Former White House counsel Lanny Davis predicted Thursday that ex-President Bill Clinton would defeat President Bush in the political showdown of all time - if the 22nd Amendment barring presidents from seeking a third term were waived for the 2004 presidential election. Reacting to Clinton's suggestion Wednesday that former presidents be allowed to seek a non-consecutive third term, Davis told MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," "I think Bill Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate that I could possibly imagine." "I think he would defeat President Bush by comparing where the country was when he left office with surpluses, prosperity and job creation, to where we are, probably in 2004, with huge deficits and with job losses and with the economy not as well as when he left office." Davis said he favored a modification of the 22nd Amendment to permit the ex-president to run again. "Democracy with a small "d" should count," he told "Scarborough Country" host Joe Scarborough, who abandoned a promising career in politics two years ago. "Any term limit, whether it's a member of the county counsel or the president of the United States, is anti-democratic." Scarborough agreed that Clinton should be allowed to challenge Bush, but said the outcome wouldn't match Davis' prediction. In narration for the set-up piece before interviewing Davis, Scarborough said: "Bush versus Clinton, the leaders of their party, the only heavyweights left standing in American politics. It's the election this country should be having in 2004." ------------------------------------------------ An interesting read....i actually wouldn't mind changing the 22nd Amendment. Think about it guys...this is some heavyweight fight. BUSH V. CLINTON IS ON! NOVEMBER 4,2004. It's the undisputed leaders of both parties going at it, and i think it would be a good election. I almost want Billy to run after i read the list of sickly dem canidates. I think the left deserves a better shot, seeing as how this is a democracy. Which brings into question why a president shouldn't be allowed to pursue a third non consecutive term. If the people want him, then they should get him.
I'm actually in favor of more term limits rather than loosening the current ones. The presidential term limits keeps the flow of new ideas coming. What we need are congressional term limits. Until we have realistic limits on how long a person can serve, we'll remain a nation where a governing seat can be bought by out-spending your opponent. By adding term limits, I think we'd get more voices from the common man into congress. Bush V. Clinton be damned. I want to eventually see an election that pits two people who give a crap about something other than pleasing their corporate or sexual interests through the presidency.
IMO all elected government officials should have term limits of 2 terms or 8 years, whichever is longer (so at the federal level the President can serve 2 terms/8 years, Representatives can serve 4 terms/8 years, Senators can serve 2 terms/12 years).
Sounds great to me. Get some new blood in there and eventually the majority will dictate their opinions rather than have their opinions given to them.
I have heard this kind of talk about changing the constitution by self-serving popular politicians. In Argentina Juan Domingo Peron changed the constitution so he could remain in power. Since a majority of congress and a majority of the public supported him, he was able to push it through. But the democratic institutions were weakened, and a few years later Democracy was the casualty. I always believed that this kind of issue would never come up in the United States. I am shocked that somebody like Bill Clinton would propose it. I never thought the day would come when I would have to compare Bill Clinton and Hillary to Peron and Evita. But having heard Hilary speak recently I was taken back by her demagogy. Now with her husband talking about this change in the constitution, it becomes a concern. I still think most Americans are unlikely to be duped like a whole generation was in Argentina, but there is some danger. Once you begin to weaken democratic institutions who knows what can happen. The US constitution is not much different than that of Argentina. In fact, America could probably sue Argentina for plagiarism, because our founding fathers admired the US so much that they practically copied the document. The difference over the years has been the respect that Americans have had for their constitution and their institutions. Sadly, in Argentina people chose politics and demogagy over the country's institutions, with disastrous results. But I have faith in the American peoople. As long as Clintons words only appeal to a few, then we should have nothing to worry about. But if this becomes serious, I hope that people will look at what has happened in other places. Because if Americans understand that things that happened in other places can happen also in America, they will hopefuly stay vigilant to make sure it doesn't happen. Americans, leave your constitution the way it is. It has worked so far.
I have been in favor of the ONE six year term of office for the Presidency for years. It gives the President time to adjust, make policy, and set a course for the future without sullying the Office by having to campaign for the second term.
Dear Bill, It's bad enough that your shrill, squeaking, carpet-bagger wife is a US Senator. But at least she's new to the game. We've had enough of you already (Clinton Fatigue Part II). Become an ambassador. Work for the UN. Teach at a university. The role of an ex-president is largely ceremonial. There's no need for a shadow presidency from Chappaqua. Sincerely, The American People
I take great joy in the fact that egoman Bill Clinton is so miserable out of the limelight that he has to invent ways to keep himself relevant. Post-presidency and Bush's popularity is killing this guy inside and it's all so worthwhile to watch.
One knock on term limits is this. A lot of government power sits in the hands of career bureaucrats who never have to leave office. Sometimes this bureaucracy changes when the dominant party changes, but sometimes it doesn't, especially in non-glamorous jobs. When you take away power from the voters to decide who they want in control (which term limits do), then your shifting more power into the hands of the bureaucracy. And those people never answer directly to the voters. Also, first term legislators are usually lap dogs for their political parties. They don't really have the know-how or clout to buck the party line very much. It's when you get people who have served for many terms that you get people who are able to stand for their constituents and their principles, rather than their party. So term limits make Washington MORE partisan. I think the change that Clinton is asking for is very reasonable. How does a third non-consecutive term hurt anything? Now as a Democrat, I wouldn't want to see the rule changed in time for 2004. Clinton is definetly the strongest Democrat out there, but we all know he carries a lot of baggage with him. I hope that 2004 will be a chance for a new Democrat to gain as much strength as Clinton did. There's a lot of talk right now about how poor the field of Democrats are doing, but 6 months from now 1 or 2 of them is going to look pretty strong, and W. isn't going to look so unbeatable.
Term limits have helped to bugger California. Sure, it's mostly Gray Davis being a corrupt schweinhund, but the entire Legislature is crammed with short-time hacks concerned with short-term paydays. George Bush (both of them) is the best thing that could happen to Bill Clinton's legacy. Compared to them, he's Jefferson, Jackson and Jesus. Running again would only tarnish that achievement. Well, unless Jeb steals an election for one term after another eight years of Clinton. Hm. Four years of disaster, eight years of prosperity, four years of disaster, eight years of prosperity....I'd make that trade, although I don't know about the long term effects of pointless oil wars in the down cycles.
Clinton's success (?) was entirely driven by a strong economy. Not entirely his doing. He had a disastrous record in foreign policy (look at the mess in the Mideast & Africa, nevermind the inattention to world-wide terrorism) and whittled away a good portion of his second term defending his extra-marital sex life. Definitely a mixed bag and his "greatness" is far from etched in stone (unless you're a liberal like Dan). Interestingly, this week Bob Geldof praised Bush's efforts to alleviate AIDS in Africa and blasted Clinton's indifference. Not a topic that Democrats bring up much when discussing Bill's "super" achievements.
If you mean Thomas Jefferson only in the context of having extramarital affairs with those who work for him, Michael Jackson, and Jesus Figueroa the illegal immigrant crack dealer, then I agree with you.
from what i understand ammending the 22nd (isn't it?) ammendment would not allow anyone to be grandfathered through... so it only works for future presidents... at least that's the word on the networks. (so the only clinton running would be hillary maybe). however, i can't say i like this idea too much still. i mean sure sometimes it seems like a good thing (like say, nyc re-electing rudulph which wasn't allowed), but that isn't always the case... with 280 million in a country, you'd think someone new could be found every 8 years...
Why do so many conservatives still obsess about Bill Clinton? As far as I'm concerned that's enough proof that he was a great president.
We only bash him when you guys bring him up. You can bet your ass liberals will still be bitching about Bush this time in 2013. If selling nuclear secrets to an enemy, lying under oath, lying to the American public repeatedly, and generally disgracing the office of President is the standard of greatness, then Clinton was fucking unbelieveable.
Clinton surveyed the paltry offerings of this crop of Dem. candidates and said to himself "I could screw a whole busload of 20 yr. old interns on the White House lawn and beat these knuckleheads. Let's get that Constitution changed! Hill - pass me the Penthouse, I need to do some research on this."
I knew I forgot something! Kudos to whoever posted that surely there's one more person in the several million US citizens that's qualified to be President, too.