ARTICLE: "Rice Deputy Quits After Query Over Escort Service: Randall Tobias Oversaw U.S. Foreign Aid Programs," By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, April 28, 2007; Page A01ARTICLE: "Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq: Former CIA Director Says White House Focused on the Idea Long Before 9/11," By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, April 28, 2007; Page A01
ARTICLE: "Wolfowitz Panel Finds Ethics Breach, Officials Say: World Bank Board Could Act on Monday," By Peter S. Goodman, Washington Post, April 28, 2007; Page A01
The classic end-of-administration milieu: scandal upon scandal.
We should never re-elect anybody, it would seem. Second terms? Name one that wasn't a significant come-down from the first.
The only improvement you can cite in the 20th was FDR.
| Permalink |
Comments (6)
Actually, even FDR, that greatest of all political wizards, had a rotten second term.
The court-packing plan was a disaster. There was a sharp recession in 1937. The GOP picked up a huge number of seats in 1938, mostly picking off hardcore New Dealers, despite (or because of) lots of personal campaigning by FDR himself. He got virtually no new legislation enacted. Many people considered him washed up, and there was a mad scramble in both parties to pick a successor in 1940.
It was the start of World War II that saved FDR's reputation, especially the fall of France in June 1940, which gave a third term for FDR credibility it would not have otherwise had. If Hitler had waited a year to start the war FDR would have been out in the winter of 1941 and been perceived very, very differently as a moderately successful Depression era president. The FDR of 1940-45 is almost a different person -- Dr. New Deal was washed up after two terms; Dr. Win the War was the start of a very different administration with different personnel, goals, etc.
Posted by Lexington Green | April 28, 2007 1:40 PM
"The only improvement you can cite in the 20th was FDR."
Sorry Tom, not even FDR - it was his hardest term. Roosevelt suffered two major political defeats with the Court-Packing scheme and the Quarrantine Speech and then had his own Veep ( John Nance Garner) challenge him for the nomination for 1940.
Posted by zenpundit
|
April 28, 2007 1:59 PM
How about Truman. Sort of his second term, and standing up in Korea was, in my mind, a "great" act.
Posted by Bill
|
April 28, 2007 4:08 PM
Truman's second term was considered a disaster at the time. The war was perceived as a pointless, bloody stalemate. Lots of scandals, both money-related and Soviet spies. The Ds lost a lot of seats in the midterm election. Truman could technically have run again, but everybody knew he would have gotten clobbered. Truman's second term was all misery for him. In other words, a typical second term.
Posted by Lexington Green | April 28, 2007 8:47 PM
One of your books gave most leaders a six year time line. One six year term would be fine with me.
Posted by Hugh | April 29, 2007 9:24 PM
What about Lincoln? Sure, he didn't last long in his second term. He did win the war and set in motion Reconstruction. Had he survived would Reconstruction have faired better? Would he have had a successful second term?
Posted by Christopher Plummer | April 30, 2007 11:04 AM