Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A 3rd presidential term for Clinton? Doug Powers defends 22nd Amendment against Bill's legacy search
WorldNetDaily ^ | 6-2-03 | Doug Powers

Posted on 06/02/2003 5:15:18 AM PDT by RightWingReader

They say that all bad things come in threes, and Bill Clinton may soon set out to prove that this rule also applies to presidential terms.

The former president and megalomaniacal political lab experiment gone horribly awry is determined to find a way to liquify himself in order to seep through all the cracks in the system. Now he's saying that we as a nation might want to rethink that pesky little 22nd Amendment, which bars anyone from being president for more than two four-year terms. Clinton said that this change wouldn't affect him, but be "for future generations." (Pause for laughter.)

Everything affects Bill Clinton, and for a chronically narcissistic windbag, there's no such thing as "a future generation." Another reason we can be sure it would apply to him is because he said it wouldn't. Clinton is the Uri Gellar of verbiage, with words being his spoon. The "boy from Hope" lived to be president, and still does. Could he be again?

You can never count the guy out. In his entire political career, he's been like the villain in every B horror movie ever made. He's been bludgeoned, hacked, stabbed, beaten, sunk, burned and minced, but the wiser of his opponents have learned never to get smug and claim victory. They're well aware that there is never a satisfying ending to this movie, just a hand that pops out of the ground in angry denial, telling us that this story is "to be continued." It's "Friday the 13th, Part LXVII" meets "The West Wing."

When he first met his idol, John F. Kennedy, Clinton discovered his life's ambition. It was a natural attraction. Looking back, the similarities between the two men are uncanny. They were both elected young. Both had red-nosed brothers who drove while blootered-to-the-nines. Both were like horny Labradors in a roomful of legs, had back trouble (one aggravated by the hard, lumpy floormat in the limo while encouraging Marilyn to "ah lose ah some ah weight," the other pained by carrying all those monkeys on it), and each made news for having youngsters under their desks. They also both have an unfulfilled destiny; one real, one imagined.

Bill Clinton wants to chase this destiny further, and getting another crack at the Oval Office and its freshly double Scotch-Guarded Berber Stainmaster is the only way he can do it. It wouldn't be what's best for the United States, but that concern runs a distant second to doing what's best for Bill Clinton. He wants to do it, and that's all that matters. Desperate times call for desperate pleasures.

Another Clinton term would also help bring the world's joke writers more material. There would no doubt be more sexual scandal, crooked brothers-in-law traipsing through the dining room and getting KFC grease all over the tea service, attempts to rid the world of the global threat posed by aspirin via random firings of Tomahawk missiles at medicine factories, and the theft of so much boxed china that the living room looks like a pilfered Beijing cemetery. The Fort Marcy Park police would get some more overtime, and Air Force One would again log so much joyride distance that the nation could cash in the frequent flyer miles for a freebie trip to the Oort cloud and back. Then, on day two ...

The problem for Clinton is that he's constantly and continuously searching for a legacy that's not there, and he doesn't understand why. He tries to force it, but that only works on his helium-brained believers and certain chunks of Hollywood socialist residue who wish they had half of Clinton's acting talent.

History will record Bill Clinton as a joke, and a bad one at that. Clinton knows this, but doesn't understand that he's stuck in a mudhole of his own choosing. The quicksand of a legacy is unforgiving to those who wiggle too much, since that just makes them sink faster. The worst thing Clinton could do for the legacy he's trying to manufacture would be to seek a third term, after which all we'd find is a "Razorbacks" cap sitting on top of that quicksand.

The 22nd Amendment was put in place not because FDR was hogging all the terms, but because somebody was wise enough to know that at some point, a guy like Bill Clinton would come along and it might be a good idea if the Constitution saved us from ourselves. Sadly, the good ones are forced to go, but fortunately, so are the bad ones.

-----------------

Doug Powers is a freelance writer from Michigan.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; election; president; term; turass

1 posted on 06/02/2003 5:15:19 AM PDT by RightWingReader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
I think it says a lot that Clinton feels that he can either ignore an existing Constitutional Amendment if he feels like it, or he can get the Constitution re-Amended if he feels like it.

This Clinton guy sounds a little arrogant. Maybe a little power-hungry, too.

2 posted on 06/02/2003 5:18:28 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
This Clinton guy sounds a little arrogant. Maybe a little power-hungry, too.

Who is this Clinton fellow I keep hearing about??

3 posted on 06/02/2003 5:24:27 AM PDT by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
Of course, I remember a lot of people trying to get the 22nd overturned so Reagan could run again (before his tragic illness).

Let's repeal the 22nd. It's a stupid law anyway, and decidedly un-Republican. Do the Reps not think Bush could beat Clinton?

4 posted on 06/02/2003 5:26:35 AM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader; countrydummy; hellinahandcart; KLT; Paul Atreides; Stultis; TC Rider; firehat; ...
"Desperate times call for desperate pleasures."

Worth saying again.

5 posted on 06/02/2003 5:33:59 AM PDT by sauropod (Its ok to laugh during sex.... Just don't point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Let's repeal the 22nd.

If we were a democracy, I would agree: "Let the people decide." However, we are a republic, with some democratic features. Overall, though, the US is about checks and balances and limiting the power of government. For 150 years, no president wanted to serve more than 2 terms (wisely following G Washington's lead). Then FDR threw that aside, during a historical period marked by Dictators for Life all around the world. I think the US was wise to pass an Amendment saying "We don't do that here."

6 posted on 06/02/2003 5:38:43 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
"Let's repeal the 22nd. It's a stupid law anyway, and decidedly un-Republican. Do the Reps not think Bush could beat Clinton?"

"Stupid Law"? NOT

Made for ex-presidents just like the Schlick Meister.

7 posted on 06/02/2003 5:41:22 AM PDT by auggy (http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-DownhomeKY /// Check out My USA Photo album & Fat Files)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Let's repeal the 22nd. It's a stupid law anyway, and decidedly un-Republican

On the contrary, I think it's very republican (small "r").

First, anybody gets stale in that job, usually about a year into their second term (if you want to promote a single term of 5 years for President, I'll sign onto that). Basically, being President is such an intense intellectual exercise, it's mentally exhausting. You use up a lot of your intellectual capital during your tenure, with no break to recharge it. You need to relax, to read and think, to write, and to exchange ideas and concepts with friends and allies. A President in office cannot do this -- he's surrounded by yes-men or people who want somethig from him. This effect increases in severity with time.

Second, we no longer elect a man as President, we elect a team of people. The same intellectual bankruptcy affects them as well, to a lesser degree, but more than that, ways of doing everyday business become ingrained, usually to the detriment of effective operations. The electorate is largely oblivious to this effect -- they just see things getting worse with time and assume it's the President's fault. In part, it may be, but mostly I think, it's the fatigue of the job on the myriad of people who make up the entire administration.

Third, nobody is indespensable. Presidential term limits re-enforces the idea that this job is not a career (or should not be, anyway) and that Presidents should take office, lead and accomplish one big thing or a few lesser things, and step aside. To me, that is the very essence of a republican tradition -- service for the common good and then stepping down. Eight years is enough for (and in some cases, of) anybody.

8 posted on 06/02/2003 5:54:31 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
Heard on Fox News this morning that Clinton may run for Mayor of New York and try to "worm" his way into house/senate. Why can't this guy just leave the stage?
9 posted on 06/02/2003 5:57:03 AM PDT by smiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smiley
OK everyone...here's the deal. The Slickmeister said all of that stuff about the 22nd amendment IN ORDER TO GET EVERYONE'S ATTENTION!!!! It worked. Every Sunday show addressed it, every newspaper reported it, and every navel-gazer scratched his goatee and contemplated his navel about it at the local coffeehouse.

Enough already...It's not going to happen (repealing the amendment), and even if it somehow against all odds did happen, Clinton would not be elected president again anyway. Let's find something more worthy to direct our attention to.
10 posted on 06/02/2003 6:02:38 AM PDT by LBelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
bttt
11 posted on 06/02/2003 6:14:33 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Re your new tag line---ROFLMAO. :P
12 posted on 06/02/2003 6:14:51 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
But not pointing. ;D
13 posted on 06/02/2003 6:15:37 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Applause, applause! Very well stated.
14 posted on 06/02/2003 6:16:36 AM PDT by mombonn (Have you prayed for our President yet today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Basically, being President is such an intense intellectual exercise..."

You hit the nail on the head. The fact that it should be such an intellectually exhausting exercise, is reason enough to squelch a third term for anyone, Democrat or Republican. Most CEOs can't sustain repeated success within a company; we shouldn't expect that any one administration can sustain long-term success with the rigors of a presidency.

15 posted on 06/02/2003 6:22:31 AM PDT by Lou L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: smiley
I dunno. Let Clinton keep running his mouth. it makes for less column inches for the rest of the dodo's.
16 posted on 06/02/2003 6:38:01 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
When I read this, I just assumed he was doing this for the little woman. Is it possible she has put him up to this? Knowing her ego, she assumes she will win when she runs and this little rule change will allow her to be president for life. Just imagine! Makes me ill. I know most think he wants to run again, but I just immediately thought of her.
17 posted on 06/02/2003 6:59:06 AM PDT by surelyclintonsbaddream
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
You make a number of very good points.

There are relatively few CEOs in the corporate world who continue to be effective after as long as eight years on the job. Let's face it. If you can't implement your agenda in eight years, what makes any sane person think that another four or eight years will do the trick?

18 posted on 06/02/2003 7:25:00 AM PDT by blau993 (Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
Our Beautiful Yellow Labrador was a kind, loving and gentle animal who does not in no way, shape or form RESEMBLE Kennedy or Clinton! We had a dog with manners.
19 posted on 06/02/2003 7:26:43 AM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: smiley
I sure wish I could move out of New York state!!!!!
21 posted on 06/02/2003 11:46:51 AM PDT by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
This is nothing more than the usual alcoholic ploy of "give me one more chance". The problem is not that he might mean well, the problem is that he will only do what he did the last 8 years - fool around - and miss his chance at greatness.

The only other option will be for his friendly Arabs to give him an "opportunity" to prove his greatness.

NEVER, NEVER trust the motives of x42.
22 posted on 06/02/2003 1:35:39 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWingReader
The truth about Clinton: He ain't wrong; he ain't sorry, An' it's probably gonna happen; Sure, it's gonna
happen; You know it's gonna happen again...
23 posted on 06/02/2003 1:53:49 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets ("ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS, WE PRINT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Let's repeal the 22nd. It's a stupid law anyway, and decidedly un-Republican. Do the Reps not think Bush could beat Clinton?

Never - Ever - Ever - give George W. Bush the level of power you wouldn't want Hillary to have.

This is the basis for a republican form of government.

24 posted on 06/02/2003 2:03:56 PM PDT by brewcrew (It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: surelyclintonsbaddream
They want to bring down the Republic.
This is not deniable. That was the official policy of their administration, and is the cause they are loyal to today.

"America will not be the big kid on the block" etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!

They and their cronies have stated many times their dislike of our capitalist republic.

Do you really believe that communist China would contribute to the campaign of a American Capitalist politician?
25 posted on 06/02/2003 2:11:30 PM PDT by LittleJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: brewcrew
Nicely said...I think it supports repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
26 posted on 06/02/2003 2:14:20 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LBelle
and just think, someday he'll be enshrined in Arlington and the nation will be at peace
27 posted on 06/02/2003 2:17:36 PM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Nicely said...I think it supports repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

O contraire, mon frere.

28 posted on 06/02/2003 2:36:39 PM PDT by brewcrew (It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson