New at Reason

In a column from earlier in the Bush presidency, Steve Chapman wonders why the man wanted a second term in the first place.

Comments

guy in the back row | March 20, 2008, 12:34pm | #

I thought Bush was forced to take the second term because no other politician wanted to clean up Bush's mess.

I didn't understand why a democrat would want to run in 2004

Cab | March 20, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Why Would Any President Want A Second Term?

For the same reason they got to their position in the first place - ego.

TrickyVic | March 20, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Maybe Steve is seeing things through those "reality tinted" glasses that Bush never wears.

NotThatDavid | March 20, 2008, 12:50pm | #

Under what definition is this "new"?

Confederate constitution | March 20, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Limit presidents to one 6-year term.

LarryA | March 20, 2008, 1:54pm | #

Also, as I recall, three of the four presidential assassinations were in the second term.

GG | March 20, 2008, 1:59pm | #

There was no one more surprised than GWB when he won that election. When he saw the announcement on the WH teevee, the shocked (maybe even frightened) look on his face was priceless.

Same type stooges, different year.

I hate them all with the white hot intensity of a thousand burning suns.

Jonathan Hohensee | March 20, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Gypsy Rose Lee's mother also told her that everything is coming up roses, daffodils, sunshine, Santa Claus, bright lights and lollipops. That everything's coming up roses for the mom and her.

I didn't understand why a democrat would want to run in 2004
I understand it, only second tier people and wet blankets where stupid enough to win. Could you picture anyone of a higher caliber then Kerry actually getting the nomination?

economist | March 20, 2008, 3:37pm | #

confederate constitution,
Limit the president to a single four-year term.

Kolohe | March 20, 2008, 4:09pm | #

Despite the iran-contra, you can argue that Reagan's 2nd term was one of the more successful as those things go.

The real legacy building parts of his presidency - the tax reform of '86 and the beginning of the (more or less) peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union - were entirely creatures of his second term. And as opposed to Clinton, for instance, he did get a successor from his own party elected rather easily.

J. P. Carlo | March 20, 2008, 6:07pm | #

Also, as I recall, three of the four presidential assassinations were in the second term.

Two, actually. Lincoln and McKinley were in their second term (both in the first year of it), while Kennedy and Garfield were in the first term (and Garfield in the first few months of his first term). Of the four, Kennedy was the furthest from the previous election (almost exactly 3 years).

RFK was, if you will, in his zeroth term when assassinated.

The assassination attempts against Ford and Reagan were in their first terms, whereas the attempt by Puerto Rican nationalists against Truman was in his second.

So it's about an even split, neglecting the statistical effect of the obvious bias: there are more presidents who served a first term than served a second term. Also, presidents who served a first term may still be assassinated in their second, whereas the obverse is physically impossible (unless their opponent is John Ashcroft).

Tim Washburn | March 20, 2008, 6:47pm | #

I agree with confederate constition. The President should have only one six-year term, period. To me, six years is better than just four because this will allow at least some of the President's programs to be more firmly implimented, and can be better evaluated. To counter the arguement that one six-year term would be instantly become a "Lame-Duck" term I suggest another Constitusional amendment giving the President the "Line-item veto". I think this would be the best way to go.

economist | March 20, 2008, 8:00pm | #

Tim Washburn,
I don't really want time for the president's programs to be firmly implemented. President Bush has had plenty of time to implement his programs, mostly in foreign policy, and I would personally like for those policies not to have been so firmly implemented. As for the line-item veto, I am against it, mainly because it could go one of two ways: 1. It is meaningless because Congress condenses all provisions into a bill into one superprovision that the presidents signs or vetoes. 2. More likely is that the president claims the right to endlessly modify a law, taking it apart and parsing it until it is entirely unlike the bill Congress sent. This would be a good thing in some cases, but I shudder to think how most presidents would use such a power.

Jim Walsh | March 20, 2008, 9:46pm | #

Elvis never did encores. Many could benefit from his example...

George | March 21, 2008, 4:23am | #

and the beginning of the (more or less) peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union

The dissolution of a strong eastern block was the start of the erosion of our own civil liberties. While the "enemy" was tyrannically restricting freedoms of speech and acts, no western government would or could behave similarly with their own peoples.