Posted on 12/02/2005 2:04:57 PM PST by Daralundy
"Since 1950, five of the eight other presidents who fell below 40 percent--Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush--lost their bids for reelection or opted not to run again."
Yep, Bush is almost sure not to be re-elected in '08.
/s
Since 1950 there have been 14 presidential elections of which Republicans have won 9.
Who is out of touch?
Shh!!
There are eyes and ears around here you know. Wouldn't do to let word of this leak out yet. ;-)
Ahh thanks for putting the author's name in.
Everyone should go to the post and give it one star. The lefties have been giving it high ratings.
I cite Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution:
"...
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
followed by Amendment 22:
"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.
..."
So, in '08, would GWB be constitutionally ineligible to the office of President (and consequently that of Vice President) by means of election only, or by any means? If the former, then yes GWB could be elected VP; if the latter, then no.
Wow, if you hated Bush v. Gore, you'd loathe this case.
A sidebar to the first interpretation that I can see would be that GWB could be elected as Vice President, but be able to serve no more than two years as acting President, since if he serves any more than that, he would violate Amendment 12.
I meant two years as acting President (Amendment 24, Paragraphs 3-4), or accession to the Presidency by virtue of vacancy in that office (Amendment 24, Paragraph 1)....
Why can't GWB run again in 2008????
...hmmmm....since algore won in 2000, GWB has only been "elected" once, and that should make him OK for a 2008 run, according to the author's "math"...
(.....note to self....next time read a little farther that post #9 in a 65+ post thread, and maybe find that at least 3 or more freeper's posted what you did.....sorry...)
"Yeah, I called my good buddy Karl and he says it's a good idea. They're gonna see if they can make it happen. Can't wait to see the look on Kerry/Kennedy/Klintoon's faces. It'll be a threpeat. Selected, selected and reselected! LOL"
As one of the newest US Citizens, can I, can I, can I be one of the first to sign it? LOL
"Try this:
http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html"
Thanks for a good laugh and an afternoon of hilarious entertainment.
What a bunch of dingdongs!
Found two worth a second look maybe.
Strike Amendment XXII
http://www.petitiononline.com/rngeorge/petition.html
14 signatures so far.
Support President Bush in the War on Terror
http://www.petitiononline.com/wwnf911/petition.html
317 signatures so far.
And the horse they rode in on.
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The word 'elected' is not in the above sentence. Therefore I'd say no one ineligible for the office of President may be appointed either.
Sidebar...do the liberals understand what they get if they successfully impeach W? PRESIDENT CHENEY.
Do you honestly think that would make them happy?
Someone should tell Rall that the only people who care about Miers anymore are loser Democrats who hate anyone Bush nominates for anything.
"I cite Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution:" etc.,
Thankyou....I've been looking through my copy of the Constitution and Ammendments but I guess I'm not in the right mood as nothing is making sense so thankyou for the abreviated version.
Good point -- I was leaning in that direction anyway but you read it better than I...the VP acceeding to the Presidency by vacancy in the office is not appointment -- I guess it's properly called accession. (?)
I'm sure the libs wouldn't be happy with Cheney either...
And that's amendment 25, not 24 in my earlier post.
The USA Today article claims anytime a popularity rating falls below 40 percent, disaster is eminant. In most power structures, during an outright confrontation, any side that suffers 10% casualties during the initial confrontation, generally ends the battle as a route. In a democracy, regardless if 85% of a force is winning, if 10% is decimated, the remaining populous tends to interpret the devestation as a total loss.
Accordingly, the best defense is a strong offense. If 10% of the socialists were convicted of heinous criminal activity in one simple sweep, the remainder of their political force would fall like dominoes in a route. If Cunningham was corrupt, you can betcha the majority of the socialists are so far beyond corrupt that they beg being completely removed from any semblance of future control over their lives.
Let them focus on Bush and hit them with legitimate authority.
Ted Rall says it all!
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.