Then you must really be chapped about the fact that Presidents only "govern", such as it is, for two years max.
We elect them, they are sworn in and then shortly after Christmas of the second year of the term, the re-election machinery goes into motion.
I've now lived long enough to have been around for twelve presidents. And somewhere around five, or so, I came to a conclusion that rings as true for me now as it did in the way back.
We need to amend the Constitution to limit the presidency to one term, six years max.
With no re-election to be concerned about, the office holder need not worry about having to become the office seeker in order to remain the office holder.
And if they can't get the job done then year six it's see ya, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.
If they do a spectacular job, they can run again.
In six years.
There is no logical, practical or reasonable case to be made for continuing the tradition of two terms.
In fact, the only "reason" it continues is....tradition.
Loath as I am to quote him, there's no denying the appropriateness of a Dr. Phil-ism
here.
"How's that workin' for ya?"
Put another way.
Changing the way it is would completely alter the way its done.
And you don't need to be Dr. Phil to ask this question.
What's your point?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/02/dnc-chair-obama-unlikely-to-face-democratic-challenger/#more-141435?hpt=T2
No comments:
Post a Comment