Third Party & Independents: Archives

If there is a trend here of President’s abusing the power of their office, why in American voter’s names, would you want to extend their term of office. Logic would seem to dictate reducing their term giving the citizens an earlier opportunity to vote in another candidate.

The major problem here is the power of secrecy that has been conferred upon the President’s office. It invites abuse of power. We the people desperately need more transparency into the government, NOT more secrecy.

I have heard both Republican and Democrats in D.C. state forthrightly, that there is too much secrecy, and the consequences of that secrecy is the loss of efficiency in government due to all of the scandals and investigations etc. that proceed. Locks don’t stop hardened criminals from breaking in, but, they do deter the tempted who are not hardened.

Assuming we aren’t electing hardened criminals to office, greater transparency into government would act like locks to keep tempted officials from crossing the line.

If I know BushCo, the first thing they will do after a Democrat wins in 2008 is burn the evidence. Remember, Bush violated the privacy rule when he released select portions of Clinton’s Phone Calls to embarrass him. Seems fair play to return the favor.

Why not just one four year term Chuck? Many presidents have served for just one term. Making it be one term would elminate their starting to campaign for re-election immediately after they were elected.

Only thing I can think of that could be a negative would be if there is no chance of re-election wouldn’t it make every President a lame duck from the beginning?

Second terms can be bad because the president is a lame duck. One six year term might well make the president a lame duck the day after he was inaugurated.

I am not sure about all the second term peccadilloes you mention.

Vietnam - Johnson didn’t win a second term. Do you believe Nixon should have won the war in his second term?

Supporting Saddam – we never were supporting Saddam. We tilted toward Iraq in a war we wanted neither side to win. The U.S. was not a major supplier of arms of any kind to Iraq at any time. We sold less to Iraq than Brazil or Czechoslovakia. The big arm suppliers were Russian and China.

I believe that Clinton did indeed underestimate the danger of Osama bin Laden, but I don’t think he ignored him. In Clinton’s defense, nobody really anticipated what Osama could do (although many people claim to have done so)

TBD – so far Bush’s second term has been good. Foreign policy has been handled very well since his second inauguration.

I spend the last two days listening to French researchers telling me why the French don’t exactly like the U.S. They told me that the best relations with Europe came in the late Reagan times and George Bush 41 right after the Gulf War. The Bush 41 is understandable. But remember in Reagan’s first term he was called the worst things in Europe. They hated him with a passion. TBD on George W. Bush. I think it may be much better than you think.

Part of what gets presidents motivated to “do good” in their first term is that they want to get re-elected for a second. It’s the second term we find the problems in. How do we keep them motivated in the second term?

Sorry -in the above post Russian and FRANCE, not China.

I would be for recending the 22 amendment. I think it diminishes or takes away some power of the president. Imagine in 1998 and 1999 if Repubicans had to consider in their plans that Clinton might have run again. (Actually, I think he probably would have, just to show ‘em after the impeachement). Imagine if Democrats had to condent with the possibility that Bush might run for a third term.

I think it would be good for the president to have that additional power.

Craig

‘History repeats itself; the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.’

But the third time? The fourth time?
Oh my.

We’ve all seen this before; the scandals, the prosecutor, the rolling disclosures.

Sadly, Bush and his party have learned nothing from the scandals of previous second-term administrations. They are taking the wrong tack.

In today’s photo op, Bush ignores the question about Rove. McClellan plays loyal soldier, and it’s just painful to watch. The RNC pulls the same old plays from the same old playbook; attack Wilson (as if that could somehow absolve the crime), stonewall, fall back on embarrassing legal parsings of Rove’s conversations with Cooper.

Oy.

The smart move for Bush would be to learn from the mistakes of earlier administration. Be a leader. Attack the problem, now, head-on. Demand accountability. Regretfully accept the resignations of several people, so that they can be given a chance to clear their name (snort). Forcefully state the loyalty to the country comes first, at all times, everytime.

Then go one better- that’s what service is all about, and the president serves the country. Mistakes happen. The hallmark of great service is to more than make up for mistakes, and by overcompensating, turn the mistake into an opportunity to garner support.

My undertanding is that his next speech will be on the ownership society.

Omigosh.

Some good news- a few recent stories have floated the idea that the US will begin significant troop withdrawals from Iraq next year.

It’s possible Bush can pull his chestnuts from the fire. But don’t bet on it. That would require leadership.

Waiting for someone else to pull his chestnuts from the fire, Bush find himself staring at a pile of shriveled, blackened chestnuts. He’ll shrug, and blame it on 9/11. McClellan will state it was always US policy to burn its chestnuts. And the RNC will attempt to blame the fire.

That was simply eloquent, phx8. It would be the prudent and expeditious course of action both politically and as a leader.

Jack,

“Vietnam - Johnson didn’t win a second term.”

Johnson didn’t run for a second term. I belive he quoted Sherman…

“If nominated I will not run, etc……”

David,

Hard to argue against your “tranparency in gvernment” premise, but my arguement it that the enticement of re-elecion induces an abuse of power.

LR,

Making every President a lame duck would level the playing field for every candidate. I just figure that there’s a learning curve for every President & that six years gives him/her a chance to have an effect upon policy.

Jack,

Johnson didn’t run for a second term (although I think he probably would have won) because of Vietman. Moreover, the reason Humphrey lost was because Nixon induced Thieu’s reclacitrance to the peace talks in order to further is own election.

Moreover, I remember reading that Saddam wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait unless he thought he had agree light from the US. Suggest you check out the tanscript of Saddam’s conversation with GHW Bush’s ambassador to Iraq. It’s as close to a green light as I’ve ever seen.

John,

My point is that re-election motivates them to do whatever it takes to retain power, not to “do good”. Hence, scandals.

Chuck, re-election does not inherently cause abuse of power. You are not addressing the problem by recalling an Amendment. The belief by politicians that they can get away with abuse of power without being caught (and it is reasonable most don’t get caught), is the cause of the abuse.

Transparency solves the problem by dispelling the belief that abuse of power can be cloaked from the public.

Two 4 yr terms for President is fine, extend that to congress, both house and senate.

That would get rid of the gerrymandering bs and much of the voting for pork.

A 5yr ban on becoming a lobbist, or working for a lobbying company after office would help too.

David,

I don’t think that we disagree, but my point is this:

You’re right, re-elections, ipso facto, do not elicit abuses of power inherently, but they may incite them and they defintely induce ex post facto prevarication.

The most important common thread that runs throughout all of the presidential scandals of the last thirty years is that the cover-up was always worse than the crime. It was the abuse of power that got them into political trouble, but it was lying about it that got them into legal trouble. (I’d even argue that Clinton’s falacious testimony was precipitated by an abuse of power, but his abuse was more personal than political.) In short, if Karl Rove ever spends a night in prison, it’s much more likely that he’ll be there for lying to investigators than for outing Plame.

Would the Watergate, Iran-Contra and Monica scandals have occured without incumbency or were they induced by the political necessities of re-election? I don’t thnik that we’ll ever be able to answer that one, but I do think that it’s logical to presume some kind of causal link between the two.

Maybe the office of the US Presidency contains too much power. After all, our Constitution is predicated on the premise that there is a direct causal link between power and corruption. Hence, it follows that a reduction in power will yield a reduction in corruption. In other words, the extent to which the elimination of incumbency will reduce presidential political power is the extent to which it will reduce the probability of presidential corruption.

Moreover, if I’m right, we might actually increase presidential transparancy. At least the inducement to lie about presidential transgressions will be diminshed. On the other hand, if I’m wrong all we’ve lost are the two least effective years for any President: the last two of the second term.

Finally, since the elimination of incumbency will necessitate more candidates, it might also generate some more innovative ideas into presidential politics. Will more fresh faces yield more fresh ideas? I don’t know, but I think that it might be worth trying. In any event, it couldn’t hurt.

I’m not saying that the creation of a one-term six-year Presidency will end presidential peccadillos, but it might dimish the likelihood of what I’m afraid we’re about to face with George Bush: a distracted and weakened president who’s just marking time until his tenure ends.

I think we need to remove all existing term limits, and replace them with consecutive-term limits — no candidate can hold any federal office (House, Senate, or Presidency) for more than two consecutive terms. That way, if the New Guy doesn’t work out, we can bring the Old Guy back for a while until we find a new New Guy. As an added benefit, it will get these guys out of DC and back to their home state every few years.

Thanks Rob Cottrell , I almost missed this thread…I apologize in advance if it’s similar to something on another thread…please skip past my post…it’s intended for newcomers and others that aren’t tired of it yet….
: )
_______________________________________________
I’m all for term limits !
But, we don’t need a law or wait for a change to any constitutional amendments to enforce it now.
Besides, the politicians won’t ever allow it.
And, we already have the power to do it anyway.

How? Just vote only for non-incumbent/non-main-party candidates, every election, until things start improving drastically.

It offers these many benefits ……

And, require that the federal government do some house cleaning …otherwise, we’ll continue to vote the incumbents out every election, and we won’t vote for any main-party-bigots either (i.e. bought, paid, and controlled by a few with wealth and power, that really hold the reins of power).

Now, appointed positions (i.e. judges and such) need some term limits. Lifetime appointments is a bad idea, but judges campaigning for office is bad too. Perhaps 12 year terms would be best ?

I am not sure if the “lame duck” issue is really a valid one. Certainly you can find instances where in the final segment of the last term a President is less committed, less visible, less effective or, somehow deficient (poor choice of words in today’s environment) throughout history.

Think about yourself or someone you know in a position of responsibility when they leave a company to take another job or get promoted, etc. I think there is a natural tendancy to “coast” to the finish.

If you make a 4 year limit, “lame duck” kicks in late in the 3rd year, an eight year limit, the “lame duck” kicks in in the 7th year, etc.