Should presidents be allowed to run for more than two terms?

[hrmjustin]

[Keefer]

1. Simple answer???

NO!

[doc03]

2. I used to think so but just imagine

12 years or more of W. No Thanks

[hrmjustin]

4. he never would have run again, I think. You never know, but he would have lost.

[doc03]

7. True but what if the economic collapse would have been 6 months later? n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

8. He still had awful approval ratings...even before the economic collapse.

For Bush to win a third term, you'd have to go back and fix Iraq in 2005. That's really what killed his approval ratings, since Iraq turned into a gigantic clusterfuck shortly after he started his second term. It's a big reason the Dems took control of the House & Senate in the numbers they did in 2006 ... so, I don't think there is any possibility of Bush winning a third term.

IMO, I think Bush would've opted to not run again. Kind of like LBJ in '68.

[HeiressofBickworth]

15. For Bush to win a third term

the Republicans would merely have to cheat again. They did it twice and got away with it so a third time would be a piece of cake.

I think limiting to two terms is a good idea, no matter who the President is.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Nope.

[hrmjustin]

12. he was unpopular before than. I understand your point about shrub, however I still...

... think he never would have run again. he would have had to start running in 2007. Their might have been a primary, and he was very unpopular.

[eppur_se_muova]

29. W vs a third (or fourth) term for Clinton ? I'd risk it. nt

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. Perhaps, but

Without term limits Bill Clinton would have won in 2000 and 2004...In fact without term limits he might still be president

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Until 1951, when the 22nd Amendment was ratified, they could.

But FDR was the only president ever actually elected to a third term.

[hrmjustin]

5. and a fourth. truman could have ran, but he said no.

what do you think?

[Drunken Irishman]

6. I don't know...I think a president should be given three terms, not two.

Generally, the second term amounts to little for any president because we already know he's done no matter what. I have hope Obama will be able to do more in his second term, but it's rare a president gets near the level of his agenda through as he did in his first.

So, giving a President three terms allows for the potential to have a second term defined by policy and not lameduck status, which almost always happens the second after his inauguration.

Yes, I get some people fear the possibility of Bush getting a third term, but that wasn't going to happen. Had Bush run for a third term, which I even doubt he would have, Obama would've kicked his ass worse than he kicked McCain's.

Give a president three potential terms to shape the country.

[Pyrzqxgl]

9. We should have the right to elect anyone the hell we want. Term limits is a restriction of Freedom.

[muktiman]

24. I agree

term limits are undemocratic

[MrSlayer]

10. I don't think they should get more than one.

A single six or seven year term would be better. Do what you want to do without having to worry about re-election. No wasting time campaigning when you should be governing.

[hrmjustin]

14. Like Mexico. That is an Idea.

[ToxMarz]

11. After Obama wins his second term

It would be an awesome rumor to start over at the Freepers, that Democrats intend to change the law so he can serve a third term. Those whose heads haven't yet exploded, will. Fox will probably do it anyway to keep them riled up.

[hrmjustin]

13. good point but they would have to get a constitutional amendment to dot this so they need...

.... GOP support.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. That happens every time we have an 8 year president.

I remember people saying Reagan was going to try. Then the right was afraid Clinton would try. Then the tinfoil people here were SURE SURE POSITIVE SERIES that was what Bush was going to do, after suspending the constitution and putting everyone into FEMA camps.

And so it goes.

[creeksneakers2]

17. Get rid of term limits

Presidents always leave all the big problems to the next guy. If a president was going to be around for 20 years, he'd be more responsible about what he's creating and leaving.

[hrmjustin]

19. agreed my friend.

[Kolesar]

31. That's one good reason to end term limits

More broadly, term limits have ruined Ohio government.

[Swede Atlanta]

18. No.........it took a Constitutional amendment to limit the terms of the President....

I would like to see similar term limits for Congress and the Senate....

I would propose no more than 3 terms for a Congressman or 6 years and no more than 2 terms for a Senator or 12 years.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a system of citizen representatives, not monied career politicians. But term limits will have limited effect if we have unlimited corporate money in elections. We would still need an amendment that would significant change the ways elections are funded and reduce the influence of 3rd party money in elections. I don't see that happening ever, ever, ever.

[hrmjustin]

20. I would say 6 terms per congressman or 2-3 terms per senator.

let them get their pension. But as someone her said what about Ted Kennedy. We never would have The great ted with term limits

[Warren DeMontague]

22. If the FF had wanted term limits, they very easily could have written them in.

Too often, "term limits" are the excuse used by the people who constantly lose since their ideas are out of sync with most of America (see the religious right) as their desperate attempt to shoehorn their person in.

Term limits are legitimate in the case of the POTUS because the chief executive has a tremendous amount of power unique only to that office. It is dangerous to allow anyone to sit in that chair for too long.

But it's a special case. I do not think term limits are appropriate for Congress.

[Vincardog]

25. The FF believed that people had a duty to serve in government and thus enrich their fellow citizen's

lives. Serving in government was a hardship and came at the expense of not managing your own affairs.
They did not envision a professional class of politicians nor did they envision anyone wanting such a profession.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. And they were human beings who created a remarkably durable and flexible framework for self-govt

but this idea of playing the endless game of "what would they have wanted", or "they would have wanted this" is silly. Would they have driven SUVs? Hybrids? Drank Diet coke? Would they have enjoyed violent XBOX games? HBO?

It's meaningless. At the end of the day, they're dead dudes from over 200 years ago. Really more relevant to us today, is to ask ourselves, now, what can we do and what should we do in a constitutional framework.

Personally, I am opposed to congressional term limits; I think that, like many jobs, people often require time and experience to get good- and point blank kicking all Senators and Reps out after one or two terms guarantees a perpetual crop of people 'learning the ropes'. There is something to be said for experience in Washington; love him or hate him (and there are ample reasons for both) Lyndon Baines Johnson was quite possibly the most effective politician of the 20th century; he honed that ability by spending a great deal of time in DC. We have long-time members of congress, like Barney Frank, who still do good work and have established themselves and their positions over time.

We have remedies for bad legislators, i.e. elections. That is how voters can remove people who have outstayed their usefulness in DC.

[gopiscrap]

21. No it should be one six year term

and at the four year mark vote approve (if approve then continues for the next two years) or dissapprove and if disapprove hold an election 90 days later for a new president and then the six year clock starts ticking again.

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Only if they're as good as FDR , No one produced more

as far as a Manager.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. No ...

a maximum of two four year terms is, IMO, perfect.

[eppur_se_muova]

30. Several Presidents tried for a third term. Only FDR succeeded.

And that was largely because the country didn't want to change leaders in the middle of a war, which was a good decision.

Voters don't need to be "protected" from their decisions. They have chosen well enough without the 22nd Amendment. The only President who could have been elected to a third term since was Clinton -- and wouldn't that have been BETTER than W? Even if Clinton had lost, he could have run again in 2004 -- how do you think THAT would have turned out? Think how different our recent history would have been without the 22nd Amendment -- maybe no 9/11, certainly no Iraq War, maybe warning signs on Wall Street would have registered in time. No, I don't think Presidential term limits have done us any good at all, and quite a bit of harm.

[TheNaimSadik]

33. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

[mykpart]

34. I don't know, but I'm kicking this thread so I can learn more from more replies.