2007-04-17 08:20:40 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A general made this suggestion in a book recently and in interviews.
The reason for his suggestion was that a 6 year term would make a president unfettered by politics or campaigning again for his re-election so their time in office would be more "honest" or integrity driven. Political appointments to cabinet posts and/or govt positions would maybe more about able (and the best) for the job instead of filling posts with paying back donors... etc.
It's an interesting idea but I don't think that this would actually stop, or even slow down, the presidential party machines. The president (in this kind of scenario) would probably campaign heavily (like they do today) for congressmen. They would also likely campaign hard for their succesors, more so than what they do today... There would have to be a lot more campaign reform to really even think this. But it would NEVER happen, the Republican and Democrat parties would never even entertain this idea; it would not benefit them and this is, afterall, their country.
2007-04-17 08:46:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm going for President on demand.
So far nothing has happened in America that we really needed Bush to do. With President on demand he could have stayed in Crawford.
Go Big Red Go
2007-04-17 08:26:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats so wrong because once elected you got 6 years to screw up things. Presidents should be able to be elected continuesly to the office in a row. just because in the second term they cannot reelected they get to do virtually anything. If bush is going for another election he probably will respect congress and the people more
2007-04-17 08:25:15 · answer #3 · answered by Xtrax 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How about a single 5 years? And then they can't write books or make speeches for 10 years after that?
2007-04-17 09:05:26 · answer #4 · answered by mikey 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It took a Constitutional modification to shrink the President to 2 4-12 months words. it won't have been executed interior the 1st place. human beings might desire to have the properly suited to choose who they want for President and for a fashion long. contributors of the US domicile might desire to run each and every 2 years. so that they are surely campaigning for their finished careers. Our cutting-edge President does not subject approximately his political status and viability. President Clinton of course did. those traits matter on the guy no longer on the equipment.
2016-12-29 04:49:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm, I would be interested in learning about your reasons for it, but off the top of my head, I like the reduction in campaigning, and therefore campaign promises for a second term. Also the lack of pushing pet projects and "spending politial capital" type agenda.
I will stay tuned for additional discussions.
2007-04-17 08:32:59 · answer #6 · answered by genmalia 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not just the president but the Senate and the House of Representatives too.
2007-04-17 08:39:08 · answer #7 · answered by hdean45 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
—George W Bush Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
2007-04-17 08:29:50 · answer #8 · answered by Johnny 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They could mess up the country even more during their long term in office!
2007-04-17 08:37:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.
Re-electing the president as often as the voter deems fit makes the most sense.
2007-04-17 08:24:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋