Verified answer

Lord, I hope not!

Following is the full text of the 22 Amendment. It limits terms in office to the person, not the party so the answer to your question is "No".

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

No, the constitution limits presidents to only two terms. This was first only tradition that was followed after George Washington decided that we shouldn't have an elected King and declined the request from his party to run for a third term. Roosevelt once held three terms and soon after congress passed the 22nd amendment.

Erm...

1. No one likes him exepct die hart republicans which are beginning to run short in demand.

2. Thanks to George Washington serving 2 terms everyone decided later to only allow 2 terms each president.

3. Bush is a republican. Who would vote for a traitor that would change parties like that?

4. Most independents are voting democratic right now. He would be odd one out.

Nope. You're in for two and that's it. I don't think he can run for VP either. But he could do Congress or something else. But not the presidency.

Doesn't really matter as not too many people would vote for him anyway. He had his two chances. What would he want to proof next?

no, 21 amendment or somethin similar said so

Nope, unfortunately its unconstitutional, but, nice thought!

I don't know , but Hillery would be devastated if he could.

party affiliation is meaningless, his eligibility is used up.

i don't think there is any allowance for party.it is the person only.