A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 25, 2005Lame Duck BluesHearing GW poll numbers, reading about the "Downing Street Memo's" and the need for a full-scale investigation, and repeatedly hearing and reading overheated rhethoric has given me a growing sense of dread. Haven't we been through this before with second term presidents? So I checked out the chronologies: Continuing on my search I found this web article What's Wrong with the Presidency (And What Can Be Done to Fix It) by Lewis Gould on the modern Presidency Presidencies have become the political equivalent of situation comedies--there is an initial burst of energy and excitement during the first three years, a suspenseful show in the fourth as the main character faces cancellation, and once renewed by re-election there are three more years of declining audiences before the show ends after eight seasons. Boy did that nail it for me. I'd add to the analogy by saying its not just that the "sit-com has declining ratings", it seems now everyone has to put in their two cents worth on why it has bad rating, on what incompetent actors/directors are in the series, on how the series has lead to the decline in television as we know.... Sorry, I could go on. Comments
No... The Downing memo isn't really catching much traction, the House has a bill on Social Security and Democrats looked worried this week, and Bush's poll numbers are bad but could be much worse.
I've never quite understood why we needed to term limit the presidency. Was there a consensus that the country would have been better off if FDR had served only 8 years? If a President is popular enough to serve more than two terms, why not let him or her? It would eliminate the lame duck problem and would be more democratic. But I doubt there will be any real movement to change the Constitution again in that regard. Posted by: Alan at June 25, 2005 05:43 PMActually, there's a bill in committee now to repeal the 22nd ammendment, sponsored or cosponsored up by the same Representative that gaveled out a meating of the judiciary committee when it devolved into an argument about Gitmo. Reprentative Sennesbacher or something like that... Oh, and the bill, unlike *most* bills addressing constitutional amendments, does not mandate that it go into effect with the next person to hold office... Posted by: Ryan at June 25, 2005 06:28 PMI have a better idea. You get a single six-year term after which you must sit out at least one term with no limits on how many time you can serve. Posted by: Alf at June 25, 2005 10:20 PMYou get a single six-year term after which you must sit out at least one term with no limits on how many time you can serve.Hmm sounds like Mexico only with "bad re-runs" Posted by: c3 at June 26, 2005 11:50 AM I read the link...I was amused by the comment that Truman's troubles all came from his second term. Truman never really had a second term. He was finishing FDR's fourth term, then he was elected in 1948 in his own right. Actually, the 22nd Amendment was passed during Truman's tenure in office. Since it didn't apply to him, he could have run for a second term in 1952, and a third term in 1956, and even a fourth term in 1960. But, shrewd politician that he was, he decided to quit while still ahead. Besides, Bess wouldn't let him. Posted by: Blue Jean at June 27, 2005 12:35 AMThe 22nd Amendment was passed because the Republicans didn't want any more FDR's serving 4 terms. Funny--be careful what you wish for, not having the amendment would have helped the Republicans a lot more than it's hurt the Democrats. As for Eisenhower (I was born at the end of his first term), he did have a scandal involving mink coats (I think) and Sherman Adams,his chief of staff. Pretty tame by today's standards. All of the scandals weren't really "second term" scandals; that's just when they came out. They all began during the first term. And, at least with respect to Watergate and Iran Contra, they developed as a result of policies that the Administration initiated during the first term. What happens, I think, is that the press gets bored with an administration and starts looking for more dirt in the second term. Posted by: MWS at June 27, 2005 10:06 AMTrue, but the press is always looking for dirt: that's just the nature of the beast. I think the longer one is in the national spotlight, the greater the chance of a meltdown, and the more organized the opposition becomes. If Bill Clinton had been defeated in '96, nobody would have heard of Monica Lewinsky, just as if Reagan had been defeated in '84, nobody would have heard of Iran-Contra. W's poll numbers today are about the same as they were on Sept. 10, 2001. 9/11 gave him an artificially inflated rating of 90 plus. He's not declining so much as he's just coming back down to where he started from. True, but the press is always looking for dirt: that's just the nature of the beast. I think the longer one is in the national spotlight, the greater the chance of a meltdown, and the more organized the opposition becomes. But going back to our examples in history, there have been times when the news organizations KNEW the truth, had some major dirt, and kept their mouths shut. Even before WWII, most White House reporters knew FDR was confined to a wheel chair. Did they remain silent due to the depression? Due to respect of the presidency? All the insiders, including reporters, had a fairly good idea of JFK's relationship with anything in a skirt, yet it never made it to the popular collectiveness until after his death. Why? People theorize that President Nixon killed the concept of presidential respect from journalists. Would President Clinton's affairs have been so notorious if President Nixon hadn't opened the door? Or was this just a natural progression of our increasing blood and sex lust in our reporting? Posted by: Ryan at June 27, 2005 04:13 PMAs for Eisenhower (I was born at the end of his first term), he did have a scandal involving mink coats (I think)Wasn't that VP Nixon before the '54 election with the controversy ending with the "Cheekers" speech. Posted by: c3 at June 27, 2005 05:27 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
