Loading ...
One Term and Done?
- Filed under: Presidential, Republicans '08
- Date: Jun 2,2008
Back in the news today was the potential one term pledge by Senator John McCain. Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:
When he formally announced his presidential candidacy last year, Sen. John McCain was inches away from making an unprecedented pledge: if he were elected, he would serve only one term as president….. the idea to serve one term had long been discussed among top advisers, and McCain was on board. A one-term pledge was set to be the central thread of his presidential campaign, and Mark Salter, McCain's chief speech writer, crafted an announcement speech around it. But less than a day before he was set to speak in New Hampshire on April 25, McCain ordered his aides to excise the paragraphs describing the pledge.
This would be gutsy. Very gutsy. It is going all in. There are some good aspects to this potential pledge. McCain comes off as a politician who wants to serve his country above all else. He states he wants to finish off the success of the surge in Iraq. He would add some other big ideas to his speeches on the trail; taxes, cutting spending and entitlements, judges, etc. This strategy also would mean that more skeptical Democrats (bitter people leaning Clinton) would be willing to vote for him, knowing things start fresh in 2012. Conservative holdouts also would fall under that thinking. "Well, he isn't my first choice, but we can use these four years to rebuild the movement while avoiding Carter's second term." They can vote for McCain knowing that four years of McCain is better than four years of Obama. Effective. It makes Obama look like some ambitious politician while McCain is trying to save the country with his service.
There are three major negatives I can see: First, and obviously, McCain starts off as a lame duck, so there really isn't much incentive for Congress to work with him (though too much obstruction could hurt them in 2010). The minute he is sworn in, speculation starts about 2012. For quite some time now, Democrats have been stalling on all sorts of federal nominations by the Bush Administration, hoping to run out the clock and put in their own people. No reason they wouldn't just employ the same tactics. Secondly, it brings up the age factor. I for one have never seen the big deal here, but maybe some people do. It could be interpreted as "I am only healthy enough for one term." Lastly, I sense that voters like the idea that they can "fire" who they elected. If McCain won't be running in 2012, then he really isn't accountable again. This would rub some folks the wrong way. That is probably my biggest concern.
If McCain starts to trail Obama by 5-10 points in the polls on a consistent basis this summer, this is something he is going to look hard at. McCain badly wants to be the 44th President. If he thinks this will help him get there, I don't think he will back out of making the pledge a second time. The chattering class and know it alls think that it is going to take a miracle to win this election for McCain (after all, he is running against a god). If they are right, something like this totally changes the dynamics of the race. Nearing the end of two very long and polarizing administrations, people might see this as a breath of fresh air. But it is something he has to do before (if) he falls too far behind, because doing it then makes him look desperate.
Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review suggested this back in October 2007.
12 Responses for "One Term and Done?"
People aren't dumb enough to fall for this smoke screen.
So I say to the GOP - do it!
I've seen this ploy tossed around…and I don't think it matters, really.
If McCain says he will only stay four years, if elected, I can think of two immediate responses…
1-He is too old, he knows it and he's trying to reassure Americans he won't become like Ronnie. That's not a positive.
2-If McCain pledges only one term….the lines will be even more clearly drawn that his presidency is the third term of Bush. That's what I think. Also not a positive.
And Ben…I give you much credit for trying your best to be an honest Republican. I still believe that you and Kyle are great new area politicos to be ….or whatever you want to be…
But think about it. McCain is down 5-10 points and he announces he'll only stay one term, if elected? And that won't simply be dismissed as desperation?
I have a piece of Reverend advice….and I know….I hate advice too….when you say stuff like, "he wants to finish off the success of the surge in Iraq."…..I think, you lose credibility. Why not review the entire Iraq event again this summer? New Republican leaders will have to come to grips with the reality of Iraq, the pre 9-11 plan to invade, the propaganda of the run-up, the cherry picking, the 16 words, etc. Get on the right side of history before the other young GOP'ers-to-be do. It's the way forward, I think.
And please….I'm not being condescending. I'm only condescending to people I don't like.
Interesting story. I would roll back some of my talk about him being a pure opportunist, which has been apparent from all his flip-flopping in the past few years.
It would be bad strategy for McCain to say he would only be a one term President, so I hope he does it. All of his policy proposals would have to be quick fixes because he only has four years. It would hurt his ability to argue long term solutions. It would also shine the spotlight on the age issue again.
The positives outweigh the negatives by a lot here. Democrats should be fearful of this.
Kyle - I don't think that is the case at all. Most policies a president pushes should be long term solutions w/the obvious exceptions of emergency needs. This should be true regardless of how long they have left to serve - be it four years, seven years, or two months. You win arguments for long-term solutions typically based on some kind of merit, not just because you may still be in office 6 years later to see that it is working.
It is your line of thinking here that ruins both good public policy and good business - the idea that "this can only work with me running it and can only work this way". Good policy, like good business, should work because it is better than the alternative, not because of whatever puppet is sitting next to a red phone.
I think many of us are only expecting one term, but it would be stupid for him to make a pledge or give any indication of a one term intention any earlier than he has to. One thing this primary cycle has shown on both sides is the process is starting way too early. In 1968, LBJ didn't announce that he wasn't running until 31 March. By the end of March this election cycle we were down to 3 or 4 candidates.
Separately, ignore what you think about President Bush and just think about future presidents as they become lame ducks earlier and earlier. It obviously is not good for the country. In fact while I don't want presidents serving more than two terms, the 25th Amendment is seriously flawed in precluding a president from running for a third term. FDR did a lot of lasting harm to our country with his social policies and I understand the desire at that time to ensure we would not have another president for life like like him. However, it was shortsighted to pass that amendment. Term limits should be controlled at the ballot box.
"FDR did a lot of lasting harm to our country"
Was it the "lasting harm" he did by his successful CinC work of leading America to win WW2?
Or was it the "lasting harm" of leading our country out of the economic cesspool left by Republicans?
Or…is it the "lasting harm" of FDIC guarantees,…..perhaps the "lasting harm" was the most popular government program of all time…Social Security?
You want "lasting harm"? Look no further than the 43rd president.
I took a half day off work today and thought about this idea. The more I think about it, the more I like it.
In other news, today I met with David Potter, who is running against Betty Sutton in OH-13. More on Potter and his efforts next week.
You took a half day off work? What work? To do what? Play Mario Kart?
Yes I was playing my new Wii. You should see how good I am getting.
Rev - you wrote - "But think about it. McCain is down 5-10 points and he announces he'll only stay one term, if elected? And that won't simply be dismissed as desperation?"
I wrote - "Nearing the end of two very long and polarizing administrations, people might see this as a breath of fresh air. But it is something he has to do before (if) he falls too far behind, because doing it then makes him look desperate."
So yeah we're on the same page here. I think it is a move that can be effective, but he cant do it when things look dismal for him, or people will see right through it.
Leave a comment