Saw longtime Republican strategist and campaign expert Ed Rollins last night on one of the Fox shows and he made a very good point that I had not heard before.
Like all Republicans, he thinks President Obama should not be re-elected. His reasoning, though, was a little different.
He claims that Obama looks and acts like a "tired" President. He then went on to say this this is not uncommon, also talking about other second-term Presidents being tired as well, even Republicans like Nixon and Reagan.
To a degree, I can't disagree. I don't know how in the hell anyone can do the most demanding job in America -- easily 24/7/365 -- for eight full years!!!! It's obvious how difficult it is when you see top-line staffers -- press secretaries, communications directors, chiefs of staff, advisors, Cabinet members, etc. -- leave the White House even before serving one full term.
Any way to get around this dilemma???
How about limiting Presidents to just one term? Or, to two terms but non-consecutive. It could accomplish several things. It would help a President keep his energy level and force him (or her) to focus on what is ahead in the near future and not five, six or seven years down the road.
It would eliminate the need to campaign for re-election. All Presidents seem to be guilty of neglecting big parts of their first term due to the need to campaign for a second term, with the current occupier of the Oval Office taking it to new levels.
I'm sure that this idea has been discussed in Washington many times but thought it might be interesting for banter on this board.
let's see him get around this one-----
Hell NO! In his case I would have perfered 0 terms, but of course that was after the fact.
I think he is just getting warmed up and that's what really scares me.
At heart I think Obama is as far left as Charlie or Willy, he is simply smart enough to realize that as the second coming of Hugo Chavez he would never stand a chance of reelection.
Picture an Obama not saddled with any political consequences of his actions, not a pretty sight. I am beginning to hope more and more that Romney wins the nomination as I agree with Pri that he is by far the most electable.
As for being tired and limiting terms to only one, Some presidents should stay longer, like Clinton, and others should be limited to zero, like Obama.
a recent Obama campaign video. He did look lackluster and tired. His fire had melted his brimstone. But I agree with you, he will be all REVVED UPPP and throwing fastballs (prolly not a good metaphor for him, he throws like a chick lol) with his hopadope message.
PW is also right, even being a shitty POTUS has to be exhausting...
My post was not driven by personal political philosophies. President Bush clearly felt the effects of the job like all the rest of them. One thing he had going for him was his excellent health and, from what I understand, a very realistic approach to how much he could actually physically do in the demanding job.
The one-term idea sounds very good to me. It would be something that would clearly put the country first and not the party.
Liberal like to think that you can get someone to work with no incentive.
It is a Lame Duck problem. If you have no incentive to work (for re-election), then you "act tired". One could say that if you allowed Presidents 3 terms, then you could get 2 good ones out of them.
How about this: No limits on the number of terms, but the terms cannot be consecutive. Then an incumbent never has an advantage, and the current President always has re-election as an incentive.
Either the country goes to shit or they are mired in personal scandal (or both).
Like all Republicans, he thinks President Obama should not be re-elected. His reasoning, though, was a little different.
He claims that Obama looks and acts like a "tired" President. He then went on to say this this is not uncommon, also talking about other second-term Presidents being tired as well, even Republicans like Nixon and Reagan.
To a degree, I can't disagree. I don't know how in the hell anyone can do the most demanding job in America -- easily 24/7/365 -- for eight full years!!!! It's obvious how difficult it is when you see top-line staffers -- press secretaries, communications directors, chiefs of staff, advisors, Cabinet members, etc. -- leave the White House even before serving one full term.
Any way to get around this dilemma???
How about limiting Presidents to just one term? Or, to two terms but non-consecutive. It could accomplish several things. It would help a President keep his energy level and force him (or her) to focus on what is ahead in the near future and not five, six or seven years down the road.
It would eliminate the need to campaign for re-election. All Presidents seem to be guilty of neglecting big parts of their first term due to the need to campaign for a second term, with the current occupier of the Oval Office taking it to new levels.
I'm sure that this idea has been discussed in Washington many times but thought it might be interesting for banter on this board.
The Presidency has got to be an exhausting freaking job. The stress alone would make Willy shit his pants. I don't think I've ever seen a President more tired than the last days of Dubya's 2nd term. He kept saying that he was "sprinting to the finish", as if he was saying, "dear jesus, I can't wait to get the fuck out of here".
I don't blame him. At some level, you gotta wonder who in the hell would want such a hellish job. How many jobs can you think of that automatically come with death threats?
I think it's probably a good idea to have unlimited terms, but not have them be consecutive. This is how the state of Virginia does it with their Governors. As a result the Governorship tends to switch parties every 4 years.
While I love a man with a "salt and pepper" look, President Obama has no doubt sprouted a ton of white hair since being in office. He does look very tired and fatigued quit often. Perhaps if both parties could get along (I know I'm dreaming..lol) and the President had an easier time conducting this official affairs we could have a President that could even reign for a decade if he was good enough and likable.
I know that what I offer is fantasy, but then I'm just dreaming about what "my utopian world" looks like 
Sitara
Anyone who says they want the job should be locked up. We should forcibly draft Presidents from a pool of capable people who have refused to serve.
events of the world and the rapidly and ever-changing technology and methods of communication, the job becomes increasingly harder.
I see no way that a 76-year-old man like Ron Paul -- who would turn 80 about 17 months prior to the end of his first term, if elected -- could survive in that position. Reagan was 69 when he was first elected and in a time that preceded the tech boom. And he was considered by many to be too old for the job.
I had the same concerns with McCain four years ago but, with the alternative, had no choice but to support him.
I'm with finicky on this one. Anybody who wants the job should have their head examined.
There have been so few decent riffs on my handle I've gotta give you props for that one. But my alias, inooky46, is even better.
...but I agree with both Nicky and PW on this one. Anyone who wants to be President has got to be a little nutty. What could someone possibly get out of it? I figure it must have something to do with an ego trip, but that can't be it, since no one talks shit about anyone in the country like they do a President.
In most jobs if you fuck up the worse that can happen is you get fired. If you run a business, if you fuck up you may have guilt about what happens to your employees. As President if you fuck up, the entire country hates you. Who the fuck needs that shit?
that excel, whether in sports, business or politics are driven by their ego, fame, money, power, risk, and legacy. They want the ultimate challenge.
In sports, think of Kobe Bryant. Game on the line, 10 seconds left, do or die, he wants the ball. Everybody else get the fuck out of the way. You gotta have ice in your veins, and the total confidence that you will win the game. 99% of the people in the world don't want the ball. They are scared of failing.
Look at John Corzine. Guy's worth $500M. He was Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Senator and Gov of NJ. He should've been on a tropical island somewhere spending his money. He had to have another challenge. He wanted to go head to head with Goldman Sachs, the best of the best by running MF Global. He fucked up. Now he will pay a price. Why? Ego, legacy, power, fame.
When you're a President, it's just a bigger stage with bigger risks. It's the ultimate.
-- Modified on 1/7/2012 3:28:20 PM
Willy revels in his mediocrity and wishes it for all of us. That's what drives communists and socialists alike. Individuality carries risks, starting a business carries risks, being a government drone carries no risks at all, no reward either, but that's an acceptable trade off for those with no courage.
and it has nothing to do with money, but with attitude. He's comfortable in his $60K year job. He'll get his 2 or 3% per year cost of living raises. He'll get a pension. He won't have to work too hard. And like you said he will lead a life of total mediocrity.
I don't know why I write this shit in response to a willy post. Oh well, nothing better to do while watching Cincy vs Houston. At least the 2 rookie QB's are not stinking up the joint. I can't even blame Dalton for the Int and TD. Who would expect a big beefy white guy to jump, block, catch and run for a TD (lol).
P.S. I take that back. Just as I said it, Dalton throws a stupid pick.
-- Modified on 1/7/2012 4:16:18 PM
That fucking first interception cost me two grand. I had Cincy +3 parlayed with the over 19 1/2 All they have to do after holding Houston to a FG is run out the half, FUCK!!! FUCK!!! FUCK!!!
Oh well that seem to be the way my betting day is going, I also bet Ok at home against Kansas, normally I would bet both the first half and the game, but today I only took the game and the over, naturally Ok stays close in the first half and then gets blown out in the second half.
I am loading up on the Saints tonight and it's been my pick of the week since Detroit gave up six TD to a back up QB last week. I fully expect NO to hang at least 50 pts on the Lions tonight, and maybe even 60 if Detroit does much scoring too, but the way my day is going, I might suggest you bet against me and take the Tigers. lol
Oh well, it's only money.