I always liked how congress had no problem restricting others ability to hold office but not themselves. If the house and senate were under the same limits maybe there woudn’t be so much pork. Empire building is great fot the builder but generally hard on the pocketbook of others.
If there were a congressional term limit there might be less pork. Or it might cause monkeys to fly out of 45/70’s butt. The same amount of evidence has been offered for either possibility: none. Did I miss where this forum changed it’s name to “The Usual Unsupported Opinions”?
<hijack>
Wasn’t the blow job, it was the perjury. When the President gets head, it’s not a big deal. When the President commits a felony by lying under oath in a deposition, it’s a big deal.
</hijack>
Actually, 2sense, 45/70 may simply be assuming that the senate seniority system is common knowlege.
Committee seats are largely based on seniority + most pork is added while bills are in committee = the more seniority/committee seats your state has, the more pork you can push.
Back to the OP, term limits as custom, was explicitly linked with the idea of keeping the form of government free from being too strongly linked with any * one leader *, no matter how powerful, popular, or great they were.
The point isn’t whether or not we might not have to force out someone good with term limits, we obviously have and will. The point is to keep the government balanced enough so that when we have poor leadership, or even just difficult times, there is frequent oportunity to self correct when the pendulum swings too far.
So Clinton haters weren’t complaining in 00, and GWB haters can look forward to 08, when we get a new perspective no matter how popular opinion is swinging.
From George Washington’s farewell address 19
(bolding mine)
Would hate to see any Clinton in the whitehouse ever again. The idea of the primary would be interesting (Clinton vs. Clinton).
Catsix, where have you been all these years sine the infamous BJ? Don’t you know it’s no ones business what he did in his private life. And the whole thing was a right-wing conspiracy. And If you don’t believe me, just ask Hillary.
Excellent observation. But consider if it wasn’t for the famous BJ, you’d read Gore (D) at the bottom of the list.
I remember seeing Reagan give a speech in his last year or so in office. As he finished, the crowd (who was very supportive), began chanting, “Four! years! more!”…
Reagan turned, walked back to the mic, and replied, “I hope by that you’re wishing that I live four more years!”
It would surprise me very much to learn that Reagan had any ambition to repeal the 22nd.
How about the special prosecutor who used an investigation into real-estate deals as an excuse to question the President under oath on unrelated matters about his sex life? How big of a deal is that?
Then prepare to be surprised:
I apologize for the lame nature of this cite, but it’s hardly a Reagan bashing article. I have no reason to think it’s inaccurate.
As for me, I would have liked to see Clinton serve a third term, but I remain very much in favor of the 22nd. As a liberal with libertarian tendencies, I dislike seeing too much power accumulated in too few hands. And I feel a 7 term president would be a de-facto king of america. I also believe in that old witticism about how politicians and diapers both need to be changed frequently, for the exact same reason.
-Ben
Here we go again…
Is perjury a crime? The choices here are yes or no.
Naturally, like a good lawyer, I’m not asking a question I don’t already know the answer to.
Mike, I stand corrected (and a little surprised).
Although I would point out that my take (which I didn’t state very clearly) was that Reagan was not that motivated to install a Republican dynasty by staying in office himself.
It is less of a surprise to me that his ‘people-good, government-bad’ philosophy could be interpreted to favor Letting The People Choose.
PS: My cynical brain cells are insisting I point out that in 1987, many thought that if given the choice, America would always elect a Republican over a Democrat. In which case, repealing the 22nd would’ve tend to favor Republicans.
That wasn’t the final goodbye you were watching, **F. U. Shakespeare **, because if it was you would have heard Reagan preface his speech with the following:
You can find those words Political USA or Reagan and the Soviets or even Ronald Reagan.com. But for some reason the vast majority of paeans to the conservative hero leave off the preface and simply begin the speech from “My Fellow Americans…” Now why would they do that I wonder? How could they not want to share ALL of the political wisdom of this great man? They wouldn’t be dishonest assholes who promote ignorance by concealing Reagan’s opposition to gerrymandering, the presidential term limit, or even his support for a balanced budget amendment now would they?
:: blinks innocently ::
The point is that the “international community” doesn’t think it’s a big deal to lie under oath about a blowjob, but we spent piles of money and time investigating and prosecuting it, either because of a bullheaded dedication to principles in the face of common sense, or an obsession over the private morals of public officials. That’s what made us a laughingstock.
I don’t think so. I’d bet that Clinton would’ve beaten Bush if he (Clinton) had been able to run again. Gore lost all on his own.
snermy,
Assumptions are not a replacement for arguments. You need both for a debate. I can’t very well refute 45/70’s points if he doesn’t outline them, now can I? Thankfully you have stepped into the breach.
Assuming that you are right that seniority = power and the more power you have the more pork you can push that still doesn’t mean that term limits would resolve the issue. If committee seating were based on something other than seniority then different people would have the power to push pork. It might go to different states but that doesn’t mean there will be any less of it.
I didn’t see any evidence for your claim that the custom of term limits was linked to the idea of preventing government from being identified with any one leader but lets not get ahead of ourselves. There is no point in finding a cite for a meaningless claim and so far that is all you have offered. Why should I care if a government were strongly linked with one person?
Uh uh. You don’t get to decide what the point is. Everyone gets to decide that for themselves. For me the point is exactly that, that everyone gets to decide on their own. Why should I sacrifice my choice just to keep the government balanced? And why would you assume that balance is desirable in the first place? A machine in balance can’t move; it is at rest. Perhaps some would prefer a government that can actually work.
You seem to be making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. Perhaps you should be more cautious. I know I try to be. One last mistake is the presumption that I give a damn about the words of George Washington. I don’t. To him and to other enemies of liberty there may have existed a “present happy state” but I certainly can’t agree. Luckily we have since done away with a lot of the elitist bullshit that the plutocrats enacted but there’s still plenty to go around. I shudder to think of what kind of backwards hellhole America would be today if we had followed Washington’s advice and stuck with the principles of 1797.
I do want to thank you for the laugh I got from seeing the leader of not one but 2 successful irregular oppositions to acknowledged authority preach on the subject of avoiding future occurances. Priceless.
That’s because the Clinton-hunters keep ignoring that critical point – saying “he lied under oath” is meaningless when you realize that he wasn’t supposed to be questioned under oath on that topic to begin with. Especially not by an “independent” prosecutor who was colluding with the accuser (Paula Jones).
Of course, actually acknowledging this point would mean your entire position comes crashing down, which is why you dismiss it every time it’s brought up. The ends justify the means, eh?
My two cents on the subject:
The 22nd Amendment and most other term limit legislation are bad ideas. A person should be able to stay in office as long as people want to vote him or her into that office.
I think it’s almost certain that Eisenhower and Reagan would have won a third term if there hadn’t been a 22nd Amendment. I think Clinton would have had a very good chance as well. So people of all ideological stripes can say they were screwed or saved.
But even if the 22nd Amendment is repealed, Bill Clinton will never again be elected President. Because he wouldn’t dare tell Hillary that he was going to run again.
US Grant tried for a third term in 1880 but lost the nomination to James Garfield who won the election and assisinated the same year¡£
Teddy Roosevelt as mentioned above ran for a third term in the interesting election of 1912¡£He lost the Republican nomination to the unpopluar W¡£H¡£Taft£¬ so he split his party and struck out on his own¡£
Republicans tried to get Coolidge to run in 32¡® but he declined¡£If he would of won£¬ he would have been President for over 10 years¡£Truman could of ran in 52£¬ but he was unpopular next to general Eisenhower¡£ Truman could of ran forever¡£All the Presidents since Ike has been under the 22nd Amendment¡£
Ford£¬Carter£¬and Bush I can run for President again¡£Reagan and Clinton cannot¡£Ford can only serve one more term because he served for more than two years of Nixon¡®s term¡£LBJ could of ran in 68¡¯ because he served less than two years of JFK¡®s term¡£A President is not alowed to serve more than 10 years£¬ period¡£
Personally£¬ I think Clinton should be allowed to run¡£The party wants Hillary to run as Clinton¡¯s third term¡£A wife has ran in place for her husband who could not constitutionally run¡£ George Wallace did this with his wife in 1966 and she won £¨I think her name was Lurleen£¿She died of cancer¡££©
Paula Jones’ attorneys, as part of the discovery phase of her case against the President, had every right to ask those questions.