PDA

View Full Version : Bush to run in 2008?


sidney
March 16th, 2006, 03:56 AM
I saw what at first seemed a bizaare news item, that Senator John McCain urged members of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference at their straw poll for 2008 Republican Presidential candidate to write in votes for George W Bush (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/03/frist_wins_romney_shows_strong.html) instead of voting for him.

At first I thought it was part of a McCain strategy to make the best of his certain loss in the straw poll. But I heard a different and more sinister take on this.

George W Bush really does intend to run in 2008! You might think that he can't run for a third term because of the US Constitution, but here is the legal theory that will get him in (once he makes sure that the Supreme Court has enough Justices who will back him up when it is challenged):

First, here's the text of the operative part of the 22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Now, all those left-leaning liberal Democrats who claim that Dubya has been acting as President for the terms to which Gore and then Kerry were actually elected are in a bind: According to their own loudly proclaimed statements about the elections he is still eligible to be elected once!

His supporters, who believe that he was elected, are expected to accept the argument that the first term doesn't count because he did not win a majority of the popular vote. That doesn't quite make sense as avoiding the the second clause ("and no person..."), but is no more tortured an interpretation than other White House legal opinions that they have swallowed recently. And anyway, the final decision will probably be up to the Supreme Court.

So now we know what McCain's straw poll strategy was about: Bush/McCain vs Clinton/Clinton in 2008. (The 22nd Amendment also doesn't preclude a former President from running for VP!)

-- sidney

earler
March 16th, 2006, 08:37 AM
I'm not sure all that is snl material or something for jon stewart.

-er

Judy G. Russell
March 16th, 2006, 10:20 AM
There may be a Bush running for President in 2008, but I don't think it'll be Dubya...

ndebord
March 16th, 2006, 08:26 PM
I saw what at first seemed a bizaare news item, that Senator John McCain urged members of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference at their straw poll for 2008 Republican Presidential candidate to write in votes for George W Bush (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/03/frist_wins_romney_shows_strong.html) instead of voting for him.

At first I thought it was part of a McCain strategy to make the best of his certain loss in the straw poll. But I heard a different and more sinister take on this.

George W Bush really does intend to run in 2008! You might think that he can't run for a third term because of the US Constitution, but here is the legal theory that will get him in (once he makes sure that the Supreme Court has enough Justices who will back him up when it is challenged):

First, here's the text of the operative part of the 22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Now, all those left-leaning liberal Democrats who claim that Dubya has been acting as President for the terms to which Gore and then Kerry were actually elected are in a bind: According to their own loudly proclaimed statements about the elections he is still eligible to be elected once!

His supporters, who believe that he was elected, are expected to accept the argument that the first term doesn't count because he did not win a majority of the popular vote. That doesn't quite make sense as avoiding the the second clause ("and no person..."), but is no more tortured an interpretation than other White House legal opinions that they have swallowed recently. And anyway, the final decision will probably be up to the Supreme Court.

So now we know what McCain's straw poll strategy was about: Bush/McCain vs Clinton/Clinton in 2008. (The 22nd Amendment also doesn't preclude a former President from running for VP!)

-- sidney

Sidney,

I had to double check the date. This is an "early" April Fools joke, no?

Lindsey
March 16th, 2006, 08:36 PM
George W Bush really does intend to run in 2008!
Never happen. I think Cheney is more likely to be the Republican nominee than Bush is, and I don't think Cheney is at all a likely candidate.

Even if Dubya were the nominee, I don't think he'd have a prayer of actually winning, not when he's currently polling in the 30's (a recent Pew poll had him as low as a 33% approval rating), and he's only carrying a majority approval in two or three states.

--Lindsey

Wayne Scott
March 16th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Never happen. I think Cheney is more likely to be the Republican nominee than Bush is, and I don't think Cheney is at all a likely candidate.

Even if Dubya were the nominee, I don't think he'd have a prayer of actually winning, not when he's currently polling in the 30's (a recent Pew poll had him as low as a 33% approval rating), and he's only carrying a majority approval in two or three states.

--Lindsey
What states would that be?
I can't imagine any that would qualify.

Dubious in Detroit

sidney
March 17th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Never happen.

So far, all I've seen here are arguments why it can't happen based on facts, on what's really true. Remember, the Bush administration creates its own reality. The polls are only low now because nobody expects Bush to need the numbers anymore. They'll turn around as soon as he announces his candidacy and all patriotic Americans realize that they have to stand behind their Commander in Chief in a time of war once again. The US Constitution is only a problem until the Supreme Court takes care of it for him.

And Nick, April 1 may be two weeks off, but as sure as the sun will rise and Bush will run again, it's on its way!

-- sidney

ndebord
March 17th, 2006, 09:12 PM
So far, all I've seen here are arguments why it can't happen based on facts, on what's really true. Remember, the Bush administration creates its own reality. The polls are only low now because nobody expects Bush to need the numbers anymore. They'll turn around as soon as he announces his candidacy and all patriotic Americans realize that they have to stand behind their Commander in Chief in a time of war once again. The US Constitution is only a problem until the Supreme Court takes care of it for him.

And Nick, April 1 may be two weeks off, but as sure as the sun will rise and Bush will run again, it's on its way!

-- sidney

Sidney,

I've been a political animal since middle school. I don't do much of it these days, as other issues have taken center stage. I don't think you have a leg to stand on here, but if you are right, then this is a coup in the making.

Lindsey
March 17th, 2006, 10:34 PM
What states would that be?
I can't imagine any that would qualify.
Utah was one; off the top of my head, I can't remember the others. Texas was NOT one of them, though.

--Lindsey

[Later] The poll is here (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315Approval.htm). Approval ratings over 50% only in Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama. Net postive ratings (difference between approval and disapproval percentages) in only 7 states: Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Oklahoma in addition to the three already mentioned. He's in negative territory everywhere else, and at -14% in Texas.

Lindsey
March 17th, 2006, 11:00 PM
So far, all I've seen here are arguments why it can't happen based on facts, on what's really true. Remember, the Bush administration creates its own reality.
(Laughing nervously)

The US Constitution is only a problem until the Supreme Court takes care of it for him.
Yeah, that's the part that scares me. (Can we put Sandra Day O'Connor back on the court? She really socked it to the right wing (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_0310.ht ml) the other day!)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
March 17th, 2006, 11:39 PM
The US Constitution is only a problem until the Supreme Court takes care of it for him.He needs a couple more votes on the Court to pull this one off.

sidney
March 18th, 2006, 01:56 AM
He needs a couple more votes on the Court to pull this one off.

And two and a half years left to get them.

ndebord
March 18th, 2006, 08:45 AM
Sidney,

I can't believe we are seriously considering this.

JR>> He needs a couple more votes on the Court to pull this one off.

Sidney> And two and a half years left to get them.

And he needs to win (or game) the mid-term elections. All bets are off if he loses either house of Congress. As for the Supremes, you gotta wonder if any of them, including Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alitio, would go for something so far outside the norm. Plus in the Senate, are the Republicans willing to go along with this? Crossing the Rubicom kills off not just the Democrats, but "republican" rule too.

sidney
March 18th, 2006, 09:43 AM
I can't believe we are seriously considering this

Umm... I never thought we were! :rolleyes:

Judy G. Russell
March 18th, 2006, 10:30 AM
Well, let's see... Stevens is in his 80s, so that's a possible. Then he can get those folks up in New England to go after Souter the way they did after the condemnation case decision. That'd do it!

ndebord
March 18th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Umm... I never thought we were! :rolleyes:

Aaaargh! So it was an early April Fools!

<sigh>

Wayne Scott
March 18th, 2006, 09:27 PM
Utah was one; off the top of my head, I can't remember the others. Texas was NOT one of them, though.

--Lindsey

[Later] The poll is here (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315Approval.htm). Approval ratings over 50% only in Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama. Net postive ratings (difference between approval and disapproval percentages) in only 7 states: Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Oklahoma in addition to the three already mentioned. He's in negative territory everywhere else, and at -14% in Texas.
Thanks. Those 3 don't surprise me, but I wouldn't have guessed them.

Wayne

Lindsey
March 18th, 2006, 09:42 PM
As for the Supremes, you gotta wonder if any of them, including Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alitio, would go for something so far outside the norm.
Yeah, well -- a lot of people never thought the Supreme Court would take the case of Bush v Gore, either, since traditionally the Court prefers to leave political disputes to the politicians. But they did.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
March 18th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Thanks. Those 3 don't surprise me, but I wouldn't have guessed them.
I'm surprised, frankly, that it's only three states, but I guess he probably lost a lot of the Gulf states (including Texas) in the mess over the aftermath of Katrina.

--Lindsey

ndebord
March 19th, 2006, 01:27 AM
Yeah, well -- a lot of people never thought the Supreme Court would take the case of Bush v Gore, either, since traditionally the Court prefers to leave political disputes to the politicians. But they did.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Yeah, that one still makes me scratch my head.

Bill Hirst
March 26th, 2006, 03:10 PM
And two and a half years left to get them.

Either he needs the votes or the dissenting judges could be declared "enemy combatants" for obstructing the war effort. Then they could be shipped off to Gitmo, never to be seen again.

We don't need hard evidence of terrorism, do we? Inuendo worked fine to identify the commie agents back during the McCarthy inquisition.

Don't ask me for answers: I live in a gerrymandered district in a blue county in a red state, voting with no audit trail and no possibility of proving election fraud.

Lindsey
March 26th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Either he needs the votes or the dissenting judges could be declared "enemy combatants" for obstructing the war effort. Then they could be shipped off to Gitmo, never to be seen again.

We don't need hard evidence of terrorism, do we? Inuendo worked fine to identify the commie agents back during the McCarthy inquisition.

Seems that's about all we need now, too. Estimates are that the vast majority of people currently at Guantanamo are guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And then there was Mahar Arar, the Canadian citizen we flew to Syria to be tortured, and who turned out to be guilty of no more than having a name like a terrorist.

--Lindsey

earler
March 27th, 2006, 03:58 PM
Bear in mind that the witch hunts preceded mccarthy's 15 minutes of fame. And, there were indeed spies, like the rosenbergs and alger hiss. By the way, be careful taking clooney's pic as fact, dramatically admirable as it may be. In fact, murrow didn't destroy mccarthy. Welch did, with the help of mccarthy himself.

-er

ndebord
March 27th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Bear in mind that the witch hunts preceded mccarthy's 15 minutes of fame. And, there were indeed spies, like the rosenbergs and alger hiss. By the way, be careful taking clooney's pic as fact, dramatically admirable as it may be. In fact, murrow didn't destroy mccarthy. Welch did, with the help of mccarthy himself.

-er

Earle,

Yes. Welch was the key, but it was the televised hearings that made it apparent to the public at large. I remember my dad, good Republican that he was, talking about watching them nonstop. Being from Michigan, McCarthy was right next door and so his comments drew more than a little scrutiny in many local households.

ktinkel
March 27th, 2006, 08:09 PM
i remember my dad, good Republican that he was, talking about watching them nonstop. And I remember sitting around the dinner table (on a miitary base near Anchorage, Alaska) listening to the Army/McArthur hearings. We were obsessed with them. (My father was a sort of socialist, to the extent possible for a civilian employee of the Corps of Engineers!)

The taste of sardines on crackers (our common Sunday evening supper) is still embedded in my mind as something to do with Joseph McCarthy.

Those reports probably influenced me, a few years later, to demonstrate and sign petitions against HUAC.

earler
March 28th, 2006, 05:54 AM
Serendipitously, I had infectious mononucleosis at the time and had to keep to bed for a few weeks, during which the army-mccarthy hearings were going on. They were televised in their entirety. There was also nothing else on the tube in those days. So, I watched those hearings. I shall never forget them.

-er

ndebord
March 30th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Serendipitously, I had infectious mononucleosis at the time and had to keep to bed for a few weeks, during which the army-mccarthy hearings were going on. They were televised in their entirety. There was also nothing else on the tube in those days. So, I watched those hearings. I shall never forget them.

-er

Earle,

My interest in politics was fixed because of the hearings and my Dad's reaction to them. He was an engineer and never had time for politics until then. After them, he was heavily involved, which is probably why I was a "Romney" Republican as opposed to a "Soapy" Williams democrat up until JFK.