mickeyd
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
After doing some research I'm thinking that a single six year term may be a better way to provide the President with enough leeway to get the job done. It's one of the few things that we can learn from the Mexicans.
Many second terms are often a waste of time and energy, oh yea, and money.
Jefferson did that Louisiana purchase thing in term one. In term two he was just bizarre, even tried to dispose of the Navy. Andy Jackson's 2nd go round was error prone and economic disaster prevailed with the banks. Polk ran only to acquire Texas, then he split. Lincoln sorta lucked out when he had that mishap at Fords Theater that night. He would have had to deal with the reconstruction mess and that may have ruined his legacy.
Wilson did all of his reforming in term #1 and in #2 he repudiated his pledge to stay out of WWI and post war disaster. FDR did all of his New Dealing in his first term, but in his second go-round he fought often with the Supreme Court and got the recession to drag on. Lucky for him WWII came along during #3 and he was able to bail himself out.
Ike didn't do much but cruise along the first time and continued that course during tour #2. Nixon? First time out ended VN war, cranked up relations W/China, etc but Watergate ended it for him during #2. Reagan's first years were definitely the best as #two and all of that Iran/Contra mess broke it up. Clinton reved it up during #1, but Monica, cigars, and trouble with the truth did him in for #2. GWB probably would have had a better legacy if he were not around for round number two, what with those wars and that big financial problem.
If these guys would have avoided a second term and just had a single burst of six, things may have ended up better. That's all I'm saying.
Many second terms are often a waste of time and energy, oh yea, and money.
Jefferson did that Louisiana purchase thing in term one. In term two he was just bizarre, even tried to dispose of the Navy. Andy Jackson's 2nd go round was error prone and economic disaster prevailed with the banks. Polk ran only to acquire Texas, then he split. Lincoln sorta lucked out when he had that mishap at Fords Theater that night. He would have had to deal with the reconstruction mess and that may have ruined his legacy.
Wilson did all of his reforming in term #1 and in #2 he repudiated his pledge to stay out of WWI and post war disaster. FDR did all of his New Dealing in his first term, but in his second go-round he fought often with the Supreme Court and got the recession to drag on. Lucky for him WWII came along during #3 and he was able to bail himself out.
Ike didn't do much but cruise along the first time and continued that course during tour #2. Nixon? First time out ended VN war, cranked up relations W/China, etc but Watergate ended it for him during #2. Reagan's first years were definitely the best as #two and all of that Iran/Contra mess broke it up. Clinton reved it up during #1, but Monica, cigars, and trouble with the truth did him in for #2. GWB probably would have had a better legacy if he were not around for round number two, what with those wars and that big financial problem.
If these guys would have avoided a second term and just had a single burst of six, things may have ended up better. That's all I'm saying.