
The most important reason to limit a president's terms is one most people don't understand or care about: courts and judicial nominees. Serve long enough and you appoint all the Justices who oversee you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. The Neocons will do whatever it takes to retain power. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
25. I wouldn't lose sleep over this
Yes, a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment has been proposed. Guess what. It was proposed in the last congress, too. And probably the one before that. And its not going anywhere. In the 109th Congress (which convened Jan 2005), there probably have been 100 constitutional amendments proposed, including amendments to repeal the 16th amendment, to abolish income, estate, and gift taxes, to require a balanced budget, to redefine citizenship, to guarantee everyone a right to a home, to impose term limits, and of course all of the old standbys: marriage, voluntary prayer, flag desecration, official language, etc etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
30. I can only hope they do this, Bill Clinton in a landslide in '08
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
31. Two Term Limit
I would suggest limiting the President to two CONSECUTIVE terms. After a one-term hiatus, he could then run again. This would enable a popular President to be elected to a third and fourth term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
33. Jeb will be the 2008 Nazi Party nominee
Why all the fuss since Jeb is in the wings!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Well, it will a lot easier to fix
the Florida election, if that is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KKKarl is an idiot Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
38. This would be a bad idea
Look at Britain. Margaret Thatcher started out as a very popular prime minister only to quit in dishonor in her 4th term. Now Tony Blair is also putting his tail between his legs & running in his 3rd term. Democracy is a good thing. It must not be allowed to be a dictatorship. Term limits should be instituted for Congress & the Senate as well. The supreme court needs to be elected by popular vote. Bush being given 2 appointees during the "congressional rubber stamp era" (which will end with the 109th congress) is going to hurt this country in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC