Relying on the theory of the LESSOR OF TWO EVILS, would a single term
of eight years not allow presidents to do what is best for the country
rather than what's best for their own re-election?

Dear Tough Lover, 

I was reluctant from answering your question, but since I see you
received no answer I'll give you some 2cent worth.

Different countries have set different term-limits for their leaders,
four years being only one of many options.

In the US, the term is 4 years (with a possibility of additional 4
years see the 23rd Amendment). This term may, as you claimed, be not
sufficient to implement great changes.

However, Longer terms can lead in the slippery slope to
authoritarianism and the lose of democracy. In any case,
implementations of the policy are made by the public administration,
in which (ideally) there are professional civil servants whose
missions and terms are in many cases longer.

See 
http://www.political-tips.com 
and search by 
"longer term" president
"longer term" potus 
"longer presidential terms" 
"longer presidential term" 
and similar search terms.

Dear Mr. Political Guru,

If I read you correctly, the "down-side" is the "slipry-slope". If you
are saying that an eight year, instead of two four year terms would
cause us to slide out of Democracy, would you not be ignoring the
checks and balances that the Fraimers have built into our syatem?  Do
you wan't me to enumerate these checks?

I am assuming that you are not what I call a "contankarous contrarian"
ie. one who would debunk his own argument if it were espoused by
another party instead.  I am also assuming that you understand the
subltle diference that often exist between one evil and a greater
evil?

If we had an official who would abuse his office, he could do so in a
4 year term as well as in an eight year term.  In case you forget we
could impeach him in the first week of an eight year term, as well as
the last day of the first of two, four year tearms.  What
Teflon-Slope?

The rule that punishes us when we cry fire, in a crowded theater, is a
suspension of the first amendment.  Were the "slipry-slopers" sleeping
when that dangerous injection of greese was imposed on the slope?

I noticed that you so kindly, informed me about the terms different
countries have and what we have.  Thanks, but why should we care what
other countries have or even what we have, if we have the ability to
AMEND what we have?  Bearing in mind that what we change to may not be
the IDEAL, but the lesser of two evils.

As I see it, we could more easily through out an official who is
over-stepping his bounds, in a single 8 year term, than we could, an
official who is wasting all his time trying to get re-elected or who
is taking no unpopular tho correct stance, for fear of not being
re-elected.  In the latter cases, the mantra of the LEFT "this did not
rise to the level of impeachability" would again permiate...  I hope
you are not one of those who would rather die with 100% of your
liberty, than live with 99% of same.  Such people are called
"absolutists" absolute liberty, or absolute death.  Oh, before I
forget, they are also called suiside bombers.  My own mantra is:
reasonable men can dissagree but fanatics dissagree without
reasoning...   PS how does one access a spell-checker inside this
system?

Consider this... one key element of your argument is that if a
President is not seeking re-election, he can set aside political
concerns and "do the right thing, even if unpopular".  However, when
looking at the second terms of a number of recent Presidents, when
they are free from the burden of seeking reelection, often less seems
to happen (in terms of Presidential initiative) in comparison to their
first term... and, as in the case of Clinton and Reagan, the second
term tends to be consumed by some scandal or another.

Some would attribute this to Presidents being "Lame Ducks" in the
second term.  While I have difficutly accepting the "Lame Duck"
rationale as a complete reason for less energetic performance in the
second term, one would want to address the problems of electing a
leader who takes office as a "Lame Duck".

It would seem that the first 100 days, and then first year, of a
Presidency are when the greatest political capital and energies are
expended.  Consider Clinton's first 100 days... National Healthcare
proposal, Proposal for Homosexual Equality in the Military, Welfare
Reform.  The advantage of a 4-year term over a single 8-year term is
that we only need to wait 4 years for the potential of a "first 100
days" cycle to begin again.

Also, one might consider the length of terms of office in comparison
to other Federal office holders:
Supreme Court - Lifetime
Senate - 6 Years
President - 4 Years
House - 2 Years

It is said that the short, 2-year term for members of the House of
Representatives keeps them more responsive to the public, while the
longer, 6-year term of Senators allows them to resist public passions
on issues.  The Presidential term of 4 years balances between these
two goals.

Consider also that many Presidents do not receive second terms.  While
you suggest that we could remove a President from office if they
abused power at any time during an eight year term, what if the
public's concern was not abuse of power, but simply a lack of
confidence in the President's leadership?  When George Bush Sr. was
not returned for a second term, or a complete eight years in your
model, it was likely due to lack of confidence in his mastery of the
economy than it was attributable to wrongdoing or abuse of power.  If
one counters that we could remove the President if they fail a "vote
of confidence" at any time during an 8-year term, wouldn't that put
the President in a position of running for "re-election" to stave off
a failed vote even more frequently than our current limit or two
4-year terms?

One must also address the premise that when President's run counter to
popular opinion, they must be "doing the right thing" or "taking a
principaled stand".  While a single 8-year term might allow a
President to hold unpopular positions, that is not necessarily a
positive outcome.  Consider how long the Vietnam war continued while
remaining unpopular in the United States.  Was President Johnson's
commitment to an unpopular war the best outcome?  Also, consider that
under our current system, Presidents have been able to press important
issues that were not always popularly received when introduced, such
as Kennedy's Civil Rights legislation.  Presidents are able to do this
even without the insulation an 8-year term might provide.

Finally, how does one arrive at an 8-year term.  Why not 16 years? 
Or, perhaps a single 4-year term?  Selecting the single 8-year term
seems arbitrary.  Also, it does not take into account the relationship
of the terms of office for the members of the other branches of the
Federal government.

Hopefully, you find these contrary criticisms amusing and helpful.

Dear Mr. Snap Answer, you deserve my two dollor fortune.  You have
given me alot to chew on.  I will treat each of your points
seperately.

Today I will address your last point.  Please don't let manner spoil
meaning.  I did not intend to stipulate the length of the term, of any
official, despite my seeming to be treating of the President's eight
year term. Instead the crux of my argument is about the unintended
effects of breaking up any term into two or more reigns.  Assuming of
course, that you buy into my mantra that we seldom have the luxary of
choosing between good and bad, it is the ability to devine the lesser
of two evils that seperates the Solomans from the Dsvids.

Tomorrow I will treat your belief that single terms of any length will
render all officials Lame-Ducks.  By the way, you may want to educate
me more about waht males a Lame Duck?  Is it a self inflicted wound,
or is the wound from a "purp"?

Here is an interesting transcript regarding "Lame Duck" status with
American presidencies.  It's from the NewsHour on PBS.  I think you
will enjoy it.  Lame Duck status is generally not caused by a
self-inflicted wound.  Instead, it naturallys seems to arise from the
natural inclinations of people and the inevitability of the passage of
time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec99/lame_duck_8-4.html

The quote I need from Abraham Lincoln isn't at my fingertips. But I
remember it well enough to paraphrase it:  Lincoln said no one
President could do enough damage to the Republic in four years, as to
be beyond repair.

    In this, Lincoln underestimated some men's abilities (consider
President Richard M. Nixon).

    The logical deduction from Lincoln's proposition is that a
president who has eight years total can do a great deal of damage.  He
can do even more damage, if he is not accountable--forevermore after
his election--to the people.

    The President derives his power from the People.  He is, as Harry
Truman loved to say, "the only elected official who directly
represents the American People" (also paraphrased).

    Is it a bad thing, necessarily, if a president has an eye on what
the People think, and need, and want?

    Isn't it a matter of personal character, even with a goal of
re-election, which determines if a man will be a good, or bad,
president?

    A president can have his eye only on re-election as an end in
itself.  He can follow public opinion, rather than lead.   He can be
so clever with words that he manipulates public opinion in his favor
by what he says, without ever doing anything substantial.  It's been
done.

    When a man (woman) carries an election for President, the people
themselves have determined their course.  After that, only "The people
themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse their own
deliberate decisions".  (Lincoln)

    Four years is about enough time to see if a new president is
carrying out their decisions, to learn if he is a competent
administrator; to know if he is a leader, or a merely a person who
knows how to ride ahead of public opinion. To see clearly where he is
going.  Let’s keep that power.

    An important part of the history of the Clinton Administration
will be about the concerted attempt throughout his eight years to
remove him without an election.

    Hilary Clinton was right about one thing, maybe the only thing, in
all her public comments.  She was accurate when she said there was a
concerted right-wing effort from the start of her husband’s
Presidency, to reverse his election.  It almost succeeded.  President
Clinton's lying under oath about his poor, personal, sexual
discipline, played directly into the cabal's ambitions.

    There is enough effort currently afoot to thwart the people's
electoral control of the President; to thwart the expression of their
collective will, without our removing the People’s control altogether
for eight long, perhaps permanently decisive, years.