McCain's One-Term Pledge
The Promise that almost was and should come back
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | John McCain — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Marc Ambinder reports something that had been a rumor for a while as actual, real-live fact: last year, the McCain campaign seriously considered a pledge that if elected, McCain would only serve one term.
McCain himself considered it all the way until the morning of the speech, then decided against it. But from Ambinder's telling, it doesn't sound like a firm smackdown to the idea.
Personally, I'm in favor of it. It's a suggestion Ramesh made forcefully last October, and I believe it would be a powerful moment of contrast between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. The negatives, as I see it, are as follows:
1. It reminds everyone that McCain is old, and Obama is young. Guess what: Everyone knows this already. Your HDTV will remind you again in the fall, trust me.
2. It's risky. Well, McCain thrives on risk. In fact, when he's not taking a risk, running an insurgent campaign, shifting paradigms, or running with scissors, he doesn't know what to do with himself, and we get that horrid immigration bill and a load of campaign debt.
3. If he's not running again, McCain will ignore the base. Look, this is going to happen anyway, on a lot of issues. It's been happening for years! All that will change is that McCain and the base can be more honest about disagreements, and fight things out old style, in the streets with knives.
4. It has some similarities to the negatives of resigning from the Senate to run for the Presidency. But unlike a Senate resignation, there's no farewell-tour quality to this announcement: instead, it's McCain putting all his chips on the table (insert other appropriate and terrible sports metaphor here). Why? Because he doesn't want to win to advance his power, he wants to win because America needs him. Etc., etc.
The benefits are many: it shows McCain as accepting his Churchill-like status on the right (we need you for this war, and when that's done, you can retire), it earns him respect once again as a politician unlike any other (imagine the interviews - the MSM gags on their spoons), it makes it more likely that angry pro-Hillary Democrats would consider voting for him (four years of McCain or eight of Barack? They can take four years of McCain), and it cements the idea that McCain views this as service, not personal advancement. It also has the added benefit, for conservatives, of setting up a far more clearcut primary battle for 2012.
I have no idea of any response that Obama can make that would seem good in response to an announcement like this from McCain. Suggestions are welcome in comments.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Obama's Faith Far From Conventional — Comments (12) »
McCain's One-Term Pledge 61 Comments (0 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
As a conservative, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of McCain picking the heir apparent in four years, which is what he would be doing, assuming a McCain victory and a one-term pledge. So basically, it needs to coincide with a pick of a solid conservative as VP if it's to help. If not, it's probably a net negative.
And since I think the odds of him picking anything but a squishy moderate that will help him carry a purple state are something around zero percent, plus or minus a few, well, there you go.
That was in no way a contradiction of the comment you replied to. The premise was better 4 years of McCain instead of 4 years of Obama, and a reset button on the next election. Your reply sounds contrary but doesn't make any refutation of that point, except to reiterate how utterly you revile John McCain, which we are all quite well aware of.
Hence the subject: "It Depends". And there wasn't actually any McCain bashing in the post.
The point was that whoever McCain picks as Veep is going to have the advantage going into 2012, with a one-term pledge. Not an insurmountable one, but an advantage nonetheless.
A one term pledge with a dedicated conservative as his Veep? Yah, that would be a huge positive. A one-term pledge, with a squishy moderate as Veep? On the whole, a slight net negative.
I'll put it to you this way. I swore I'd never vote for McCain, but if he were to do a one-term pledge, combined with a movement conservative as his Veep, I will happily pull the lever. Because I'll be casting an early vote for 4 years from now.
I just don't think the odds of that are very good, but hey, I've been wrong before. Two years ago I'd have said he had no chance to get the nomination.
I think that has to be the primary consideration, for the future of the party.
Will he be better running in:
A) 2012 with and incumbent Obama
B) 2012 with the help of successful and popular McCain
C) 2016 with the help of successful and popular McCain
A is obviously the least desirable. It will appear (and the media will jam the idea down people throats) that we are nominating a TAG (token Asian guy) to run against a minority president. Plus it means we had 4 years of Obama. On second thought, nothing makes a Republican like Jindal look better than a bumbling Democrat (of course the opposite is true, see: Obama, Bush).
With B we have the potential for bitter primary, much like the current Dem primary, pitting a rising young star against whoever McCain pick for his VP. His VP will probably not like being asked to exit stage right after putting in his time and paying his dues as VP.
Will it be too late in 2016 for Jindal? Could he run for Senate after 2 terms as gov (so he is not gone from the national stage), and still be popular like he is now? Will the new be gone, and his post-Katrina accomplishments be forgotten? This guy is so hot (politically) they even play his speeches on NPR, during midday. The only time I ever hear that treatment for non-liberals is when they are Republicans stabbing conservatism/libertarianism in the back.
This would be a good topic for someone else with more knowledge than me to expound on.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?
McCain committing to serving for 4 years to entice Jindal to be his running mate now. Jindal would not see any upside to leaving Louisiana (LA) now if it means attaching himself to a losing candidate or worse a winning candidate that intends on having two terms in office. In any case, I still believe at 36, it's not in Jindal's interest to attach himself to anyone between now and his future White House run. He is in a position where he can begin to establish his governing philosophy in LA to setup his future bid. In 2016, he will be Obama's age, 2012 the youngest president in U.S. history. By the way did you see the hit piece on Jindal in the New York times today? Pretty weak.
A completly conservative VP. A Huckabee, or a Gilmore, or a Romney. Then we'd know who we'd be voting for in 4 more years.
You said "Completely Conservative" and then listed Huck.
He can sugarcoat his record all he wants, but it is his record -- and he has yet to say he was wrong. At least Romney admitted error. Huck isn't a conservative until he owns up to his liberal actions as Governor.
.
I meant social conservative, pro-small business, pro-middle class, anti-entitlements, pro process of law immigration, pro-life, pro-tax cuts. Not necessarily anti spending at all costs libertarian elitist. Huckabee is completely conservative...at least the way we breed 'em 'round here...
I'd agree Huck was Pro-life. His conservatism (at least, his demonstrated conservatism) ends there.
.
posting when sleepy makes you make stupid mistakes.
like posting text after putting n/t in your subject. oops.
.
Unless they cover the debates on the Wal-Mart HDTV displays I won't see either candidate on HDTV.
Most voters don't own an HDTV either. On plain TV, McCain doesn't look that bad.
We'll probably lose the young techy HDTV crowd anyway.
25% of American homes have an HDTV. And they're hardly young. What do you want to bet that those who are well off enough to afford the expense are also more likely to vote?
Keep in mind: Only half of Americans have broadband internet at home. The other half also know McCain is old.
I've been a late adopter of technology. I still have as many VHS tapes as I do DVDs.
I'm a techie by trade too. I doubt I'll own an HDTV in the next three years.
I think campaigning on the principle of one term would be a terrible idea. If he won he'd be an immediate lame duck. If he wants to decide after 3 years that one more is enough - fine, but otherwise he'd have at most 1.5 years to be effective. Not only might that encourage him to do something unwise on immigration with the Democrats, but it will weaken his leverage with them on other issues.
that McCain will have to choose a moderate VP (Liebermann) to make a real run at dissatisfied Hillary voters. If so that means he is wiping his hands clean of the GOP and so will not influence GOP politics for the future. This is a very sophisticated approach and could work, if it's sold right. In essence it would represent the quintessential unity ticket without any threat to either party going into the future. Only a maverick like McCain could pull this of with the only question being, how does he keep the South from voting for Bob Barr? If Bob Barr is able to get on the debate stage with Barry and McCain, then this stunt could blow up in McCain's face. However, I think McCain commitment to Iraq and Israel, combined with a strong commitment to appointing conservative judges and holding the line on taxes (2010), not to mention if there is a tape of Michelle Obama saying racist things, then maybe it's not a bad idea. Look McCain loses if he chooses Romney as VP in this scenario, he loses if he chooses Crist as VP in this scenario, he has a great shot if he chooses Jindal in this scenario, but he stands just as good a shot IMO if he chooses Liebermann in this scenario of committing to one term.
Why would this mean it was any more necessary for winning Hillaries than it currently is, with regard to VP?
for Liebermann to be the VP to win over "Hillaries" than anyone else? Because I think, Hillary voters will not turn to McCain as much if McCain choses a conservative like Romney (remember from their perspective) with a pledge to serve only one term. Remember their objective in voting for McCain in that scenario would be to see Hillary run again. McCain choosing Romney ensures succession, whereas McCain choosing Liebermann ensures chaos for the GOP (again from their perspective) in 2012 with another wide open field to include Romney, Sanford, Crist, Jindal, Huckabee and whoever else. And besides, the Hillaries are still Democrats and Democrats are emotionally driven and so it would be lighter on their conscience casting a vote for essentially a pure moderate ticket. The only snag in this in my opinion would be Bob Barr and conservative voters. Will conservatives revolt and protest this ticket by voting for Barr. As a conservative I think I would vote for Barr, if McCain chose Liebermann. If McCain convinces Jindal to run with him, then obviously that would seal the base for McCain and he would win in a landslide.
The Hillary supporters aren't going to vote "for" McCain, even if he picks Ted Kennedy as his running mate. They are going to vote "against" Obama to punish him for beating Hillary.
In that regard, it doesn't matter who McCain chooses as a running mate. In some ways, the worse from their viewpoint the better, as it will help ensure a Hillary win in 2012.
Normally, you expect the destructive "anyone but" urge to abate by the November election, but I think the capacity to act with bitterness and against one's own interest is much higher among Hillary supporters than in the general population.
He'd be a lame duck before the inauguration. I'd rather he not make the pledge.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
I can't see how this decision is perceived as coming from a position of strength.
It looks too much like the base is saying, "we don't like McCain, but we'll vote for him if he promises to only stay 4 years."
We wouldn't be coming up with deals like this if Fred were the nominee.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Or else invent a device that will let you visit alternate universes.
:holding up hand: I don't care.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I thought my comment was entirely reasonable. I'm voting/donating/volunteering for McCain. But I can still point out why this proposal would be perceived as a signal of weak endorsement from the base.
I switch to decaf at 3pm. Shouldn't we all?
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Blam.
Fun time's over, folks. We're - and by that I mean the site mods - getting pretty sick and tired of some of what is frankly whining around here, and we can't always make examples of members of our Top Ten List Of People Who Were Probably Mobys Anyway. Don't let this happen to you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
We all know that's an abomination.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
& sugar makes for a real cup of coffee either....you either want to be caffeined up or you don't...there is no subtle way to drink to coffee....to this girl :-)
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
They like me! They really LIKE me!
Oh, wait a minute, you weren't pointing at me, were you?
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
are drinking coffee for the *taste*. And just how dumb is that?
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
when you consider that the taste is in the oils... which are stripped in the decaffienating process. Except in the more expensive brands.
.
I probably scrap half the comments I start to write. And I never drink coffee, I only go to Starbucks because they take Dining Dollars (money the University gives students to spend on food, but way more than anyone actually wants to spend in a semester) and I get hot chocolate. And I order a medium, and get sneered at for not ordering in the proper frittalian.
I am still young enough that I can pull an all-nighter with nothing but a 20 oz Coke.
About as silly as O'Douls fake beer!
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
He's a lame duck immediately.
Rs are picking sides by 2010 for the successor.
I, unsurprisingly, dislike the idea. He can make that decision in his head, but he should not limit his options this early. If his first term is strong and he's popular and not showing signs of wear, then he may want to run again and he should.
If he's weaker or frail, perhaps no. But that's decision for 2011, not 2008.
At this point, it seems to be an idea that appeals mainly to people who want a different R to run, not people who are McCain fans or strategists.
If it ever made sense, I feel like it could have made waves in the primary and been a "I can win this year unlike the other guys and you can have your top choice in 2012." But he won the primary without that. I don't see who it would help convince to vote for him in the general.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
is set at this moment to start looking for another candidate in four years, I have to agree with Adam. Announcing a single term, given the (flimsy) stuff the Democrats have been attacking McCain with, would only serve to weaken his position... and most people who right now are looking at him as a one-termer will ultimately make up their own minds about that in the future as well.
It'd be best to just take it as it comes... assume the long haul and see what happens.
.
At this point, it seems to be an idea that appeals mainly to people who want a different R to run, not people who are McCain fans or strategists.
According to Ambinder's piece, McCain's staff and the finance folks were entirely supportive of it, and thought it was a great idea.
Ramesh, notable among the NR crowd for having endorsed McCain early on, supported it for the past year.
I think this still has a significant voice of support within those ranks. I left out the rather obvious missing positive for McCain: it means that he doesn't get primaried from the right in four years by whichever VP choice he doesn't select.
My understanding was that most of this talk and support was during the primary. As I mentioned, I think it may have made sense then. That was especially true when McCain was in 4th place in the 8-11% range in October 2007 or so.
I would be surprised if insider McCain supporters think this is a good idea now. I can see it be an interesting think to talk about over drinks (like Fiorina for VP) but a rather unlikely thing.
IMHO, it has lost strategic importance over time, not gained it.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
In fact, the final sentence of the Ambinder piece supports this view: "One aide said that a one-term pledge “hasn’t been discussed” for at least a year."
I think most people who would be sympathetic now are people who want a different nominee (today and next time). I don't see who it would win over now. Doing it when he announced the campaign last Spring, it would have been much different. And then it would have been partly based on the low odds of winning the primary and general. Now, he has 40% chance of facing the actual decision to run for re-election. He should wait in case that happens and then decide in 2011.
I am entirely open to the idea of McCain not running again if it's for a good reason. I don't think strategically it helps him win the general this time.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Personally, I'm for any scheme that can possibly get Mark Sanford elected quickest. I'm not truly convinced McCain will win this election and a failed VP run can really hurt.
Sanford/Jindal 2012? Oh sweet merciful God, that'd be awesome.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Regan
McCain/Sanford wins 350 electoral votes. I don't know where that fits in your scheme, but there it is.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Way back I wanted one of 3 people to run Sanford, Pawlenty, or Jeb. None did. (Note Jindal wasn't even GOV at that point).
McCain was a narrow first place of those who did run but I'd still love to see one of those 3 as VP. And Sanford and Pawlenty have a leg up for obvious reasons.
McCain/Sanford continues to be my first choice and Pawlenty is #2. Jindal and Palin are next in line.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Awfully good positives on those both, but I'm sure we agree that a full term as governor would do them a world of good - in terms of resume, verifiable experience running a couple of wacky states.
I can tolerate Pawlenty, not really jazzed about him -- too much aroma of 'squish' about him. But would secure a nice hefty swing state too.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
another's freedom. Or as somebody once said about some other place, it isn't that Alaska is ungovernable, it's just that it is useless to try. Just too much real estate that's too hard to get to for any meaningful imposition of social order by any governmental authority. Much of the place really is living proof that an armed society is a polite society; you don't need to worry about the cops if you misbehave, your neighbors will take care of it. You might be wanting to see the cops in that case.
In Vino Veritas
In reference to LA, the comment stands. That is one cesspool of corruption, weird languages, strange, uneducated people, parishes instead of counties, and an unfathomable France-based legal system.
Alaska, what I REALLY meant by wacky was what we might call 'the governing landscape' (which you admit borders on ungovernable) . This should not surprise you, it was inspired by your very own diary of a couple of days ago. You got Big Oil, Big Eco-Nazi, Big Freedom, and Big Corrupt Bureaucracy, all locked in this weird scorpion dance.
If Palin can manage to shine, it will be quite an accomplishment.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Alaska is both like and totally unlike the other States. The central government is so powerful that you can literally feel the resonance of that power in the switches and levers of government, and you can use it competently or incompetently and for good or ill. There's some of all of those and a Helluva bunch of self-interest in all of it. And, yes, it is all BIG. Were I to decide to go to Prudhoe Bay right now, by B737, it is an hour and a half to Anchorage, another hour to Fairbanks, and yet another hour and a half and change to Deadhorse, the PB airport. To drive, it would be a two to four hour ferry ride to Haines or Skagway, twelve or fourteen hours on the AlCan to Fairbanks then another eight or ten hours on the Pipeline Service Road (The Dalton Highway) - unpaved by the way and a permit is required. Haven't done it in a while, so the driving times may be a bit off but they're close. Once you cross the Yukon River Bridge above Fairbanks, there is absolutely nothing except a few TAPS pumpstations and State highway maintenance camps. The trees play out at about the Arctic Circle, sixty or so miles north of Fairbanks, and after that all the vegetation is little if any more than knee high.
In Vino Veritas
if he intends on disappointing the conservative base with an unconventional VP pick like Joe Liebermann. Because in all reasonableness I don't believe McCain will seek a second term. He will be 76 years old and the wear and tear the presidency puts on will indeed make him look older than he already looks! So to allay conservatives about the future of the party, I think if he goes unconventional to appeal to the Democrats he so loves, then a four year commitment would actually be demanded. In any case, he can always go back on that pledge if he is as popular or as strong as you say he could be. He can simply do what politicians do and again it will depend upon the circumstances and how it's sold.
However, I would agree with those who think it wouldn't be such a good idea to telegraph it. That of course could lead to incessant media speculation as to whether he would run again in 2012, however that would depend much on the performance.
I do have to say that the more I hear of Jindal, the more I like!!! It will be interesting to see how he weathers the political storms that are sure to come toward him in LA.
I believe James K. Polk served only one term. He was one of our better Presidents and, like mcCain, was a strong nationalist who pursued the Mexican war(a Presidential war opposed by Congress) to victory.
Stating is advance that it would only be one term would make him a lame duck from the beginning, so McCain was smart to take that idea out. It's also smart to put out the idea that he might serve only one term -- whether or not he means it. Makes the VP choice all the more salient.
Jimmy Peanut Carter, and no I am not making a comparison between McCain and Jimmy Carter.
Thank God for Ronnie coming along and saving us from Jimmy in the 1980 election, that was a tough four years.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I see no upside at this stage, like others above.
The barbarians are at the gates, and it would be just plain wrong to play politics when times are so dangerous.
I want AQ rats to feel the pain of thinking about 8 years of McCain.
yes it's playing politics, but I wonder if we might need to. This next election is going to be one of the ugliest and most contentious since the '60's. Can we win if we play it safe? or is playing it safe "too dangerous?"
One term may put people off a bit about McCain's age, but it could buy him part of the middle without losing hard core Republicans and Social Cons. Someone will have to do a lot of number crunching to see if it might actually pay off.
"but it could buy him part of the middle"
How? I don't know who this would win over. If he had done it at the start in March 2007 I would understand. It would say to conservatives "I can win and you can have a redo in 4 years when R isn't a bad word anymore."
It could also have been a centerpiece of his campaign and a display of maverick tendency.
But I don't see how it affects moderates or independents now. It would seem contrived. And he won the primary without such an announcement.
I don't see McCain needing to bolster his honor and duty creds in a race against Obama.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
who feel angry and disenfranchised with the Dem primaries if candidate X or Y wins. They could choose to vote for middle of the road McCain instead without having a guarented Republican pres for the next 8.
Actually if either Dem candidate was more moderate, then it would be a good strategy for them to get Republicans who are still upset over the GO14. ....But let's not give them any ideas
Generally speaking, if something is good, we want more of it, not less. It's hard to sell something on the notion that we will only make you take a little of it.
I also think it moves the age thing front and center. Sure, we all know McCain's age, but he looks pretty vigorous and active to me. A one term pledge feels like an admission he's too old to serve two terms, and locks down the age thing as a irrefutable negative.
Then there is the pressure this puts on McCain's VP choice, which is going to be bad enough as is. If McCain wins, his VP is likely to be first out of the starting gate in the 2012 election. Some element of the base will be unhappy with his pick, and we don't want to give them strategic reasons to sit out 2008 so as not to give an advantage to a VP they dislike.
Finally, I'm not sure there's so much upside. Politicians don't keep term limitation pledges. Once elected, some exigent circumstance always seems to come up that requires them to abjure the pledge. The public knows this, and don't much take such pledges into account in any positive way.
That announcing he would serve only 1 term would make him a lame duck and bring attention to his age.
Like Adam said, he can make this decision in his head, but he should keep quiet about it, until its time.
And there is a benefit in only seeking one term... He won't have to spend 4 years campaigning as President to be a lame duck President for another 4 years.
It would allow a lot more to get done.
Normally I don't like to state two different and totally opposite positions on an issue because of the Bible's admonition that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways but this is an issue that demands an "on the one hand but on the other response.
As the village malcontent where McCain as the nominee is concerned I like the idea of knowing going into the booth in November that Conservatives will not be left in the wilderness for 8, 12 or 16 years so from that perspective I like the idea.
Even with a promise of a 4 year McCain presidency and no more several problems still present themselves as have been mentioned. It would help me knowing McCain would be succeeded by a rock ribbed Conservative in four years so His VP pick would be crucial if he pursued this strategy. Were he to pick Graham, Lieberman or any squish the pledge would be a negative since he would become an immediate lame duck and Conservatives
would balk at the heir apparent being a squish and would likely push those tentatively planning on voting for McCain into the none of the above camp.
"On the other hand", The lame duck aspect of such a move can not be ignored. Were McCain to pursue such a move, the Republican Party would be faced with two lame duck presidents in a row. With the current state of Congressional and Senate Republicans and their obvious denial that they are likely to face a sweeping loss this year and the overconfidence of the Democrat Party after a sweeping congressional victory in 2008, this idea is pure poison for our prospects of stopping Democrats bent on racing this country towards a socialist reservation.
Given the two alternatives, if keeping the White House for 4 more years is the goal, I think McCain should keep his mouth shut about his plans for 2012 and just plan on stepping aside then for the good of the Country/Party because if he wins this time we will be replaying 1976 over again in 2012 if he insists on running for re-election.
Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things--Ronald Reagan
Personally I see the pledge as a way to reassure conservatives rather than alienate them. Part of the concern over McCain is that picking him means we're kind of stuck. Without the pledge we figure that a win in November means we won't get a "real" conservative until 2016 (let's all be real - it would take a miraculously awful and reviled term for the GOP to dump an incumbent president seeking renomination). One thinks that maybe 4 years of Obama isn't so bad if it means we can get a Bobby Jindal or Mike Pence as the nominee (and sure-bet winner) in 2012.
The one-term pledge gives hope. Conservatives can (whether grudgingly or not) vote for McCain knowing that 4 years of McCain is better than 4 years of Obama and that they can get what they want in 2012 regardless of who wins (in which case take the reasonable McCain over the socialist Obama). And they don't need to figure that they'll have to wait until 2016 to get a conservative in office.