Repeal the 22nd Amendment?
Interesting viewpoint on a topic long discussed. What do you, faithful reader, think?
Silflay Hraka: 22-Skidoo!: "22-Skidoo!
Finished the second volume in the Ambrose biography of Eisenhower over the weekend. One of the things that struck me was the attitude of the Republican leadership in 58 and 59 towards the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, the one limiting Presidents to two terms in office.
They more or less admitted to themselves that 22 was the stupidest thing they could have done. By the time they realized it, it was too late to pass a repeal of 22 in time to allow Eisenhower to stand for re-election in the 1960 election.
Ike would have won, too. Easily. The Republicans kicked themselves in the rear for years afterwards over what might have been--in private.
22 has hurt the Democrats as well, as was its original intention, of course. Does anyone doubt that Bill Clinton would have served at least three terms in office? In all likelihood he'd be looking forward to a fourth term now, heart attack or no.
22 needs to be repealed, but it won't happen unless there's a bipartisan effort to do so. Given the current state of the electorate, that means that the party that needs to bring up repeal of 22 is not the Republicans, but the Democrats. Any attempt by the party of W to jumpstart a repeal would engender a strong backlash against repeal on the part of the Left, and would likely fail, or require so much amount of political capital that the attempt would simply not be made.
The Democrats would face no such protests from the Left--though they would inevitably be accused of selling out by the unstrategically-minded fringe. The reflexive reaction on much of the Right would undoubtedly be along the lines of 'Please don't throw me in dat dere briar patch,' and it's that reaction that would allow the repeal attempt to be bipartisan in nature.
Then in 2008, W can stand for his third term--and so can Bill.
Won't that be fun?
Posted by Bigwig at November 5, 2004 10:48 AM | TrackBack"
Silflay Hraka: 22-Skidoo!: "22-Skidoo!
Finished the second volume in the Ambrose biography of Eisenhower over the weekend. One of the things that struck me was the attitude of the Republican leadership in 58 and 59 towards the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, the one limiting Presidents to two terms in office.
They more or less admitted to themselves that 22 was the stupidest thing they could have done. By the time they realized it, it was too late to pass a repeal of 22 in time to allow Eisenhower to stand for re-election in the 1960 election.
Ike would have won, too. Easily. The Republicans kicked themselves in the rear for years afterwards over what might have been--in private.
22 has hurt the Democrats as well, as was its original intention, of course. Does anyone doubt that Bill Clinton would have served at least three terms in office? In all likelihood he'd be looking forward to a fourth term now, heart attack or no.
22 needs to be repealed, but it won't happen unless there's a bipartisan effort to do so. Given the current state of the electorate, that means that the party that needs to bring up repeal of 22 is not the Republicans, but the Democrats. Any attempt by the party of W to jumpstart a repeal would engender a strong backlash against repeal on the part of the Left, and would likely fail, or require so much amount of political capital that the attempt would simply not be made.
The Democrats would face no such protests from the Left--though they would inevitably be accused of selling out by the unstrategically-minded fringe. The reflexive reaction on much of the Right would undoubtedly be along the lines of 'Please don't throw me in dat dere briar patch,' and it's that reaction that would allow the repeal attempt to be bipartisan in nature.
Then in 2008, W can stand for his third term--and so can Bill.
Won't that be fun?
Posted by Bigwig at November 5, 2004 10:48 AM | TrackBack"
posted by DLoyd76 at 11/05/2004 09:50:00 AM
<< Home