How about one six-year term for our President?
|
|
| Also listed in: Douglas County |
Just wondering why.....
Seems to me that our national interests would be better served if we were to limit our President to one six-year term. Given all the campaigning that goes with seeking a second term and all the lame duck tactics that ensue during a second term, we would probably get more (and better) work done by our Chief Executives if they accepted this office as one six- year contract with the American people.
Seems to me that our national interests would be better served if we were to limit our President to one six-year term. Given all the campaigning that goes with seeking a second term and all the lame duck tactics that ensue during a second term, we would probably get more (and better) work done by our Chief Executives if they accepted this office as one six- year contract with the American people.
Link
Although, I also found:
"Few First Ladies were as overtly involved in presidential policy as was Florence Harding (First Lady, March 4, 1921 - August 2, 1923). Having helped shape the anti-League of Nations stance of the successful presidential campaign of her husband, Warren Harding, she vigorously held him to that view. Harding read a draft of his 1921 State of the Union speech to his Attorney-General Harry Daughtery in the Oval Office. Daughtery grew alarmed that Harding was implying his eventual acceptance of the League. He went directly to the First Lady and was present at a heated argument between the couple. The First Lady insisted the President remove the paragraphs in question and by the time Daughtery left, Harding had not budged. Listening to the State of the Union along with Interior Secretary Albert Fall, Daughtery was shocked when the place came for the intended paragraphs: Florence Harding had prevailed. "A wise little woman," remarked Fall. Presidential speechwriter Judson Welliver further recalled an incident where Florence Harding came into the Oval Office, read through a draft of Harding's State of the Union for either 1922 or 1923 - and refused to leave until he removed a proposal to Congress of a one-term six-year presidency that would remove the Chief Executive from the partisan politics necessary to winning a second term. She again succeeded." at: Link
This country's running dangerously close to a dynastic presidency, which I think is bad for democracy. Bush II should not have been allowed to be president. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to be president either.
I'd probably also consider some kind of transition scheme where the outgoing president becomes the second VP for a year or something, but removed from the line of succession. I think 9-11 would have happened even if Bush weren't incompetent, but it might not have if the entire government hadn't turned over all at once.
It might serve the same purpose to have certain key office's terms begin 1 year after the president takes office. Maybe the VP and Secretaries of State and Defense and Homeland Security have to stick around for a year or something.
It's fun to think about reorganizing the government. That's what I love about progressives--always trying to find ways to make government better, rather than ways to eliminate government or use it for personal enrichment.
Maybe a one term President would do what is good for the people rather than what is good for the lobbyists. (I'm an optimist.)
George Bush certainly didn't have to answer to the people for his failed first term.
David O.
Thanks Lee.
I can be found in the Smart Energy, Denver Metro, or Broom Brigade Groups.