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.