As I noted below, one of the bedrock rules of modern conservatism (number seven, in fact) is "If you can't think of anything positive to do, do something that will piss off liberals". I certainly don't want to be reduced to copycatting the wingnuts, but as long as you're pursuing a policy that's good on its own merits, and it'll also piss off conservatives, why not enjoy the sensation?
Such a policy would be repealing the 22nd Amendment, which is the one that limits the president to two terms. The 22nd Amendment was passed by Republicans as a way of getting posthumous revenge on President Franklin Roosevelt for winning four electoral victories, so right there you know it was probably a bad idea to start with. (One of life's little ironies is that in the 57 years since the 22nd was ratified, 3 of the 4 presidents who have been term-limited by it have been Republicans.) There is no good reason for limiting a president to two terms, only bad ones, ie tradition, and getting back at FDR. The voters can term-limit bad presidents by voting them out of office; the 22nd Amendment is only effective at term-limiting good presidents.
Now, some may say that repealing the 22nd would be opening up a can of worms. Wouldn't we be allowing George W. Bush a chance to run for a third term in 2012? All I can say is, I jolly well hope so. Having the Twenty-Five Percent Man win the Republican nomination would be even more poisonous for the GOP than having Sarah Palin win it. And of course, repealing the 22nd would allow Barack Obama to remain president for as long as he thinks necessary, and would have the additional positive effect of causing the heads of wingnuts everywhere to explode.
Back in February 2005, when George W. Bush was still riding high from his narrow re-election victory, none other than House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Now that the president-elect is a fellow Democrat, will Hoyer be willing to have another go at it?
How about it, Steny?