Two Term Presidents...

[BrianEtrius]

Two term presidents in the past 40 odd years have not done well in their second term and usually have some sort of controversy. It's an interesting trend.

Nixon (1969-1974): had Watergate in 1972.
Reagan: (1981-1989) : Iran-Contra affair in 1986.
Clinton: (1993-2001) : Lewinsky scandal in 1998.
Bush Jr. (2001-2009) : Where to begin?

Anyways, interesting trend. Do you think it could possibly continue with any future presidents?

[DrunkDemon]

Are you suggesting that this is a conspiracy, or are you just pointing out a coincidence?

[hansari]

At 7/30/09 12:00 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Bush Jr. (2001-2009) : Where to begin?

I don't know about you, but didn't Bush "stir things up" more in his first term with that Iraq/Afghanistan war?

What did he do that was so scandalous in his second term?

I think Bush may very well be the one to break this chain of coincidences...

[StealthSteve]

I think one part of it is that we're quicker to recognize a leader's failures than their accomplishments, and the other part is that the longer a person remains a leader, they more time there is for others to scrutinize their actions.

What was that thing Dent said in The Dark Knight?

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

I think that's sort of the general gist of it.

[BrianEtrius]

At 7/30/09 01:29 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: I think one part of it is that we're quicker to recognize a leader's failures than their accomplishments, and the other part is that the longer a person remains a leader, they more time there is for others to scrutinize their actions.

I'm not saying we should condemn it, but from the current trend in the second term something controversial comes along and wrecks the rest of the 2nd term. It's just a very odd coincidence.

At 7/30/09 01:18 AM, hansari wrote: What did he do that was so scandalous in his second term?

Where do you want to start?

CIA leak: 2005
Guantanamo: 2006 (first known to public)
Wire Tapping
Failure to help New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina
etc.
etc.
Not to mention our favorite shoe throwing incident.

[StealthSteve]

At 7/30/09 01:40 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: I'm not saying we should condemn it, but from the current trend in the second term something controversial comes along and wrecks the rest of the 2nd term. It's just a very odd coincidence.

It probably isn't all that coincidental... a leader being elected to a second four-year term is itself likely a strong motivation for that leader's opponents to try to derail the agenda at hand by bringing to attention every shortcoming, failure, or questionable dealing possible.

On the other hand, maybe winning a second term just makes the leader lax and arrogant with their sense of security, essentially setting up a situation in which they derail themselves.

[BrianEtrius]

At 7/30/09 01:52 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: It probably isn't all that coincidental... a leader being elected to a second four-year term is itself likely a strong motivation for that leader's opponents to try to derail the agenda at hand by bringing to attention every shortcoming, failure, or questionable dealing possible.

On the other hand, maybe winning a second term just makes the leader lax and arrogant with their sense of security, essentially setting up a situation in which they derail themselves.

Possibly.

Perhaps this is also evidence for rearranging the political system. Maybe we shouldn't have a max on 2 4 year terms, maybe we should only have 1 6 year term.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 7/30/09 01:52 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: On the other hand, maybe winning a second term just makes the leader lax and arrogant with their sense of security, essentially setting up a situation in which they derail themselves.

This is espeically true when they know they can't run for a third term. If the could they'd probably be more careful as they'd still need public support.

[mikailus]

I'm unsure about Bush, being that he stole the elections TWICE thanks to the miracle of electronic voting.

[SpiffyMasta]

In all honesty, I really think that the era of information has helped this along. If you go past 40 years ago, things were a lot more easier to hush up, the media didn't have as much power, and you certainly didn't have the internet were news went across the globe in half a second.

That means that any scandal is hard to keep under wraps, and media likes to shed a dark light on many things.

I like that Batman quote though, I think it probably does apply very well. I'm absolutely positive though, that the information era we are in has a lot to do with the way things have gone.

So do I believe this will continue? Yea probably. No one is perfect, and with today's age, every little imperfection is blown way out of proportion. Let's face it, someone in such a public limelight is held to much much higher standards than you and I.

[shini-gami]

At 7/30/09 01:29 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

don't know about the other presidents (I don't know too much about american history, though i do know the mentioned screw ups i don't know how the presidents did in general) but this phrase certainly does not apply to Bush, he's never been a hero to begin with.

[SpiffyMasta]

At 7/30/09 05:20 AM, shini-gami wrote:
don't know about the other presidents (I don't know too much about american history, though i do know the mentioned screw ups i don't know how the presidents did in general) but this phrase certainly does not apply to Bush, he's never been a hero to begin with.

You want to tell me why and how other presidents were heroes?

[shini-gami]

At 7/30/09 06:52 AM, SpiffyMasta wrote:

At 7/30/09 05:20 AM, shini-gami wrote:
don't know about the other presidents (I don't know too much about american history, though i do know the mentioned screw ups i don't know how the presidents did in general) but this phrase certainly does not apply to Bush, he's never been a hero to begin with.

You want to tell me why and how other presidents were heroes?

because he was a retard from the beginning, as for the other presidents i just said i don't know about them, all i know is that they made mistakes but i can't tell how they did in the rest of their terms

[zephiran]

The question is though, is this a manifestation of "the longer you stay in the heat, the higher the chance of you getting burnt" or something else entirely? I´m more inclined to say these guys did worse in their second term simply because their job was wearing them down. Maybe, perhaps, potentially.

[SpiffyMasta]

At 7/30/09 12:35 PM, shini-gami wrote:
because he was a retard from the beginning, as for the other presidents i just said i don't know about them, all i know is that they made mistakes but i can't tell how they did in the rest of their terms

Well, I'm glad you just have to classify him as such, but I certainly don't think he was a retard.

[hansari]

At 7/30/09 01:40 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: CIA leak: 2005
Guantanamo: 2006 (first known to public)
Wire Tapping
Failure to help New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina
etc.
etc.
Not to mention our favorite shoe throwing incident.

The CIA leak were Dick Cheney cronies like Scooter Libby. The degrees of separation from Bush are much more plausible than the ones tried between Nixon and the men who committed Watergate.

Guantanamo was known as early as 2004 but was hardly scandalous since it was never a desperately hidden secret like the Contra affair. Hell, in 2006, the Military Commissions act got passed right in front of everyone. (everyone who was paying attention and not watching American Idol)

Wire-Tapping was the downside of the Patriot Act. But again, hardly scandalous because it wasn't a surprise that jumped out at you like Watergate did...

Failure to help New Orleans, was disgusting, but again! This wasn't kept away from public attention!!!!
~~~~~~
The only plausible example of something truly scandalous to come out of the Bush Administration....something that is actually on par to the Watergate/Iran-Contra Affair, is the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Problem with your chain of coincidences though...that happened back in 2004, before Bush got his second term.

[BillyShakes]

There really is no need to seperate W. from the conversation. Though watergate happened before Nixon was re-elected, it didn't become nation moving until much later.

The point is that that there has been deep rooted CONTROVERSY (as stated in the initial post) in each re-elected presedency.

Controversy: A prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

Scandal: a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc. (or) damage to reputation; public disgrace.

The Bush Administration has suffered loads in both controversy and and Scandal

[Ericho]

You make some good points but I don't think most of that stuff is equally bad but I still see your point. It's nice how you notice things like that. I guess it's possible he just loses his confidence over time or simply gets tired?

[NightMaer]

Do you really think we need a thread pointing out every random coincidence that occurs?

LOL GAIZ DID YOU KNOW THAT 2 + 2 = 4 LOLOLOLOL CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 11one

[tiskewl]

At 7/30/09 01:40 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Not to mention our favorite shoe throwing incident.

Did you really just blame Bush for having someone else throw a shoe at him. I don't see how this could be Bush's scandelous action otherwise. But if you really are just wow...

Lets all hop on the Anti-Bush Bandwagon , "He stole Gore's Presidency" "other whiney complaints."

[Ericho]

At 8/1/09 11:50 AM, tiskewl wrote: Did you really just blame Bush for having someone else throw a shoe at him. I don't see how this could be Bush's scandelous action otherwise. But if you really are just wow...

Heck, I'd praise Bush for ducking.

[TheReno]

Well look at it in this light, being president is a hard fucking job. I mean have you seen the before and after pics of bush? It takes its toll. I can only imagine what it must have been like for FDR in his 16 years of presidency. Some presidents have been known to go a tad crazy, not really crazy but just a little bit. So it could be that getting elected that second time, after a bit into it you just start to not care about so many little things, especially if you have a crazy thing like a war going on. Two wars even. But look at these scandals shall we?

Clinton and lewinsky: Well considering clinton was a mini kennedy I cant say Im surprised, it kinda falls into what I was saying and it kinda doesnt seeing as he was like this all the time.

Reagan and Iran Contra: This isnt a scandal so much as a shit storm trying to be averted. We were trying to build relations with Iran AND save hostages. Unfortunately Iranians are... how to say evil nicely. xD Well they arent evil but they sure know how to fuck up a good thing. So it cant fall into what I was saying because it wasnt reagan that caused or did this, it was just a response to events going down in the world.

Nixon and watergate: This is perfect for what I was saying. In all fairness though, wouldnt you want to know what your rivals were up to?

The reason I skipped over bush is not because you named alot, its because they stem from the war
(except katrina, despite popular belief she is not related to al queda(?)) and are more a direct response to it then bush. Really, I dont think bush fucked up then couldnt get a hand hold. Starting off with 9/11 and a war really fucks up your balance.

[MercZ]

Presidents rarely (in fact, I can't think of a single case) leave office as popular as they came in. Typically Americans get fed up with their presidents after so long.

[Toadenalin]

Could it be that presidents who have a major scandle in their first term don't get re-elected?

Correlation does not equal causality and all that...

[Warforger]

I love how JFK is a major milestone in American history even though he didn't really do much other then be the youngest president ever and start the most unpopular war, only to have the most unpopular president in U.S. history, Nixon, to brilliantly end it. Seriously, those two are popular/unpopular for issues that don't matter as much.

[Memorize]

At 7/30/09 05:10 PM, hansari wrote:

The CIA leak were Dick Cheney cronies like Scooter Libby. The degrees of separation from Bush are much more plausible than the ones tried between Nixon and the men who committed Watergate.

Except that Scooter Libby never leaked anyone's name.

The leak came from Richard Armitage, of which the name was written about by Robert Novak while keeping Armitage's name a secret and as a "primary source".

Of course, this wasn't revealed until after all the news stories were about Libby leaking her name, which he didn't do.

But, you're a fucking dumb ass so I wouldn't expect you to actually read.

And in case you don't believe, here's a
video. But you're probly at a level of stupid that you'll still say "Bush still had SOMETHING to do with it".

[Dorkcraft]

I think it makes sense, the extra four years gives the president more time to screw something up, or at least be blamed for something that they really had no control over.

Now of course, I don't like Bush, no one seems to. He put our economy in a recession, blah blah.

[Ericho]

At 8/2/09 12:55 PM, Warforger wrote: I love how JFK is a major milestone in American history even though he didn't really do much other then be the youngest president ever and start the most unpopular war,

I'm pretty sure he was signing a bill that would end American involvement in the Vietnam War but one of Lyndon Johnson's first acts was to revoke the bill. He's the main person who ended it.