The no third term thing, according to the WaPo is entirely because.....Republicans.
To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940. Once the two-term tradition was broken, Wilkie added, nobody could put it back together. “If this principle dies, it will be dead forever,” he said.
That’s why the GOP moved to codify it in the Constitution in 1947, when a large Republican majority took over Congress. Ratified by the states in 1951, the 22nd Amendment was an “undisguised slap at the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt,” wrote Clinton Rossiter, one of the era’s leading political scientists. It also reflected “a shocking lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the people,” Rossiter said.No, Mr. Rossiter, it did and it does the opposite. It reflects the great common sense and good judgment of the American people. America is not (yet) a dictatorship where one ruler and one party remains in power until a coup de etat brings another regime into power.
Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?America does not have an imperial presidency, no matter that the editorial board of the Washington Post wishes America did. Their editorial favoring a third term would not have been published, or even considered during the second term of George W. Bush.
My jaded view is that there are no coincidences in politics. This op-ed was published not randomly, but for a reason. And that reason is to begin paving the way, to begin preparing the American citizens, for the notion of a third Obama term.
Wag the dog. Executive orders. Postpone the election until the current crisis has passed. Use the IRS to quash conservative interest groups and political action committees. Limit political speech on the radio. Define who is or can be a journalist; then give only that group White House access, provided they parrot the talking points.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Editorial here.
41 comments:
U S Grant considered a third term, but ultimately decided to not do it because he would have actually had to campaign for the office, which he found distasteful.
As for Obama and a third term - Why not? Let him deal with the giant steaming pile he's creating.
Professor Zimmerman, the opinion piece author, is such a liberal dick. He is a professor of the history of education not history. And I am familiar with his leftist crap since he has written on an off for the local paper.
Icepick makes a good point - who is even gonna want to be president after Obama has driven the car into the ditch and set it on fire.
I have been saying this for a while.
What makes you think that Obama will step down when his term is over?
This is just the first rumbling of the beast.
Obama does not believe in the rule of law. Notice how he so cavalierly violates his own law by saying he will not enforce the provisions of Obamacare...because....Obama.
What makes you think he will abide by the Constitution when he has so many enablers who will cheer him on?
He is the most dangerous man to have ever been elected President.
Eh, enough with the paranoid rumblings about Obama not leaving office at the end of his term. That shit was boring when I heard it about Clinton and Bush, and it isn't getting any saner this time around.
As for repealing the 22nd amendment -- who cares? Obama wouldn't win a third race. If he wants to run again and lose that hurts nobody but Hillary Clinton, and I can live with that.
WaPo is channeling Trooper - how about that!
Oh I hope they keep this shit up.
They have thrown out every standard in a very short time and for the worst of reasons. I know the smart people can see it all, and they are either angry or embarrassed, but some people react to being shown as a fool and a liar by doubling down, by pretending there is nothing wrong, even though they know it's wrong and always said so before when the other party was in power.
I'm a little punch drunk from being disappointed in the intelligence of our voters lately, but I think the leftist faithful are stretching it to the breaking point with this term, and the chickens are coming home.
Obama wouldn't win a third term. The Dems best opportunity is a new candidate who can distance herself from the Obamacare debacle.
No, the scary thing is he would win a third race. Despite all evidence to the contrary the takers versus the makers would vote the same, their interests.
Besides, even if both Houses voted for it, good luck on having the States ratify it. We will all be dead and gone before that would occur, including the one.
This is just liberal lament.
Be a hell of an experiment to see if this failure of a president could still be elected especially combined with 8 years of a lousy economy.
The thought that the government would stop you from having the health care policy you want is just paranoid.
The thought that a President would dictate that states need not obey the law that Congress passed is just paranoid.
The thought that the government would use the IRS against it's political opponents is just paranoid.
The thought that the government would facilitate Iran getting a nuclear bomb is just paranoid.
The thought that the government would have access to all of your private emails and phone records is just paranoid.
Nothing to see here. Just move along.
Don't put anything past this lawless man.
It does not matter if he would lose an election if the election doesn't happen.
If you protest too loudly...there might be a drone in your future.
Oh, well, since he'll probably still be in D.C. anyway...from the Wash. Post: Obama may be a rare ex-president who stays in Washington after his term ends.
No, the scary thing is he would win a third race. Despite all evidence to the contrary the takers versus the makers would vote the same, their interests.
"The takers" have been voting their interests since the dawn of time. Obama won in '08 and '12 because "the makers" didn't have a candidate in the race. Just a couple of the usual Republican cronyists who have zero problem with massive intrusive government provided the man at the helm hates abortion and gays.
Romney didn't lose because "the takers" voted for Obama. He lost because two years after the Tea Party movement retook the House for the GOP, the GOP told the economic conservatives of the Tea Party movement to go fuck themselves.
As my father said, FDR would have stayed in the White House forever if he hadn't died.
But Choom's had his shot. The news from now on is going to be uniformly bad on all fronts (market bubbles, Iran, terror, jobs); his days as Baracka Doc are done.
Icepick said...
U S Grant considered a third term, but ultimately decided to not do it because he would have actually had to campaign for the office, which he found distasteful.
Wishful thinking on Hiram's part.
Between the Credit Mobilier scandal and Little Big Horn, which was laid at his feet by those who thought he was soft on Injuns, he would have done as well as TR in 1912.
An opinion in the venerable Washington Post asserts that Barack Obama should run for a third term because of his magnificent amazing awesomeness.
Why shouldn't the WaPo bow before their modern day Caesar? He has enriched D.C. beyond their wildest dreams. They only wish for the good times to keep rolling, and for the money to keep rolling in.
Republicans are not immune to the disease.
The no third term thing, according to the WaPo is entirely because.....Republicans.
They cant say Bush anymore, with any pretense of seriousness.
The repeal of the 22nd Amendment wouldn't help Obama. It would just put Bill Clinton back in office again.
Across the full political spectrum, Clinton is waaaay more popular than Obama.
People remember the economy as being pretty good under Clinton, in spite of the peccadilloes of his private life.
The scary part about this is not that it could happen but even scarier still is that there is really not much that could be conceived that could be considered beyond the realm of possibility to a lawless president in times of relative prosperity.
Krauthammer latest column stops just short of calling for his impeachment.
It makes sense to me why he would rather not.
How do you ask for the head of Caesar and expect to keep your own.
The fear of even calling for his removal serves to embolden them.
The disrespectful way they call on justices to move out of their way so that Obama can make more appointments.
Like the justices are mere pawns in their quest to remake everything.
They write like grotesque caricatures of themselves.
It's like when Obama wakes up in the morning, his panic is that he hasn't been bold enough.
It makes sense to me why he would rather not. How do you ask for the head of Caesar and expect to keep your own.
Uh, yeah... oppose the impeachment of Obama because he might murder you. That's sane.
Or you could oppose it for the simple reason that the impeachment cannot possibly succeed and would do nothing but cost the Republicans ANY chance controlling Congress after 2014.
Every one should fear Obama and what he might do.
Border patrol agents who will be shot down by guns provided by the ATF.
Conservatives trying to set up not for profit political action committees with the IRS.
People criticizing Obama in their private emails or telephone conversations.
People who want to keep their medical insurance.
People who want to keep their doctors.
People who want to keep their Constitution.
Uh, yeah... oppose the impeachment of Obama because he might murder you.
Waving/breaking laws after awhile get old. Why shouldn't he be bolder, when what was considered too bold was a cakewalk?
At first, I thought it was a stupid idea, but then after thinking about it, why not?
Obama wouldn't win another term, and insofar as Clinton running again, that wouldn't happen because Hillary wouldn't let it happen.
Obama wouldn't win another term, and insofar as Clinton running again, that wouldn't happen because Hillary wouldn't let it happen.
Just look at Slick Willie, he's in the news enough. He's happy being a former President, raking in tens of millions for little work, and he just doesn't have the fire or energy to be President again. Bill has been there, done that, had the intern fuck the ceremonial Presidential cigars. No reason for him to go back to that ever again.
On the left, it doesn't matter who wins. They are all the same. Hillary will be an extension of Obama's lies, crony capitalism, donor favoritism, and corruption.
Ironically, The best professor I ever had taught the History of Education. He was a libertarian, hated the "education industry" despised speech codes and was a fascinating man. This guy is the exact opposite.
If she becomes POTUS, Hillary won't be doing any golfing, that's for sure. Instead of Michelle's garden, Hillary will probably erect a kitchen where she'll teach America how to bake cookies.
Bill won't be allowed in the Oval Office because he's been known to leave stains on everything. Yuck!
Let's keep our heads here, and be pragmatic. This could open up the possibility for Zombie Reagan.
Woodrow Wilson had a massive stroke while in the White House. While recovering from the stroke he thought not about resigning but about running for a third term. You just have to look at pictures of FDR to see that he was half dead during his fourth term. The 22nd amendment is one of my all time favorite amendments.
The presidency has become way too big. We need to get it back to its core purpose of being CIC and chief law enforcement officer while not picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. We don't need 500-600 people working in the White House and the Exec Office Bldg. That is ridiculous.
Waving/breaking laws after awhile get old. Why shouldn't he be bolder, when what was considered too bold was a cakewalk?
He's already had American citizens murdered. Most of the conservatives cheered him because the Americans in question were ostensibly "terrorists".
Wake me when he has a few white dudes murdered and gets away with it.
Most of the conservatives cheered him because the Americans in question were ostensibly "terrorists".
Oh for pete's sake. Name names and provide links or stop saying stupid stuff like this.
Name names and provide links or stop saying stupid stuff like this.
Sure.
Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, Peter King, John McCain, Mike Rogers, Mitt Romney, Donald Rumsfeld, Rick Perry...
Any other silly requests? Slept through 2011, did ya? :)
Its a tragedy that Ike didn't run for a 3rd term. Here's how the Dems/left get around the 2 term limit after Obama):
-Scalia/Thomas retire and they get the crucial 5th SCOTUS vote
-Democrat X wins 2nd term in 2020, wants to run for 3rd term in 2024.
-Democrats file a lawsuit
-In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS states the 2 term limit"Unconstitutional"
-Democrat runs and wins in 2024.
Remember the Constitution is what 5 SCOTUS say it is.
judges
You paranoid types need to stop thinking of Democrats like they were the Borg.
What benefits a Democratic President, what benefits the Democratic Party as a whole, and what benefits leading Democratic politicians are three very, very different things.
A President benefits from the elimination of term limits. The other politicians in the party are hurt by the elimination of term limits -- eliminating turnover at the top it makes it harder for them to move up through the ranks. The party as a whole has no reason to care one way or the other. Obama, Clinton, Carter -- they all appoint the same kinds of justices, sign the same kinds of laws, etc. The important thing to the party is that the President be *a* Democrat, not a *particular* Democrat.
These are also the reasons why the whole "President [insert name here] will seize power" conspiracy theory is an extra-spicy flavor of retarded. A majority of his OWN party would rebel against that idea, because it does against what the party leaders individually want.
Post a Comment