Remember any successful third term President would change the political landscape for the future. As an example if Kennedy lost to Eisenhower I doubt if he would have been viable in 1964.
I perfectly know how congress works. Thank you very muchIt is very unlikely that the 22nd Amendment would not be adopted. The 80th Congress was controlled by the Republicans, and a large share of the Democrats who survived 1946 were southern conservatives who didn't necessarily revere FDR's memory. The idea that the Republicans are going to abandon the idea of the Amendment because of one speech, however eloquent, IMO shows a misunderstanding of how Congress works.
However, let's assume the Amendment does somehow fail. In that case, my guess is that JFK will not be elected in 1960, because Eisenhower, despite his health problems, will run for a third term and win. No doubt he will be reluctant to do so, but he will be persuaded it is his duty--the Democratic "spenders" in Congress would be dangerous if not blocked by a presidential veto. Furthermore, he did not have a high opinion of JFK, whom he considered immature, and he had his doubts about Nixon as well...
Why not.Repeal the 22nd Amendment? It would not happen.
I perfectly know how congress works. Thank you very much
Dude, its a "What If." scenario. No need to get offendedI continue to find it implausible that a Congress completely dominated by Republicans and anti-FDR Democrats is going to be dissuaded from voting for the 22nd Amendment by a speech praising FDR and trying to shame Congress for taking a posthumous slap at him.. In fact there were many such speeches in OTL. "Adolph Sabath (D-IL) characterized the vote as a 'pitiful victory over a great man now sleeping on the banks of the Hudson.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA677
If you think that's how Congress works--a vast majority of Congress is suddenly motivated to vote against their ideological and party program because of one speech, however eloquent--I would like to ask, Just when has this happened?
Dude, its a "What If." scenario. No need to get offended
This scenario should be unrealistic, but again "What IF."I doubt if he's offended. More likely just trying to inject some realism into the thread.
This scenario should be unrealistic, but again "What IF."
I asked if JFK was elected for three terms, not Dwight D. Eisenhower.Well, hasn't that already been answered? No 22nd Am almost certainly means means (for good or ill) a third term for Ike, not JFK.
I asked if JFK was elected for three terms, not Dwight D. Eisenhower.
While I agree that Eisenhower would have been easily reelected if he ran I doubt that he would have run even if he could have. Ike and even more Mamie were ready to retire. The same applies to Reagan.Well, hasn't that already been answered? No 22nd Am almost certainly means means (for good or ill) a third term for Ike, not JFK.
I continue to find it implausible that a Congress completely dominated by Republicans and anti-FDR Democrats is going to be dissuaded from voting for the 22nd Amendment by a speech praising FDR and trying to shame Congress for taking a posthumous slap at him.. In fact there were many such speeches in OTL. "Adolph Sabath (D-IL) characterized the vote as a 'pitiful victory over a great man now sleeping on the banks of the Hudson.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA677
If you think that's how Congress works--a vast majority of Congress is suddenly motivated to vote against their ideological and party program because of one speech, however eloquent--I would like to ask, Just when has this happened?
While I agree that Eisenhower would have been easily reelected if he ran I doubt that he would have run even if he could have. Ike and even more Mamie were ready to retire. The same applies to Reagan.