Removal of Presidential Term Limits

What an idiot

 

Why?

Because he is wasting tax payer money by making ridiculous bills!

 

I agree, term limits area a good thing. I think we should have them on the Congress also. There becomes a time when people become stagnant, stale and part of the political machine to the point they are the problem and not the solution. I hate to keep picking on the guy but Ted Stevens was a good example...

 

I am for Congressional term limits also. As far as removing the two terms for President, no way. Most second terms of Presidents have been disasters as of late, and it makes it almost impossible to be elected a third time. The only one that would even have had a shot at it since FDR (the reason for the original amendment) was Reagan. Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush would not have won a third term. Ford, Carter, and the other Bush never made it past the first.

 

Clinton may have won a third. He was very popular with the Democrats when he left office...

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

I also say cut the incentive: reduce congress' pay by 50%, and eliminate most of the perks.

 

And considering Dukakis was the democrat's man in '88, Reagan could've had a third term...

(although it's probably a good thing he didn't, since by 1993 he was slipping pretty badly with Alzheimer's and all)

 

I have no doubt Reagan could have had a third term. Like Obama, he was very popular whether you agreed with him or not. Good or bad everyone had an opinion on Reagan and there were far more good than bad...

By the way... Reagan was my first vote for President. I turned 18 on 10/20/80 and Reagan got my first vote on 11/4.

 

Others, of the last century, who likely could also have had a third term if they so chose to pursue that, IMO, include Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (in 1908), Calvin Coolidge (1928) whom I would offer, suspected (or realized) he was already in poor health, even though this was not recognized by others, as he died in 1929, and Harry S. Truman (1952).

I suggest Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was unable to run, due to the Amendment and Lyndon B. Johnson, who was able to run again, but chose not to, could also have been re-elected, as also Presidents Ronald W. Reagan and/or William. J. Clinton.

Of course, that's only my opinion, I fully admit, and worth exactly what you are paying for it.

Ed

 

Since Nixon ran on the anti-war platform I don't think LJ stood a chance. Every hippy, love child and war protester turned out to give Nixon their vote...

 

It would be very unwise to repeal term limitation of POTUS.

 

"Once again, we do have term limits of 2, 4, and 6 years." It's called an "election." In fact, most candidates are limited to "0" years, if I recall. There's this little thing called an "election" I believe??!

Do the names of President(s) Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush ring any bells? The voters limited them to one 4 year term.

How about would-be and actual Presidential candidates Sens. Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain along with Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback, and Govs. Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney? Best I recall, the voters "limited" all these to "0" terms, with the last 5 not even making the November Election..

A handful of Sens., including Ted Stevens, Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu, likewise found their terms limited by the voters, just this past year, as did such as Tom Daschle and George Allen in a couple of previous years.

It is my contention that we do not need any additional "term limits" at all. If anything, we need voters who don't choose to "limit" their knowledge, about these candidates, and "throw de' bums out" if that is appropriate, as they have seemed to think in the past, for some!

If and when we continue to "ask for them", then "We, the people" deserve exactly what we get!

I agree that it may be unfortunate that we, in KY will apparently have to put up with Sen. Richard Durbin or Sen. Mark Udall, to name only two representing some fairly large city of Aurora, in IL and CO, for the next six years, but you, who are in IL and CO, will have to put up with 'our' Sen. Mitch McConnell for that same amount of time, as well.

Ed

 

The only one I might differ with you about is LBJ. He was quite unpopular in mid 1968.

 

True, but you get a guy like Ted Stevens or Barney Franks who is loved by their electorate but not really good for the nation as a whole. These guys are pork machines which are embedded in the political wheel which is why the wheel is unbalanced and doesn't roll to well...

 

WHAT??? A few of those type may have gone for Nixon, but only on backlash or because they were already inclined toward Republicans. But some went for Eugene McCarthy, who ran as an independent, but started way too late to seriously alter the voting. A few even went to Eldridge Cleaver and his "smash everything western civiliation has created" platform. But most, as the weeks went by after Chicago, gradually slunk back to Humphrey, in spite of his refusal to promise an about-face on Vietnam. According to some sources Humphrey, with the unintended assist from George Wallace, was narrowing the gap such that one more week would have won it for him. I don't think it became quite that narrow, but clearly HHH was gaining fast as election day came, and much of that was surely from the people you referred to, who at first refused to give him their support. But I think it's absurd that "every" flower child/ war protestor voted for Nixon in '68.

 

Term limits should stay in place. Like many others are saying, I think it should apply to Congress, but also to the Senate. I know there are many senators who have made careers out of being senators. The first that comes to mind is Strom Thurmond. If I'm not mistaken, he was a senator for almost 50 years. After serving two terms as senator, they should move on to pursue other endeavors.

 

I agree...but our electorate has become so stupid, uninformed, and selfish ("bring home the bacon") that incumbency outside the presidency is almost a given.

In addition...one cannot underestimate the negative impact on gerrymandered districts. This "locks in" a particular party (democrat a bit more than republican)...and with the availability of some serious money to incumbents...they are untouchable in the primary (which is where many districts are won & lost): For example...in most San Francisco area districts, we all know a Republican will never be elected. So...if the incumbent is going to lose, he/she (or in SF, both ) must be defeated in the primary...and few challengers can raise enough money to put up a fight.

In summary, my ideas:

• Get rid of the ridiculous gerrymandered districts (blue AND red) and replace them with something sane.
• As a concession to the general stupidity of the electorate nowadays, do term limits on congressmen/women: 4 terms for house, 2 for senate. (8 & 12 years, respectively).
• Get rid of the stupid rule that basically "gives" a candidate's war chest to them. It must stay in that candidate's election campaign. Any leftover money (and they can't take it with them when they retire/reach the limits) goes toward the national debt.
• Do away with the amendment that allows for popular election of senators, and put that back in the hands of the state legislatures, where it originally was. If the other things are done, that will go a long way toward some of the silliness we see now.

at least I hope...:laugh:

 

Perhaps you're right but my real point was LBJ didn't stand a chance since Vietnam was known as his war.

However, the 68 election is when the nation changed parties. The south who was previously known as southern democrats went republican (those who didn't vote for Wallace) and the Democrats who had won 7 of the last 9 elections lost it's base (because of the war). Also, Nixon carried California which was ground zero for the counter culture. That is why I believed Nixon carried the counter culture. I was 8 during that election but I do know anti-war sentiments were high and voters went to anyone promising to stop the war of which Nixon was chief...