You think the prospect of another two years of Dubya is frightening, what about a third term? In today's New York Times, a pair of college professors argue that the traditional second term terrors that various presidents have endured is due to their inability to run for another term. The idea is that without any political future to worry about, presidents lose the ability to effectively deal with Congress (which, of course, is in a constant state of reelection) and even his own party. In other words, "lame duck" isn't just a cute phrase. I'm not sure I agree. Seems to me that it's the overt politicization of the office and inherent partisan political warfare that ensues that leads to the slumps. Maybe the answer is one longer term (6 years, maybe) with no chance of a repeat?