Second, if they really do want to repeal term limits, Bill Clinton would clean Bush's clock, election fraud or no election fraud.  In the stiff, robotic words of John Kerry, "Bring... It... On!"

<blecch!>

Section 1: Repeal the 22nd Amendment to say you cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms OR make the repeal only apply to people elected after the Amendment takes effect.  

Yes, this eliminates our Clinton fantasies, but it also kills a third Bush term.

Section 2: Requires a voter verifiable paper ballot and paper trail for all federal elections.

Make them defend not wanting paper trails (which the public overwhelmingly supports).

It'd be nice to think otherwise, but it's insulting to be lied to on the front page when all I have to do is click a link to learn otherwise.

On a related note, I don't think Democrats should oppose abolishing the US birth requirement for presidents because of fear of a Schwarzenegger candidacy.  Ahnuld wouldn't get elected anyway, but somebody like Granholm might.

Democrats need to look beyond the immediate.

Do you really think the American public wants 12 straight years of Dubya? Look at the numbers. Besides, comparing the Clinton years to Bush years is a no-win situation for the GOP.

Without a retroactivity clause, it's questionable whether a repeal would even apply to Bush, since he was elected to a second term with the 22nd in effect.

More fundamentally, if we're going to open debate on Presidential eligibility rules, the entire process should be put on the table. That means Electoral College reform too. As for the paper ballots, we need something bigger: an amendment guaranteeing the right of all Americans to vote, and to have their vote counted, in all elections at all levels. Let the Republicans try to argue against that.

This is NOT going to happen. All debate is purely academic.

By the way, they are in the House, not the Senate. But I don't care if he is a co-sponsor or whatever. Maybe this won't go anywhere, but it is another symptom of how far off the deep-end the rightwing, including much of the current Congress, has gone.

Perhaps they can just crown him King.

1.  National same-day voter registration laws
   
2.  Declaring Election Day a national holiday
   
3.  Restricting CEO pay to no more than 500 times that of a corporation's lowest-paid employee

According to his congrssional website, Hoyer is a 66 year old guy with silver sides and a grayish top to his hair (picture).  He claims to be a "moderate."  He says there is no crisis in social security but it needs to be fixed.

His "biography" indicates a guy who is smart and either a "natural leader" or a relentless striver.  He's always running for stuff, ususally for "offices" within the legislature he's been elected too.

If I had to guess, this guy is doing this a) to get in the good graces of Sensenbrenner and b) for the publicity.

Anybody else care to figure this out?

Every commission and panel of any kind ends up completely packed with personal friends and supporters of that individual. Over the years, the advantages of being a friend/relative/contributor to that person mount, while people on the outside are more and more completely frozen out. The incumbent advantage becomes so overwhelming that no sane person even bothers to try to run, due to the huge waste of time and money when they inevitably lose.

I think it encourages a crusted and increasingly greedy oligarchy, at any level of government. Of course, with the Bush Administration at the Federal level, we already had it in his first Admin, partially because of the hangover from George, the first's, admin.

There is something to be said for not allowing the status quo to become overwhelmingly dominant and everlasting, even if many people seem to like it.

Remember the "Contract with America" (many of us called it the Contract on America)? Repubs really campaigned hard on term limits, until they got themselves in place.

I am very tired of the familial dynasties forming in this country, whether Dem or Repub. This kind of repeal of the Amendment would just open the door to more establishment of pseudo-royal families in this country.

Remember, incumbent advantage is humungous in this country, especially in the media age of the last 50 years, so allowing endless terms is flirting with lifelong dictatorships in this nation.

Ironically, the FDR-Truman-Eisenhower era jad only one President who fit the 2 term rule but came close to the same stability (3 Presidents, 28 years).

Otherwise, two termers were rare (Grant and Wilson plus Cleveland in a non-consecutive way).

Seeems like we are close enough to the dynastic rule without abandonning the 22nd Amendment.

its a lot easier than suspending the 2008 elections as a national emergency move.

Term limits already exist - they are called elections.  Ask Tom Daschle, Tim Hutchison, Max Cleland or numerous other Senators who have lost in the last few cycles if they think term limits are necessary.  I bet they will tell you no.

Let's not lose sight of what the party needs to do - rebuild itself with new ideas and a stronger infrastructure.  The term limits debate is a distraction from this.