I'm not sure it's our system or us. Our forefathers warned of the tyranny
of a party system. We have allowed our politicians to serve their "party"
rather than serve us. It is our own fault. In any event, I wouldn't
change the system. It has provided a heritage and stability that has
carried us through trying times. The benefits of that continuity can not
be disregarded.


I've been wondering if it isn't time to amend the constitution. Give the POTUS
a single, six-year term and then he's outa there.
The VP could succeed him.

What a refreshing change it would be to have a president dong his best to live
up to his campaign promises during his term, rather than barely getting
anything off the ground in the first four years so we feel like we are
compelled to send him back for a second four so he can finish up. Imagine,
a president spending six years administering the executive branch instead of
four years "running" for reelection.

Well, we shall see.

I'm betting it's already a done deal.

Later,

Tom


You think she'll run against President Kerry? :-)

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 05:42:38 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

I've been wondering if it isn't time to amend the constitution. Give the
POTUS a single, six-year term and then he's outa there. The VP could
succeed him.

What a refreshing change it would be to have a president dong his best to
live up to his campaign promises during his term, rather than barely
getting anything off the ground in the first four years so we feel like we
are compelled to send him back for a second four so he can finish up.
Imagine, a president spending six years administering the executive branch
instead of four years "running" for reelection.

There are other, less drastic ways to accomplish this. Personally, I'm
hesitant to change the Constitution. It has provided a stability that has
worked for over 200 years. Calls to change it, I think, somehow weaken
it. It's similar to term limits. It only limits our ability to keep good
legislators. If they are incompetent, it is our job to fire them.

Calls to change it, I think, somehow weaken
it. It's similar to term limits. It only limits our ability to keep good
legislators. If they are incompetent, it is our job to fire them.

The difference between POTUS and a congressman is that the POTUS is in a
position, as an idividual, to shape events in the world. Some of these
characters have not been above shaping world events with a timing that assists
in their reelection.

Look at Nixon. After taking office on a platform that featured getting us out
of VN, he fiddled and twiddled through most of his first term. Serious
negotiations finally got underway during his last year in office, and
tens of millions voted to put Nixon back in
"so we don't have to switch horses midsteam on the peace negotiations."

(I think some of the current crop of right wingers would be ashamed of Nixon.
Too much of that treasonous, liberal "peace talk" when we had a perfectly good
nuclear arsenal just sitting there waiting to kill everybody in Hanoi.)

Did you know that a great many western democracies who otherwise modeled their
governments by the US experience restrict their executives to a single six-year
term?
It only took a few US presidential election cycles for the rest of the world to
see how
the most powerful man in our country can, and does, abuse the system.

I think the CSA had a heck of a policy. Jefferson Davis served two years
"probation" and then was subject to confirmation for an additional four. Makes
some sense, really. Elect a president, and
then have a two-year referendum on his performance. He wouldn't "run against"
anybody at the two-year point, we'd simply vote thumbs up or thumbs down on his
performance. If the nation voted thumbs down, a general election would take
place
six months later. The sitting POTUS could try to improve his rating enough to
save his
butt in the general, and if he succeeded he
would get 3 1/2 more years for a total of six.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:42:13 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:


Did you know that a great many western democracies who otherwise modeled
their governments by the US experience restrict their executives to a
single six-year term?
It only took a few US presidential election cycles for the rest of the
world to see how
the most powerful man in our country can, and does, abuse the system.

I think the CSA had a heck of a policy. Jefferson Davis served two years
"probation" and then was subject to confirmation for an additional four.
Makes some sense, really. Elect a president, and then have a two-year
referendum on his performance. He wouldn't "run against" anybody at the
two-year point, we'd simply vote thumbs up or thumbs down on his
performance. If the nation voted thumbs down, a general election would
take place
six months later. The sitting POTUS could try to improve his rating enough
to save his
butt in the general, and if he succeeded he would get 3 1/2 more years for
a total of six.

In an ideal world, I'm not denying our system could use some fine tuning.
I'm saying I have more faith in our forefathers, than the crop of boobs in
Washington now. We can talk of more effective systems, perhaps a true
participatory democracy, but if *we* do our part, this system works.

JohnH wrote:


That might even entice some Republicans to vote for the lying scumbag.

John H

I thought that Bush, the real lying, murderous scumbag, already had the
Republican vote tied up...

Are you saying dirtbags like you need more enticement to vote for Bush?


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?