View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 24th, 2014, 8:53 am



Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for America 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for America
Quote:
Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for America
By Myra Adams
December 5th 20135:45 AM

Does the commander in chief really need to serve two terms? Why a permanent ‘lame duck’ would change our politics for the better.

In a recent speech championing immigration reform, President Obama said, “I’m not running for office again. I just believe it is the right thing to do.”

Given the number of times Obama has publicly stated that his name will never be on another ballot, he’s beginning to sound like a broken record.

But there is much hidden wisdom in Obama’s repeated statement. Imagine if we did things a bit differently. Imagine if President Obama, elected in 2008, had been allotted just one six-year term coming to a close at the end of 2014.

The timing would sure seem right—both for him and for our nation. There is no doubt that Obama is frustrated, Washington is hopelessly gridlocked, and the media is already obsessed with the 2016 presidential marathon while “Hope and Change” posters are objects of Photoshop satire.

Additionally, between the repeated lines of “I’m not running again” lies a hammer that could allow a future president to break through the walls of partisanship that are paralyzing and polarizing our nation. And that message is: “Since I do not have to run for reelection, I can speak, govern, and act in the best interests of our nation without political retribution.”

Consider if future presidents, once elected, never again had to appear on the ballot. Such a concept would revolutionize and modernize the office because on Inauguration Day, the President would be a “lame duck.” (Maybe a new more complimentary phrase should be invented.)

Obviously, such a radical change would require an amendment to the Constitution, but the national political benefits would be wide, deep and timely. The absence of a looming reelection campaign could inspire future presidents to be stronger leaders and more willing to make tough, unpopular decisions that could improve our national well-being in the long term. And anyway, six uninterrupted years as president would be nearly the equivalent of two four-year terms—a reelection campaign invariably consumes two years of the president’s valuable time and distracts the nation.

Crucially, the president would not be completely immune from election cycle politics, because one six-year term would encompass two midterm elections. Therefore, a six-year president would still govern with many political restraints because his/her name would be on the ballot twice, albeit in invisible ink.

You could also expect midterm elections to take on greater significance, passion and urgency, serving as de facto presidential elections with increased participation. Voters in effect would have the same power as today—keeping or giving the president’s party total control, split control, or no control over the House and Senate.

However, the outcome of the midterm elections would be perceived as a check against the president, or a sign of approval—exactly the same as now, but with more “gusto” during one six-year presidential term.

Incumbent presidents have a 68.7 percent chance of winning reelection.
Back in 2011, when Mark McKinnon and I co-authored a piece entitled “12 Reasons Why Obama Wins in 2012,” our No. 1 reason was the “power of incumbency,” and we had solid math on our side.

In 2011, Obama, as an incumbent president, had a 67.7 percent chance of being reelected. Now, after his 2012 victory, the next incumbent has increased the winning odds to 68.7 percent and the new math looks like this:

In the last 57 U.S. presidential elections, 32 have involved incumbents; 22 of those candidates have won.

Which leads one to ask; “Just how unfair are those odds against any presidential challenger?”

Second terms are historically difficult on the president and the nation.
And perhaps even cursed?

This question was posed by Taegan Goddard, founder of Political Wire who recently wrote a piece in The Week entitled: “Is There Really a Second-Term Curse?”

Just 11 months into President Obama’s second term and he seems to have fallen into the same trap as many of his predecessors.

Each of the last four two-term presidents—George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon—had extremely tough second terms. Each had different circumstances which led to difficult times, but the outcomes were very similar: Falling approval rates and increased ineffectiveness in office.


At this writing, it looks like Obama is experiencing his own second-term curse.

Everything is faster these days, and burnout even quicker.
This past week on The Daily Beast, Dean Obeidallah wrote a piece entitled:

“Obama Really Seems to Be Looking Forward to the End of His Presidency.”

Seriously? With three more long years to go?

The truth is our world now moves at lightening fast speed causing everyone to have shorter attention spans and to be bored faster with products, fads and people.

Therefore, “six and done” would be a good move for our nation especially if we elect a leader who cared more about solving the nation’s long-term problems then keeping his or her party in power on Capitol Hill.

I can dream, can’t I?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html
I've heard some peeps discuss this before and to be honest, it sounds good on the surface. What say you?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 5th, 2013, 2:19 pm
Profile
Online
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
TheRealWags wrote:
In 2011, Obama, as an incumbent president, had a 67.7 percent chance of being reelected. Now, after his 2012 victory, the next incumbent has increased the winning odds to 68.7 percent and the new math looks like this:


So as much as we hate our leaders, their re-electability just keeps increasing. Basically, we are just consuming Coke/Pepsi faster then ever while complaining about it more than ever. Brilliant!

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 5th, 2013, 3:26 pm
Profile WWW
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
What's funny is that I've heard a handful of liberals in the media ask for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, which restricts a President to two terms. They all want Obama to be elected for a third time, but we all know that is not going to happen since the GOP controls the legislatures of 30 states and it takes 75% of state legislatures (38) to ratify a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

With that said, I don't think I would be opposed to a single 6 year term for President. However, I wouldn't agree to it unless more stringent controls were placed upon the executive branch by the legislative and judiciary branches, as well as the states.

What many people don't realize is that US Senators were once appointed by their state legislatures to represent the STATES. The 17th Amendment changed all that when they became directly elected by the people in 1913. Is it any wonder why state rights have eroded and the power of the federal government has increased since that time?

Personally, I want the 10th Amendment to be adhered to as it was intended to be, meaning all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the people or the states. That has been thrown out the window over the past 100 years due to the 17th Amendment and progressivism, and that has to change to restore this country to greatness.

_________________
Image


December 5th, 2013, 4:32 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2700
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
What if we abolished the presidency?

http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/08/ab ... eless-job/


December 5th, 2013, 4:39 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3698
Location: WSU
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
i d be more in favor of one term 4 year presidency. 6 years is too much without an election for that powerful of a position


December 5th, 2013, 4:47 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
Why do the self-proclaimed "Progressives" on the Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA websites also support Obama? If the low information voters would pull their heads out of their rear orifice long enough, they might be able to figure it out.

_________________
Image


December 5th, 2013, 5:36 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2284
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
In Favor. For me the single most annoying thing about presidential politics isnt which side wins, its the fact that when elected the 1st time, they only get a year -two at most before everyone is focused on the drama/hype/bullshit surrounding the re-election campaign. And Like the Christmas Creep, Black Friday and other Hype based bullshit, it gets worse and sooner each cycle.

EDIT: Fine with 4 or 6 yr term, Massively in favor of Single Term.


December 5th, 2013, 8:20 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
You know why the 22nd was passed right? After 4 terms where he rode the highs of WW2 victory, as soon as he passed away, it was immediately passed so that would never happen again. They still talk about the "NEW DEAL" with such fanfare, but many fail to recall that most of what he passed was shut down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And his response to that was to try to double the amount of justices to bypass the constitution.

6 years is too long. At least the current system gives people the option to vote someone out after the first term. The only obstacle to that has been the media. And I'm not talking about bias like taking side. That's always happened. The difference today is the media is not only taking a side, but they're refusing to report stories that aren't favorable to who they like. At least in the past, journalists at least wanted the story to see the light of day and let people make up their minds. Not reporting stories is just as bad as flat out telling a lie. And with so many low information voters, this is the major problem with todays election cycles. There's more information than ever, but when the big names don't take the basic tenants of journalism seriously, it never filters down to the masses.

And this wouldn't be a solution. They'd start the next cycle 3 years out instead of 2. It would get even worse. You'd still have a lame-duck presidency as soon as that next cycle started.


December 5th, 2013, 9:44 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2284
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
You'd have a lame-duck presidency from day 1, thats the whole point. The difference is instead of spending 2 years of your 1st term campaigning for your second term, you could just get poop done knowing you cant run again, therefore you dont have to waste time running or make your decisions to try and appease said ignorant masses. You could take the more controversial decisions because unless they are bad enough to risk impeachment, your not "hurting your chances".


December 6th, 2013, 11:06 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
njroar wrote:
6 years is too long. At least the current system gives people the option to vote someone out after the first term. The only obstacle to that has been the media. And I'm not talking about bias like taking side. That's always happened. The difference today is the media is not only taking a side, but they're refusing to report stories that aren't favorable to who they like. At least in the past, journalists at least wanted the story to see the light of day and let people make up their minds. Not reporting stories is just as bad as flat out telling a lie. And with so many low information voters, this is the major problem with todays election cycles. There's more information than ever, but when the big names don't take the basic tenants of journalism seriously, it never filters down to the masses.


Therein lies the problem with the lamestream, corrupt, and biased media. According to the vast majority of journalists, Obama can do no wrong, while Bush (who I also wasn't a particular fan of) was the devil incarnate. Any perceived Bush scandal made the front page of most major newspapers and was the leading story of all night time network broadcasts. Meanwhile, these same so-called "news" organizations sweep every Obama scandal under the rug unless it becomes too hot to avoid any longer. Even then, they give it as minimal coverage as possible. It's no wonder that the American people have become clueless as to what is actually going on today.

What's funny is that the left regularly spews hatred toward Fox News for spreading lies. Most of them probably have that perception because the other TV news sources refuse to cover the same stories that Fox News does. In their view, if the propagandist media empire of ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC doesn't cover it, then it must not be true. Big mistake.

Fortunately though, by providing the truth and even allowing the left to give a differing opinion on the majority of their shows, Fox News is destroying their competition. In fact, Fox News has more daily viewers than CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC COMBINED! If you don't believe me, just look at the numbers yourself: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/12/06/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-december-5-2013/220492/

_________________
Image


December 7th, 2013, 2:00 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
Getting back to the original topic, this truly isn't a bad idea as long as further executive branch constraints are placed upon it in the process. Ideally, the constitutional constraints imposed by the founders via the legislative and judiciary branches should be enough, but that obviously is no longer the case. To further complicate matters, most members of the legislature and judiciary (from both parties) are too political and partisan to fulfill their duties under the impeachment process or to declare an invalid law or executive order to be unconstitutional to arrive at the desired outcome by the majority of Americans. Do you really want a wanna-be tyrant or dictator to be held unaccountable to the people for 6 years?

_________________
Image


December 7th, 2013, 2:26 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
I have one last thing before I go to bed in the midst of working 28 straight days due to my company refusing to hire new people on account of Obamacare. Why is there no outrage over Obama's numerous illegal activities and/or circumventing the LAW?

His latest is giving wind companies a 30 year pass for killing bald eagles, despite the fact that Congress created a law mandating that anyone killing a bald eagle be fined, imprisoned, or both? Bet you didn't hear about that one from the lamestream media, huh?

Then there is his extending the employer mandate under Obamacare by a year (until after the mid-term elections by the way). The LAW specifically states that it is to be implemented on January 1st, 2014. It doesn't give him the right to change the date.

Same goes for the individual insurance market. After millions of Americans began losing insurance coverage, he said in a speech that insurance companies could continue those policies in spite of the fact that they don't conform with the law. WTF?

On top of that, Obama "declared" like a king that no illegal children brought into this country by their parents would be deported. The LAW doesn't state that and doesn't carve out that exception.

Then we have the Black Panther case in Philly of voter intimidation that was won under the court of law. Obama, via his crony Eric Holder, dismissed the charges and let them go, AFTER the case was won.

Remember the BP oil spill in the Gulf? Obama stopped all oil drilling permits in the Gulf after that, but a court ruled that it was unconstitutional. Did that stop Obama? Nope.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a bipartisan act signed by Clinton that recognizes a marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Obama stopped defending it in court, thus rendering the law useless.

I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the idea.

_________________
Image


December 7th, 2013, 3:00 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
One last thing. I promise. Instead of having 2/3rds of Congress to propose a Constitutional Amendment (or 3/4ths of the states to initiate a Constitutional Convention), how about we allow the states to initiate the amendment process through the same 2/3rds vote? Of course, the Washington "establishment" (both parties) would attempt to kill that idea because it would minimize "their" power. But I say, F them!

Unfortunately, the same people who would have their own power be diminished would have to vote for it, so it will never happen. Welcome to America!

_________________
Image


December 7th, 2013, 3:20 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
As an aside, how many of you idiots actually know what a Constitutional Convention consists of? How is it implemented and what are the rules? Somehow, I doubt that many know or care.

_________________
Image


December 16th, 2013, 7:40 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2700
Post Re: Why One Six-Year Presidential Term Would Be Good for Ame
slybri19 wrote:
As an aside, how many of you idiots actually know what a Constitutional Convention consists of? How is it implemented and what are the rules? Somehow, I doubt that many know or care.


Sly, you're such a douchebag you make me wish I was a liberal.


December 16th, 2013, 9:04 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.