BOSSHOG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:12 AM
Original message |
Franken proposes dems move to repeal the 22nd amendment |
|
so bush can run for President again. Wacky Al things it would be hilarious to have republicans get up in congress and oppose the move. Not a bad line of reasoning but with just a degree of danger as to remain in Al's bag of jokes. Al be careful what you ask for. With diebold margin of error, bush only needs about 35% of the vote to "win."
|
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message |
1. He also said before he would run for president, with Bill Clinton as VP, |
|
and his only platform would be that he would resign immediately after being sworn in.
:rofl:
|
BOSSHOG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. The 22nd was pushed by the republicans |
|
in 1951 to show just how rough and tough they were. No more 5 term FDR's for them; and the first casualty of the amendment was President Eisenhower. Even back then the only thing republicans good do well was get elected.
|
CrushTheDLC
(448 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
11. Bill Clinton can't run for VP either (unless such an ammendment is passed) |
|
The constitution says that a VP must be able to become President, should the need arise, and as a two term President, he's not eligible.
The tragic thing here is that Poppy Bush could run for VP (and probably would if he wasn't so old) even though he probably performed 90% of the Reagan "presidency" himself.
|
librechik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:16 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I reminds me of some of the stunts the Pukkkes pull |
|
to get us to discredit ourselves.
Why are we in this position? Can Congress' business not be done straightforwardly anymore? That is my impression.
|
bigbrother05
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Sure, would let Clinton run again, too. |
|
Any doubts who would win that one?
|
n2doc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:33 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Do we really want Clinton again? |
|
Sure, I'd take him over any repuke, but he wasn't exactly the standard bearer for progressive causes....
Maybe the 'pukes would counter with a stuffed St. Ronnie. He would be about as lifelike as he was during his last few years in office...
|
jumpoffdaplanet
(676 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Clinton fixed one rethug mess. He'd be able to fix this one, esp. with a dem congress backing him.
|
lojasmo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
rep the dems
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. You're right, he wasn't. |
|
Just look at the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. It's not as bad as proposing an amendment against gay people, but it is not the kind of policy a true progressive would accept. I'm glad that Clinton was able to give democrats 2 terms away from the typical right wing bullshit, but to do so, he had to take a moderate approach to gain appeal from conservatives.
|
Posteritatis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 04:17 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I'm of mixed feelings about that amendment |
|
On the one hand, a three-term Bush or Reagan gives me soul cancer to even think of.
On the other hand, if someone has enough voter support to run for three or four terms, I don't think the voters should be denied that choice.
|
CrushTheDLC
(448 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message |
10. There's only two circumstances under which I could support that idea. |
|
1) Every electronic voting machine would have to be destroyed.
2) The "election year ending in zero" curse would have had to be successful with the current occupant of the White House.
(if you don't know what that means, I can't elaborate further without Secret Service harrassment)
|
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-15-06 08:44 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Let's remember that Al seems to be in denial about Bush stealing |
|
the last two elections which means he hasn't considered that he could do it again. (Perhaps Stewart Smalley should talk to Al about his denial.)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 11:16 AM
Response to Original message |