[Chris]

Yeah, it wasn't a good argument, especially if you can level the playing field in access to people, like campaign finance. In addition, it requires an active media that would be willing to challenge an incumbent. As we saw, the media can be cowed by a powerful President. I guess it boils down to whether you think a shitty President or a too-powerful President is a bigger threat to the Constitution. I like Clinton's suggestion, and always thought it was a better idea.

I have much more to say on the subject and will return in the next day or so to do so, but this whole almost getting fired thing is taking up a hell of a lot of my time.

[brian]

following on greg's point about o'reilly-stewart. comedy central went out and did some research after oreilly kept using the 'stoned slackers' line. entertaining results, i wonder if it'll come up with oreilly on daily show next week.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/2 ... reilly.ap/

and

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/2 ... index.html

[greg]

Hey, I just want to get this in before people start talking about the debates. Gee, Chris, it wasn't that bad of an argument. But now that I've thought about it for more than five minutes, here is hopefully a better argument for allowing the people of a democracy to choose who they want for president.
There is some repetition from my previous post, but please read along...
And while you read, Chris, keep in mind ideology versus person (as in conservative platform versus Reagan).

First, I will repeat: in the over 150 years without term limitations only one person served for more than one term: FDR. So what? This not only illustrates a lack of historical basis for your concerns, Chris, but - most important - that the one time someone went long, it was a GOOD president! This is important. This means the system works. Your bad scenario never happened. Meanwhile, when the public wanted a good president to stay - gasp! - he COULD (well, until God voted). Its not like Wilson went four terms...or Hoover...or Grant, etc.

(An aside: please keep in mind that the 22nd Amendment was created and passed with vigorous Republican support so as to avoid another FDR)

Yes, other presidents could have won another term, but chose not to run (Teddy R., for example, hand-picked Taft as his predecessor). But so what? Would a three-term Teddy Roosevelt be so bad? Or George Washington? More important, don't these supremely popular presidents end up hand-picking their successors anyway? Doesn't this keep the same ideology in the White House? Of course it does! So what do term limits really accomplish? More on this later.

Since the 22nd Amendment, Ike, Reagan and Clinton were affected (note: I can't imagine the first two would have run again due to health). Ike's vp lost the second-closest election ever. Clinton's lost the closest ever and won the popular vote. And Reagan's vp won. So what?

Well, it is important to point out - I know I'm repeating again - that this is always a referendum on the incumbent. In 2000, many people who voted for Bush did so because they found Clinton an immoral liar. Likewise, many people who voted for Gore did so because they liked Clinton. Because of term limitations, people who wanted Reagan had to vote for Bush; and people who wanted Clinton voted for Gore. Why not give them Reagan and Clinton?!

(Another aside: please don't let your personal political opinions cloud your view; just because you - like me - may believe Reagan sucked, a lot of very intelligent people think he was the best. So, pointing out that he may have had a third term is not really a reason to have term limitations.)

If "why not give them Reagan and Clinton?!" is a little weak for you, listen to this: My top reason for being against term limitations has to do with the aforementioned ideology versus person. You worry that "if you can level the playing field in access to people" one person could conceivably win time and again. Although this is a big "if" and has never happened (I disagree with the campaign finance analogy in terms of national influence), I'll nonetheless indulge you and point out that your worst-case scenario is not alleviated by term limits.

Say your scenario happens, that - for example - the Republican party completely dominates the media, etc. And there are no term limitations. George Bush can have three, four, five terms, right? Agreed. Then Bush and his conservative, hawkish, stubborn agenda lives on.
But what if there are term limitations? And the Republican party completely dominates the media, etc. George Bush goes two terms and then...what? His hand-picked successor (vp or Jeb, whatever) wins! Do you disagree? In an environment where a party has such access to people so as to pull off the repeated elections of a terrible president, why wouldn't his vp be able to win? And then the next guy, etc? Then the conservative, hawkish, stubborn agenda lives on, only sans Bush in this scenario.

So, you would still have the same ideology in the White House. You would just have a different person. If your only concern is that a different person is there, then term limits are for you. If you are concerned about agendas, maybe you should look into limiting how many times a party can hold office consecutively.

Chris, its not that I think your scenario is completely unreasonable. But, if it happened, the party - and its ideology - would remain in power. Since term limits would really not effectively alter this, then I don't want them. With or without term limits, bad ideas can remain (in your scenario)...however, without term limits, good presidents can stick around.

I would like other people to chime in; you all have good opinions, and I'd be interested to hear them.

Enjoy the televised debate!

[Chris]

Greg - I now agree with you. You see what happened? I held an opinion that I was not sold on, and then allowed discussion to take place. Then, the person who had a more persuasive argument changed my mind. Not flip-flopping mind you, but arriving at a reasoned conclusion.

If only that was the process used to arrive at decisions by every President. Even if they arrived at conclusions contrary to mine, I would respect that. What I can never respect is the exclusion of contrary ideas because they make one's head hurt. If you can't face the concept that you are wrong, then you should not be an elected official.