The only Presidents since Roosevelt who possibly could have made a run successfully for a third term were Reagan and Clinton; the mere threat of them running again would have knocked Bush I and Bush II out the race altogether.

In Bush II's case, the RNC would have been forced to run someone a far sight brighter to defeat Clinton, even if not a more honest one. That would have been good for the country.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

But without the Amendment George W. Bush could, concievably, be elected to a third term.

Still a bad Amendment?

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

What friggin' fantasy world are you living in? I did nothing of the sort, I merely pointed out that your initial statement was intellectually inconsistent.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

If he could figure out a way to win with 18% of the vote, sure.
Then again, maybe with the idea that he had to run for a third term, he may have tried to clean up the mess rather than just distribute the spoils.

The 8 year deal was really good for a young republic, where the possibility of it becoming a monarchy loomed large.
Who knows what would have happened if Washington had ambitious sons, we could have slipped into a hereditary monarchy with the approval of the populace at that point in time, many wanted Washington to wear a crown.
And with sons, the temptation to promote their interests may have lead to our "Great Leader" being followed by a "Dear leader", etc.

But in the case of FDR, the argument for the need of an experienced hand at the tiller, in a world where the economy was still in shambles and the half the world was at war was enough to break the precedent, and the fourth term in 1944 was a given, the nation was locked in a great war where our existence as a nation was threatened.

I don't think Reagan could have run for a third term, he was popular but his age was showing, and Clinton would have had a tough run in 2000.

I am troubled that even if the people want the president to serve a third term, this amendment denies them the right to choose that course, and I also see the genius of the amendment, that if we were to lose our republic, it would be to an extremely popular politician.
And the possibility exists that at some point in the future we'll find ourselves with a politician as popular as Chavez, who can get the constitution amended anyway he wants, all above board and strictly legal.
This just sets that bar pretty high.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I don't think he would have won any term if Clinton had been allowed to run. As it was, he po'ed his family by indulging his ego and pre-empting Jeb's candidacy, Jeb is one of the 'smart' Bushes, so it's also unlikely he could have built up a run in 2004 if he had lost in 2000. I don't think The RNC would have allowed him to run except against weak candidates, and the Dems have certainly mastered the technique of running weak candidates the last three election cycles.

Yes, it's still a bad Amendment; it still limits good leaders from office; we already have limits on bad leaders, even if they do manage a third term, which is highly unlikely. Three, or even four terms, during particularly dangerous and tough times, is an advantage, not a handicap, and only good leaders can manage to get three terms.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

Reagan had pretty much been pushed out of a lot of the decision making by the end of his first term; he was largely just a figurehead, especially on domestic economic plans and foreign policy. He could have just been wheeled out for the occasional state function, like they would ceremoniously wheel out Strom Thurmond every once in while for 'Pomp And Circumstance; the Clinton impeachment comes to mind. Nobody can say Republicans don't have a sense of humor ...

Well, he wouldn't be a popular politician if he weren't providing leadership ...

Not likely to happen, given the checks and balances currently in place, weak as they are now; other ambitious men will always be submarining each other, and provide a sort of balance of terror.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon