December 2, 2013
Last week Frank J. Fleming, one of the funniest bloggers around, tweeted: “At this point in the Obama presidency, we were supposed to be talking about how we needed to repeal the 22nd Amendment,” which limits presidents to two terms.
We laughed and gave Fleming a retweet. On Wednesday we observed that it’s hard for a political humorist to keep up with the real-life absurdities of the Obama crowd. To illustrate the point, along comes Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian at New York University, with an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
Now of course the way this was supposed to work was that Obama would be such an amazing president that he would come to seem indispensable. There were people who felt that way about Reagan and Clinton in their last years in office. Probably someone somewhere would still stake that claim on Obama’s behalf, but we doubt even Slate would publish such a far-fetched argument, never mind the Washington Post.
So Zimmerman doesn’t argue that Obama deserves a third term to continue his great success, only that “Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election [again]” and that “citizens should be allowed to vote for–or against–him.” Where it gets funny is in Zimmerman’s resort to the 22nd Amendment as an excuse for the failures of Obama’s first and second terms.
In fact, Obama’s abuse of the IRS and other government agencies to get re-elected in 2012 is the single best argument for the 22nd Amendment.