Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Sorry...boxers.

A conservative friend of mine suggested the idea of a single term president, that serves for six years. I kind of like the idea.

With the system we have now, the new president gets into office and spends the beginning of his first term getting his new team assembled and just getting the transition underway. Then he needs to almost immediately beging thinking about the re-election campaign. Maybe not actively campaigning, but it's there in the background. Many of their policies need to be made based on what will keep them in office for a second term.

Six years...one term. What do you think? What are some pros and cons to the idea?

BigWill mentioned that yesterday ... All we need to do is get 67 Senators to OK the idea for a new amendment... and 38 States to ratify it, and we are good to go.

There are some parts of the idea that have merit... but the likelyhood pretty small.

My Liberal sister was stopped in her tracks when I suggested the best finance reform... You can give as much as you want to any candidate... but it will be fully disclosed. Want to give Pat Buchanon $10 million ? Go for it... but it will be publicized...

If you are Joe Blow running for President (no President Blow jokes, people... ) , and want to take $1 million from the "Pedophiles for Freedom", go for it... but that will ALSO be disclosed.

And to bring some humor into this... perhaps we could stop terror by making all those caught listen to Mr. Buchanan 24/7 ...

Any ideas on how to limit the length of the campaign-we lived in Iowa for a few years and it seemed that within weeks of the completed election, talk turned to the next Iowa caucus. The election of our President has become a multi-media industry-in my opinion too much time and money are spent campaigning.

Well... For starters, reduce the size of government. If the government was not the focus of so many people's lives, the long election cycle would not exist.

The Federal Government brings in more $$$$ than the entire Fortune 500 combined... There are estimates the campaign will hit $1 billion this year... which is 1/20th of one percent of the size of the government's annual "take" ...

Ask ANY businessman if He/She would like to keep the advertising that low as a percentage of revenue...

I'm all for overhauling the campaigning system. It boils down to the guy with the most money usually wins.

Debates...If you're on the ballot in all 50 states, you should be part of the Presidential debates. Much like every station broadcasts major Presidential speaches, the debates should be on every station. They should be annoyingly difficult not to watch. The FCC could easily say that all OTA broadcast stations must air the debates.

Fund Raising - Something needs to be done to balance the field. The biggest reason there are only two "real" parties is that the other candidates don't get enough exposure. They don't get the exposure because they can't afford the TV time. I TOTALLY agree about the full disclosure of all donations. Although I'm not so sure I'm totally opposed to the radical idea of eliminating all private and corporate donations all together. It's the money that corrupts. Give each candidate (who manages to get on all 50 states ballot) an equal amount of campaign money. If they all have the same amount of money (government money, so that no candidate is beholdent to any corporation or special interest), it would go a loooong way to helping fix the problem.

Don't get me wrong - I should have been more specific.

I thought we needed to go in there, to Afghanistan, and get the main heads of that hydra. I was supporting THAT war.

Iraq I didn't understand the point of. After all this time I still don't. Oil is the closest to accurate reason I can see, but I have heard good reasons against that theory even coming from the peace niks. (Though I forget what they are now).

Thank you for sharing your perspectives on why we went in there and the good that came of it. I just have to come to my own opinions, of course.

Spiff ... With the First Amendment, completely getting the campaign expense under control will never happen, which is a GOOD thing... Once you start limiting speech, where does it stop ?

If money corrupts... then think about the size of government... Larger than the entire fortune 500.. THAT is where the corrupting force comes in... not the ads...

But how will we ever reduce the size of gov't-these guys appeal to the general electorate by promising the moon. Once elected they can't possibly deliver on the promises. I'm an advocate for term limits, but don't see that as a cure all. The amount of $$$ spent on the lavish production of the national conventions is crazy. And what did we see-it used to be that the conventions were all televised and the electorate was privy to all the business of the convention. Now we see what the national committees and networks choose.

I just started reading a book (fiction) called "Term Limits" by Vince Flynn. Within the first few chapters 3 prominent politicians are assassinated. The group who takes responsibity writes a communique stating that until the President and Congress reduce spending and pass a zero based budget, more assassinations will occur. A violent way to start a revolution, but is making for an interesting read.

Donald... When you get the chance, look at the site I posted earlier... and read what the Iraqis put into their constitution.... what you will read is a reaction to everything they did not have under Hussein. Freedom, Voting rights, etc...

Also ... There is no doubt that Hussein would eventially have nukes...

I know this will never happen, but, I would prefer a parliamentary form of government as they have in Europe, where the majority party leader becomes the prime minister/president and an election for a new government can be called for at anytime, depending upon the faith the electorite have in the ruling party.