LOpe,
One could argue that term limits for president is a good idea. Would you, a leftist, want Bush to get elected 10 times in a row? I would hear the cries of dictator from here.

I'd be happy if Bush just got elected once. (rimshot)

Ending Presidential term limits doesn't mean Bush will get elected ten times. It just means he would have the opportunity of serving more than two terms.

If he was doing a great job that engendered the confidence of the America people, we'd obviously be benifitting from his service on the whole. Hell, I've publicly stated many times that if he invades and overthrows one more dictator, I'll vote for him.

For politiphiles like me it is fascinating to consider the strategy involved with deciding to run a candidate a third or fourth time.

Younger folks are getting elected, people are living robust lives longer, there is no Dominant Democrat like FDR on the scene to scare Republicans. Ending term limits for Presidents should be a done deal already.

Interesting points, but I must say that things are in the Constitution for specific reasons. I'd be hard pressed to see any benefit of having the same president for 12 yrs or longer. I think the wonderful part of our Republic IS the fact that we get fresh leadership in the White House every 4-8 yrs.

I just dont trust politicans, whether they are Repub. or Democrat.

Jjacitelli:

The reason the 22nd Ammendment is in the Constitution is because Republicans ammended the Consitution after FDR to prevent a Democrat from embarassing them like that again.

A very good opinion piece on the subject is from Chris Matthews 2 years ago. It's a quick read and makes some great points:

http://www.ardmoreite.com/stories/080801/opE_mattews.shtml

-Lope

Hell, I want us to repeal the 17th Amendment.

The rule about the office of the President of the United States being open only to citizens born in the United States should stand. Someone born elsewhere is likely to have other allegiances, regardless of how much they profess to love and care about our country. I think it is nice that foreign-born naturalized citizens can become congressmen and senators, but, to lead the land is a responsibility which, I feel, brooks no division of allegiance whatsoever. I mean, do you really want a president that some other country can claim as theirs? A president who vacations elsewhere to be close to his/her family? A president who is not 100% American by birth, by culture (a naturalized citizen may learn a lot about our culture, but it is very very difficult to completely live inside of a culture if you are not born and raised in it)?

We have enough diversity, and we have bowed to other countries' demand that we change our money (what will happen to all the idioms about the color of money -- we will even have to change our language), without letting someone whose heart will always love some other country as his/her homeland run our show. Why would we want to? Don't we have enough home-grown candidates, that we need to look for someone from outside?