Joe Scarborough: Why Can't Clinton Run for a Third Term?
Does a former GOP congressman who voted to impeach President Bill Clinton now support a third term for him? MSNBC's Joe Scarborough lauded Clinton on Tuesday's Morning Joe and asked him why he shouldn't be able to run for office again.
However, he didn't once bring up Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath about his sexual misconduct while in office, during Tuesday's media firestorm over GOP candidate Herman Cain's accusations of misconduct.
Scarborough, a self-described "conservative," blamed Republicans for the 22nd Amendment – which enacts a two-term limit on every President – and touted that he would be "flooded" with requests from people wanting Clinton to run again. [Video below the break.]
"People will say why can't this guy run for president in 2012? And of course you can't, because Republicans didn't want there to be another FDR back in the 1940s," Scarborough noted, before asking "shouldn't a president be able to serve two terms, take some time off, and then run again? Shouldn't Americans have that choice?"
Just last year, Scarborough argued the same thing after he raved about Clinton's accomplishments to his face.
Scarborough told Clinton in September of 2010 that "you've always been known as the brightest, the first-class, however you want to put it – but you've had the ability the past decade to go all around the world, start this initiative, understand issues – you've understood issues better than anyone in Washington, when you were President."
Then after throwing his former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich under the bus, Scarborough took a shot at his own party by lamenting that Clinton couldn't run again.
"[D]oesn't it make sense for this country to say, okay, let a guy serve, or a woman serve for eight years, then they can take a term or two off, but then if they have something to give back to America in the terms of leadership, give them that opportunity. It seems so short-sighted, just because the Republicans were upset that FDR was President for four terms."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on November 8 at 8:39 a.m. EST, is as follows:
[8:39]
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So we talked a couple of years ago, and I asked you a question at the end about whether guys like you should be able to run again, because I can guarantee you, we will get back to the office and we'll be flooded with e-mails and responses on Twitter. People will say why can't this guy run for president in 2012? And of course you can't, because Republicans didn't want there to be another FDR back in the 1940s. Shouldn't it though, shouldn't a president be able to serve two terms, take some time off, and then run again? Shouldn't Americans have that choice?
BILL CLINTON: I – I – yes I do. I believe that should be the rule. And I think that, as a practical matter, you couldn't apply it to anyone who's already served. But if going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule because – look at President Reagan. He was 70 years old when he became president. John McCain was older than that when he ran for president. And he clearly had all his capacity.
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
CLINTON: People are living longer, they're developing greater capacity, so I've always thought that should be the rule. Not to affect me or anyone who's served, but going forward.
SCARBOROUGH: Other countries are able to do it. Winston Churchill, booted out after World War II, came back.
CLINTON: The parliamentary – parliamentary systems do it. The great Gladstone served four times, the last time when he was 82 in England. But the main thing is, in this era of instantaneous communication, we – we shouldn't – we should worry more about getting our heads on straight about the nature of the problem and working our way out of it. I do think the President has done a better job than he's gotten credit for. But Americans hire presidents to win for them. He understands that. But they just need to understand that this is going to take some time to get out of and we have to begin. And the only strategy that will work is one that a, is oriented toward the future, and b, relies on both the private sector and government to work together. That's the point of the book. With all the specifics, that's the point of the book.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Idiocy abound!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 2:38pm.
Congrats, Joe! You just won the Idiocy Award for asking the stupidest question!
-Jon
What do you expect
Submitted by lkotur on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:14pm.
FROM AN IDIOT! Good work Joe!
My first reaction was Joe ,
Submitted by inquiringmind on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:39pm.
My first reaction was Joe , you are so Friggin stupid it is unbelievable.
Second thought was, great! Let's get Bush back in there!
We learned our lesson with the Progressive FDR
Submitted by iamsaved on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 2:42pm.
Joe the blowhard Scarborough along with David Brooks calling themselves moderate or Republicans is the same as an unrepentent serial murderer claiming he's a Christian. You can call yourself anything you want but it doesn't make it so.
MIssing the Irony
Submitted by exLib on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 2:51pm.
With all the accolades going BCs way the irony that on one hand they are lauding "this great" President and at the same time trying to destroy a Republican who both were accused of the same thing.
Big difference is Cain's accusations are 15 years old and no proof, while Clinton's were current and ended with convictions.
Uhm, uhm, good
Submitted by greydawg on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 2:52pm.
Calling makeup. Calling makeup. Please come clean the brown off Joe's nose. What does brown do for you, Joe? Uhm, uhm, good. Maybe it's an acquired taste.
And can someone get Joe's blue cocktail dress . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:32pm.
. . . to the dry cleaners? PLEASE!
Scarborough is just another Beltway drone with his head up his rectum. Feeding each other's egos is a Washington pasttime.
Why shouldn't he run?
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 2:59pm.
Nothing else in the Constitution seems to hold sway over what laws are passed anymore? The only person who'd stop him would be egObama.
Clinton's Area of Expertise
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:00pm.
Did Scarborough ask Clinton how he would handle Cain's bimbo eruption problem? You figure with all the "news" surrounding Cain, that Clinton would be queried regarding his renowned area of expertise.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Nail Meet Hammer
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:23pm.
.....but THAT didn't happen, did it?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The clown crew
Submitted by Marsh on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:49pm.
on Morning Joe spent the first half screaming that Herman Cain is a sexual predator guilty of sexual assault and the second half bowing to and kissing Clinton's ass without an ounce of irony .
I'd say Joe sold his soul to the MSNBC devil but I think it happened long before that. Maybe when he dumped the first wife and kids.
Leftist Orgy...
Submitted by Aubrey on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:05pm.
As Joe gives Bubba a Lewinsky Mika, watching, gets hot and bothered hoping to be next.
Hey Joe...
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:13pm.
'ya mean, like Putin is coming back again? That'll work out well for Russia.
How short-sighted can you be, Joe? Is it that far of a stretch to see how an entrenched political machine can run Washington for decades if we allowed more than two terms, consecutive or not?
Go Ahead.
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:13pm.
Let's put that to a vote. Call the bluff.
The Democrats wouldn't put Hillary in the seat behind the Resolute Desk, which would have put Slick Willie right back into the mix in another so-presidency.
Now, myself, I am against terms limits. ( A term limit is from inauguration to inauguration). I view it to be government, via machination, deciding who can stand for election, and by extension who can be elected, and who cannot. That, folks, is what Iran's government does.
The fact is that We The People are tasked with deciding whom we elect to office and that is as our Founders intended. That is as it should be. In this day and age, we witness how fouled up government has things due to its bureaucracy. Terms limitations is more of the same. I understand there is a desire to end career politicians. However, We The People already have the authority to put an end to that action. We simply have to exercise it.
Have we not had enough Liberty snaked away already? We are to cede MORE of it? We are to look past our own responsibility in elected people to office for thirty years and ten complain about what they have done?
No WAY! I refuse to fall into that trap. Think it through, folks. Here is the baseline. Government is so screwed up, has so screwed the pooch with power and authority it has that the solution is to give it more power and authority over us - translating into We The People having LESS choice and LESS control.....and this time over whom we can vote for? This is the "solution"? Not Hardly. THAT, my friends in the PROBLEM.
We can limit to ONE the term of any person standing for election....with our authority as voters. We simply deny our consent at the ballot box.
Terms limitations by statute is a mindless ceding of what is a enumerated right. Cede one and then another and then another and soon there are no rights left. See it yet?
Please folks, think it through. Do not take this bait. Do not cede the authority of your vote to government machination.
22nd ammendment?
Submitted by Fredy on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:14pm.
Someone need to point out to Joe that a constitutional ammendment requires votes by 2/3rds of the house, 2/3rds of the senate, and 3/4ths of the states.
The 22nd ammendment was passed by Democrats and Republicans! It was passed as FDR had IGNORED the precedence by running for a 3rd and then 4th term. Neither political party, nor the people in general, liked the idea of anyone effectively siezing the office for life again!
Look no farther than the manner in which Hugo Chavez has grabbed all power by means of oppressing free speach. FDR had in fact performed the same thing in the 30's via the FCC.
Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it! Joe is clearly ignorant of the history of the 22nd ammendment.
Here's how the vote went
Submitted by jpwcpa on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:04pm.
In the House, 235 Republicans and 50 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment; a total of 121 House members voted against it, but I'm not sure of the breakdown.
In the Senate, there were only 96 Senators at that point because Alaska and Hawaii were still some years away from achieving statehood. There were 43 Republican Senators and 16 Democrats voting in favor, and a total of only 23 voted against it (again, not sure of the breakdown).
Wow, I really don't like Joe,
Submitted by Semus on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:18pm.
Wow, I really don't like Joe, but I never expected this. I think poor little Joey's lost his way.
Clinton again? And, such good timing - on his anniversary
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:24pm.
Clinton again? And, such good timing - on his anniversary.
A hard news anniversary - the 10th anniversary of Clinton's disbarment(s) . . . (from Wikipedia - so difficult to find):
I noticed that Ann Curry, over on NBC, during her 7 min+ long interview with him today, didn't ask him about that either. Nor did any of them ask him about the economic fallout from the Dot.com (Enron) bubble collapse of March 2000, or the housing bubble he gave birth and fuel to - or his financial deregulation.
Nobody's asking him about his ole pals either, James Riady, John Huang, Charlie Trie, Mr. & Mrs Lum, Johnny Chung, Mark B. Jimenez, etc. With Jack Abramoff back in the news - last night on Hannity - it would seem to be a perfect opportunity to segue into other rather similar Washington/lobbyist/fundraising scandals.
The media's still not asking Clinton about how he turned his back on HIV/Aids in Africa as President; nor about how he turned his back on the most horrible - deadly - conflict of the 1990's - the DR Congo (millions died) even as he was promising them, "Never Again;" nor about how he looked the other way when the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in a horrific genocide laced conflict. I often wonder how differently Afghanistan might have played out, had the US/world bodies acted then?
(;~/ gary
Gary,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:36pm.
Clinton is a member of the liberal society and therefor only has to think liberal thoughts and say how things should be in the liberal utopia - actual follow through and accomplishments are not what matters. President Obama won a Nobel Prize for things he said he would do and has never done! I'm not sure there is a better example.
In the liberal media success is measured by the headline and not the deeds.
Agnostic . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:38pm.
. . ya think?
(;~> gary
come on Gary,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:47pm.
you don't want me to think too much do you!
I've got to take the easy ones some times so I have the energy for topics that you haven't already covered so well.
Sorry to state the obvious - repeatedly.
Ag - just teasing you
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:11pm.
(;~> gary
FDR was a sick dying old man who invited attack from Strongmen.
Submitted by Avitar on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:27pm.
Joe Scarborough is insane yes?The United States got very lucky when General George Marshal was able to take over from FDR's failing leadership at the begining of WWII. If there had been even a few men objecting or if FDR had been even a little less rational the United States could have been in a second Civil War at the begining of WWII.
We got very lucky.
Psst, hey Joe.
Submitted by LinTaylor on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:54pm.
You've got a little brown stain on your nose there. Might wanna wipe it off.
Scarborough comments tell me
Submitted by jkwtrading on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:10pm.
Scarborough comments tell me something..any law regardless of orientation is and can be broken in their mindset. People such as this can never be rationalized with. People such as this are as un trustworthy as they come. They can only be dealt with in hard or harsh terms.
If you still have belief a liberal can be rationalized with, it's time to end that nonsense and face the facts.
Move over Monica
Submitted by Clemenza on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:41pm.
. . . . . . . . Rino Joey Scarborough is here. And by the looks of what I saw in that puff interview, there won't be any need to send Joey's blue dress to the cleaners.
Wow, and I thought Mika was the resident lefty lapdog on the show . . . . who knew.
I'm glad Fredy pointed out the 22nd amendment
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:05pm.
(above) given that unless Republicans controlled a super majority in both Houses, AND an even greater segment of the overall electorate in 1951, it was a lot more than just Republicans who didn't like the idea of FDR trying to usurp our nation's entire history of presidential term precedent.
Question: How often do we hear the phrase, "a national conversation" or "starting a national conversation"? I would offer that Clinton's suggestion is not about running for a third term himself, but to begin the conversation about a third term for a young, charismatic, transformational president, sometime in the near future.
A new award for this type of JurnOlism!
Submitted by swim-r-sink on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:20pm.
I have witnessed many incredulous phony ass kissing moments in my life! There should be a special award for brown nosed buffoons that pull crap like this off with a strait face! Drum roll now,,,The first ever winner of the 2011Golden Knee Pads Award goes tooo>>>Congratulations! Joe Scarborough!!
More proof: you have to be an
Submitted by mattm on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:29pm.
More proof: you have to be an idiot to get a show on MSDNC.
Poor Joe, believing the
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 12:15am.
Poor Joe, believing the altered reality that life was just rosy for all under Clinton, and if only he were in charge, all this nastiness would go away, and this idiot was PART of the past nastiness!!!
Ronald Reagan
It's unforgivable that he
Submitted by Semus on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 9:28am.
It's unforgivable that he would do this but, I don't think he's not doing this because he believes this stuff, this is to keep his gig on MSNBC. I don't really know or care what he really believes. He's supporting the progressive march in this country.
Besides the fact that the
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 10:01am.
Besides the fact that the Democrats pushed the term limits on the country, Clinton was a lousy President.
Why Clinton
Submitted by Hoover Dog on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 12:08pm.
They don't need to go thru the trouble of changing the consitution to bring back Clinton. After all, Jimmy Carter still has four more years to use up (sadly it might be better than what we've got now).