Bush Cites Patriot, Enters 08 Race

[JMHX]

REUTERS Newswire
January 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. - President George W. Bush is expected to announce his candidacy for the White House in 2008 during his weekly radio address. This comes despite the fact that Bush will reach his two-term Constitutional limit during the 2008 election originally meant to find his successor. In the radio address, which Reuters received a copy of from high-level sources within the White House, Bush cites "emerging national security threats from abroad" as the impetus for his move away from the mandated two-term limit.

"Rogue terrorist organizations hold our nation hostage," the address reads. "For this reason, I have decided that we as a nation cannot afford to change horses in midstream. I have decided to place myself as a candidate for the Republican Party in the 2008 race for the presidency so that I may offer the wisdom I have gained during eight years in office to this increasingly complex situation."

Democrats are not thrilled at Bush's rocking of the Constitutionally-mandated two-term limit. 2008 Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, voiced her distress as Bush's move. "I think this is absolutely beyond the pale," Clinton said to Reuters. "Congress will be looking into this as soon as we get back in session on Tuesday."

Republicans have rallied around Bush, claiming the Emergency War Powers of the USA PATRIOT Act as grounds for Bush entering the race. Under Section 502.1 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, a president may choose to suspend, cancel or delay elections when he feels there is an imminent threat of attack. Section 502.2 lays out a framework for which a president may, in times of imminent threat or conflict, remain as acting president for up to 12 years or until the threat has been addressed.

"We had no idea this was in PATRIOT," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a press conference late Friday. "Had we known that this act would enable President Bush to remain indefinitely as president, we would not have passed it. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution."

Bush is confident that the PATRIOT Act provisions enable him to re-enter the race, and an emergency appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union to the Supreme Court has been successfully blocked by the White House under the Sensitive Information and State Secrets Act. Democrats appear to have little recourse in the matter, given the power of the PATRIOT Act's Section 502.2.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow provided his analysis on the subject. "If the president can secure the delegates during 2007, he will be the Republican nominee for president in 2008."

[SkunkyFluffy]

And why not? If that socialist bastard FDR could do it, why not Dubya?

[cellardoor6]

Thats quite obviously bullshit.

[cellardoor6]

What a nice little lie there JMHX.

Notice how you provided no link,,, even though I already know you're full of complete and utter bullshit, humor us with a link will you?

[SyntheticTacos]

He wouldn't win if he tried. And I agree with cellardoor. :)

[Gunter45]

Presidents exercising executive might when it comes to elections is nothing new. Abraham Lincoln even delayed an election to stay at the helm during the Civil War. This terrorist threat to our nation poses the same, if not even greater problems to our nation in the road ahead. We need to maintain a strong and stable position in our Commander-in-Chief in order to stay resolute.

Also, this isn't without precedent. Teddy Roosevelt ran a third time under the Bull Moose Party and FDR even was elected 4 times. Where was the criticism then? We need to apply our standards evenly and fairly.

[Odysseus122]

REUTERS reeks of the Onion today.

[stafffighter]

I looked on CNN and they're calling this this a use of the "slippery slide." In todays political enviroment it can be argued, well within party standings, that there is ALWAYS an immenent threat to our security.
They've gone as far into questioning the language as to compair it to Clintons trying to define the word is.

[Gunter45]

At 1/27/07 12:33 AM, Odysseus122 wrote: REUTERS reeks of the Onion today.

Witty but baseless. Well done.

[Odysseus122]

At 1/27/07 12:33 AM, Odysseus122 wrote: REUTERS reeks of the Onion today.

Clarification: It's not an article in the Onion, per se. Rather one that I'd normally read there.

[Tancrisism]

We are in a state of war right now; if Bush doesn't stay in power, surely the American republic will fall due to opposition from within. If you cannot see this you are blind and moronic. This is the great nation of America we are talking about! We need George Bush to stay in power for the good of us all.

I'd rather give up my share of the Bill of Rights and even those that protect me from totalitarianism under the constitution than give up my great country.

[stafffighter]

At 1/27/07 12:59 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

I'd rather give up my share of the Bill of Rights and even those that protect me from totalitarianism under the constitution than give up my great country.

Well how then do you quantify the greatness of a country? can we finally look past pride and answer this question?

[Gunter45]

At 1/27/07 01:05 AM, stafffighter wrote: Well how then do you quantify the greatness of a country? can we finally look past pride and answer this question?

The more American it is, the better. I think I can speak for every red-blooded American when I say that.

[Tancrisism]

At 1/27/07 01:05 AM, stafffighter wrote: Well how then do you quantify the greatness of a country? can we finally look past pride and answer this question?

My way of testing has two steps: First, count the number of words in the name. Second, check to see if the word "America" is attached to the end.

A real American is willing to sacrifice all personal liberties for the sake of Freedom.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/27/07 12:59 AM, Tancrisism wrote: We are in a state of war right now; if Bush doesn't stay in power, surely the American republic will fall due to opposition from within. If you cannot see this you are blind and moronic. This is the great nation of America we are talking about! We need George Bush to stay in power for the good of us all.

I'd rather give up my share of the Bill of Rights and even those that protect me from totalitarianism under the constitution than give up my great country.

Dude, even though I would rather Bush get 4 more years in office than have Hillary Clinton get elected, what you just said is completely wack.

You have to realize that the article is bullshit, its made up and JMHX is completely full of shit.

Bush doesn't want 4 more years, he isn't attempting to get 4 more years, and the Patriot Act doesn't include ANYTHING regarding an extension of term limits.

[Imperator]

Ironically enough this thread is based on certain historical tendencies.....

When Congress votes Bush "President for life" we can start calling it Empire.....or when Dubaya starts telling people to refer to him as "Imperator" then we can start worrying.....

Unfortunately there are a few fundamental flaws which totally negate this from actually happening, the most important of which being a widely destructive and devastating American Civil War.......

[Ravariel]

At 1/27/07 12:22 AM, JMHX wrote: "I think this is absolutely beyond the pale," Clinton said to Reuters. "Congress will be looking into this as soon as we get back in session on Tuesday."

For those that don't get the joke, that's the funniest part right there.

And far too few of you got the joke.

I'm looking at you, cellar...

[TheMason]

At 1/27/07 12:29 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Also, this isn't without precedent. Teddy Roosevelt ran a third time under the Bull Moose Party and FDR even was elected 4 times. Where was the criticism then? We need to apply our standards evenly and fairly.

Difference is when they did it, there was not the 22nd Amendment (Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951) that set a term limit of two terms to the Office of the President...

[Camarohusky]

At 1/27/07 05:08 AM, Ravariel wrote: And far too few of you got the joke.

I'm looking at you, cellar...

Hehe. I love it when the battle axes of justice miss the point of a thread and make themselves look foolish. (my mind brings up cellar, tech, and begoner)

bokunitotte, I got the joke before I even open up the post. Far fetched topic AND JMHX, it signals, my "ooh this has got to be funny" light.

[Gunter45]

At 1/27/07 05:59 AM, TheMason wrote: Difference is when they did it, there was not the 22nd Amendment (Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951) that set a term limit of two terms to the Office of the President...

Shush, stop it.

[TheMason]

At 1/27/07 06:39 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 1/27/07 05:59 AM, TheMason wrote: Difference is when they did it, there was not the 22nd Amendment (Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951) that set a term limit of two terms to the Office of the President...

Shush, stop it.

I'm sorry, confusing the issue with facts! lol

[bcdemon]

I knew that tyrannical dictator would pull something like this. I hope he makes Cellardoor6 his new White House Press Secretary.

[MindControlFun]

If that's true, it sucks.

He's in full legality to do so, but who the fuck's gonna re-elect him? If I was Hillary Clinton, I'd be pretty happy, because Bush's little stunt is going to give her a bigger chance at becoming president.

[Bolo]

At 1/27/07 01:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You have to realize that the article is bullshit, its made up and JMHX is completely full of shit.

Somebody doesn't have a sense of humor.

[SmilezRoyale]

After FDR's 4 term presidency they made washingtons precident of 2 terms a presidential limit. [and in all honesty 6-10 years is probably a good term for a president.

I dont want bush to be president in 08, i want somone who's going to enact liberal policies that will finally do some good for the people of america.

Burn baby burn.

[reviewer-general]

I'm just suprised some people don't realize this isn;t serious . . .

[stafffighter]

At 1/27/07 10:11 AM, MindControlFun wrote:

He's in full legality to do so, but who the fuck's gonna re-elect him?

We didn't elect him the first 2 tmes.

[Draconias]

At 1/27/07 05:16 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/27/07 10:11 AM, MindControlFun wrote:
He's in full legality to do so, but who the fuck's gonna re-elect him?

We didn't elect him the first 2 tmes.

Yes, we did. The first time was an electoral victory, sure, but the second time he won both the electoral and majority votes by a fairly wide margin.

[Memorize]

At 1/27/07 06:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Hehe. I love it when the battle axes of justice miss the point of a thread and make themselves look foolish. (my mind brings up cellar, tech, and begoner)

I clicked on the topic, and I read what JMHX wrote, and I laughed. And why the hell would you set me up next to begoner? I'm not the anti-military guy calling all soldiers murderers here.

[JMHX]

This is all true.