In late-breaking news, Congress passed a resolution last night repealing the 22nd Amendment, and this morning 38 state legislatures approved it.
If Bill decided to take another stab at it… knowing what you know now… does he get your vote?
More information, please…are we to assume that the Democratic nomination thus far was simply a collective hallucination and Bill got the nod? But McCain is still the Republican candidate?
Depends on how well Obama does, I suppose. If he flubs it, I’d have no problem giving it back to Bill. Otherwise, with the 22nd repealed, let’s keep Obama at the helm for a while.
But to get to the real heart of your question, no, this election has not seriously damaged my opinion of Bill. He is campaigning hard for his wife.
Uh, this campaign doesn’t make any great difference.
In general, I think the Presidency should be term-limited anyway. WJC did pretty well, but any longer tenure might just make him more a target of cranks & tool used by his enemies to justify themselves.
Yes, absolutely. He would be a far better president than Bush would be in a third term.
I’ve lost some respect for him during this campaign, but I didn’t have that much to start with. I wouldn’t have voted for him in any case.
Sure. He beats the hell out of Hillary and Obama.
Certainly. He was one of the most capable Presidents we’ve had.
What’s the logic behind term limits? Why should we not have the ability to keep a good officeholder in that office? We have the opportunity to limit the President’s term every 4 years (or less if the other party hates him enough to try to overrule us via impeachment).
What is the logic for term-limiting one branch but not the others? As was sometimes said of the 22nd when it was passed, during a brief period of Republican control of Congress, its purpose was to spite a dead man.
foolsguinea, he’d be *more * of a target, you say? In the name of all that’s holy, how?
The logic behind term limits is to prevent a president from becoming a monarch.
after Bush 2000, I am no longer convinced this isn’t possible.
Bill Clinton, while a fair President, made, with the help of the republicans, the office of the leader of the most powerful single country on earth a global laughing stock.
He doesn’t deserve to set foot in that house again as anything but a guest. Nor, for that matter, does his wife. Her recent reaction to the Texas situation tells me that much.
It’s not that he’d be more of a target. It’s that he’d be a big symbol of the Domestic Enemy for longer. I see the GOP fundraising letters, Hillary’s on the envelopes. This would be even more entrenched. I think without term limits, we might lurch toward civil war.
I appreciate that you don’t care for the man, but I’d love to see you back this assertion up with some evidence.
.
I’m not much for dynasties. I wouldn’t vote for him again in the current race, if he were hypothetically able to run, but I wouldn’t object strongly were he to be re-elected.
Thinking about the foreign press coverage I’ve seen, and the conversations I’ve had with people outside the US about the Clinton Presidency, I don’t see that at all. Based on the above, it appears the term ‘laughingstock’ would be much more fairly reserved for the meandering, open-ended investigations launched during his terms, and/or for the current officeholder.
The same development would permit Cheney and his handpuppet to run for re-election. Is there anyone who thinks they’re deluded enough even to try?
More interesting to me is the question of what different choices Cheney would have made over the last few years if he’d known he’d have to face another “accountability moment”. He probably wouldn’t be stalling for time in Iraq, hoping to make the blowup the next administration’s “fault”, for one thing.
For almost two centuries the republic stood without a 22nd Amendment. As much as you might hate Bush, is there even the slightest hint that he has, or could get, support for overthrowing the government?
And to chime in; as an outsider, I can tell you thatthe general perception outside the USA of Clinton was that he was a good enough President being hounded by an investigation of the most ludicrous sort of trivial nonsense.
Dude seriously,
You think Bush has no control over his own presidency? Are you seriously suggesting that? I realize that Cheney is a more powerful Vice President than we’ve had in many years, but it is still GWB who is in charge. He’s not stupid, he’s ignorant and uninterested. There’s a difference. Bush isn’t a sock puppet, to suggest so would be letting him off. He and Cheney are both equally guilty of what the White House has done.
I’m not terribly surprised that you are for Hillary, considering you have such a warped, conspiratorial view of the right.
As for WJC running again? I would have said yes a year ago, but I like Obama better now. Clinton was a pretty good president. He’ll never go down as a great one though. He never really accomplished anything really big. If he’d pushed through UHC, then I can see him getting a lot more credit, but he let Hillary fuck it up, so no, he missed that boat.
He would if he did his own thinking, or was even minimally engaged in the job. It’s more from derelicton than delegation, true.
Are you seriously suggesting this is the first time in the last 7 years you’ve encountered the suggestion? :dubious:
There you go. That’s what makes him manipulable.
Sure, but one is guilty mainly by omission rather than commission.
One which you have just demonstrated you share. :shrug:
All that peace and prosperity just happened by accident, huh? I’m not terribly surprised that *you * are *against * Hillary, considering you have such a lack of awareness of the facts. :rolleyes:
RickJay, that’s the majority view *inside * the US as well. His ratings stayed in the 60’s throughout that episode. Compare to Bush’s in the teens.
History is it’s own evidence. If he kept his joint in his jockeys, the morons on the other side of the aisle would have had nothing to impeach him on, because he wouldn’t have lied, at least about that.
And that’s what I was shooting for. I was posting tired, so I wasn’t 100% clear.
You can’t catch fish without bait.
Not in the traditional sense, but essentially the man and his party sued their way into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in the 2K election. That put our little democratic experiment on the slope, and I wouldn’t put it past GeeDub, or the Pubbies to provide the grease and a little forward motion.
I do not trust him, I do not believe him and I think as the dimwitted figurehead, he and the republican heirarchy are capable of almost anything.
Like the Onion said. when Bill left and Shrub came in…Thank god the era of peace and prosperity is finally over.
Depends on who else is running. I didn’t like him when he was in power, I said and still say he ought to be in prison for war crimes (and if the statutes aren’t there, by God they should be–he displayed flagrant disregard for civilians in at least two different largely symbolic acts, namely the medicine-factory-bombing and the missiles into Baghdad as a response to the purported assassination attempt vs. Bush Senior). If he were running against either Bush, I’d still vote for him, cursing the state of politics that I have to choose between two villains. Against McCain I’d still vote for him, cursing even louder a politics that leads me to choose a villain above a well-intentioned man who’d cause even worse harm. Against anyone who I thought would do less harm, he’d never get my vote.
Daniel