Ok, this is a bit of a pipe dream, but bear with me here. Using the Moonbats own argument, that W did not win the 2000 Election but was appointed, if that is the case, then the 22nd Amendment comes into play:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
So, if he wasn’t elected, but appointed, in 2000, that means that his first elected term is 2005-2009. Which would mean that he could Constitutionally run for President in 2008. You and I and the rest of the Conservative supporters of W know that this is foolishness: Bush was elected in 2000.
So what is the point of this seemingly random silliness? When you talk to a Moonbat, when you post on a political forum, when you are responding to Libs on other blogs, etc, bring this up, then, when they respond, just tell them to look up the 22nd Amendment. It just plays back their own arguments, and should drive them crazy(er). Hey, maybe if we say it enough, it will become true! ;)
PS: Something went wrong with this post, it was supposed to reference XLQR (who I have on my Feedreader) in the word "Moonbat", who makes reference to the Hoystory post about this same thing (the words 2000 Election). Sorry, guys! Offer my sincerest opologies. My Bad.
Actually, the game only works against those who deny the legitimacy of the 2004 election. Those who concede that this election was legit can argue that he wasn’t elected in 2000, but did “act[] as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President,” in which case he can only be elected once.
True. However, we do not want to over burden the libs with too many facts. :)
We can also look at it as if no one was elected for the 2001-2005 term, which is the way that I heard a guy on Hannity bring it up. Of course, we all know that wouldn’t hold water. Libs preponderance for conspiracy theories might get them believing, it, though.
Sadly (?) the clause “or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President” would rule W out for a 2008 election run.
Assuming, of course, that you grant the premise that he wasn’t elected in 2000. Which I don’t.
I don’t. He won fair and square. But it is a good way to mess with the loons.