Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A Much Better Way to Spend the Next 650 Days



The news channels are wall-to-wall on the 2008 Presidential campaign. It's January, 2007!

At this rate of saturation, no sane person could possibly believe that anyone will still care by November of 2008. I predict that, by October of this year, most Americans will look at the candidates the way you'd look at your neighbor's sagging Christmas decorations in April.

Be honest: If most Americans were asked, "Quick, who's the only person who could possibly even come close to getting our country out of the various messes we're in? First name that comes to mind" they would say, "Bill Clinton." And then they'd remember he's not allowed to run. And feel sad.

President Clinton left office with a 66% job approval rating, and as of last week had a 61% approval rating. But we can't elect him President.

We could elect Barry Bonds or Joan Rivers or Nancy Grace or John Mark Karr if we wanted to. But not Bill Clinton. This is madness.

Why are we being denied the opportunity to elect the man most of us would vote for? Because of the 22nd Amendment? If there ever was a time to get rid of that turkey, it's now.

Instead of wasting it on a boring horse race, let's spend the next year getting rid of this insane limitation on our right to choose our leader.

I know that if President Clinton participated in such a movement, he'd be greeted at home by a rolling-pin-wielding missus, and get what is known in some parts as a "wood shampoo." But even if it doesn't restore Clinton to office, getting rid of that amendment is a great idea.

Of course, in the short term the whole problem could be solved if Hillary were to choose Bill as her running mate, and then promise that, if elected, she'd resign on Inauguration Day. That would get me to vote for her... but I don't hold out much hope.

Of course, I still stand by my previous prediction: In January, 2009, George W. Bush will be sworn in for a third term. Given that he's never won an honest election, and he has shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution, there's nothing to stop him.

Still, I am casting my vote: B. Clinton/Gore in 2008.

4 comments:

Sean Tisdall said...

The man is consistent:

"Hey, if I only thought that compentent, and sane, and rational people should be elected, I would have never voted for term limits!"

I wholeheartedly agree.

peeky said...

It's all FDR's fault!! I agree with you, but I guess if we didn't have this law, George W. Cheney could continue to engineer his own re-election over and over until he's a skeleton in a box, which I pray will be very very soon.

Michael Markowitz said...

As I said, your "laws" have no effect on George W. Cheney. He will run again and win no matter how illegal it is or how few people vote for him. It's his M.O., and it's served him well.

And as for FDR, don't blame him! As with almost all bad ideas of the 20th Century, it was a Republican overreaction. They were fascinated with term limits, until they perfected gerrymandering.

The Republic party (hey, they call us the Democrat party) flogged the idea of repealing the 22nd back when Reagan was president. Ironically, had they succeeded, Reagan would have run for a third term around the same time his approval rating was around 45% and the effects of his illness were becoming impossible to ignore. Still, he would have become the party's nominee, George H.W. Bush would not have been able to run... History would have taken a very different turn.

Michael Markowitz said...

As if I needed another reason to hate Hillary Clinton, along comes this "joke"... It's downright weird that she won't say whom she was talking about. (By the way, if there is mass confusion as to whom you were talking about? Probably not a really good joke.)

More important, I cannot think of a single interpretation of the "joke" that I don't find idiotic and/or offensive.

Please, Al Gore... I'm begging you!