Looking to 2008, I don't think we can afford to change presidents...

[kentuck]

With a war raging in the Middle East, with the American hostages still being held, with Israeli troops on the ground in Lebanon and Beirut in shambles. With Russia now aiding Iran and Syria with anti-aircraft guns and the huge loss of life on all sides. With the UN meeting daily to try and work out a ceasefire, but to no avail. With refugees from Jordan, Iraq, and Syria flooding into Cairo, there is a humanitarian tragedy of large proportions.

And with the American election approaching, Senator Hatch has proposed that the 22nd Amendment be repealed because the US cannot take the gamble of changing leadership in the middle of a war of this magnitude. A few Democrats complain, mostly on liberal websites like DU, but George W Bush agrees to stay in office until the war is "finished".

Too unreal to think about??

[Erika]

1. Yeah, Republicans will kill the planet off given 4 more years

Environmentally, also. My good GOP friend voted for W in 2004 so he could finish the war he started. She sure is embarrassed now.

[uppityperson]

2. scary thought, isn't it.

I think he is finished though, it would take more than escalating war all over the middle east, hostages, Russia Iran Syria, but those huge loss of life on OUR side, still don't think so. However, nowhere is it written that the USA empire must stand forever.

[MADem]

3. You're absolutely right....Hatch proposes, Congress and the States

repeal, and those fucking shitbird Freepers get twenty more years of BILL CLINTON. With HILLARY as his VEE PEE. By a LANDSLIDE. Every fucking time!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would serve them right, and home ownership would be within reach of average Americans once again.

There would be jobs, peace, prosperity. Life would be good, we could hold our heads up once more. No having to pretend to be Canadian, wouldn't it be loverly?


Works for me.

[Prophet 451]

4. I've been saying for years...

that W won't leave office in 2008/9. He's too in love with the power, his buddies have too many ideological reason to hold on to power and there's a decent chance that many of them could be facing charges if they left office. It might be suspending the election, a Diebold-engineered election victory (post teh repeal of the 22nd) or an honest-to-Satan coup but he's got too much invested to be looking forward to leaving.

That said and toning my paranoia down to manageable levels, there's been several attempts to repeal the 22nd before. I'm pretty sure someone tried it to give Reagan a third term and I seem to remember someone tried it for Clinton as well. In all liklihood, it'll come to nothing.

[countmyvote4real]

5. "It would be much easier if I were the dictator." n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Not too unreal. Since when have Chimpy...

...and his cabal of criminals felt at all bound by ANY procedure, rule, precedent, or law? This isn't hard to imagine. Plenty scary though.

[Clark2008]

7. You know something - maybe we should just let him.

It might bring back that good ole activity of running someone out on a rail.

:evilgrin:

[BringEmOn]

8. Don't change dicks in the middle of a screw....

Let's keep Cheney, and George Dubya, too.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Repeal the 22d Amendment? Martial law is much faster. n/t

[SheilaT]

10. Repealing an amendment isn't very easy.

It takes a two-thirds majority in each house for a proposed amendment to be handed off to the states. And then three-fourths of them must approve. I honestly cannot see that happening.

What you need to pay more attention to is who is likely to be the nominee on the Republican side. And don't just glibly say Jeb. Because he does not have the kind of support within the party, nor the stomach to go out there and campaign in the caucuses and primaries. I hesitate to make any predictions, simply because there's no way of knowing how world and national events will unfold in the next two years. But look for the Republicans to nominate someone who will at least appear to be a "stronger" and "better" candidate than whoever it is the Democrats nominate.

Think about it in those terms. All they need is someone well enough entrenched within the party, someone with a strong reputation as a conservative, someone who can bamboozle Democrats who really aren't paying much attention into thinking he's on their side. And all the Democrats have to do is nominate someone who is seen as divisive, who is too liberal or too Republican lite, someone who will seem shrill or silly debating the Republican nominee.

That's how they'll win in 08. They won't even need to stuff the ballot boxes, although they probably will. And there will be no need for extending W's stay in office. Heck, he can hardly wait to retire to Crawford and live off the fancy government pension and go around speaking to groups who will pay him $100,000 a pop, or give him stocks that are worth millions. No, he won't stick around.

[serryjw]

11. How do you propose to repeal the 22nd in 2 years?

The only thing these fucks can do it screw up the world.....You want 50 states to vote in less than 2 years? OR Is congress going to ignor the constitution and give * an EO?