Skip to comments.
Lanny Davis: Clinton Would Defeat Bush if 22nd Amendment Waived
NewsMax.com ^
| 5/29/03
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 05/30/2003 12:20:28 AM PDT by kattracks
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 was 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 country 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's 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.
"Clinton says that any change now to the 22nd Amendment wouldn't affect him. So a showdown with Bush will likely never come. But I say that's a shame.
"For better or worse, Bill Clinton is still the only Democrat ready for battle. . . . Which is why Republicans should welcome an ultimate showdown between Clinton and Bush. Because after Sept. 11 character is once again king."
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Clinton Scandals
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100 next last
1
posted on
05/30/2003 12:20:28 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Bull, Slicks failures have been under the radar and if he ran they would all start popping up !
2
posted on
05/30/2003 12:22:39 AM PDT
by
america-rules
(I'm one proud American right now !)
To: kattracks
Clinton thinks he was robbed of his second term because of his impeachment, and he can't get over it.
3
posted on
05/30/2003 12:22:52 AM PDT
by
HAL9000
To: kattracks
Yeah right. And Lanny Davis must be smoking weed if he thinks Congress will give Bill Clinton such a gift.
4
posted on
05/30/2003 12:23:42 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: kattracks
Based on what lunatic's word?
5
posted on
05/30/2003 12:24:36 AM PDT
by
RJayneJ
To: kattracks
The really funny thing is that the Clinton Kneepadders are too stupid to realize that even if the 22nd Amendment were altered, it would only get ratified if the standard clause were included that made sure it only took effect with the next president to come along after its ratification. In other words, whoever's elected next after GWB. It would never apply to Billy Jeff.
6
posted on
05/30/2003 12:28:57 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: kattracks
Lanny actually removed his lips from Bill Clinton's bare ass long enough to say that? I'm shocked.
7
posted on
05/30/2003 12:29:43 AM PDT
by
Tall_Texan
(Laura Bush in '08. Two can play this game...)
To: kattracks
There's currently a bill in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/000575.html Somehow, this article, Clinton's statement, and the bill are tied together. OK, maybe there's no relation between the bill and Clinton's statement, but, even so...
To: goldstategop
Yeah right. And Lanny Davis must be smoking weed if he thinks Congress will give Bill Clinton such a gift.Weed? He's on PCP if he thinks the public would ever vote Clinton back in again.
9
posted on
05/30/2003 12:30:02 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: lonewacko_dot_com
That link doesn't work.
10
posted on
05/30/2003 12:30:36 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: kattracks
Don't pay attention to anything that Lanny Davis says. Judging from his body language on television, even he doesn't believe the things he says. Do you notice how he ends his appearances with a smirk on his face. By the time his five minutes are up, even he can't keep a straight face with all the nonense he spews.
-PJ
To: kattracks
So who will be first to tell him that he and his "legacy" are a crime/joke?
12
posted on
05/30/2003 12:32:23 AM PDT
by
hmmmmm
To: lonewacko_dot_com
There's currently a bill in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment: I notice it's been shoved off to the Subcommittee on the Constitution for almost three months now. That's how bills are killed. It will never see the light of day again.
But check out the sponsor and cosponsors!
Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] (introduced 2/25/2003)
COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL:
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 2/25/2003 [CA-28]
Rep Frank, Barney - 2/25/2003 [MA-4]
Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 2/25/2003 [IL-6]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - 2/25/2003 [NJ-6]
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 2/25/2003 [MN-5]
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 2/25/2003 [WI-5]
13
posted on
05/30/2003 12:34:57 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: kattracks
Lanny Davis: Clinton Would Defeat Bush if 22nd Amendment Waived Oh?--And where does Lanny get this clairvoyant ability? Guess he must have been Nostradamus in a previous existence.
And just the fact that he's saying this, and of course countless democrats are thinking this too, is very sad--out of all the democrats, Clinton's the only one that could possibly win? Nobody else?
Wonder how enthusiastic the dems will be about repealing the 22nd amendment when a popular gop pres is ending his 2nd term and wants a 3rd and a 4th?
14
posted on
05/30/2003 12:43:57 AM PDT
by
gop_gene
To: kattracks
Man...I didn't realize crack cocaine was that popular among Clinton alumni.
15
posted on
05/30/2003 12:49:08 AM PDT
by
RichInOC
(Bubba should have done something about it ten years ago when he had the chance.)
To: kattracks
With guys like Lannie Davis around, why would Bill need Hillary or Monica? The most amazing part of the Monica story, is the absense of a description of her having to bat Davis away from Clinton's staff long enough to give him gratification herself. Clinton's chamber maids make me sick.
To: kattracks; All
17
posted on
05/30/2003 12:51:00 AM PDT
by
backhoe
(Bill Clinton? Why, he's the best President money could buy! ( heard on the street circa 1997...))
To: kattracks
I doubt that Clinton would draw enough of the middle to defeat Bush during the pro-conservative climate that we are in right now. As long as the Democrats continue to look to the Clintons, the Republicans will probably be safe.
18
posted on
05/30/2003 12:53:32 AM PDT
by
mysterio
To: gop_gene
We could very well see a Bush/Clinton matchup in '08. Jeb vs. Hillary.
19
posted on
05/30/2003 12:55:57 AM PDT
by
Hugin
To: kattracks
Is there a more trusted, objective source than Lanny Davis? He is practically omniscient, isn't he? I do like the fact though that Clinton keeps hogging the spotlight from the "Bad News Bears" (9 Dem nominees). The public knows Clinton was asleep at the wheel in the 90's- he frolicked with interns while terrorists plotted the death of innocent Americans. It's unfortunate.
To: kattracks
This is all BS designed to keep us off the real plan, which needs no changes. Hill and Bill in '04.
"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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
It don't say anything about vice-president and after he shoots Hill, he wouldn't have been elected president.
To: kattracks
A paid shill defending a known liar. Get offa the stage already!
22
posted on
05/30/2003 1:39:37 AM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: kattracks
Yeah, and then we go through the next 20 years trying to get rid of the Con Man who won't be able to create jobs or prosperity, but who will spend every waking minute of his existance blaming Republicans in Congress for his not being able to work any sort of "magic".
I say that if he convinces Congress to repeal the 22nd Ammendment (which there's no way in hell he will), a repeal of secret service protection for him should come with it. This will make the White House the prison cell he so richly deserves if he doesn't want shot on sight out in public.
23
posted on
05/30/2003 1:42:35 AM PDT
by
Wondervixen
(Ask for her by name--Accept no substitutes!)
To: kattracks
If either of the Clintons are the best the Dims can do, then they truely are one sick litter of puppies.
I am, however, amazed that there are still so many brain-dead in this country that think Clinton is great.
I really doubt that many of these people could find their
own state on a map.
24
posted on
05/30/2003 1:45:30 AM PDT
by
AlexW
To: kattracks
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."And don't forget bubbles and pardons galore, Lanny.
To: kattracks
Whew, talk about delusional...
26
posted on
05/30/2003 2:08:16 AM PDT
by
Ladysmith
(Land of the Free Because of the BRAVE!)
To: kattracks
LOL! Sorry Looney.
We'll NEVER know. Will we.
27
posted on
05/30/2003 2:59:07 AM PDT
by
HatSteel
To: kattracks
Big talk about somebody elected with less than half the popular vote twice. This idea that Clinton was extremely popular is utter hogwash and the dems should be careful about what they wish for. Dubya will still be a young man in 2008.
28
posted on
05/30/2003 3:09:37 AM PDT
by
katana
To: John Jamieson
Very good. Now go read the 12th amendment and you will see why your premise doesn't work.
29
posted on
05/30/2003 3:19:34 AM PDT
by
Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
To: kattracks
More delusional thinking from democrats, they are
turning out to be the "street people" of American
politics, devoid of ideas, lacking character, and
out of touch with reality.
30
posted on
05/30/2003 3:24:10 AM PDT
by
tet68
(Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
To: kattracks
In a related story, Al Gore says Bill Clinton would have been a great beloved President IF he wasn't a adulterous sociopath.
31
posted on
05/30/2003 3:27:07 AM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(John McCain is a Liberal Democrat- pass it on...)
To: katana
Keeping in mind of course that his Vice-president actually won the popular vote in the last election, and would be sitting in the White House now if his home state had voted for him.
I am thankful for the folks that wrote up the 22nd, but it may not solve the whole problem. Remember when billy jeff ran the first time, he promised a "two for one" deal, now she can do the same thing without having him as a running mate. The two of them are the best fund raisers the demos have, she would love to become the first female president. I'll bet they would love to lay claim to the fact that they beat not only the father but the son too. I don't think she is going to wait until 2008, mainly because electing her in 2004 would be interpeted as a mandate from the people. The election in 2004 could be really ugly.
32
posted on
05/30/2003 3:46:58 AM PDT
by
Brad C.
To: Brad C.
actually won the popular vote in the last electionIrrelevant.
To: kattracks
A Democrat is essentially a child trapped in an adult's body.
Reality and responsibility are just words that begin with 'R'.
Delayed gratification means waiting for the zipper to reach the bottom of its travel.
34
posted on
05/30/2003 4:39:07 AM PDT
by
Enduring Freedom
(To smash the ugly face of Socialism is our mission.)
To: Brad C.
The election was won by George W. Bush.
As an aside, he won more counties, more square footage, more states, more ballot boxes, more intelligent people, more men, more financially-responsible people, more taxpayers, more sports fans, more homeowners, more business owners, more industries, more pet owners, and more religious people.
And, he won less Hollywierdos, less New York trash, less L.A. losers, less media sychophants, less criminals, less political hacks, less drug addicts, less welfare recipients, less Communists, and less Democrats.
It doesn't get better than this.
35
posted on
05/30/2003 4:49:03 AM PDT
by
Enduring Freedom
(To smash the ugly face of Socialism is our mission.)
To: Brad C.
Interesting thought and you could be right. It will also depend on what Clinton (the one in the pants suit not the one with the pants around his ankles) sees as her prospects in New York. If either Guiliani or Pataki run for the Senate in 2006 she may well get beaten and have no base to run from except her ample behind.
36
posted on
05/30/2003 4:56:01 AM PDT
by
katana
To: kattracks
"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. I think that's exactly the matchup in 2004 with Hitlery running.
37
posted on
05/30/2003 4:57:10 AM PDT
by
Mulder
(Live Free or die)
To: Timesink
...it would only get ratified if the standard clause were included that made sure it only took effect with the next president to come along after its ratification.Excellent point.
Ronald Reagan also advocated the 22nd Amend. being repealed. And he also added that if it should happen it not be applicable to the current sitting President.
As with term limits, it's my opinion that the 22 Amend. restricts the people's right to vote for whom they wish.
38
posted on
05/30/2003 5:15:10 AM PDT
by
jla
To: Timesink
Weed? He's on PCP if he thinks the public would ever vote Clinton back in again.9-11 changed the issues that are important for the electorate, and George Bush's character has changed them even more.
Clinton would have trouble winning the nomination from his own party, even against these weakos whose ineptness is the reason the left is even talking about repealing term limits. Bush would CREAM Bill Clinton in an election.
To: kattracks
Lanny Davis Idiot Esq.Who in thier rite mind would turn thier country over to Bill sticky fingers Clinton gang they robbed the country.They stole and sold most of our top secerts to the chi-coms.They stole and gave our land to the UN and forced all americans to pay for it without the use of it.Clinton and Lanny Davis would make Lennin and marks proud.
40
posted on
05/30/2003 5:41:44 AM PDT
by
solo gringo
(Always Ranting Always Rite)
To: kattracks
Lanny just wants to be important again.
41
posted on
05/30/2003 5:42:54 AM PDT
by
bmwcyle
(Semper Gumby - Always flexible)
To: america-rules
People on this thread keep talking about "Congress repealing the 22nd amendment". Congress can get the process starting but that process what have to end with, I think, 3/4 of the states ratifying, as it would be another change to the consitution, or am I missing something here? I don't think Congress can on it's own make this happen, can it?
To: jla
As with term limits, it's my opinion that the 22 Amend. restricts the people's right to vote for whom they wish.What you say is certainly true, but the one chink in the armour of democracy is the propensity of the people to fear change, and a tendency toward deifying our leaders. We also now know that the people, with a compliant media, CAN BE FOOLED.
Bill Clinton would have won in 2000 if the genius that is term limits wasn't in place.
No matter how great W is, we must realize there are hundreds of people out there who are just as capable, just as possessed of character and vision to lead this country. The day when any one individual is indispensable to this country is the day we will succumb to the power that our founders feared most.
To: kattracks
5{2nd Amendment barring presidents from seeking a third term was
waived for the 2004 presidential electionI trust what he means is, "If a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 22nd Amendment passed the House and the Senate by a 2/3 vote, and was ratified by 3/4 of the states before the 2004 Presidential election"
That is what he means.
Isn't it?
To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Right. And don't forget having to pass by a super-majority in Congress.
This is all ego stroking. Either Bubba is overestimating the American people's regard for him that we would ratify this repeal against the backdrop of 9/11.
Or this is a cynical ploy to get his supporters stoked up, therefore propping up his sagging legacy.
It's the flight suit, I tell ya...it's unhinged all the 'Rats, Bubba first and foremost.
45
posted on
05/30/2003 5:50:36 AM PDT
by
Carolina
To: kattracks
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
That's a good one! Tell another one, Lanny! Maybe we can get you on the comedy club circuit!
46
posted on
05/30/2003 5:51:03 AM PDT
by
mhking
To: Jim Noble
That is what he means.Depends on the meaning of "is"!
(Couldn't resist!) :-)
47
posted on
05/30/2003 5:52:54 AM PDT
by
JoeSixPack1
(POW/MIA - Bring 'em home, or send us back! Semper Fi)
To: kattracks
You forgot something:
48
posted on
05/30/2003 5:54:34 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(Presbyterian Church in America: Intolerant since 1983!)
To: Enduring Freedom
You forgot ... less dead people. My grandparents voted Republican till the day they died ... they have voted demorat ever since.
49
posted on
05/30/2003 5:56:17 AM PDT
by
clamper1797
(Per caritate viduaribus orphanibusque sed prime viduaribus)
To: kattracks
Lanny Davis: Clinton Would Defeat Bush
if 22nd Amendment Waived
Yes, and IF my Aunt had a penis, she'd be my Uncle!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson