I won't get into the nitty gritty of this opionion piece in today's edition of The Los Angeles Times, but suffice to say if you are a history buff like me, this is a must read. Brownstein looks at past Presidents' failed second terms and asks why anyone would ever want to run for four more years.

Here's a tidbit from the beginning to whet your apetite:

Like second marriages, second presidential terms represent the triumph of hope over experience. Every incumbent since Herbert Hoover has sought four more years. And yet, after the experience of their predecessors, it is easy to wonder why they bother.

Bill Clinton was impeached in his second term. Richard Nixon would have been if he hadn't quit first. Ronald Reagan was wounded by the Iran-Contra scandal. Lyndon B. Johnson sank into the swamp of Vietnam.

Dwight D. Eisenhower had health problems and Sputnik. The high point of Harry Truman's second term was the day he won it in a stunning upset. After that, it was war, scandal and legislative gridlock. Woodrow Wilson suffered through World War I, the rejection of the League of Nations and a stroke. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt reached his lowest point during his second term, when Congress blocked his plan to stack the Supreme Court.

This is the fraternity George W. Bush is desperately fighting to join as the Republicans gather for their national convention this week in New York. It's human nature to seek validation for your work. But (re)election day is often the best day for a two-term president.

Again, here's the link.