"Let's Abolish Re-Election In This Process" - So Says A Repuke Coworker

[matcom]

and he has an interesting point.

his claim is that ANY government that allows Re-Election of its leader(s) is inherrantly corrupt.

i'm still pondering that.

it's interesting.

in our case, it would mean a NEW election EVERY 4 years.

BTW (and i KNOW you were wondering) :D .....

repuke is voting for KERRY because he has a son with Diabetes and is OUTRAGED over the "Stem Cell Research" stance 'his' pResident has taken.

i just LOVE the smell of converts in the morning.....

they smell like....

VICTORY!!

[trof]

1. Then I'd go for a six year term.

See what he thinks about that.
One term only.

[zaj]

23. I've been saying that for a a while. 6 years... no re-election...

Throw in something like the AZ Clean Elections Act, and we have reclaimed our democracy again!

[lostnfound]

26. That was my proposal 25 years ago at "Girl's State"

It died in committee. :-) My career in politics was over.

[trumad]

2. That would have meant only 4 years of Clinton...

no thanks.

[Paradise]

8. and without concern for re-election,

the sky's the limit for * or *-likes! uh-uh!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

3. My best friend's dad

voted for bush in 2000, but told me the other day that he honestly truly believes with all his heart that Kerry is winning this one. He likes to vote with a winner (????? what a weird way of deciding!) so he is voting Kerry.

I nearly fell over, this guy is such a wingnut. He really meant it, too. He's developed quite a disgust for the bushies.

As for the no re-election thing, nah. We like to keep it interesting.

Besides some would point out that four years isn't long enough to affect the kind of BIG change you need more time for.

[stinkeefresh]

10. I think that a large percentage of swing voters

are precisely that: trying to side with the winner. It is a very natural (if not particularly enlightened) human tendency.

That is why optimism is one of our greatest tools, and we all have a responsibility to act like Kerry's a shoo-in, even if he wasn't.

He is, by the way.

[merh]

14. To correct the mess that the weed that would be king has

made, 4 years is definitely not enough! (imho)

edited for typos

[Xithras]

4. Abolish re-election, but lengthen term.

Electing a new person every four years would lead to a nearly nonstop election cycle. If you were going to prohibit re-election, the presidential term should be lengthened to 6 years or so.

[librechik]

5. ok, but they have to actually be elected

not blown into office by an extra special hum job.

[fdr_hst_fan]

7. I agree!

[Pepperbelly]

6. i wamt to be able to FIRE the son of a bitch if he needs it. I also ...

would like to be able to rehire if I want.

[Hobarticus]

9. Did his son devleop diabetes after Bush banned new cell lines?

Wonder if not for his son's diabetes, if he'd still be outraged.

[cprise]

11. This is dumb

Government is corrupt when the office-holders become figureheads and the real power is kept out of view.

This suggestion is like insisting that Exxon get a new Public Relations Director and Receptionist every four years.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I find term limits inherently un-democratic.

If people like the leader, they should be able to keep him or her.

However, in the case of the president, who wields so much unchecked power (especially now) I can see how the two term, 8 year limit isn't such a bad idea. I would have liked to keep Clinton, but shudder to think what would have happened if we had been saddled with, say, Dutch from 88-92, when the alzheimer's really started to take hold. (not that 41 was any treat, either) ... One term, even a 6 year one, however, removes any electoral incentive for a president to not completely screw things up in the first term. (Not that it always does a helluva lot of good.)

[FredScuttle]

13. Yeah, because we would have been so much better off w/out FDR in 1941

(/sarcasm)

[Warren DeMontague]

15. O...Kay....

If you'd read my post, you see that I'm not totally convinced that term limits are right, even for the president.

When the president is a complete idiot and a flaming bunghole to boot, for some wacky reason, they don't seem as bad to me as maybe they did, back in 2000. Now you've got a situation where the president's lawyers are arguing that the president, by virtue of being the president, can do whatever the hell he wants, whenever he wants. Funny, these are the same people who bitched about how the President isn't "above the law" all through 1998. It's the current situation that makes me sort of glad we have whatever statutory limits on executive power that we do. But, again, I'm not so sure we couldn't do away with the 2 term limit.

[DaveSZ]

17. How did the Repubs get the majority to make the two term limit amendment?

They must have had some dems on board or no?

[FredScuttle]

18. Relax

I was merely being cheeky in response to your line "However, in the case of the president, who wields so much unchecked power (especially now) I can see how the two term, 8 year limit isn't such a bad idea"

I, like you, think term limits contradict the spirit of our democracy (even for the executive branch)...let the people decide.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Yeah, although with the presidency you do have

the unique scenario of executive power that has grown considerably in recent decades. I don't think FDR wielded anywhere near the absolute power to do whatever the hell he wanted that W. does. Back in those days "only the congress may declare war" still meant something. It's this ability to make up the rules, and the rules about the rules, that I think lend the presidency a unique status.

But, given a straight up or down vote, I would say be rid of term limits across the board, and let the people decide.

[FredScuttle]

28. I would agree with you as far as * is concerned

however, consider the enabling factor of an impotent Democratic presence in Congress. Even the most popular, magnetic presences in the Oval Office in recent years (Reagan, Clinton) were kept somewhat in check by a fierce opposition party in Congress. I would hesistate to say * wields absolute power...rather, he wields power by proxy since the Democrats seem too timid to challenge him and the Republican leadership.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. ditto.

but that hasn't stopped his DOJ and team of lawyers from trying to come up with arguments to expand what he can do.

[Bandit]

19. Or Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms or Ted Stevens or ???????

Some how I believe after a few decades in office we the people don't get a fair shake. They are too deeply ingrained into the corruption.

[FredScuttle]

21. They're only there

because the people they represent kept sending them back. Sad, yes...realistic, yes.

[Elidor]

25. One term also gives one a certain devil-may-care carte blanche

But I agree, term limits are inherently offensive to democracy.

It's not about term limits. WE HAVE GOT TO GET THE CORPORATIONS OUT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE Sorry. I never scream, but it needs saying. Until we can reform - and I mean truly reform - campaign finance, term limits are irrelevant.

The biggest problem with this country is that soulless corporations have more rights than people, and the biggest ones have the only reliable access to the congresscritters. Everyone knows it. It's the elephant in the living room. Almost every politician in office is beholden to them, including our guys. Until big money is locked out of the electoral process, we're fucked.

[Nalgenelover Snort]

27. SPOT ON.

We will never have true democracy as long as our leaders are wrapped around the pinkie fingers of corporations.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. This is to believe the process is all about personality. This is the lie

of the present system.

It's not true.

Even if the office holder were replaced every term, the institution which holds the office would be loathe to surrender it, and would still have many of the benefits of the office to keep it.

Look at the history of Mexico: the presidency is held to a single term, yet the "Institutional Revolutionary Party" held power for much of the 20th Century.

[DaveSZ]

20. We would have had 3 terms of Raygun though

if that amendment had not passed.

[Wapsie B]

24. Considering Ronnie's Alzheimer's

we essentially had 2.5 terms of Poppy.