January 18, 2009


I know it's not the first time it's been proposed, but I absolutely stand firm against any effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment. And I would've stood firm in 1987 as well when it was proposed during the Reagan presidency. Twice is enough for anyone, even my guy.


Seems I agree wholeheartedly with what William F. Buckley, Jr. (pbuh) said back in 1988:

Two terms is enough for a President. And if we are going to change the Constitution let's have a three-term limit for senators, and a five-term limit for congressmen.

Now there's an amendment idea.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:38 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Of course you would feel this way. No Republican president is competent enough to last longer than two terms. (Or even be elected fair and square - al-Gore won, and don't you forget it!) So your amendment wouldn't affect your guy who will be out of office in eight years or less (o merciful Allah, we pray for Watergate II!). Your amendment only hurts us, and the People who want us to rule them forever. And you claim to support democracy? Hah! You don't want another Roosevelt. Today, James Hudnall asked: But, didn’t the lefties say he [Bush] was going to have a coup? Didn’t they say the Bushies were going to put all dissenters into POW camps? That these camps were built and ready to go? Why didn’t Bush “steal the election” to ensure a Republican win. Why didn’t they shut down the press? Why weren’t all the lefties rounded up and tortured? Why did a lefty get elected if the evil Bush junta was controlling things? Because we overestimate the mindless Bushaitanic beasts and assume they would do what we can only dream of ... did I say that? No, I didn't. Nothing to see here. Move on ...

Posted by: kevin at January 18, 2009 12:37 PM (y3aIN)

2 i would LOVE to see term limits for congress, too. and absolutely no repeal of the 22nd, no matter how wonderful the president.

Posted by: Sis B at January 18, 2009 01:39 PM (0ScrO)

3 Yeah. What Sis B said. Which is basically what Sarah said. So, double yeah!!

Posted by: Guard Wife at January 18, 2009 02:11 PM (IADCv)

4 Miss Ladybug, I too share your concern about Obama, but he's not the only example of personality-driven politics. Sarah Palin also emerged as a major figure from last year's election. Yet how much of her popularity is rooted in her ideas as opposed to her embodiment of frontier America? Are people voting for icons or ideas? Speaking of icons, they would still matter if the ideocentric voting that Jenni and I proposed became a reality. If candidates kept their identities hidden behind numbers, ad campaigns could still sell those numbers to a public without the slightest pretense of substance. Somebody might vote for Number Six (the late Patrick McGoohan's The Prisoner is on my mind) just because he saw an ad with an animated number six (think Sesame Street clips with super-expensive CGI). Logos for numbers would hint at ethnicity and gender. Though people strive to be color-blind, their eyes keep asking, "What's your tribe?" Most of you have no idea what my tribe is, and I like that. The anonymity of the Internet allows ideas to be judged by their own (de)merits. Hence a blog is a better place to try to grok than the "real world," where you would see me and make assumptions - some right and some wrong - before you heard me speak a word. That goes both ways. I too would prejudge you with less than total accuracy. Take away our computers and we're still a tribal species. Us? Not us? We instinctually ask those questions as we vote. Our ancestors supported rule-for-life by "our" elders, chiefs, and kings. Do we want the modern equivalent of the dynasties of old?

Posted by: Amritas at January 18, 2009 09:54 PM (y3aIN)

5 You bring up a good point, Amritas - I have to admit that I'm generally trying to figure out what a candidate's/survey's/moderator's *agenda* is, (or perhaps what their underlying actionable assumptions are), when they say something that I agree with on the surface. There are SO many ways that the phrase, "we should help people," could be interpreted, for example, as our desires to help are so frequently co-opted into tools to force injustice on others... I really REALLY like Jenni's idea of anonymous candidates in some ways, because we'd have to, say, READ to make up our minds (provided we cared, which I don't think so many do anymore)... I think, though, that in my desire to really understand a candidate and what they mean by their words, I need to get to know more about them than what their official positions are on a given set of issues. The direction that those official positions *come from* - and the direction they might *take* in the future - are very important to me, as well. Plus, I know it sounds naïve, but I want someone I can also *respect* for their character, rather than someone who happens to temporarily agree with me. Words, minus a full context, are (unfortunately?) very limited in the information they can convey.

Posted by: kannie at January 19, 2009 10:45 AM (iT8dn)

6 kannie, You're right: a candidate is more than "their official positions are on a given set of issues." In the ideocentric voting scenario, those positions would be fine-tuned to attract target demographics. That's already happening, but imagine today's verbal manipulation taken to another level. However, the gap between rhetoric and record could be enormous. To guess what that gap might be, we need what you call the "full context." We need clues to determine the character of a candidate, to see if our agreement with him is likely to temporary or long-term. Maybe there's nothing inherently wrong with having all the available facts on a candidate. The trouble may lie in how we weigh those facts - if we weigh them at all. Term limits may encourage a bit more fact-weighing simply because it cuts down on incumbent inertia. Instead of reflexively voting for the same person in election after election, one will see new faces and one might pause to think about them. Then again, maybe "faces" is the key word. "He looks hot! I'll vote for him!" Shallow voting will always be with us. The question remains: how do we minimize it?

Posted by: Amritas at January 19, 2009 11:24 AM (y3aIN)

7 I completely agree that the 22nd amendment should stay right where it is. I would support an amendment to set the limit to 1 term for any legislator, with a term of 4 or 6 years for any of them. That way, the corrupt re-election system would be cut off at the ankles.

Posted by: Barb at January 19, 2009 12:11 PM (iaV9O)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
46kb generated in CPU 0.0121, elapsed 0.0863 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0789 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.