Should the 22nd amendment be repealed, in exchange for a deal with the republicans allowing Arnold to Run? The democrats get the 22nd amendment repealed, and the republican get Arnold as a candidate. Should the blog start moving toward a repeal. It would start by writing your congressman and senator. If we start now it can be ratified by 2007.
Dear Senator Clinton:
Senator Hatch is proposing amending the Constitution to permit foreign born persons who have become naturalized citizens the opportunity to run for the Office of President of the United States. Everyone suspects this is move to permit the current Governor of California to run for that office. Mame, why don't you submit an amendment repealing the 22nd amendment thus allowing your husband, who everyone really wants as our President, the chance to run for re-election.
A Little Background
President Reagan also favored repealing the 22nd Amendment. He said at the time that he didn't want the change to apply to himself and a former director of his presidential library has said that his wife would have opposed him running for president again at 77 years of age. But this didn't stop Project '88 and other groups from agitating for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed the Gipper to serve a third term. I'm generally against term limits, but I am hard pressed to think of a single example - even Reagan - where we really would have been better off with a president serving more than two terms.
On another note, I think this story may confirm what I've always felt was the overrated nature of Clinton's popularity. He ran two nearly flawless campaigns in years where every factor was in his favor against opponents who found it difficult to connect with the electorate and ran lousy campaigns. Yet in neither case was he able to win even 50 percent of the vote. In the popular vote, he beat George Bush by just five points in 1992. He beat Bob Dole by eight points, in contrast with Reagan's 18-point reelection margin over Walter Mondale in 1984.