President for life - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

crash9 · #1 12-15-2004, 01:06 AM

I’m just wondering why we limit our CEO to only two terms. I’m thinking we change horses to often. It’s late and I’m turning in, but I see a lot of efficiency from having a longer term at the plate. It's democracy right?

The Warden · #2 12-15-2004, 01:42 AM

Washington started the 2-term habit, because IIRC he didn't want people to try and crown the President king.

When FDR broke that habit, the other side got really mad and passed the 22nd Amendment to keep that from happening again.

Personally, I think it was a good thing...in spite of being an admirer of FDR (compounded by wondering how WWII would have been gone if he'd not remained president past 1940), I do believe rather strongly in term limits...both presidential and congressional.

As the old phrase goes, "politicians are like diapers...they need to be changed often, and for the same reason".

djugurba · #3 12-15-2004, 01:52 AM

Quote:

=(compounded by wondering how WWII would have been gone if he'd not remained president past 1940)

Go get "The Plot Against America" by Philip Roth. FDR doesn't get reelected; Charles Lindberg does... and all hell breaks loose. Good read- thought provoking at least.

k

boneheaddoctor · #4 12-15-2004, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Warden

Washington started the 2-term habit, because IIRC he didn't want people to try and crown the President king.

When FDR broke that habit, the other side got really mad and passed the 22nd Amendment to keep that from happening again.

Personally, I think it was a good thing...in spite of being an admirer of FDR (compounded by wondering how WWII would have been gone if he'd not remained president past 1940), I do believe rather strongly in term limits...both presidential and congressional.

As the old phrase goes, "politicians are like diapers...they need to be changed often, and for the same reason".

I agree with you there......lifetime politicians who never held a "Real" job tend to be the most out of touch with the common man on the street.......term limits are a good thing.

Botnst · #5 12-15-2004, 08:35 AM

Washington had it right so many times. He realized that everything he did while commander of the armies in revolution to president of the USA to his retirement and his will would all establish rpecedent.

As general, he persuaded the officer corps NOT to march on Congress to demand back pay that they were promised but never given. He told them, his officers, that they had it in their power to establish a precedent of military dominance of the new nation and it was their course to choose. He told them that the beter path was to accept civilian rule and military subservience to it.

As President, he refused to join or form a political party and tried desperately to have Congress propose legislation without his input--he thought his job was to execute the will of Congress, not to tell Congress what he wanted. He refused a second term, though he would easily have won it, because he wanted to maintain the idea that political leaders were not selected for life-time appointments but were private citizens who had a second job as leaders in government.

In civilian life he was a slave-owning planter. But unlike his fellow slaveowners, he established schools to teach his slaves to read and write and a trade. His intention was to free his slaves.

In his will, Washington set-up a method for manumission upon teh death of his wife. Slaves too old for work after manumission were provided a pension for life. Is it any wonder so many slaves took the name "Washington" upon their manumission?

All of his successors acceded to the presidency accepted only two of these highly moral, principled actions--civilian supremacy and voluntary term limit. All of the successors sought to influence Congress rather than follow it. All of them joined political parties. All of the slaveowners kept their slaves.

No question in my mind who the finest president was. The rest have all fallen short of Dubyah the First's high-water mark.

crash9 · #6 12-15-2004, 09:52 AM

Watching a program about the inefficiency of the FDA I began to think that much of it may be because the administrators change so often – maybe not, it was just a thought. I can certainly see the problems with letting someone be king, but I’m also aware of the problems that exist now. Eight years is not long enough to get programs in place to affect many economic changes and when your watch is known to be maxed out at eight years when going in, it may be easier to only think in short term solutions. For many things I pay attention too there are no short-term solutions and therefore the administrations only focus on their very minor legacy instead of what may be truly important in the long run.

boneheaddoctor · #7 12-15-2004, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

Watching a program about the inefficiency of the FDA I began to think that much of it may be because the administrators change so often – maybe not, it was just a thought. I can certainly see the problems with letting someone be king, but I’m also aware of the problems that exist now. Eight years is not long enough to get programs in place to affect many economic changes and when your watch is known to be maxed out at eight years when going in, it may be easier to only think in short term solutions. For many things I pay attention too there are no short-term solutions and therefore the administrations only focus on their very minor legacy instead of what may be truly important in the long run.

well that is possible but then it also limits any single meglomaniac from dominating anything for too long. And either political party can see the merit from that angle. I am sure the left doesn't want to see G W Bush serve another 8 years after this term is up, and the Right Certainly is fed up with Clinton and don't want him running again.

KirkVining · #8 12-15-2004, 11:41 AM

Except for those 1300 dead GIs and 100,000 dead iraqis - they probably would have prefered Clinton as President.

shane · #9 12-15-2004, 12:13 PM

I think Bush should be elected to a third term. Then it rightly could be called the "Third Reich" and be seen for what it is at long last.

boneheaddoctor · #10 12-15-2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Except for those 1300 dead GIs and 100,000 dead iraqis - they probably would have prefered Clinton as President.

Yeah, Clinton was Bin Ladens biggest supporter...........and Saddams too. By letting him ignore the cease fire. And refusing to take Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to Clinton.

Obviously those guys loved Clinton.

420SEL · #11 12-15-2004, 07:16 PM

I wish we had a two term limit in Canada.