Should US Presidents Be Able to Serve 3-Terms - Bill Clinton Believes So
Perhaps at one time or another all of us have discussed the issue of; four-year terms for our presidents.
That does sound rather short doesn't it? Especially considering how long leaders are in office in other countries.
Not long ago, this issue came up in our think tank, and I had suggested that the first term for a president in office ought to be six years, and at the end of six years they could run again for a second term of four years, making it 10 years total.
If they did a not such a good job, you could throw them out of office, and no one could say that they didn't have a chance.
Right now it seems the election cycle just lasts too long, and it seems as if our presidents are continually and perpetually running for office, and I'm sure this takes away of their import duties on running the country.
Bill Clinton recently came out with his new book; "Back to Work" and he has some thoughts on this.
In fact, there was an interesting article recently in CBS News titled; "Bill Clinton: Presidents should be able to serve three terms," by Lucy Madison on November 8, 2011, which stated; "President Bill Clinton says he thinks that in the future, presidents should be able to serve a third, non-consecutive term as president - though he emphasizes that he doesn't think that such a rule should apply to himself," and "Americans hire presidents to win for them.
He understands that, but they just need to understand that this is going to take some time to get out of and we need to begin," Clinton said.
"We can get out of this.
" Now then, of course there are issues, and reasons why our president is only allowed in the White House for four years, and probably that is because they can't do much damage during that period of time, and if they really go against the wishes of the people, or clash too much with the other branches of government, they will be ineffective, and the voters will force them out.
What I find very interesting is that we often see pictures of leaders in other countries which span three or four presidencies in the United States.
In fact there have been pictures of Moammar Khadafy, Kim Jong-Il, and other leaders spanning five or six presidencies.
Indeed, I suppose if the leader from another country doesn't like the President of the United States, or can't deal with them, all they'll have to do is ignore him/her and eventually our political process will have turnover, and they will be gone.
This gives them the advantage, and means the US does not have the advantage, and that's definitely something to think about.
That does sound rather short doesn't it? Especially considering how long leaders are in office in other countries.
Not long ago, this issue came up in our think tank, and I had suggested that the first term for a president in office ought to be six years, and at the end of six years they could run again for a second term of four years, making it 10 years total.
If they did a not such a good job, you could throw them out of office, and no one could say that they didn't have a chance.
Right now it seems the election cycle just lasts too long, and it seems as if our presidents are continually and perpetually running for office, and I'm sure this takes away of their import duties on running the country.
Bill Clinton recently came out with his new book; "Back to Work" and he has some thoughts on this.
In fact, there was an interesting article recently in CBS News titled; "Bill Clinton: Presidents should be able to serve three terms," by Lucy Madison on November 8, 2011, which stated; "President Bill Clinton says he thinks that in the future, presidents should be able to serve a third, non-consecutive term as president - though he emphasizes that he doesn't think that such a rule should apply to himself," and "Americans hire presidents to win for them.
He understands that, but they just need to understand that this is going to take some time to get out of and we need to begin," Clinton said.
"We can get out of this.
" Now then, of course there are issues, and reasons why our president is only allowed in the White House for four years, and probably that is because they can't do much damage during that period of time, and if they really go against the wishes of the people, or clash too much with the other branches of government, they will be ineffective, and the voters will force them out.
What I find very interesting is that we often see pictures of leaders in other countries which span three or four presidencies in the United States.
In fact there have been pictures of Moammar Khadafy, Kim Jong-Il, and other leaders spanning five or six presidencies.
Indeed, I suppose if the leader from another country doesn't like the President of the United States, or can't deal with them, all they'll have to do is ignore him/her and eventually our political process will have turnover, and they will be gone.
This gives them the advantage, and means the US does not have the advantage, and that's definitely something to think about.
Source...