Buh-bye Ricky-boy!

This is great news for the GOP. Cleansing the pool of presidential candidates is just what the party needs. Let's keep this up and maybe I'll be able to vote (R) in 2016.

TLDR: Ricky-boy got himself indicted. He's a leper now.

Not a big fan of Rick Perry.

However, Travis County v the Texas GOP is an OLD feud....until this is proven to be more than a feud, I will withhold judgment.

You do know that old saw about DA's being able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich right?

On the other hand, image matters and might trump substance in this case even if no substance is later proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

He was such a tool anyway. I mean, really.. really transparent. First he plays dumb to attract the dubya-lovers, then he totally changes his act when it doesn't work.

"Oh, I lost the primary because I came off like a freaking moron? Guess I'll just put glasses on next time around!"

:wall:

---

Come now, Gelcube, you simply cannot be surprised by the tendency of our pols to favor image over substance. How much of their "world" rewards substantive and decisive behavior? The political Skinnerism of our modern media age doesn't reward it much at all....

Well the main reward for true substance is longetivity, which you dont allow, might explain a bit.

Or maybe you should just ban the president from campaigning, if he cant get relected on his performance alone he's likely not suitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I've long been of the opinion that the President should do a single long term. Whatever the intent behind the constitution, what we now have is a public and a government that expect the office of the President to carry out some kind of vision, as regards their platform. This isn't inherently a bad thing at all, but it can't possibly do any good unless the President has some incentive to buckle down and work. As it stands right now, your "ideal" candidate is someone who spends his/her entire first term preparing for the re-election, and the entire 2nd term ready to stop giving a frak.

---

We can reelect Merkel as long as we want her, that gives her an incentive to work for us in every single term.
Why would a president doing one single long term not behave like they currently do in the second term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

We can reelect Merkel as long as we want her, that gives her an incentive to work for us in every single term.
Why would a president doing one single long term not behave like they currently do in the second term?

---

The counter argument has always been that, absent the need to be re-elected, the President could focus on doing the job with an eye towards history and the betterment of the USA rather than on placating an electorate in the short term. The often-used analogy is judges, who serve for life (absent impeachment) and are thus "free" of political constraints on their decisions.

In practice, of course, we find some judges who feel free to pursue their agenda even when that agenda runs counter to the opinion of the majority etc. Nor could a president be free from political concerns while members of her or his party were worried about returning to their legislative seats, etc. GC did note that it was a bit of a pipe dream.

The Founders, originally, did not limit the Presidency to two terms. As long as the College of Electors voted for the person, they could continue to serve. Washington -- whose gravitas in early America was staggering -- chose to conclude after only two terms so as to not establish the precedent of prolonged control by any one leader (and he was personally pissed off at the political feuding of the time). Subsequently, few Presidents even considered breaking Washington's 2-term custom and none did so successfully until the era of mass communication (FDR). FDR's holding the office for life left a sour taste among many....all the GOP and quite a few Dems...so the amendment made custom into Constitutional requirement and begat the modern 1st/2nd term format we see today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

*Oh! It is also highly ironic that the Democrats are responsible for the way districts look today. Some time in the '60s, I think, they managed to pass a law that made it so that congressional districts were based on population instead of geography. IIRC, that law was even contested and upheld by a ridiculously left-leaning Supreme Court. Regardless of the debate, it is very true that what goes around comes around politically.

---

I was under the impression that the districts were arranged to produce minority representatives for the House. This worked around urban centers but had the side effect of shifting surrounding districts towards the GOP, who quickly realized the benefits and doubled down on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Or maybe you should just ban the president from campaigning, if he cant get relected on his performance alone he's likely not suitable.

---

THe Supreme Court has made campaign donations free speech, so theoretically we could do what you suggest by making campaigns publicly funded, but now we need to amend the Constitution to make it happen.