If it quacks like a duck.....it's probably a pundit

There's an otherwise interesting article today on National Journal by Carl Cannon that contains an often repeated stupidity that maintains that because of the 22nd Amendment, presidents are effectively "lame ducks" during the entirety of their second term.

Presidents (or any elected person) are "lame ducks" only when their time in office is so short that they simply won't have time to address any issues. To the extent this magical point can be identified for the Presidency, it likely falls sometime between the nominating conventions and January 20.

Obviously the President retains his full constitutional powers through Noon January 20. Just as obviously he can respond to emergencies or developing situations through that same time. However it is unquestioned that in terms of new policies that require Congressional approval, the President becomes quite lame some time in the late Spring or early Summer of his last full year in office.

Having said that, the fact remains that many pundits and experts apparently think the president is lamed by his own re-election. In fact they seem to think that while being elected or re-elected is rather ho-hum, being ELIGIBLE for re-election gives one a mysterious power over political opponents.

Here Cannon makes a statement and then quotes Stanley Kutler:

"....it is fair to say that the 22nd Amendment introduced a systemic weakness to the highest office in the land.

"It makes a president a lame duck on the first day of his second term," said Stanley Kutler, a retired history professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. "A president in his first term is able by sheer dint of will, personality, and power to push things through Congress that some congressmen may not particularly like. But it all ends in the second term because he's no longer a threat to them in the same way. He can't run again. There is a built-in factor weakening the president."

I think that is all very wrong but the really absurd words are these:

"It makes a president a lame duck on the first day of his second term...He can't run again"

Kutler clearly believes that a re-elected President's inability to be re-elected, AGAIN, makes him ineffective. Balderdash. A newly re-elected President has FOUR years left in his term. That is two years more than all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Years 5 & 6 of a Presidential term are actually the years where he SHOULD exercise the MOST power. After all, he has just been re-elected! His policies have just been re-affirmed by the voters. In George W. Bush's case he won re-election by a wider margin than he was first elected by, with none of the "Florida Fiasco" to deal with.

Beginning with Year 7 there is a new dynamic at work. Now the President is on different footing as most major policy changes take several years to be ironed out. The president is running out of time. He would best use his time tying up loose ends and tending to international relations as opposed to launching large domestic initiatives.

The President is still not a lame duck, but his administration is starting to limp a bit and this becomes more pronounced as Year 7 (and 2007 is Year 7 for George W. Bush) proceeds. In Bush's case his approval ratings are so low that he as very little room left to maneuver. However I'll give him till about next June or July before comfortably thinking of pasting on the "lame duck" label.