Posted on 01/19/2005 2:14:35 PM PST by RWR8189
PRESIDENTIAL second terms usually end in fail ure. Since 1900, only Teddy Roosevelt could boast of a second term that was as good or better than his first. Woodrow Wilson lost Congress, then couldn't bring America into the League of Nations. FDR, whose third term was a success, failed to pass anything in his second after he alienated Congress by trying to pack the Supreme Court and purge recalcitrant Democrats. Harry Truman's popularity plunged over Korea, as Lyndon Johnson's did over Vietnam. Ike had two recessions and a hospitalization. Richard Nixon resigned. Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra, and Bill Clinton was impeached.
The reasons for second-term failure are pretty much the same: Presidents generally do what they are good at in their first four years, then spend their second term responding to the agendas imposed upon them by events. Plus, re-election itself tends to encourage a spirit of hubris — even as top staff typically depart in search of lucrative jobs, leaving second stringers in charge.
But President Bush has gotten off to a very good start in the weeks since Election Day. Palestine is lurching toward peace. North Korea seems likely to return to six-power talks. Iraq will hold an election, with turnout likely exceeding our own. Ukraine has opted for democracy. And the tsunami has kindled a global spirit of cooperation and unity unlike anything since 9/11.
But Bush has clearly signaled that he will not devote the next four years — as he has the past three — exclusively to fighting the War on Terror. While not planning to let up the pressure on our enemies, he plans to tackle the two most difficult tasks in American politics: Social Security and income-tax reform. Only Reagan succeeded in the latter; nobody has ever done both.
President Bush's hope of
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
C A C A (CACA)
Complaining about clinton again
LOL!
I'm going to steal the CACA thing. ;)
No it did hurt the commercial real estate market which was hooked on tax breaks but if you believe in limited government you cannot prop up every government supported entity.
The stock market crashed after the 87 tax hike, That hurt everyone not just the special interests.
The stock market crash was a result of many things, not the least of which was James Baker talking the dollar down as a means to a trade war with Germany. The tax reform of 1986 was not a tax hike.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
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.