Will Mac Be Back

In the course of making some good points about Bobby Jindal yesterday, Ross mentioned "the possibility that [McCain] would only serve one term." I've heard a lot of speculation about this from conservative pundits, but it seems like a fairly straightforward question that McCain ought to be asked and that he ought to give some kind of answer to.

I think it was Ramesh Ponnuru who first suggested that it might be a canny move for McCain to foreswear ambitions for a second term, and I think he was right -- it would assuage fears about his age, make conservatives happier about him, fit in with his "straight-talk" persona, and give us all more opportunity discuss TMBG's "James K. Polk".

Comments

James K. Polk? He was austere, severe, and held few people dear. He was the Napoleon of the stump.

But this all begs the question of whether or not McCain's oratory fills his foes with fear.

Posted by Shawn | May 6, 2008 8:43 AM

Someone should institute conservancy proceedings for McCain.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 6, 2008 8:50 AM

Why tilt at windmills? McCain won't be getting any terms. The more media exposure he gets, the less Americans like him: he's OOOOOOLD and frail. My 81-year old grandmother looks younger than he does.

Posted by Robot Borg | May 6, 2008 8:51 AM

I shudder to think what McCain would like as President, without the prospect of being held accountable to the voters for a second term. How many wars would he start?

Mercurial, powerful, and unaccountable.

McCain '08.

Posted by Greg Abbott | May 6, 2008 8:51 AM

It would be a dumb move because voters would rightly ask themselves, "If this guy is too old to serve 2 terms, is he too old to serve one term too?"

Posted by Ron | May 6, 2008 8:51 AM

I rack my brain trying to think of another clever They Might Be Giants reference pertaining to John McCain.

I can think of none, but I take solace in knowing that by the time this comment is posted someone else will have likely done so.

Posted by James Gary | May 6, 2008 8:58 AM

Wait, how about:

"I'm your aging friend, my friends
I'm not your raging friend
But I'm your little aging friend, my friends
But really I'm not actually your friend."

Posted by James Gary | May 6, 2008 9:02 AM

TMBG kind of missed the real lesson of the Polk victory in 1844.

The Whig candidate, Clay, lost to Polk by only 5100 votes in NY. Meanwhile, third-party abolitionist candidate Birney got over 15,000 votes in NY. Thus, Birney's candidacy resulted in the election of the most extreme pro-slavery and pro-expansionist candidate.

Polk, of course, merrily proceeded to invade Mexico, thus leading to the annexation of Texas, the expansion of slavery, and the dominance of American politics circa 2000 by Texas-based right-wing politicians.

The lesson (under the US electoral system, third-party candidacies only end up sabotaging their own interests), unfortunately, was lost in the mists of time.

Posted by J | May 6, 2008 9:04 AM

iirc, teddy r made similar noises at the beginning of his first full term, much to his later regret. who thought this would be a smart move? oh some guy at the national review...never mind.

Posted by larrybob | May 6, 2008 9:06 AM

You can either do the job or your can't. McCain pledging to serve only one term invites a million questions about whether he is up to the task of doing the job in term one.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 6, 2008 9:07 AM

make conservatives happier about him

Would 'You'll only have to despise me for 4 years' get the vote out?

Posted by asl | May 6, 2008 9:09 AM

And of course, Republicans almost never honor their term-limit pledges anyway, so it's pretty much a freebie for Mac to say it (if it were thought useful, which I think is doubtful).

Posted by Glenn | May 6, 2008 9:13 AM

I don't think it would be a good idea at all. It would focus attention on the age issue, which has more or less gone unmentioned. And why would conservatives like him more if he made that promise?

Plus, why should he tie his hands? Eisenhower considered sticking to one term, but convinced himself that everyone else running was terrible. But he made the decision in private, without having an earlier commitment hanging over his head.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 6, 2008 9:21 AM

I just finished Howe's What Hath God Wrought, and my takeaway was that Polk was an asshole, but not nearly as big an asshole as Andrew Jackson.

The book is admittedly longer than it takes to write that, but I'm just giving you the executive summary here.

Good book in any event. NOT AS GOOD AS HEADS IN THE SAND of course.

Posted by Anderson | May 6, 2008 9:23 AM

Oh, come now, James Gary, the other TMBG reference is obvious:

You're older than you've ever been
And now you're even older
And now you're even older
And now you're even older
You're older than you've ever been
And now you're even older
And now you're older still.

Posted by PC | May 6, 2008 9:27 AM

It'd be a foolish thing to do. It would invite speculation about his health, and besides no one believes a politician who says that anyway. Even the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone broke a term limit pledge.

Posted by aleks | May 6, 2008 9:33 AM

"I rack my brain trying to think of another clever They Might Be Giants reference pertaining to John McCain. "

Well, given how easily he gets confused about the facts of foreign policy, I could see Joe Lieberman leaning over to him and telling him "Actually, John, it's Istanbul, not Constantinople."

Posted by Shawn | May 6, 2008 9:48 AM

If I could drop back to the Jindal thing:

The whole suggestion of Jindal is based on the notion that Obama's race gives him an advantage that McCain should try to neutralize. Does anyone seriously believe that?

I think simply being African-American keeps Obama from being competitive in several states and is a serious advantage nowhere. I can't imagine the Republican nominee throwing all of that away.

We have three candidates who are competitive in spite of age, sex, and race, respectively. Each is an advantage in certain niches, but surely not over all.

Posted by Ancient | May 6, 2008 10:01 AM

Another president who did not seek re-election: James Buchanan!

Posted by John | May 6, 2008 10:04 AM

Well, "And none who have witnessed all can think of a nobler cause than perishing in the Pencil Rain" kind of reflects McCain's martial attitude.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 6, 2008 10:07 AM

I suppose there's also McCain's recollections of the Sixties to consider (via "Purple Toupee"):

Chinese people were fighting in the park
We tried to help them fight--
No one appreciated that.
Martin X was mad when they outlawed bellbottoms;
Ten years later they were sharing the same cell.
I shouted out "Free the Expo 67!"
As they stepped on my hair
And told me I was fat.
Now I'm very big, I'm a big important man
And the only thing that's different
Is underneath my hat...

Posted by PC | May 6, 2008 10:18 AM

Polk, of course, merrily proceeded to invade Mexico, thus leading to the annexation of Texas

Hardly. Polk was innaugurated on March 4, 1845. Congress approved the annexation of Texas on February 28, 1845 - before Polk became president. And Mexico wasn't invaded until a year later in 1846.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 6, 2008 10:21 AM

And everyone knows that when a politician makes a term limit pledge their bond is as good as gold. Surely McCain woudln't even be tempted to run for a second term as president of the United States after making that pledge.

Posted by The Fool | May 6, 2008 10:28 AM

Polk was innaugurated on March 4, 1845. Congress approved the annexation of Texas on February 28, 1845 - before Polk became president. And Mexico wasn't invaded until a year later in 1846.

Yeah, I was careless. Nonetheless, my point stands. Both Texas statehood and the Mexican war were brought to us by the James K. Polk administration. Thus, I blame Polk for the mess we're in today.

And James Birnie (the Ralph Nader of 1844) drew just enough votes away from Henry Clay to put Polk in the White House. As I said, in the (perverse) US electoral system, third-party candidacies have two normal outcomes: irrelevancy, or enabling their worst opponents.

Posted by J | May 6, 2008 10:38 AM

Running a presidential candidate who, before being elected even once, voluntarily eschews a second term, is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Such a president would be a lame duck from the moment he took office, with almost no leverage in congress (since everyone would know they won't have to run with him again). Plus, the party running this candidate would be giving up all the advantages that come with running an incumbent president in the next election.

The right has screwed itself by nominating McCain - he's flighty, dumb, too old, and they don't even like him much.

Posted by jimBOB | May 6, 2008 10:43 AM

Absolutely right, jimBOB. And he was the best candidate they had.

Posted by Marc | May 6, 2008 10:49 AM

And if there's one thing Republicans can be trusted with, it's adhering to their term limit pledges.

Posted by phil | May 6, 2008 10:59 AM

I don't understand this suggestion at all. Promising to serve only one term just sounds weak and gimmicky to my ears. In any case, only a fool would believe such a promise, even from Saint McCain. Anyone remember Saint Wellstone's promise to quit after two terms?

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 6, 2008 11:16 AM

I rack my brain trying to think of another clever They Might Be Giants reference pertaining to John McCain.

How about, "he doesn't have a birdhouse in his soul, but he's got a cuckoo in his brain"?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 6, 2008 11:25 AM

Oh sure, NOW you're on the Polk bandwagon.

Posted by Anonymous | May 6, 2008 12:14 PM

Polk, of course, merrily proceeded to invade Mexico, thus leading to the annexation of Texas, the expansion of slavery, and the dominance of American politics circa 2000 by Texas-based right-wing politicians.

So we can also blame Polk for LBJ? Perhaps the lesson we should learn is no more Presidents from Texas, regardless of party. Think about it, surely Ross Perot would have been a catastrophe.

Posted by matt foley | May 6, 2008 12:47 PM

Perhaps the lesson we should learn is no more Presidents from Texas, regardless of party.

Sounds good to me.

Or better yet, we could give it back to Mexico!

Posted by J | May 6, 2008 1:02 PM

Jindal is a creationist who thinks that bullshit should be taught in schools. We're dumb enough as a nation, I don't think we should actively create more idiots.

Posted by 55 | May 6, 2008 1:06 PM

Ross is wrong: Bobby Jindal is the most promising VP candidate for McCain, and it's a good move for Jindal to accept the VP candidacy. First, they'd have a good chance of winning, despite the GOP's doldrums, because they are both appealing candidates; second, if they lose Jindal's only 36, he's brilliant, and he'll be back; third, if they win, Jindal will be probably be given broad domestic policy responsibility in a McCain administration, and will have the opportunity to notch some impressive accomplishments (e.g., a major health care reform compromise with the Dems).

"he's OOOOOOLD and frail. My 81-year old grandmother looks younger than he does."

McCain's 96 year old mother could kick your 81-year old grandmother's ass, and McCain's probably in better health than you are.

Posted by Fred | May 6, 2008 2:45 PM

McCain's 96 year old mother could kick your 81-year old grandmother's ass, and McCain's probably in better health than you are.

Ever heard of cancer? The latter part of this sentence is highly unlikely, especially given that the person to whom you were referring has a living grandmother. But that's never stopped Fred before...

Posted by mpowell | May 6, 2008 4:10 PM

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned TMBG's classic "Minimum Wage."

Posted by Roger | May 6, 2008 5:04 PM

Back to back terms of presidents who don't care what the public thinks?

Hell no.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | May 6, 2008 9:10 PM