WND Pumps Up Fear of Obama Third Term


The Worldnutdaily shows its usual lack of balance with an article entitled Democrat Plan Lets Obama Run for 3rd Term. The “Democrat plan” is a bill proposed by a single Democrat without a single co-sponsor, a bill that he first proposed in 2003, when Bush was in office:

But now, U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., and a supporter of President Obama, has introduced House Joint Resolution 15 to repeal the 22nd Amendment and thus abolish presidential term limits.

Serrano has attempted this before, in 2003, 2009 and 2011 with little luck. H.J.R. 15 would require a two-thirds majority vote in favor in both the House and Senate and a majority of support from state legislatures.

With the debate over the fiscal cliff dominating most of the discussion on Capitol Hill of late, this legislation has managed to slip under the radar.

Because that is where it deserves to be. It’s a bill with no co-sponsors, as their own article admits, and one that has never gotten so much as a committee hearing in the ten years during which this lone wolf legislator has proposed it. And it has zero chance of passing. But this is how the Worldnutdaily gets the rubes fired up and keeps the money flowing in.

Comments

  1. says

    Besides, Obama will be ruling by decree in 2016 and will simply declare himself Dear Leader for Life. I know because I heard it on nutcase radio, so it must be true!

  2. says

    Some time back, you ran a post asking for readers’ ideas of what they’d like to propose as a Constitutional amendment in regards to presidential elections. I don’t remember most of them, but my favorite, which I still think about, was this: limit presidents to a single, six-year term.

    I love this idea. It eliminates in one swoop all the automatic concern about getting reelected, and we’d get the “authentic” president from the get-go, rather than waiting as we do now for the second term (if it comes). When you know you only have one shot, you go all out for your beliefs, rather than playing to the unwashed middle as a holding pattern.

  3. Draken says

    But why would Jose E. Serrano want this? Unless he’s planning to run himself, but Wikipedia says he’s 69, and he’d have to wait until Obama dies of course.

  4. tomh says

    I think it’s a good idea. Term limits in general are anti-democracy, whether for president or city council. Why shouldn’t voters be able to vote for whoever they think would do the best job?

  5. says

    @tomh:

    Because experience has shown that after 8-10 years in power, leaders get a little strange.

    The whole US constitution is anti-democracy in the sense you’re using it. And a good thing too. The tyranny of the majority can be worse than any individual tyrant.

  6. says

    I’ve never cared for term limits. In California they made an even bigger mess of the state legislature than it was before term limits were imposed. Until the limits were recently reformed, assembly members were allowed only three two-year terms, meaning that the speaker of the assembly was usually a second-term assembly member with only a couple of years’ experience in the legislature. Amateur hour politics were the result. The only people with lots of experience and institutional memory were lobbyists and staffers. In general, elections are effective term limits in themselves.

  7. freemage says

    Zeno: What I’d like to see replace term limits is consecutive term limits–you can serve for two (or however many) terms, then you have to step aside for at least one full term, then you can run again. It would permit voters to actively choose to keep an ‘old hand’ in place, but help squelch the incumbency advantage.

    Also, what I find interesting is that this guy first intro’ed this bill in 2003. I know my memory’s for shit these days, but I’m pretty sure that we had a Republican in office then. That fact alone means that whatever Jose’s purpose here is, it’s not party loyalty (unless he was hoping to bring back Bill?).

  8. tomh says

    Paul Durrant:
    Because experience has shown that after 8-10 years in power, leaders get a little strange.

    And there is a perfectly good remedy for that supposed problem, it’s called the voting booth. The idea that voters are just too simple to know what’s good for them is condescending at best.

    The whole US constitution is anti-democracy in the sense you’re using it.

    I don’t know what sense it is that I’m using it, but there are plenty of places the Constitution should be changed. Allowing people to vote for anyone they like is not one of them.

  9. baal says

    not Sultan, as Glen Beck has divined, the title will surely be Caliph …

    Under the creeping sharia, Obama won’t have a 3rd term so much as the 3rd term will have him. You can’t explain that.

  10. Doug Little says

    No Zeno – not Dear Leader, as a Muslim, the title will surely be Sultan …

    I thought it was going to be Tsar, even though the aristocracy in Russia was wiped out by the Bolsheviks the wingnuts somehow associate Tsar with communism so it’s a legit title.

  11. kylawyer says

    All of you commenting on the title for Obama as permanent leader have it wrong. You are all forgetting his Communist/socialist/ roots as well as his fascist roots the wingnuts all talk about. Therefore his title will be Comrade Fuhrer Sultan Obama.

  12. naturalcynic says

    frrmage:

    What I’d like to see replace term limits is consecutive term limits–you can serve for two (or however many) terms, then you have to step aside for at least one full term, then you can run again. It would permit voters to actively choose to keep an ‘old hand’ in place, but help squelch the incumbency advantage.

    You mean like Putin and Medvedev. Lackey replaces Big Shot for one term.

    tomh:

    And there is a perfectly good remedy for that supposed problem, it’s called the voting booth. The idea that voters are just too simple to know what’s good for them is condescending at best.

    The fact that It doesn’t work that way should be more than obvious. The normal way is: Tenure begets pork, pork begets contributions, contributions beget tenure. The exceptions to this are the reason that term limits are not a good thing – it’s somebody else’s congresscritter that’s always the problem. Maybe a solution would be that you get to vote FOR your district representative and AGAINST a representative from any other district.

  13. eamick says

    Serrano has attempted this before, in 2003, 2009 and 2011 with little luck. H.J.R. 15 would require a two-thirds majority vote in favor in both the House and Senate and a majority of support from state legislatures.

    I’m impressed: two factual errors in one sentence. The bill is called H.J.Res. 15, and it requires 3/4 of the states, not just a majority.

  14. tomh says

    naturalcynic:
    it’s somebody else’s congresscritter that’s always the problem.

    This is confusing, since there are no term limits for federal Congresspeople, which is why Pete Stark could sit in Congress for forty years (a good thing, in my opinion). Only the President is restricted. Is there any evidence that FDR operated the way you describe to such an extent that it required a Constitutional Amendment to prevent it from happening again? I don’t think there should be term limits at any level, but a good start would be removing the presidential limit, as Serrano proposes.

  15. Rodney Nelson says

    The 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms, was put in place by Republicans because of Franklin Roosevelt’s election to four terms (he died during his fourth term). This was a case of the GOP shooting itself in the foot because Republican Dwight Eisenhower would most likely have been elected to a third term if he’d been able to run. Instead Democrat John Kennedy was elected in 1960.

  16. Recreant says

    I’m impressed: two factual errors in one sentence. The bill is called H.J.Res. 15, and it requires 3/4 of the states, not just a majority

    I’m depressed that you consider either case a factual error.

Leave a Reply