|
generally, i am opposed to term limits.
we instituted them in Michigan in the early 90s (during the term-limit craze that swept the country), and they kicked in during the 98 election cycle. basically, now instead of just having idiots making the laws, we have inexperienced idiots who are insecure in their position. which means that the real power has shifted even moreso to the party caucuses, well-funded special-interest groups, lobbyists, and unelected staffers.
it definitely hasn't prompted better lawmaking -- it's probably worse.
that said, i am VERY opposed to the idea of changing the 22nd Amendment. particuarly with the strength of the media and the incredible position the president is in to manipulate that media for his own ends, i think it could quickly become impossible to unseat a president once they were elected.
not because they are doing such a good job, but because they are using the media so well to pound their message down people's throats. we saw it happen with reagan. we saw it NOT happen with bush I, due to his poor media management. clinton mastered the art, and bush II has taken it to an even higher level than clinton did.
the 22nd Amendment helps put a brake on this by forcing people to step down after 8 years. different leadership is good.
as for clinton's proposal, it's pure arrogance. why does he think that he'd be so uniquely qualified to handle certain situations (other than scoring with interns)? we don't need back to the Clinton, part II or back to the Bush II, part II in the future.
|