"A Third Term for President Obama? It Could Happen"
"Could Obama Run for a Third Term?"
"Obama Wants a Third Term And This Is How He Could Make It"
"Yes, Obama Can Win a Third Term"
The actual online headlines of national media outlets proclaimed what Democrats salivated over between 2013 and the early hours of Jan. 20 this year, and perhaps even made plans to eventuate.
A barrier in the former president's way, of course, was the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice "
U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., had the most simple solution, sponsoring a resolution that would appeal the offending amendment. And since it was filed early in 2013 - he also did it in every new congressional term before it, beginning in 1997 - he hoped it could be approved by states by the time the 2016 election rolled around.
Lacking that, several national publications said, he could be elected vice president and assume the office through the death of the president. Or he could be selected a cabinet officer and ascend to the office again through the Presidential Succession Act. Or, they noted, the 22nd Amendment contains no enforcement mechanism, so, by the time the issue got to the courts, the people and Congress would have accepted it.
"Obama," another outlet said, "has the power to declare martial law, reinforced by the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) that declares the U.S. in a perpetual state of war against terror."
The president himself thought at the time he'd be a good choice for a third term.
"I actually think I'm a pretty good president," he said. "I think if I ran I could win. But I can't."
Though the idea made Obama's far-left base tremble with excitement, only 57 percent of Democrats in a 2015 Rasmussen poll said they would vote for such a thing. But 93 percent of Republicans - only 93 percent? - and 68 percent of voters not affiliated with either party said they would not.
In general, just 30 percent of voters said they'd be down with the idea, while 63 percent of the electorate said they would not.
We say all that to observe the above thoughts are as ridiculous as The Washington Post - a newspaper of no little national prominence - promoting a survey this week by two professors that says 52 percent of Republican voters would be willing to postpone the 2020 presidential election if President Trump said it was necessary to make sure only eligible voters participated.
If congressional Republicans agreed with the president, 56 percent of Republicans would go along with the scheme.
"The responses to these questions," a breathless Salon wrote, "only substantiated the rising tide of tribalism in America."
"The responses from Republicans were horrifying, if not entirely surprising," the New Republic said, " [b]ut given how many democratic norms he's already discarded, it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility."
"Trump is already aching to be crowned God Emperor of America," the Daily Banter opined, "and if he thinks he can have half of the electorate back his play, he won't hesitate to declare an 'emergency' suspending the rule of law until he consolidates his power."
The latter outlet evidently has a short memory about the left and extra-constitutional suggestions. To wit:
"Do we even have to ask how they would respond if Obama and the Democrats had suggested the same thing?" it said. "Can anyone honestly say Democratic voters would have even remotely this kind of support for something so deeply illegal and unconstitutional? No, this is uniquely a sickness of right wing politics."
Well, hardly, as the aforementioned evidence shows.
But let's slow down a moment. Where an unconstitutional third term for Obama had Democrats excited and even introducing resolutions, neither Trump nor any elected Republican is suggesting the 2020 elections be postponed for any reason. Two unknown professors, one of psychology and one of communication, have conducted a survey asking hypothetical questions, a fact they readily admit.
"Were Trump to seriously propose postponing the election," they wrote, " [c]itizens would almost certainly form their opinions [about such an eventuality] amid such tumult, which does not at all resemble the context in which our survey was conducted."
Nevertheless, they conclude "we do not believe that these findings can be dismissed out of hand. for many in his constituency, floating such an idea may not be a step too far."
With an irresponsible dictator in North Korea threatening nukes on a U.S. territory, the current health care law falling apart and an opioid crisis in the country mounting, could we not have - to paraphrase Elvis Presley - a little less (irresponsible) conversation?