OT--Why not Bill Clinton in 2004?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Gee Cam, I'm shocked. I can't imagine that Bill Clinton would have so little regard for the law that he would want to change, stretch, bend or break it for his own personal benefit. I mean, that whole impeachment thing was just about sex, not about the fact that he lied under oath and obstructed justice, right?

Shame the Republicans can't elect anybody that the country would want for more than two terms isn't it.

I mean, that's what the amendment was all about. The country had just lost it's most popular president ever. A democrat. The amendment was proposed in 1947, the republicans had just won the majority in congress in 46. Hmmm...

Let's not get all noble about this amendment. It was simply politics as usual and fundamentally it is crap. Now, another popular president speaks out on it, coincidently another democrat; he calls bullshit and everybody wants to call him self serving. Of course. Let's not think long term or what the public might want as they surely have no say in a republic do they?

Incidently, I do believe that health problems aside, Reagan could have possibly been elected to four terms. I disliked him quite a bit but can't argue that he was popular and had the country in a position that reelection would almost be a given. What I'm saying is, the amendment or lack thereof cuts both ways so it's rather petty and disingenious to pillory the person who suggests changing it.

To be fair though, I'd have reacted the same way if Reagan had proposed it but inside I'd have known better.

The only thing I can see as a real danger is the way the supreme court appointments are made but I consider this a badly flawed system anyway and in need of a huge overhaul. Maybe they could tackle both issues at the same time?

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Axxon
Shame the Republicans can't elect anybody that the country would want for more than two terms isn't it.

I mean, that's what the amendment was all about. The country had just lost it's most popular president ever. A democrat. The amendment was proposed in 1947, the republicans had just won the majority in congress in 46. Hmmm...

Let's not get all noble about this amendment. It was simply politics as usual and fundamentally it is crap. Now, another popular president speaks out on it, coincidently another democrat; he calls bullshit and everybody wants to call him self serving. Of course. Let's not think long term or what the public might want as they surely have no say in a republic do they?

I think the "spirit" of the amendment dates back to George Washington, who easily could have been president for life, but decided the last thing the country needed was another king-like figure and stepped down after two terms. All of the presidents after that who had served twice followed suit, up until FDR, and there were some special circumstances in his case (though I'm sure he didn't mind being elected four times).

If the amendment were to be changed to allow unlimited terms but not more than 2 consecutive...I don't know if that's good or not. You could have a past president loom over a party for years and years; if we had a particularly popular president, would he ever really lose power, or would he just lord over the sitting president for the 4 years he wasn't in office? Would other countries recognize or cooperate with the sitting president, knowing who they would deal with next? You might have a lame duck president as soon as he (or she, eventually) is elected.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
Shame the Republicans can't elect anybody that the country would want for more than two terms isn't it.

I mean, that's what the amendment was all about. The country had just lost it's most popular president ever. A democrat. The amendment was proposed in 1947, the republicans had just won the majority in congress in 46. Hmmm...

This amendment had to pass both the house and senate by 2/3 AND "ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress. "

That is one big republican conspiracy....

[Radii]

I'm not even sure that the president should be doing anything with the economy at this point. We (the USA) have a very strong economic foundation, and we should have an understanding that the economy moves in cycles, there are ups and there are downs. It is impossible to have a thriving economy 100% of the time. It's such a complex system that it is ludicrous(sp?) for any president to take 100% credit or blame for the overall state of the economy, and I really think it's a mistake to try to force the system out of its natural cycle.

If we were in a flat out DEPRESSION ala 1929 then a concentrated effort to correct economic issues is okay.

But we haven't been in a DEPRESSION. My impression of all this is that the president's job should be to try to push through some simple, obvious legislation to create a "feel good" environment in the nation, keep people's spirits as high as possible, do something effective that will create some jobs(the claim that the tax cut directly leads to new jobs is a bit shaky to me), but sweeping changes that people can't agree on just don't seem like the right thing to do.

My sincere HOPE is that the tax cuts will assist in stimulating the economy in the way that Bush is claiming it will. But the economy is just too complex a system. A hopeful side effect of the tax cut is that the people who support Bush(and it is a majority, I know) will be more confident and will spend more, increase that whole 'consumer confidence' factor. But I see all this as the president doing something drastic at a time when he really, really should not. It's a cycle, try to push things along towards an upswing, but shit, if the economy continues to tank, is it Bush's fault? IMHO, No. If the economy picks up, is it to Bush's credit? IMHO, No.

[Daimyo]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
That was before recentering. After recentering (around 1990, IIRC) you could only score in multiples of 10... oh and add about 100 points to the score to find out what it would have been today... so Bush would have around a 1300.

This is not entirely true. While the recentering did bring the average to 500, it did not do so by simply applying a 100 pt mask across the board. In fact in some cases your score could actually be lowered by the recentering (I believe that occurs with some math scores in the ~700 range).

You have to check the actual charts they provide to translate the scores... you can't just add 100.

[cuervo72]

According to http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow.../chapter4.pdf:

April 1995: New score scale is introduced, using the 1990 college-bound senior cohort as the standardized group.

I haven't read the whole document to find out all of the recentering details.

[sabotai]

On the issue of term limits, I hate them. There's nothing more undemocratic in a democratix society then telling someone they can't vote for a specific person.

If the majority of the people still wanted Clinton after the second term, he stays in office. That's democracy (or republic, for the sake of this discussion, let's not get into the that whole mess). Term limits is not democracy.

George Washingto never really wanted to be president. He did so to serve his country. In a letter he wrote in 1788, he said "If I should conceive myselfe in a manner constrained to accept [The Presidency]...this very act would be the greatest sacrifice of my personal feelings and wishes that ever I have been called upon to make." He left for several reasons, one being he didn't want to be an elected king. He did not like the direction the politcs of the nation was heading. His health was starting to decline. He didn't like the job. His faith in the system they created was declining. In his farewell address to the country, he warned people against the extreme partisanship that the parties were creatings (talk about telling the future).

Up until the 20th century, it was suicide to do something Washington would not, since he was held so highly. But the main reason why most presidents before FDR did not go for a 3rd term was because after the 2nd term, they became so unpopular, that being elected to a 3rd term would be nealy impossible.

The only 2 presidents that really jump out at me that easily would have been elected to a 3rd term would be Madison and Teddy Roosevelt.

Of course, another thing to consider is that in the 1800's, the 2 term president was very rare thing. Most presidents in the 1800's either served for just one term, or died in office.

[Anrhydeddu]

If the majority of the people still wanted Clinton after the second term, he stays in office. That's democracy (or republic, for the sake of this discussion, let's not get into the that whole mess). Term limits is not democracy.

...and neither is the type of government framed by the US Constitution.

[sabotai]

A, please read what I wrote in the middle of what you quoted.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Via Instapundit I found this link that does a good job of summing up my views on current taxation.

I don't complain about my taxes

We should have a tax policy where those of you wanting to pay more can. You can really show your compassion through your tax givings.

The rest of us can keep what we earn.

JPhillips, if you really don't like your money in your own pocket, why don't you give it to me?

[tucker342]

JPhillips I agree with you.

[JPhillips]

BoneGavel: It's not that I don't want money in my pocket, its that I believe that as a member of the greatest country on Earth I have a duty to supply it with a reasonable portion of my income so that it can maintain the services that I and everyone else benefits from. Civil society isn't free, and I am willing to pay my share.

btw- did you read the article? He really explains this better than me.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
This amendment had to pass both the house and senate by 2/3 AND "ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress. "

That is one big republican conspiracy....

Wow, do you consider every politically motivated action a conspiracy?? Must get awful hot in that tinfoil hat all the time.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I think the "spirit" of the amendment dates back to George Washington, who easily could have been president for life, but decided the last thing the country needed was another king-like figure and stepped down after two terms. All of the presidents after that who had served twice followed suit, up until FDR, and there were some special circumstances in his case (though I'm sure he didn't mind being elected four times).

If the amendment were to be changed to allow unlimited terms but not more than 2 consecutive...I don't know if that's good or not. You could have a past president loom over a party for years and years; if we had a particularly popular president, would he ever really lose power, or would he just lord over the sitting president for the 4 years he wasn't in office? Would other countries recognize or cooperate with the sitting president, knowing who they would deal with next? You might have a lame duck president as soon as he (or she, eventually) is elected.

Sabotai did an excellent job in discussing the Washington as prez angle so I'll defer to his post here.

A couple of comments on your second paragraph. Yes, you could have a lame duck president as soon as he /she is elected but we have that by necessity now on every second term anyway. I don't see why the system you propose would necessarily be any different.

Also consider this. The main reason that FRD kept being reelected is because we were in a war. It isn't a good idea to change leaders in a conflict. Now, suppose one of these days we get involved with a country that actually can fight back and we find ourselves in a war just as a presidents second term is drawing to a close. Our right to an orderly war defense ( which is pretty darned important I'd think ) would be jeopardized just because a guy in the 1700's decided he didn't want to be president any more.

No matter how disappointed I am with W, if we were engaged in a war , one that he didn't start, I'd vote for him to see it through. For that matter, when his terms are over, if we get involved in a serious conflict I'd want him back. I don't like that we've fought a war but I am confident in his ability to run one. Let's face it, the boy ran a good war just like his dad did.

Of course, that would pretty much be the only way I'd vote for him but... No, not really, but he's running out of time to win me over and soon it will be relection season full time and once that happens, the country generally has a lame duck year anyway.

In truth, I generally prefer to vote for the best candidate of the party not in control of congress for president. I feel far better when that situation exists. Since it doesn't seem likely that the dems will win congress I'm afraid Bush has a double whammy with me.

Now, lets say that the impossible occurs and we elect someone who has all the best qualities of leadership rolled into one guy with none of the associated negatives. This person really attacks our social and economic problems without taking more money out of our pockets and it works so well that the deficit is wiped out as well. This person also impresses the rest of the world with wisdom and soon a real era of cooperation begins and the world takes true and meaningful steps to disarm and make not only peace but cooperation with their neighbors.

Eight years roll around and now we cannot keep this guy because George Washington, who didn't even want to become president at all, certainly didn't want to serve three terms??? How bad would that suck??

Now, I know that this guy isn't going to get elected but it isn't the point. Ask yourself the question and come up with an honest answer. If you feel that it would suck then I agree with you. Now, lets get back to the practical. Just like the old punchline "we've already established what you are, now we're haggling over the price", we've already established that with a good enough leader we wouldn't like the amendment so what's left but to leave the price haggling to the voting public?

We public are a fickle bunch and we also root for the underdog ( unless they're muslim of course ). There is a huge barrier to the third term election and very few presidents could pull it off. We already have a pretty good safeguard built in called human nature. I don't see the problem with this.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
Wow, do you consider every politically motivated action a conspiracy?? Must get awful hot in that tinfoil hat all the time.

You were the dingbat that was talking about a Republican motivation for the amendment. NO political party has ever had 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states locked up. I think this, and alomst all other amendments that go through, have broad based support.


------
J phillips - from the article you posted:

"I'm comfortable spending money on services I don't need to use personally -- welfare, unemployment, the military -- because I think they provide for a better quality of life for my fellow citizens at large."


Two things to consider. 1, this guys does use the military every day. 2, the military is the only thing of the three he listed that fed should be invloved in at all.

I agree with paying taxes (in one form or another) to provide the various levels of govt. with the money to provide services, but re-evaluating the services they provide is a real issue.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
Sabotai did an excellent job in discussing the Washington as prez angle so I'll defer to his post here.

Also consider this. The main reason that FRD kept being reelected is because we were in a war. It isn't a good idea to change leaders in a conflict. Now, suppose one of these days we get involved with a country that actually can fight back and we find ourselves in a war just as a presidents second term is drawing to a close. Our right to an orderly war defense ( which is pretty darned important I'd think ) would be jeopardized just because a guy in the 1700's decided he didn't want to be president any more.

Why exactly is this? During the course of war we change other very important leaders. We change policy, strategy, and such. During WW2 we did, in fact, change presidents.

FDRs 3rd term started BEFORE the war, so why did we NEED to keep him in?

Not changing horses midstream is a good catchphrase, but I don't buy it when it comes to presidents.

[JPhillips]

Fritz: Agreed, but I know that I am going to have to pay for some services I disapprove of so that I can also pay for services I approve. That's the bargain we all make. You can't only pay taxes ffor those things you approve of, because nothing would get funded that way.

Also, I don't see how these tax cuts are really an argument about government spending. The Repubs in charge aren't cutting spending, they're increasing it. If they want to have a debate about government spending, lets go. They don't want to debate Social Security and Medicare and the Dept. of Education etc. because they are overwhelmingly popular. These Repubs have abandoned conservative thought for a dangerous borrow and spend mentality. This tax cut is full of gimmicks, unlikely to stimulate short term, and will saddle future generations with hundreds of billions of debt.

BRING BACK SPLIT GOVERNMENT!!!

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
You were the dingbat that was talking about a Republican motivation for the amendment. NO political party has ever had 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states locked up. I think this, and alomst all other amendments that go through, have broad based support.

But again, where did I consider it a conspiracy?? You ramble on here but don't answer the question.

Here is a link that talks about this and says basically what I am saying but better of course. The part that you should read VERY carefully is how not ONE republican in EITHER house voted against it. But still you claim that no politics involved here. Indeed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nkie032399.htm

Here's another short one. Note the caption to the photo:

Just months into his fourth term, Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican party and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency, was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms. Today, in the city over which Roosevelt presided for 13 years, youngsters such as Nordina Blackburn, 6, of Norcross, Ga., can visit the monument to the first -- and last -- president to serve more than two terms.

Again, this was simply a biparty "good for the nation" thing, right??

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...dment_22p9.asp


What's funny is the very next president, a republican, was the first one screwed by the amendment. I had forgotten about Ike but he surely would have won a third term had he run. I don't think he'd have done it though but he was that popular.

Oh, lets not forget that the amendment grandfathered Truman in as a bone to on the fence democrats. Somehow, while I agree that the amendment was popular, I can't see it passing without a concentrated republican effort which it got and which is what I was talking about.

[Fritz]

I understand, but you only have to accept so much. I am not going to accept (by that I mean I am not going to be happy with) welfare because the govt. also provides for defense.

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: Agreed, but I know that I am going to have to pay for some services I disapprove of so that I can also pay for services I approve. That's the bargain we all make. You can't only pay taxes ffor those things you approve of, because nothing would get funded that way.

I am not arguing with you about the Republicans and this tax cut. I understand the theory about econimic stimuli but the way I look at it, if you are going to cut income you need to cut spending. At least short term.

I would not condem the move as completely as you did below, but I do think the Republican leadership is borrowing to buy political capital.

I was saying that reduction in taxes should only come as a result of improvements in effeciency, or a restructuring of the services the govt. provides. I agree that the republicans have set aside certain philisophical positions on the nature of govt.

Originally posted by JPhillips

Also, I don't see how these tax cuts are really an argument about government spending. The Repubs in charge aren't cutting spending, they're increasing it. If they want to have a debate about government spending, lets go. They don't want to debate Social Security and Medicare and the Dept. of Education etc. because they are overwhelmingly popular. These Repubs have abandoned conservative thought for a dangerous borrow and spend mentality. This tax cut is full of gimmicks, unlikely to stimulate short term, and will saddle future generations with hundreds of billions of debt.

[Axxon]

Just found this on the National Federation of Republican Women ( hey blame google ). They claim the source is the Republican National Committee :

http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/history.htm

'In the post-Depression era, five presidential terms were shared by only two presidents. The Democrats ignored the two-term tradition upheld by the Republican Party and allowed Roosevelt to run for and win an unprecedented four terms. Following Roosevelt's death, Vice President Harry S Truman became president. It was not until 1946, with the 80th Congress, that the Republicans won a majority in both the Senate and the House. Notably, it was this Congress that produced the first balanced federal budget since Republican Herbert Hoover was president."

Hmm, "traditionally upheld by the Republican Party, but of course the amendment wasn't motivated by the republican party at all?? 53 years later and they are still taking swipes ate FDR over it but certainly at the time a more noble and selfless goal was undertaken with no thought of politics at all. I'm still not seeing it.

[JPhillips]

Fritz: While I'm sure we disagree on what spending to cut, I actually think we see eye to eye re spending cuts balancing out tax cuts. Of course it won't happen, but wouldn't it be nice if the congress could be harassed by debt collectors until they got their heads out of their asses?

[Airhog]

I think a good analgy of the economy is like a sine wave. the economy cannot continue to rise, eventually it must fall. So it is better to have a smaller amplitude then a larger amplitude.

[JPhillips]

Airhog: The problem with that analogy is that it assumes we will never raise the baseline. Theoretically the economy can continue to rise, and basically has, with a few dips, since FDR.