Question of the Week Summary: Presidential Term Limits

Earlier this week, I posted a question regarding your views on Presidential Term Limits. I honestly have to say that I am amazed and appalled by the lack of response. We live in a country where people complain daily about the way things are run and done, but then when you ask people their opinion, they don't have one or don't take the time to give one.

If we are unhappy with the way things are, then we have to get together and voice our opinion and make the system work for us. Complaining around the water cooler or at the dining room table gets little accomplished.

Having said that, Bob did state his opinion (way to go, Bob!)

At 2:57 PM, B O B said...
I think the six year term idea would be the best option. If you look at the cost of campaigning that would be greatly reduced. Also it would not distract from the president doing his job. Who needs to be working on the campaign for relection when government business needs to be done. Six years would be a great compromise. It would allow a president to accomplish a lot but is not too long before change can offer something new to the people.

My opinion is in line with Bob's. And frankly, I felt a lot of people would chime in and say the same. I do not like the fact that our Presidents spend a great deal of their time in office worrying about whether or not they will make the second election. I would prefer one six year term limit. Then the President could get in there, concentrate on the job at hand and if he was a bozohead, the damage would be limited. It would also reduce the cost of campaigning and the pain we have to go to listening to people throw mud at each other.

For the multitude of readers that stopped by this week without an opinion on this matter, I expect this means you will stop some of your complaining around the water cooler. After all, here was a forum where you could be heard and you chose not to take advantage of it, so your complaints must not be that heartfelt.