I'd say it has to be a joke or at least somebody who's looking to rile people up. Especially with this comment: Regardless if you voted for Bush or not. Suggesting that the constitution be ammended so W can run again can't be taken seriously.
Actually, I would have been in favor of doing away with term limits even when a President I didn't agree with was in office. I'm not saying that we should do it cz its W, but we should do it because it's the democratic thing to do. Think about it. Even though I voted for Bush, I know that he can pretty much do anything he wants to now because he has no fear, really. He can't run. Plus it's the majority of today telling the majority of tomorrow who they can and can't vote for. Regardless of the party in control, term limits are antiquated in my mind.
Not really. He'd still run the risk of being impeached or getting voted out every fourth year. Say, why are there term limits anyway?
For over a century, it was an understanding among presidents that was passed down from George Washington, who did not run after his second term because he thought that presidents should be limited to two terms. After FDR won four elections, the 22nd was put in to codify the understanding into law. BTW, if the 22nd was repealed, Clinton would beat Bush like a red headed stepchild.
No he wouldn't...Notice that the new DNC leader is pro-gun?,...Your party is trying to image a more moderate face, on the heels of being lambasted!
Guns aren't the main issue in the country, ROXRAN. I know they're important to you, and I'm not trying to bash you, but even though Clinton isn't Pro-Gun he would dominate the Democratic primaries and win by a decent margin in the Presidential election. And was Kerry really a moderate face for the democratic party? I'd love to have more people like McCain in our government, people that don't side with an issue just because the rest of their party does.
No way was Kerry anything but far left, extreme liberal!...Acting like he was hunting to fool the South, while having the most anti-gun voting record for a politician was more than insulting... I'd love to have others like Liebermann, who don't scream and spit with red faced tirade (ala Gore) shouting Bush has betrayed us or is a comparison to Hitler, or Milosovich...Actually, no I wouldn't, keep clinging to the far left screamers and maniacs on your fence, so political repeats of 2004 will be on order for years to come...The neo-demos don't know what direction to clearly engage tactically...Moderation is often considered a weakness by your strong...But if your "strongest" got lambasted, succumbing to weakness means broader appeal, such as being more pro-gun, less regulatory, etc.... Being too proud on your side will keep you losers...Keep the pride!
AS I have said many, many times before, I am not a Democrat, I am independant. I also never voted for Clinton, I was just commenting that Clinton would beat Bush badly if the 22nd was repealed. Clinton has many foibles, but he is a consummate politician who knows how to win elections and put up against Bush, he would win a larger landslide than Reagan won in his second election.
I think I misread your first response on this, thinking Kerry was the one you were referring to as the Democrats trying to put a moderate image up. And, my "side"? I don't have a side. If there was the official choice from Nevada on the ballot, "none of these", I would have picked that. I was just stating that Clinton would have won by a mile in this election.
Here's some food for thought. George W. Bush won a majority of the votes in the last election. Bill Clinton never did that.
But that still doesn't answer why. If the people feel that an eighth year president could do a better job than anyone else vying for the job, than why shouldn't he be able to keep that job? I just don't see the dangers of a long-term presidential reign. We have balances of power, and once again there's that pesky election every four years to keep 'em honest.
Also, the Repubs picked up seats in the House and Senate which to me means that Kerry wasn't the only problem with the Dems platform.
I agree with Andy. Clinton would put a major asswhuppin' on W. Why? Because he understands how to simplify a campaign message like W's handler's do.
Exactly. He (and/or his handlers) know how to tailor a message that everyone can easily understand. He was also able to communicate that message very effectively using direct, relatable examples and always seemed to be able to communicate his vision to the masses.
The last election didn't see a strong third party candidate. Perot was strong (relative to Nader and Badnarik) in both of Clinton's elections.
The only why that I am aware of is why George Washington didn't want presidents to have more than two terms. He said something to the effect that a president could eventually turn the country into an effective monarchy if he was able to build his power base. GW didn't think that we should have a ruler for life, which GW could very likely have been had he chosen to continue running. Yeah, but elections can easily be bought, particularly in today's world. Personally, I believe in term limits and think they should extend to the Congress as well. They would help to get fresh blood in government and to overcome some of the entrenched powers that seem to be in office forever (Thurmond, Kennedy, etc.).
The thing I love about these types of grassroots sites is how well done they always seem to be. The graphics aren't cheap or lame looking and, when they use free software to save money like PHPNuke, they NEVER use just their standard templates.
