Posted on 11/07/2013 4:46:07 AM PST by Kaslin
The second terms of the latest three presidents have not been successful. Bill Clinton was impeached after his infamous lie to Americans, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
George W. Bush was blamed for the postwar violence in Iraq.
Barack Obama's scandals -- with his accompanying "limited hangout" denials -- are ruining his second term: the growing IRS messes, the Associated Press monitoring, the NSA embarrassments, the Benghazi killings, the Syria bluster and backdown, and, of course, the Obamacare fiasco and the misleading statements about it.
What are other common denominators of this collective tenure of our recent presidents?
After popular first terms and re-election, they seemed to have lost public confidence and the ability to continue an agenda.
Do two terms wear out a president?
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I dont know that their first terms were that popular but things seemed to be getting better in their fourth year(to enough voters anyway) , then the fifth year of both Bush and Obama all hell seemed to break loose,
What we need is a President who believes in America and our Constitution and unlike the Bushies, acts like it.
Hmmm...maybe presidents shouldn’t have second terms....
I know there is discussion in the past of limited to one term or even changing it to a six year term. I think states like Virginia have an interesting approach with one term and out. Frankly, for a governor or president, I don’t feel like one terms works out as well because a four year term is realistically so short. The opposition can just wait things out for a year and then a new election cycle begins. I also don’t like changing the fundamental four year term for Presidents to six. There is a purpose to 2 year House terms, six year Senate terms and 4 year terms in the executive.
Additionally, I think Bush began failing after reelection because he didn’t have to worry about running again. They turned off the public relations function completely in mid-2005 and the collapse of his presidency began. If he had one term, they wouldn’t have even challenged the media in the first term and we’d be worse off.
The idea that second terms go poorly is more about the person than the country. Clinton got impeached in his second term, but the economy was in boom. For Bush, despite public opinion damage did all the right things to turn around Iraq. Going back further, people would bring up Iran Contra and Reagan, but the economy was in great shape and his VP won the next election with a near sweep. I think it comes down to two things...voter fatigue and the ability for the opposition to finally get their message across away from the reelection buildup.
Four year term, up to eight years total NON-consecutive.
I thought that Reagan guy did OK in his second term. Maybe we just need another Reagan.
Now go get me one. Somebody. Please.
How about a Prime Minister instead? Our current one party system with its chief overlord certainly stinks.
Actually, we have such a system if implemented.
If the Speaker had said to the President “so did I” and then proceeded to lay out his vision of how we are going to proceed and then implemented it with force and conviction, the situation wold be different.
The series of bills passed laid out a program but there was not the constant force of words describing what was being done and why. The speakership in the hands of a strong committed and charismatic man could destroy Barack Obama
Had Boehner said “So did I” he would have knocked the wind from the arrogant black pesident
Well, I think the issue is in the mirror. We are asking the wrong questions and have false expectations. Representatives are us, not saints, not perfect, just people that we hope have the capability to make sane decisions on our behalf when REAL issues come up, not to manufacture issues which demand corrupt solutions. We need to find a way to break the golden rule and return to majority rule. We need to revisit our collective definition of what government is supposed to do at all levels. We kill candidates over “alleged” infractions of what we deem violations of our moral compass, no proof, just allegations so we end up with those that have enough ego to withstand the embarrassment.
No, not majority rule. We are not a democracy!!!!
I would suggest banning relatives of presidents from the office. That would include wives, brothers, sons, etc.
Dynasties are for kings and emperors. We don't need that.
We democratically elect our representatives... Or at least that is the way it is supposed to be.
The problem is the people, not the Constitution. Mostly the people in office, that is, but also the people voting, Why it took more than four years for people to see through Clinton and (especially) Obama is beyond me, and Bush had enough “stylistic” shortcomings that a half-decade of almost constant shelling by the MSM was all it took to bring him down.
Changing the Constitution because we keep electing buttheads to the highest office in the land isn’t the solution - getting more Reagans or even Eisenhowers to run - and then figuring out how to elect them - is.
The thread is BS.
We had two chances to prevent the obvious, 2008 and 2012.
We blew it.
Changing the president’s term would not have changed the kind of president we would get next.
We deserve what we have.
As long as we judge a politicians by how many free cell phones we get, we will have the kind of government we have today.
I know, your vote would never be influenced by a cheap cell phone....
But if I ran for office and told you that you would lose any and all tax deductions, pay a national sales tax, no medicaid, medicare, medicare drugs, no federal education department.....
No way that would influence your vote.
Right?
It is legalized graft.
We are paying people for their vote.
The Democrats slaughtered Reagan in his second term, winning back the senate and having Watergate style Iran-Contra hearings. Then they turned back Bork. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” has been shown far more often in retrospect than at the time. The press limited that statement and tore Reagan up daily. Now they revise history and act like he was well supported. It was a grind of a four years.
It was a grind, but they did not undo what he had begun, and his VP (for better or worse) succeeded him. I think Taft was the last VP that could do that, and it was a testament to Reagan’s leadership that the country wasn’t “Reagan weary.”
Reagan left office a popular President despite a communist media that loathed him. 0bama will leave office not nearly so popular, despite an even more rabidly communist media that worships him.
Its vertical separation of powers represented in a senate of the states was THE reason the government generally operated within the limits of enumerated powers prior to 1913.
Waiting for superman, hoping for the election of a conservative president is an easy way to placate ones conscience, but is insufficient to restore our freedoms.
Good (actually excellent) point - but I wasn’t arguing in favor of the federal income tax, I was arguing against VDH’s suggestion - one 6 year term for the chief executive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.