Skip to content
Categories:

Would McCain limit himself to one term?

Post date:
Author:

Back in January, campaigning in New Hampshire, John McCain was asked whether he would be able to serve eight years as president, given his advanced age. McCain seemed to suggest that he might only serve one term: “If I said I was running for eight years, I’m not sure that would be a vote getter.”

The campaign quickly backpedaled and said McCain was only being speculative, but Marc Ambinder recently reported that McCain was “inches away” from pledging to serve only one term at the time that he formally announced his candidacy. “The idea to serve one term had long been discussed among top advisers,” Ambinder reported, “and McCain was on board.”

Speculation on this faded when the campaign insisted there was nothing to the story, but interest was renewed over the weekend when McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, sounded cagey on the subject.

WALLACE: Is there any chance that Senator McCain will pledge to serve only one term as president and that there will be no politics in the White House?

DAVIS: Well

, first of all, if you know John McCain, you know there’s not going to be much politics in the White House anyway. […]

WALLACE: But is there any possibility, because I didn’t get an answer there — is there any thought — is there any possibility that he would consider issuing a pledge, say, at the Republican convention, “I will serve one term as president?”

DAVIS: Chris, you’re going to have to come to the Republican convention to find out what’s going to happen there. And I think everybody should tune in, because it’s going to be an excellent event and very interesting to all viewers.

WALLACE: You’re not ruling it out.

DAVIS: I’m not talking about it at all.

Is there anything to this?

My hunch is, McCain won’t make such a pledge. After his January comments caused a stir, McCain told reporters there are practical implications of such a pledge that make it far from appealing. “I think then you’re the lame duck,” McCain said, “you’re quacking on Inauguration Day.”

On the other hand, as my friend A.L. noted in a very interesting item, it would shake up the race and help McCain deal with the age issue. Obama’s team, A.L. argued, needs to be prepared for the possibility.

First, and most importantly, they should point that–by taking that pledge–McCain renders himself a lame duck before his presidency even starts. When you’re not running for re-election, your influence is greatly diminished. Just look at all the amazing accomplishments of George W. Bush’s second term. […]

Second, the Obama camp should point out that it is completely unrealistic to think that you can accomplish all of the reforms this country needs in just one term. Only someone who plans on pursuing the status quo would make such a pledge.

And finally, I would point out what a gimmick and a sign of desperation the pledge is. McCain himself has previously ruled out making such a pledge. What changed? Obviously, he realized that he needed to do something dramatic and attention grabbing to have any shot at winning. This is a move driven by ambition, not selfless love of country.

That sounds right to me, though I’d just add one thing: I’m not sure it helps address the age issue, so much as it may accentuate it. If McCain pledges to serve only one term, isn’t he implicitly acknowledging that he’s already pretty old? Why else would a would-be president consider retirement before taking office?

Comments

  • sdh

    says:

    Many Republicans under the Gringrinch revolution (1994) ran on a promise to observe term limits. Quite a number have since reneged on their promises.

    Why should anyone believe that a Republican will respect a pledge not to run again?

  • Doctor Biobrain

    says:

    I’ve never understood why a second-term president is seen as being a lame-duck. If anything, it should be empowering to not have to worry about re-election; which is certainly how the Bushies were seeing things after the re-election. I don’t see how it makes a president less powerful. I don’t think Clinton was considered a lame-duck in his second term and he was quite able to stiff-arm Congress when he wanted to.

    The problem for Bush isn’t that he’s in his second term, but rather that everything he touches turns to shit and the pile just got higher in his second term. Were he still popular, Repubs in Congress would still follow him and Dems would still fear him. This isn’t because he’s not up for re-election, but because everyone hates him. Future elections don’t make presidents more powerful; only more cautious. If they blow it in their second term, it was only because they took decisions which made them less popular.

  • ericfree

    says:

    He may not have a choice. This guy doesn’t appear to be in good shape, either physically or mentally. I’ve been saying for months that the choice of Republican VP may be the single greatest influencing factor left in the election, either reassuring older, Republican-leaning undecideds or moving them away from McCain. It’s certainly what Lieberman’s counting on, and he’s inexplicably (to me, at least) popular with some in that group.

  • Lance

    says:

    Remember, John Sidney does not speak for the McC*nt Campaign.

    I’m voting against JSMcC*nt because four years in the White House will kill him and I don’t want another annoying First Lady widow hanging around.

  • Frak

    says:

    Would McCain limit himself to one term? Probably not, but God might. Remember that Reagan served long after his mind was gone. And Darth Cheney proves that technology can keep the body going forever.

  • William

    says:

    McTrollop,

    C*ntry first, then western!

    Please Dog, no doddering old fool in the white house again. we already had a Ronald Reagan, with pathetic results I might ad..

  • Miss Landers

    says:

    I suspect that a one-term pledge might be intended to create the perception that all of McCain’s decisions will be made on the merits and not for political reasons. If McCain is honest if and when he were to make such a pledge, then that would be a legitimate consideration in the minds of voters. However, given McCain’s record of doing and saying anything to win during this campaign, such a pledge should not be believed.

  • doubtful

    says:

    I would agree that it would draw attention to the age issue. It would essentially be saying that even McCain realizes he’s too old for this.

  • neilt

    says:

    Maybe I’m an idiot, but what the hell does THIS even mean??

    WALLACE: Is there any chance that Senator McCain will pledge to serve only one term as president and that there will be no politics in the White House?

    DAVIS: Well, first of all, if you know John McCain, you know there’s not going to be much politics in the White House anyway. […]

  • Racer X

    says:

    McCain thinks it’s really funny and disarming to joke about how old he is, as if most of us see that as a non-issue. I hope he keeps that up, because a lot of us are truly concerned that the president will always be fully able to make good decisions, even after a long day/week/month/year/term. What we need is one of those age-simulators showing what Obama and McCain would look like after 4 and eight years in office. (Insert McCain Crypt keeper joke here)

    Of course McCain’s team is going to be able to skate around the issue for the most part, because they’re up against liberals who see ageism as an evil that should be avoided at all costs. If the tables were turned we’d be seeing ads about physical fitness for the job.

  • N.Wells

    says:

    I might consider voting for him if he pledged to serve no terms if elected.
    (Of course, that’s how we got the Cheney Regency for Bush’s first 3 or 4 years, so maybe not.)

  • Racer X

    says:

    DAVIS: Well, first of all, if you know John McCain, you know there’s not going to be much politics in the White House anyway…

    ROFLMAO. The tobacco lobbyist says so, so it must be true!

  • Lance

    says:

    neilt asked: “Maybe I’m an idiot, but what the hell does THIS even mean??”

    DAVIS: “Well, first of all, if you know John McCain, you know there’s not going to be much politics in the White House anyway.”

    It means that the White House Chief of Staff will see to it that President John Sidney doesn’t hear any views not officially approved by the CoS. Can’t confuse the poor OLD boy with conflicting opinions after all. He can hardly remember what is position is right now.

  • Dale

    says:

    I think “cagey” is the key word. They put the idea out there and whoever likes it can latch on and whoever doesn’t like it never heard them say that.

  • joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    Rick Davis keeps saying “if you know McCain…”. He doesn’t know McCain. The McCain he speaks of is a myth…doesn’t exist. A thorn in Bush’s side, voting against party my ass…he flipped on every stance against party he ever made. Headline grabber, Media briber…but no substance… just loud talk. Just because he voted with Bush 95% of the time doesn’t mean he agrees with his policies…hahahahahahaha. It takes a real con to cover for a goober.

  • Chad

    says:

    I honestly think that would be the right thing to do for McCain, which means his VP pick had better be able to take over in 2012.

    I think his pledge of one term means that he’s going to get in there, turn things around and get congress and the senate working for us again. No partisanship, no bitterness, just getting things done.

    I think this is actually a noble thing to do. He’s basically saying, elect me, I’ll turn things around, and in four years when the Democrats nominate someone with more experience and less questions, we can go through the process again and do it right this time.

    People would rather go through four years of McCain, than 8 years of Obama IMO.

  • Always hopeful

    says:

    Don’t believe the no politics thing. Cheney took the VP slot on the pledge that he didn’t want to run for President so he could do the unpopular things. We all know how that turned out. We really need a President who doesn’t give a hoot about what the people think. It’s called lack of accountability.

    Chad, it’s not noble. It just means he can say FU I’ll do what I think is right and not what the other branches of govt or the people think. That would really please the corporatocracy.

  • jhm

    says:

    I’m with Doctor Biobrain (@ 2). While an actual pledge might be detrimental, I’ve long thought that a President looking forward t his second term limits the boldness of his actions, and risks achieving less than he might, and if he gets to that second term. his ability to get things done is diminished. He should start from the beginning with a list of priorities and move to get them done, full stop.

  • neilt

    says:

    It kinda reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons were George the First finishes his memoirs stating “…and having achieved all my policy goals in the first term, there was no need for a second. The End”

    only to have Bart/Dennis the Menace destroy the manuscript.

    (I *might* watch too much Simpsons ) 😀

  • maya

    says:

    McCain’s Economic Plan in which he called for permanent Bush tax cuts, additional tax cuts for corporations, and a couple of other tax cuts here and there for people he likes will result in budget surplus or balancing of same, but only in his 5th year in office!
    So if he isn’t going to be there in his 5th year in office that can only mean that his Reaganomic style economic program is a con job.
    Who knew?

  • Helena Montana

    says:

    I don’t see how it’s going to help the loony old sociopath to limit his damage to four years.

  • Lance

    says:

    Chad said: “I honestly think that would be the right thing to do for McCain, which means his VP pick had better be able to take over in 2012.”

    Yah! A real, pertinent comment!

    Yes, I think that JSMcC*nt’s VP choice is vitally important to his campaign, which is why it won’t be Jindel or a woman.

  • SickofBushMcCainLiebermann

    says:

    Of course McCain’s team is going to be able to skate around the issue for the most part, because they’re up against liberals who see ageism as an evil that should be avoided at all costs. If the tables were turned we’d be seeing ads about physical fitness for the job.

    If we saw John Sydney pulling a score of rowboats in the water Jack Lalanne style it wouldn’t be a issue, but unfortunately his mental adroitness just isn’t there. Come debate time, he’s going to get torn apart unless he plays the granpa Simpson role…and locks the AARP vote.
    Aww whose picking on the McCainsy Wainsy time for your pilly willy!

  • Lance

    says:

    SickofBushMcCainLiebermann said: “Come debate time, he’s going to get torn apart unless he plays the granpa Simpson role…and locks the AARP vote.”

    I don’t think most AARP members appreciate being told it is disgraceful that they get their Social Security from the taxes paid by current voters when they paid taxes themselves to support retirees while they were working.

    I’m waiting for Obama to hit Florida with that one.

  • Derek

    says:

    It is possible as some have suggested that the McCain campaign is trying to have it both ways–alleviating concerns of some by letting these rumors flow out, but never really making a clear promise. But to me, that sounds like they’d be playing with fire. A one term promise definitely unscores the age issue rather than erase it. If they want the positive effects of this “bold” decision, they have to come out publicly and clearly.

    McCain might actually make a promise, but it would be a desperate ploy that would backfire on him.

    More on why here

  • T-Rex

    says:

    Yeah, yeah, and back in 1980 a lot of Republicans argued that Reagan would just serve one term, which would free him up from running for reelection. Well, of course we know how that worked out. Yes, he served two terms, and yes, he was clearly showing signs of Alzheimers before his second term was over, with dangerous consequences (Iran-Contra) for the country.